“Michael Cremo, a history and philosophy researcher, and mathematician Richard Thompson question the dominant notions of human origin and prehistory. The book covers a vast amount of accepted and disputed archeological facts. Scientific methods are addressed by sociological, philosophical and historical criticisms that call into question existing ideas and denounce the concealment of information about the origin and history of man. ”
The Journal of Arciolodge
“If we imagine the history of mankind as a gigantic museum that contains all the knowledge about the subject, we will find that some of the halls are locked. Scientists have hidden facts that contradict the conventional notion of history. However, Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson opened many of the locked rooms and allowed laymen and scholars to look inside. Subsequently, even scientists are inclined to change their views. The ‘secret history of human civilization’ forces the academic community to enter new territories and calls into question many accurate theories about humanity and human history. ”
Walter J. Langbain, Steam Magazine, Austria
“We must admit that The Secret History of Human Civilization draws our attention to the many interesting problems that historians have overlooked. The detailed review of the early literature presented by the authors is definitely stimulating and raises some extremely interesting questions – for historians as well as for those involved in the sociology of scientific knowledge. ”
Joe Wadk and David Aldroyd, in the Southern States
by Graham Hancock (author of “On the Trails of the Gods”)
It is a great honor and pleasure for me to present the abridged edition of Forbidden Archeology. Allow me to say at the outset that I consider this book to be one of the landmark intellectual achievements of the late twentieth century. Even so, Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson have written the book and the clock hands cannot be reversed. Sooner or later – whether we like it or not – our species will have to accept the facts that are so beautifully justified in the pages you are about to read. And these facts are astonishing.
Cremo and Thompson’s main thesis is that this model of human evolution, which scientists have carefully built over the last two centuries, is completely wrong. The authors are not content to suggest minor changes and corrections. What needs to be done is to throw the model in question out the window and start anew – with an open mind and without any prejudice.
This position is particularly close to me; and indeed, it formed the basis of my book, In the Track of the Gods. Of course, her focus was, in particular, on the last 20,000 years and on the possibility that more than 12,000 years ago, a developed world civilization would flourish, which would have died in the great catastrophe that ended the last ice age.
In The Secret History of Human Civilization, Cremo and Thompson go much further and extend the horizon of our amnesia not 12,000 or 20,000 years, but millions of years back in time. They show us that the whole theory of the origin and evolution of the person we have been taught to believe in rests on the precarious foundations of academic hypotheses and the extremely selective presentation of the results of various studies. The two authors aim to correct this notion by exposing all information that has been deliberately ignored over the last two centuries. Not that there was anything wrong or false in these facts – they simply did not correspond to the dominant academic perceptions.
Among the anomalous or seemingly impossible discoveries presented by Cremo and Thompson, there is convincing evidence that humans with a modern anatomy have existed on this planet for nearly 100,000 years (such as the orthodox thesis) but for millions of years. Also, metal objects with perfect shapes have existed for a long time. Moreover, although sensational reports of anomalous artifacts (human-made objects) have been made before, they have never been backed up by such comprehensive and convincing documentation as that presented by Cremo and Thompson.
What convinces the final analysis is the precise academicism of the authors and the total amount of facts set out in The Secret History of Human Civilization. The content of the book, in my opinion, is in line with public sentiment around the world. People no longer want to blindly accept the claims of established authorities, but tend to listen – open to new consciousness – to heretics who are able to rationally and reasonably present their thesis.
Never before has a rational and more rational rethinking of human history been made than you are about to know.
Graham Hancock Devon, England January, 1998
The full issue of Prohibited Archeology is 952 pages long and is likely to be a challenge for many readers. For this reason, he and Richard L. Thompson decided to offer the audience “The Secret History of Human Civilization” – a shorter, more readable, and cheaper version of “Forbidden Archeology.”
However, this book contains almost all the cases covered in Prohibited Archeology. What is missing are bibliographic notes in the text and detailed discussions on the geological and anatomical aspects of many of the findings. For example, in “The Secret History of Human Civilization” we can be content with the claim that a field refers to the late Pliocene. In Forbidden Archeology, this simple information is accompanied by a comprehensive exposition of the grounds for dating, supported by numerous references to past and present geological publications. Those readers who are interested in such details can order “Forbidden Archeology”.
Michael A. Cremo
Pacific Beach, California
March 26, 1994
INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In 1979, researchers working in East Africa – in the Latoli area (Tanzania) – discovered steps in a layer of volcanic ash. The reservoir was over 3.6 million years old. According to Mary Leakey and the rest of the team, the footprints were completely indistinguishable from those of modern humans. For scientists, this meant only one thing – that the distant human ancestors, who lived 3.6 million years ago, had amazingly modern soles. Other researchers, however, think otherwise: R. Tuttle, an anthropologist at the University of Chicago, argues that the fossilized (fossilized) foot bones of Australopithecus (also 3.6 million years ago) show a definite monkey leg. And therefore they cannot match the traces of Latoli. In one of his articles on the Daily Histories (March 1990), Tuttle admits that “we are facing some mystery.” This allows us to offer another possibility that both Tuttle and Licky have overlooked: perhaps – in Africa 3.6 million years ago – there were creatures whose fully human bodies matched their human feet. And, perhaps, just as shown in the illustration on the adjacent page, they coexisted with more apes. As intriguing as this archeological probability may be, current notions of human evolution completely exclude it.
But as you can see, between 1984 and 1992, he and Richard Thompson, with the help of researcher Stephen Return, collected a wealth of evidence that called into question current theories of human evolution. Some of this information, such as the Latoli steps, is relatively recent. However, many others have been mentioned by scholars of the XIX and early XX centuries.
Many would think, without even bothering to look, that there was something wrong with this information – yet, scientists have long since rejected it, and not without reason. Richard and I seriously delved into the problem. As a result, we have come to the conclusion that the quality of this contradictory information is by no means inferior to that of the so-called “indisputable” facts, which are usually used to justify contemporary views on human evolution.
In Part I of The Secret History of Human Civilization, we make a detailed analysis of the vast amount of controversial information that contradicts the current notion of human biological development. We dwell in detail on how they were systematically suppressed, ignored and forgotten, though qualitatively (and quantitatively) equivalent to evidence supporting the generally accepted – at present – views of the origin of the human race. When we talk about hiding, we do not mean a scientific conspiracy whose satanic purpose is to deceive the public. On the contrary, it is a continuous social process of filtering knowledge, which seems harmless but has a serious overall effect. Some categories of facts are simply overlooked. In our view, this is unlawful.
The motive behind the hiding of information has been known for a long time. In 1880, J. E. Whitney, a California geologist, publishes a detailed report on advanced stone tools found in the state’s gold mines. These cannons, which include spearheads, harrows, and hammerheads, have been discovered deep in the mining galleries, beneath thick and intact layers of lava whose ages range from 9 million to 55 million years. W. X. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the most outspoken critics of the California findings, wrote: “Perhaps if Professor Whitney had grasped the essence of human evolution as we imagine it today, he would he hesitated to make his findings public [that there were people in a very ancient era in North America], despite his impressive arsenal of testimony,
This example illustrates the basic proposition we are trying to make in The Secret History of Human Civilization, namely: there is a filter of knowledge in the scientific community that eliminates unwanted facts. The process of sifting knowledge has been going on for over a century.
In addition to this common filtration technique, there are also cases of much more direct suppression.
In the early 1950s, Thomas E. Lee of the National Museum of Canada discovered many sophisticated stone tools in the Sheguiande glacial deposits on the northern shore of Lake Huron, Manitoulin Island. John Sanford, a geologist at Wayne State University, has suggested that the oldest Sheguiandan artifacts are at least 65,000 years old, and their actual age could reach 125,000 years. Anyone who adheres to the standard views of prehistoric North American history would dismiss these dates as unacceptable. It is estimated that the first humans passed – from Siberia to North America – only about 12,000 years ago.
Later, Thomas Lee will complain: “The discoverer was expelled from his civil service position and remained unemployed for a long time; publications were removed from print; a number of prominent researchers misrepresented the information…; tons of finds have disappeared at the National Museum of Canada’s repositories; the director of the museum, who had offered to publish a monograph on the site and who refused to fire the discoverer, was himself fired and sent into exile; people with powerful and prestigious positions exerted pressure to seize the six Sheguiand finds that were not concealed in time; the facility was turned into a resort … Sheguianda would have drawn the worrying confession that “the Brahmins (the highly educated) did not know everything.” The results of the studies would necessitate the re-writing of almost every book in the field. They had to be suffocated. And they were suffocated. ”
In Part II of The Secret History of Human Civilization, we look at the generally accepted evidence that usually supports current ideas about human evolution. Particular attention is paid to Australopithecus. According to most anthropologists, he is the distant human ancestor – with a monkey-like head, but with an almost human body structure, standing and walking. However, other researchers have suggested compelling views that give a completely different perspective to Australopithecus. According to them, Australopithelians were very similar to monkeys, partly living on trees and have no direct connection with human genealogy.
Also in Part II, we look at the possible parallel existence of primitive hominids (human ancestors) and modern anatomically human beings – not only in the distant past but also in the present. Over the last century, scientists have gradually accumulated evidence that creatures similar to Gigantopithecus, Australopithecus, Homo erectus and Neanderthals are still living in various uninhabited areas of the world. In North America, these creatures are known as Sasuke, in Central Asia – as Almas. In Africa, China, Southeast Asia, Central and South America they have other names. Some researchers have formulated the general category of savages to embrace them. Various doctors and scientists have described cases in which live savages, dead savages or footprints were seen.
One might ask whether behind the creation of a book such as The Secret History of Human Civilization there is some back end. And there is such a purpose.
Richard Thompson and I are members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. This society is engaged in exploring the links between modern scientific knowledge and the worldview that has been reflected in ancient Indian Vedic literature. This is the root of the idea that the human race has existed since ancient times. For the purpose of a systematic study of the available scientific literature on the early epochs of human existence, we have expressed this idea in the form of the theory that different humanoid and monkey-like beings have existed for long periods of time.
The fact that our theoretical starting points are derived from the Vedic literature does not mean that they should be automatically neglected. The choice of theories can have a variety of sources – personal insights, earlier theories, conversation with a friend, film, etc. What really matters is not the source of the theory but its ability to explain observations made. .
Due to the limited volume in this book, we have not been able to summarize our ideas into a unified theory of human origin that is alternative to conventional wisdom. For this reason, our plans include a second book in which we try to relate the results of our ongoing searches to the Vedic sources.
I want to say something here about the collaboration with Richard Thompson. Richard has a serious scientific background and has published many articles on the problems of mathematical biology, satellite observations, geology and physics. I’m not a scientist. Since 1977 I have been writing and publishing books1 and magazines for the Bhaktivedanta Literary Trust.
In 1984, Richard asked his associate Stephen Burnett to begin collecting material on ancient history and human origins. Later, in 1986, he suggested that I take the collection and organize it into a book.
What surprised me while reviewing the materials Stephen provided me with was the extremely small amount of information from 1859 – when Darwin published Origin of Species – and 1894, when Eugene Dubois’ studio appeared. dedicated to man by Fr. Java. My curiosity prompted me to ask Stephen to find works in anthropology dating from the late 19th or early 20th centuries. In these books, which included an early edition of Marceline Bull’s “Fossil Remains of Man,” I found many negative feedback on numerous messages from the period in question. In the notes, we were able to find several examples of such information. Most, written by scientists in the nineteenth century, describe bones with cuts, stone implements, and bones from modern humans found in an unusually ancient geological context. These publications are at a very high scientific level, but they are widely criticized. This encouraged me to embark on a more systematic study.
It took another three years to find such deeply buried information. Steven Burnett and I searched for rare almanacs and periodicals from around the world and translated the materials into English together. It took several more years for the collected information to be drafted into a manuscript. During all this time, I had almost daily discussions with Richard about the importance of the material and its best presentation.
Much of the material for Chapter 6 was received from Ron Calais, who was so kind as to send us photocopies of the original articles in his archive. Virginia Stein-McIntyre also kindly provided us with her correspondence on the dating of the Huayatlaco (Mexico) site. I want to note the fruitful discussions on stone tools we had with Ruth D. Simpson of the San Bernardino Regional Museum, and on the shark teeth on a bone – with Thomas A. Demere at the Museum of Natural History of San Diego.
The book would not have been completed without the work of Christopher Beatle, a computer specialist at Brown University who joined the Bhaktivedanta Institute in San Diego in 1988.
Richard and I would like to thank Alistair Taylor for the layout of this shortened edition. The cover design is the work of Yamaraja dasa. The illustration at the beginning of the introduction as well as illustration 12.8 are taken from Miles Triplet’s wonderful book. The book was also helped by Beverly Simes, David Smith, Sigalith Biniamini, Susan Fritz, Barbara Cantator, Joseph Franklin and Michael Best.
Richard and I would like to thank especially the former and current international trustees of the Bhaktivedanta Literary Trust who have helped generously with our research and writing and printing of the book.
Finally, we want to encourage readers to send us any additional information that may be of interest. They will be able to be included in future re-editions of the book. Our correspondence address is: Govardhan Hill Publishing, PO Box 52, Badger, CA 93603.
Michael A. Cremo
Pacific Beach, California
March 26, 1994
The Song of the Red Lion: Darwin and Human Evolution
This happened one evening in 1871. The well-known company, of which the English gentlemen, the Red Lions, were educated English members, made another meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland. The idea was to have a good bite and have fun with songs and funny stories. At one point, Lord Nives, well known for his witty poems, confronted the assembled Lions. He performed twelve stanzas dedicated to the Origin of Species a la Darwin. Among them were the following lines:
A monkey with a flexible thumb and a big brain, who once got to the gift of a word, immediately declared herself the crown of the universe, which no one will ever deny! The listeners responded in the usual way for the Red Lions – with a happy growl and rotation on foot of their readings.
It had been a little over ten years since the printing of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). However, many scientists and educated people still thought that it was impossible – and even ridiculous – to assume that man was nothing more than a more developed heir to the lineage of humanoid apes. In the book itself, Darwin focuses briefly on the question of the human race, noting in the last pages that “a new light will be shed on the origin of man and his history.” But despite the caution shown, it was clear that the author did not view humans as an exception to the theory that species originate from one another.
Darwin’s new book, “The Origin of Man,” in which he detailed his views on human evolution, came out only in 1871. Explaining this delay, the author writes the following: years. My idea was not to publish them, but on the contrary – not to publish them – as this would only strengthen the resistance to my theory. It seemed to me sufficient to note – in the first edition of The Origin of Species – that this book “would shed light on the origin of man and his history”; this implies that – as far as his appearance in this world is concerned, man must be placed alongside all other living organisms as a general conclusion. ”
In The Origin of Man, Darwin categorically denied the human race any special status. “So we come to the conclusion that the man came from a hairy and tailed quadruped, who most likely lived in the trees and lived in the Old World.” This is a bold statement, and yet it lacked the most convincing evidence – fossils of the kind illustrating the transition between ancient apes and humans.
There were no fossil remains, with the exception of two Neanderthal skulls – one from Germany and one from Gibraltar – that were of undetermined date, and a few other little-known finds with modern morphological characteristics. This fact soon became a weapon in the hands of those who opposed Darwin’s idea that humans had monkey-like ancestors. Where, they asked, are the fossil remains to prove it?
Yet, almost without exception, today, paleoanthropologists believe that they have successfully met Darwin’s expectations by finding indisputable remains of human ancestors in Africa, Asia and many more places.
The appearance of hominids
In this book we have adopted a priori the modern system of periodization of the geological history of the Earth, which is divided into four geological eras, they – into periods, and periods – into epochs (Table 1.1). In the study of the ancients and hemispheres, it will serve us as a stable framework. We do this for convenience only. Otherwise, we believe that our findings may cause major changes in geological chronology.
According to modern ideas, the first human-like apes appeared during the Oligocene, which began about 38 million years ago. It is believed that during the Miocene, the first human-like monkeys lived as part of human genealogy. This period covers the period from 5 to 25 million years ago. Among these species is wDryopithecus.
Then came the Pliocene. Then, among the fossil remains, the first traces of hominids emerge – straight human apes. The earliest known hominid is the Australopithecus, the “southern humanoid monkey”, which dates back to 4 million years ago.
Scientists estimate that this half-human was between 1.20 and 1.50 high and had a cranial volume of 300 to 500 cm3. It is said that, from the neck down, the Australopithecus was very similar to modern humans, though it combined monkey and human features.
One of the Australopithecus clones is thought to have originated – about 2 million years ago – Nomo habilis. This happened at the beginning of the Pleistocene. On the outside joke, Homo habilis had many similar features to Australopithecus, but had a larger cranial volume – somewhere between 600 and 750 cm3.
About 1.5 million years ago, Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus (this species belongs to the Java man and the Beijing man). Scientists say that Homo erectus was between 1.50 and 1.80 tons high and that its cranial volume varied between 700 and 1300 cm3. Now most paleoanthropologists think that – just like Australopithecus and Homo habilis – Homo erectus from the neck down looked almost like a modern man. However, his forehead, starting from massive overlying arches, tilted backwards; his jaws and teeth were large and his lower jaw lacking a chin. This species is said to have inhabited Africa, Asia and Europe 200,000 years ago.
According to paleoanthropologists, anatomically modern humans have evolved gradually from Homo erectus. It is alleged that the first early, so-called “archaic” Homo sapiens appeared 300,000-400,000 years ago. According to the descriptions, it had a cranial volume almost as much as modern humans, but had – to a lesser extent – a number of characteristics of Homo erectus. Some of these features are the massive skull, the sloping forehead, and the thick overlying arches. Examples of this category are the findings from Swanscombe in England, Steinheim in Germany and Von-Teshwad and Arago in France. Since some Neanderthal features can be seen in the skulls, they are also classified as pre-Neanderthal type. Most authorities are of the opinion that these pre-Neanderthals evolved as modern humans,
In the early twentieth century, some scholars claimed that it was the Neanderthals of the last Ice Age – known as the “classic West European Neanderthals” – who were the direct ancestors of modern humans. They had a larger cranial volume than Homo sapiens sapiens. Their faces and jaws were much more massive and had a sloping, low forehead, beginning with large overlying arches. Neanderthal remains were discovered in layers from the Pleistocene epoch that are 30,000 to 150,000 years old. However, the findings of early Homo sapiens in sediments more than 150,000 years old ~ led to the removal of classical West European Neanderthals from the direct line connecting Homo erectus to modern humans.
The type of person known as “Cro-Magnonians” who fully responds to the anatomy of today’s man appeared in Europe about 30,000 years ago. Until recently, scientists have argued that the physically modern Homo sapiens sapiens is at most 40,000 years old. Now, however, many authorities believe that its emergence should be dated 100,000 years ago or even more. These theories are based on findings from South Africa and other regions.
The cranial volume of today’s people varies between 1000 and 2000 cm3, with the average being somewhere around 1350 cm3. As one can easily see, in modern humans there is no direct relationship between brain size and intelligence. Just as there are highly intelligent people with a brain volume of 1000 cm3, so do the feeble-minded with a volume of 2000 cm3.
Modern theories of human origin are not able to explain exactly when, where and how Homo habilis originated from Australopithecus, or Homo erectus from Homo habilis, or even modern man from Homo erectus. Yet most anthropologists accept that when the New World was inhabited, it was done by already physically modern humans. The early stages of evolution – from Australopithecus onwards – took place in the Old World. The common idea is that the first human beings in the New World appeared about 12,000 years ago, though some scholars are inclined to date this event to the Late Pleistocene – 25,000 years ago.
Even today, there are numerous holes in the supposedly consistent periodicity of human origin. Here is an example: one can note the almost complete lack of fossils that associate humanoid Miocene apes – such as Dryopithecus – with the Pliocene ancestors of modern apes and humans; this lack is very apparent in the period from 8 million to 4 million years ago.
Perhaps there is reason to believe that someday there will be finds that will fill these gaps. But – something that is extremely important – there is no reason to suppose that the fossils that will emerge will confirm evolutionary theory. What if, for example, the bones of modern humans are found in layers earlier than those containing the remains of Dryopithecus? Even later materials – such as human bones from 4 million years ago – after the disappearance of Dryopithecus in the late Miocene – would be sufficient to completely reject current ideas about human origin.
In fact, such evidence exists, but since its discovery it has been suppressed or simply “forgotten”. Many of these data emerged in the decades immediately after the printing of Darwin’s Origin of Species, when the only notable findings were those of the Neanderthal man. In the early years of Darwinism, there was no universally recognized theory of human origins to defend, and many scholars made and reported a number of discoveries that would now hardly make it to an edition more academic than the National Enquirer. Most of these fossils and artifacts came to light even before Eugene Dubois discovered the Java Man – the first protohuman hominid between Dryopithecus and modern man. The Java Man is found in layers from the Middle Pleistocene, whose age is usually 800,000 years. This find becomes a landmark. From that point on, scientists no longer expected to find fossils or artifacts from modern humans in layers of similar or older ages. And, if it did happen, they (or one of them wiser) concluded that it was impossible, and found some way to compromise the find as a mistake, a delusion, or a forgery. Before the advent of the Java man, however, many authoritative scientists from the nineteenth century discovered a considerable number of skeletal remains of modern, anatomically speaking people, who lay in many ancient layers. They also found a large number of different stone tools and animal bones with traces of human activity on them. scientists no longer expected to find fossils or artifacts from modern humans in layers of similar or older ages. And, if it did happen, they (or one of them wiser) concluded that it was impossible, and found some way to compromise the find as a mistake, a delusion, or a forgery. Before the advent of the Java man, however, many authoritative scientists from the nineteenth century discovered a considerable number of skeletal remains of modern, anatomically speaking people, who lay in many ancient layers. They also found a large number of different stone tools and animal bones with traces of human activity on them. scientists no longer expected to find fossils or artifacts from modern humans in layers of similar or older ages. And, if it did happen, they (or one of them wiser) concluded that it was impossible, and found some way to compromise the find as a mistake, a delusion, or a forgery. Before the advent of the Java man, however, many authoritative scientists from the nineteenth century discovered a considerable number of skeletal remains of modern, anatomically speaking people, who lay in many ancient layers. They also found a large number of different stone tools and animal bones with traces of human activity on them. and found some way to compromise the find as a mistake, delusion, or forgery. Before the advent of the Java man, however, many authoritative scientists from the nineteenth century discovered a considerable number of skeletal remains of modern, anatomically speaking people, who lay in many ancient layers. They also found a large number of different stone tools and animal bones with traces of human activity on them. and found some way to compromise the find as a mistake, delusion, or forgery. Before the advent of the Java man, however, many authoritative scientists from the nineteenth century discovered a considerable number of skeletal remains of modern, anatomically speaking people, who lay in many ancient layers. They also found a large number of different stone tools and animal bones with traces of human activity on them.
Some principles in epistemology (epistemology)
Before we begin our review of the rejected and accepted paleoanthropological data, we will briefly outline some of the epistemological rules we have sought to follow. In Webstars New World Dickensory, epistemology is defined as “the study or theory of the origin, nature, methods, and limits of knowledge.” When one undertakes the study of scientific information, it is important to keep in mind the nature, methods and limits of knowledge; otherwise, he would risk being misled.
It should be emphasized that paleoanthropological information implies some limitations.
First, observations related to this scientific field usually include rare discoveries that cannot be deliberately repeated. As an example, we would point out the fact that some scientists have built a reputation based on discoveries made worldwide, while others – in fact, the vast majority – have made a scientific career without encountering a significant finding.
Secondly, at the very discovery of the find, key pieces of all information are destroyed and our knowledge of those pieces depends only on the testimony of the discoverer himself. For example, one of the most important characteristics of a fossil is its stratigraphic position. However, the mere subtraction of the find destroys the direct information about its context. We then remain dependent on the information the researcher will give us. One may, of course, point out that some of the properties of the fossil – whether chemical or otherwise – could be indicative of its origin. This is true in some cases, but not in all. Moreover, even in this case we remain dependent on the information that will be given to us about the chemical or physical properties of the layers in question.
There are cases where people who have made important discoveries cannot find their way back to the place. The deposits are subject to inevitable destruction – within a few years – due to erosion, complete paleoanthropological excavations or any industrial causes (including stone extraction, construction, etc.). Even the modern methods of excavation, which are accompanied by a thorough description of all the details, destroy the object of study itself. This circumstance forces us to settle solely with the descriptions which should support the main claims. And even today, many important discoveries are only accompanied by brief notes on the essentials.
Therefore, it would be very difficult for anyone who would like to check the paleoanthropologists’ reports to find out the true facts, even if they were able to go to the place of discovery. Of course, constraints on money and time allow the personal exploration of a very small percentage of important paleoanthropological sites.
The third problem is that usually (if at all) the facts in paleoanthropology are not easy to analyze. A scientist may report that fossils have apparently come to the surface due to the erosion of a layer that certainly belongs to the early Pleistocene. However, this apparently simple statement depends on numerous observations that have to account for the geological fault, the possible loss of the formation, the presence or absence of a subsequently deposited layer, the existence of a filled negative (concave) form, etc. If reference is made to the observations of someone else – also present at the site – will find that they contain many important points not mentioned by the first source.
Different observers sometimes contradict each other and their impressions and memories are not reliable. And – therefore – it is possible for someone to see certain things and to miss seeing others that are more important. Some of these – more important things – could be seen by another observer, which may not be possible due to the inaccessibility of the field.
We must not miss the fraud problem either. They can manifest themselves in the form of systematic forgery – for example, the Piltdown find. As we will see later, detecting this type of fraud requires extra-Sherlockham abilities, plus all the capabilities that a forensic laboratory can offer. Unfortunately, deliberate and unconscious deception always has strong motives, because finding a person’s precursor has great glory.
Counterfeiting can be limited simply by the deliberate omission of observations that contradict the conclusions sought. As we will see later in the book, sometimes the researchers noted the presence of a certain type of artifacts in the formation, but did not report them because they simply did not believe that they could be of that age. This is very dangerous as our senses are imperfect. For this reason, when we see something that we think is impossible, it is only natural to assume that we are wrong. And indeed, that may be just the case. The fraud associated with omitting important observations is simply due to the limited nature of human nature. Unfortunately, it can be detrimental to the empirical process.
The disadvantages of paleoanthropological facts are not limited to the excavation of various objects. Errors can also be obtained with modern chemical and radiometric dating methods. For example, you might think that the carbon-14 method is a simple procedure that results in a reliable number that matches the age of an object. However, the truth is that actual dating studies involve numerous complex tests regarding the nature of the samples, their history and possible contamination. The process may go through the rejection of some pre-calculated dates and the acceptance of others. The complex arguments behind this choice are rarely fully published. In this case, the facts can also be complex, incomplete and – as a matter of fact – inaccessible.
These shortcomings of paleoanthropological facts lead to the following conclusion: in this research area we are forced to confine ourselves mainly in the comparative analysis of different scientific communications. Although there is material evidence – in the form of fossils and artifacts stored in museums – most of the key pieces of information that make the findings meaningful exist only in writing.
Given that the information contained in paleoanthropological publications is, in principle, incomplete, and that even the simplest facts in this field usually give rise to complex and unsolvable problems, it should be noted that it is difficult to reach to some indisputable conclusions. In this situation, what can we actually do? We think the most important thing is to compare the quality of the various scientific communications. Although we do not have access to the true facts, we can directly examine the individual messages and compare them objectively.
We can evaluate a certain amount of publications considering any findings, taking into account the depth of the study in question and the logic and consistency of the arguments presented. We must also take into account whether any skeptical counterarguments have arisen and – respectively – whether they have been disputed. Since there is always an element of “confidence” in considering foreign observations, we should also be interested in the qualifications of the observer.
If two different sets of information appear to be equally true – with the criteria so set out – we should treat them equally. Both can be accepted, rejected or identified as unreliable. It would be wrong to accept only one information, but to reject the second. It would be even more incorrect to cite some of the data as evidence of some theory, and to completely disregard the others and thus deprive future researchers of access to them.
This is the approach we used when looking at two specific sets of information. The first consists of reports of abnormally ancient artifacts and human remains, most of which were discovered in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The first part of this book is dedicated to them. The second set consists of data on artifacts and bone remains, which – at present – are accepted as evidence in favor of current theories of human evolution. As a chronology, they cover the period from the end of the 19th century to the 80s of the 20th century and are discussed in the second part of the book. Since there is a natural relationship between the two sets of information, some anomalous findings are also affected in this section.
The thesis we maintain is that – notwithstanding the advancement of paleoanthropology in the twentieth century, the two sets of information are essentially equivalent. This is also based on our view that it is not correct to accept one and reject the other, since such an attitude would have serious implications for the theory of human evolution. If we reject the first set of information (anomalies) and – in order to be consistent – do the same with the second, then the theory of the emergence of man will be devoid of much of his empirical basis. The second option is to accept the first set of information. However, then we have to assume that in remote geological periods, such as the Miocene (and even the Eocene), there were intelligent beings capable of producing tools. If we believe in the authenticity of the skeletal remains cited in these messages, we will have to go even further and accept the existence in these prehistoric eras of physically modern humans. Not only does this contradict the current theory of anthropogenesis, it casts doubt on the whole notion of mammalian evolution during the Neozoic era.
Cut and broken bones: the roots of fraud
A significant part of the evidence of human prehistory is in the form of intentionally cut or broken animal bones. Such findings are within the scope of serious research in the mid-nineteenth century and are still the subject of extensive research and analysis today.
In the decades immediately following the publication of Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, many researchers have discovered bones with fractures and cuts that testify to human presence during the Pliocene, Miocene, and even earlier periods. Immediately there are critics who explain these traces as a result of the action of predators, sharks or their stay in the ground. However, the supporters of the findings provide impressive counterarguments. For example, in some cases stone cannons were found near the bones with cuts. The experiments performed with these tools show that they leave traces on the bones that are identical to those found on the fossils. In order to distinguish such cuts from others that could result from animal teeth, scientists also use microscopes. Furthermore,
However, reports of cut and broken bones that testify to human existence throughout the Pliocene are missing from the set of generally accepted facts. However, this deliberate exclusion cannot be justified. From the incomplete information that is the focus of attention of scientists, it can be concluded that the modern man appeared as a species relatively soon. If we consider the facts to which this chapter is devoted, one must think that they are misleading.
Cheap hotels in Saint-Preest, France
In April 1863, Jules Desnoyey, who worked at the French National Museum, arrived in Saint-Prest (Northwest France) to collect fossils. In a layer of gravel and sand, he discovered a bone from a rhino’s thigh and noted that it had a number of narrow grooves. According to Desnoye, some were made with a sharp knife or flint blade. He also noticed a few small circular marks that he thought could be the result of a sharp tool. Later, Desnoyey explored the collections of fossils from Saint-Perst, which were stored in the Chartres Museum and the Paris Mining School. There he found the same scars. Desnoyey reported his findings to the French Academy of Sciences.
According to some modern scholars, the Saint Prest site may be referred to the Late Pliocene. If Desnoyey’s conclusions are correct and the bones were indeed caused by flint tools, then it would appear that there were humans in France during this period. One would ask, “Okay, so what’s the problem?” In light of today’s understanding of human emergence, the problem is quite serious. It is almost impossible to imagine the presence – in Europe of that time – of beings capable of using complex stone tools. This is because – at least according to conventional wisdom – at the end of the Pliocene, 2 million years ago, modern humans have not yet emerged as species. During this period primitive hominids only existed in Africa: our choice is limited to Australopithecus and Homo habilis, the latter of which is considered to be the first creator of the tool. According to other experts, the field at Saint Prest may be from a later era – after the Pliocene – and be only 1.2-1.6 million years old. Even so, bone cuts would look out of place.
The bones discovered by Desnoyey have sparked controversy as early as the 19th century. Desnoye, however, made it clear that the cuts were covered with the same layer of mineral deposits that can be seen on other parts of the bones. A well-known British geologist, Sir Charles Lyell, suggested that the traces may have been left behind by rodent teeth, which was opposed by the French prehistoric Gabriel de Mortier, who said it would not have been possible to have animal teeth scars. He offered another explanation – the cuts were made of sharp stones as a result of the displacement of the geological strata. Desnoyey responded to this idea as follows: “Many cuts have traces of luring, caused by their movement in layers of sand and gravel. These traces have a completely different character from the original scars and grooves. ”
In that situation, who is right – Desnoye or De Mortier? According to a number of experts, the problem could be solved if it is proved that the deposits in Saint Prest also contain flint tools that are indisputably anthropogenic in nature. A cleric, Louis Bourgeois, who also had the reputation of being a prominent paleo-anthropologist, carefully examined the layers in question in search of such findings. As a result of his patient research, he found a number of flints, which he believed were genuine tools. In January 1867, Bourgeois announced his discovery to the Academy. Renowned French anthropologist Armand de Cattreage concluded that scraps, punchers and spear tips were among the findings.
Even this did not satisfy De Mortier, who said that the flint found by Bourgeois had come from the pressure of the earth’s layers. It seems that in the search for the answer to one problem – the nature of bone cuts – we are faced with a second one: how to recognize the activity of a human hand on flint and other stone objects. We will discuss this in detail in the next chapter. For the moment, we will simply note that the judgment as to what exactly a stone tool is – is still a matter of great controversy today. And it is therefore quite possible to find reasons to doubt De Mortier’s attempt to deny the Bourgeois findings. In 1910, the famous American paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborne made the following interesting remarks about the presence of stone tools in Saint Prest: “The earliest evidence of human activity in strata of this age are the bones with cuts found in 1863 from Desnoye in Saint-Prest, near Chartres. And the last doubts about the unnatural nature of these cuts were eliminated by the recent excavations of Laville and Ruto; Eolite flints were discovered in them, which fully confirmed the findings made by Abbot Bourgeois in these deposits in 1867. ”
It should be clear by now – at least as far as the Saint-Prest findings are concerned – that we are dealing with paleo-anthropological problems, the resolution of which can be neither quick nor easy. In any case, we have no serious reason to reject these bones as their testimony to the existence of man during the Pliocene. This may be surprising to see that the fossils of Saint-Perst, among others, are almost never mentioned in textbooks explaining human evolution. When referred to, however, they are usually short mocking notes where they are rejected. Is this really due to the fact that the information is clearly inadmissible? And, maybe,
In the sense of these lines is also an passage from the book by Armand de Catofrage, a member of the French Academy of Sciences and a professor at the Museum of Natural History in Paris, entitled “Fossils and Wild People” (1884): “It seems that in most cases, the criticisms of human existence during the Pliocene and Miocene are based on theoretical assumptions, not on direct observations. ”
One contemporary example: the Old Crow River, Canada
Before moving on to other examples of nineteenth-century discoveries that call into question contemporary notions of human appearance, let us turn to a more recent case in which purposefully treated bones were examined. One of the most controversial issues that paleoanthropology has faced in the New World is the determination of the era during which the first humans passed to North America. According to popular belief, the first groups of hunters and gatherers are moving from Asia – across the Bering Strait – about 12,000 years ago. Some authorities are inclined to pull this event home about 30,000 years ago, while few (albeit multiplying) researchers report finding evidence of human presence in the Americas earlier in the Place-Tocena. In the following chapters, we will discuss this in more detail. For now, we will confine ourselves to examining the fossil bones found along the Old Crow River in the territory of the North Yukon. Our idea is to present a contemporary example of the type of information that is the subject of this chapter.
In the 1970s, Richard E. Morlan of the Archaeological Service of Canada and the Canadian National Museum of Man conducted a study of deformed bones originating from sites along the Old Crow River. According to Morlan’s findings, many of the bones and deer antlers bore clear traces of purposeful human activity that had to be dated to the time before their fossilization. Bones relocated from the course of the river were discovered in the glacial floodplain of the Early Wisconsin period, dating from about 80,000 BC. (before now). This raised serious doubts about modern ideas about the settlement of the New World.
In 1984, however, RM Thorson and RD Guthrie published a study showing that the impact of river ice could trigger changes that, according to Morlan, testify to human activity. Immediately afterwards, the latter renounced his initial claim that all the bones he had collected had been processed by human hand. Morlan acknowledged that, in 30 out of 34 cases, the footprints could have been due to the impact of river ice or some other natural causes.
But – even so – he continued to believe that there were undoubted traces of human activity in the other four copies. In a published report, Morlan writes the following: “Slices and scratches … are indistinguishable from those that would leave stone tools at the knees and boning of an animal carcass.”
Morlan sent two of the bones to Dr. Pat Shipman of Johns Hopkins University, a bone-cutting expert. Shipman examined the traces using a scanning electron microscope and compared them to more than 1000 documented bone traces. In the end, she concluded that the marks on one of the bones could not be determined with certainty. Traces of the other, however, were certainly left behind by some cannon. Morlan noted that stone implants were found in the Old Crow area, as well as in the surrounding hills, although not directly related to the bones.
This should show that the bones of SenLrest, as well as their bones, cannot simply be rejected as evidence. Nowadays, this type of information is still considered important and the methods of analysis are almost identical to those used in the nineteenth century. Scientists at that time may not have had electron microscopes, but ordinary microscopes were (and still are) (c) good enough for that purpose.
Anza-Borego Desert, California
Another recent example of bones with slices similar to those of Saint Prestis is the discovery made by George Miller, curator at the Imperial Valley College Museum in El Centro, California. Miller, who died in 1989, reported six mammoth bones with traces resembling cuttings of stone tools found in the Anza-Borego Desert. Radioactive (uranium) isotope dating at the Federal Geological Survey has shown that the bones are at least 300,000 years old, and the paleomagnetic dating method and volcanic ash samples date to about 750,000 years.
A respected scientist said that Miller’s statements were “just as meaningful as those of Loch Ness and the living mammoth in Siberia,” to which Miller replied that “these people do not want to see the man in this case, because their careers would be over. ” It so happens that we mentioned the mammoth bones of the Anza-Borego Desert in an interview with Thomas Demere, a paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History in San Diego (May 31, 1990). Demere admitted that he was generally skeptical of statements similar to those made by Miller. He questioned the professionalism with which the bones were dug, and further stated that no stone tools were found in the neighborhood. De-mer also suggested that it would be unlikely that anything related to this find would appear in a scientific journal, as editors would not release it.
Parkes told us that one notch apparently extends from one bone to another, which was located to the first, while the skeleton of the mammoth was still entire. This suggests a scar. The accidental traces that can be found in moving bones into the ground – after the collapse of the skeleton – probably would not continue in this way from one bone to another.
Bones with cuts from Italian objects
G. Desnoyeye also studied a collection of fossils collected in the valley of the Arno River (Val d’Arno) in Italy. Among them he found specimens with traces similar to those of the Saint-Prest finds. The bones in question were also from the same animal species, including Elephas meridionalis and Rhinoceros etruscus. From a chronological point of view, they were referred to the Asteian stage of the Pliocene. This would give an age of 3-4 million years. The bones may have been just 1.3 million years ago when Elephas meridionalis disappeared from Europe.
Cut bones have been found in other parts of Italy. At a gathering of the Italian Society of Natural Sciences, held on September 20, 1865 in Spice, Prof. Ramorino presented bones of extinct species of red deer and rhinoceros, which, according to him, contained traces of human activity. The finds originated in San Giovanni, near Siena, and – like the materials of Val d’Arno – were identified as belonging to the Asti stage of the Pliocene. True to his usual negative stance, de Mortier suggested that the traces were most likely caused by the tools of the workers who dug the bones.
Rhinoceros from Billy, France
On April 13, 1868, A. Lozeda informed the French Academy of Sciences that P. Bertrand had sent him two fragments from the mandible of a rhino. They were discovered in a pit near Billy’s. There were four very deep slits in one of the fragments. These short incisions located along the lower bone were approximately parallel. According to Lozede, the cross-sections were reminiscent of those made with a stubble on a piece of solid wood. For this reason, he felt that they should have been made in the same way – even more fresh bone – that is, with a hand-chopped stone tool. This led Lozede to think that in a long past geological era, humans were contemporaries of the fossil rhinoceros. How far an epoch is concerned can be deduced from the fact that the jaw was derived from a layer of the Middle Miocene – about 15 million years old.
Are these traces really the result of human activity? According to de Mortier – no. After turning off the predator variant,. he wrote the following: “These are merely geological footprints.” Although it is possible that de Mortier is correct, the evidence he has offered is not convincing enough.
Louis R. Binford – an anthropologist at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque – is a recognized contemporary authority on processed bones. Here is what he writes in his book Bones: Ancient People and Modern Myths: “Traces of stone tools are usually short and appear in groups of parallel features.” The traces described by Lozeda fit this description.
Mount Sansan, France
At the meeting of the French Academy of Sciences in April 1868, a report was presented by F. Garrigue and X. Filhol, stating: “We already have sufficient evidence to allow us to suggest a certain synchronicity of human existence and The evidence in question consisted of a collection of mammalian bones, apparently intentionally broken, originating in San-san, France. Particularly striking were the bones of one species of small deer – Dicrocerus elegans. According to modern scholars, the layers in which the bones in Sansan were discovered must be related to the Middle Miocene. You might think about the devastating effect that humans would have had about 15 million years ago on the generally accepted evolutionary ones. True to yourself,
Nevertheless, Gariguo did not abandon his belief that the bones from Sansan had been broken by humans in order to remove the bone marrow. He presented his thesis at the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archeology, held in 1871 in Bologna, Italy. At the beginning of his presentation, Gariguo showed modern bones, with indisputable traces of processing and intentional fractures. Then, by comparison, he showed the bones of the small deer (Dicrocerus elegans) found in Sansan. The marks were completely consistent.
Garrigu also showed that many of the pieces have fine scratching marks, which can be seen on broken hollow bones from the Late Pleistocene. According to Binford, the first stage of bone treatment was the removal of the superficial layer of tissue, which was done by scraping with stone tools.
In Greece, near the Marathon Plain, there is a fossil-rich layer dating from the Late Miocene (Tortonian stage). This site has been studied and described by the famous French scientist Al-ber Godri. At the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archeology, held in Brussels in 1872, Baron von Ducker presented a report saying that the Pikermi bones prove the existence of people in the Piocene. According to modern experts, the field should be referred to the late Miocene, which means that the age of the bones is about 5 million years.
Von Ducker examined many of the bones at Pickermi at the Museum in Athens. He found 34 fragments of the jaws of Shrrappop (an extinct triplet horse) and antelopes, as well as 19 fragments of tibiae (tibia) and another 22 fragments of other bones of large mammals, such as rhinos. All of them bore traces of methodological breakage in order to extract bone marrow. According to Von Dücker, there were “more or less discernible marks than solid objects” on all bones. He also noted the presence of several hundred smaller fragments that had been broken in the same way.
Von Ducker also examined a large number of Hi’pparion skulls and antelopes, in which the upper jaw was apparently methodically removed to allow the brain to be removed. The edges of the fractures were very sharp, which is usually considered to be the result of human activity rather than gliding predators or the weight of the earth’s layers.
Von Ducker later went personally to the Pickermi field to continue his field investigations. During his initial excavations, he discovered dozens of bones from Hipparion and from antelopes, and reported that about a quarter of them bore clear marks of deliberate fracture. In this regard, it is a good idea to recall Binford’s conclusion that in the entire set of broken bones of humans – for the purpose of bone marrow extraction – scars can be observed at about 14 to 17%. “Among the bones, I also found,” said Von Duker, “a stone the size of which allows it to be conveniently held in hand. It is sharp at one end and is perfectly fit to leave scars similar to those seen on the bones. ”
Shark Teeth Drilled from Red Crag, England
At a meeting of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain, held on April 8, 1872, Edward Charlesworth, a member of the Geological Society, showed many specimens of shark teeth (Carcharodon) in the middle of each of which had a punctured hole, just as they do islanders from the southern seas for the purpose of using them on weapons or necklaces. The teeth were discovered in the Red Krag Geological Formation in eastern England, suggesting that they are approximately 2-2.5 million years old.
Charlesworth made strong arguments against the possibility that holes could be made from marine animals, such as some species of “mollusc” molluscs. During the discussions, one of the scientists suggested that the openings could be the result of eating teeth, but – as far as is known – sharks do not have similar problems. Another participant suggested the activity of some parasites as an explanation, but then admitted that they were not known to inhabit the teeth of fish.
At this point Dr. Collier spoke in favor of anthropogenic reasons. Here’s what the transcript of the meeting reads: “He had carefully examined the shark’s pierced teeth with the help of a magnifying glass … He said the openings were a human hand.” Among the arguments were “the beveled edges of the openings,” in the teeth “and” traces of artificial means used in drilling the holes “.
Engraved bones from Dardanelles, Turkey
In 1874, Frank Culvert discovered – in Miocene formations in Turkey (on the Dardanelles) – a bone from Deinotherium that had engraved images of animals. Here’s what Calvert noted: “In different sections of the same rock, not far from the location of the engraved bone, I found flint and animal bones split lengthwise – apparently for the purpose of removing the bone marrow, as is common in all primitive races.”
Modern scientists believe that the elephant-like Deinotherium inhabited Europe from the early Miocene to the Late Pliocene. It is therefore quite possible that Calvert was right in referring the Dardanelles to the Miocene. The Miocene is currently thought to cover the period from 5 million to 25 million years ago. According to the conventional notions, at that time there were only mostly monkey hominids. Even referring the findings to the Late Pliocene – from 2 to 3 million years ago – would have been a very early date for this type of artifacts. Engraved images, similar to those of the Deinotherium bone, are thought to have emerged only about 40,000 years ago and are the work of modern man.
In his book Prehistory, de Mortier does not dispute the age of the Dardanelles. Instead, he notes that the simultaneous presence of engraved bone, intentionally broken bones and flint is so amazing that it raises doubts about the authenticity of the findings. This is especially remarkable. In the case of the bones of Saint-Prest, de Mortier refers specifically to the absence of stone tools or any other trace of human existence. In this case, however, when the necessary artifacts were found along with the engraved bones, Mortier claims the complex was “too perfect”, suggesting some fraud by Calvert.
Here is what David A. Trail, a professor of classical philology at the University of California at Davis, says about the discoverer: and paleontology. ”Calvert led several important studies in the Dardanelles and played an important role in the discovery of Troy. Trail notes the following: “As far as I can deduce from Calvert’s correspondence with which I have dealt extensively, he has been extremely honest.”
Balaenotus from Monte Aperto, Italy
In the second half of the 19th century, whale bones were found in Italy, with incisions. On November 25, 1875, J. Capellini, a professor of geology at the University of Bologna, said the scars were made on more fresh bones, with flint tools apparently used. Many European scientists agreed with Capellini’s interpretation. The bones in question were of an extinct species of the Balaenotus genus that lived through the Pliocene. Some of the finds were in different museum collections, while others were discovered – personally by Capelini – in deposits with Pliocene strata in the Siena area, such as Poggioron.
Bone cuts were located in places suitable for cutting the carcase, such as on the outer surface of the ribs. Capellini unearthed an almost entire whale skeleton where all the scars were found on one side of the animal only. Here is what the researcher writes: “I am convinced that the animal is stuck in the sand and lying on its left side, thus making its right side accessible for direct attack by humans; this can be clearly seen from the places where the tracks are located. “The fact that in this case there were cuts only on the bones on one side of the whale automatically rules out purely geological explanations, such as shark attacks in deep waters. In addition, the fossil whale scars are completely consistent with the modern whale scars.
At the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archeology, Capelini announced the following; “In the vicinity of the remains of Balaenotus near Pozharon, I also discovered several flint blades relocated in the beach sand.” Capelini noted that human remains were also found in the same area, near Savona.
After Capelini’s report, congress participants began a discussion. Some, such as Sir John Evans, have raised objections. Others, including Paul Broca, Secretary-General of the Paris Anthropological Society, agreed with Capellini that whalebone traces are left behind by humans. In particular, he completely rejected the hypothesis that the marks had been left behind by sharks and noted that they had all the features of a sharp instrument. At the time, Broca was one of the largest authorities in bone physiology.
Among the scientists who agreed that there were traces of sharp flint tools left by human hands on the Balaenotus bones of Monte Aperto, including Armand de Katrephage. In 1884 he wrote the following: “All attempts to reproduce these traces – by different methods or by tools of other materials – are doomed to failure. This can only be achieved with a sharp, high-angle, high-power flint tool. ”
The issue is summarized in English by S. Leing. In 1893 he wrote the following: ‘The cuts show straight curves, which are sometimes almost semicircular, which can only be caused by the movement of a human hand. In all cases, without exception, the outer convex side of the scars has a smoothly cut surface – this is where the action of the blade is applied. The surface on the inside is rough. Microscopic studies confirm these findings and leave no doubt that the incisions were made with a flint knife or similar tool that was held obliquely and pressed with great force to the still-fresh bone. That is how a savage would cut off pieces of meat from a whale thrown ashore. It is possible to make similar cuts with a flint knife on fresh bones; this is actually the only way. It seems that the denial of human existence through the Tertiary – if based solely on this case – is due not to scientific skepticism but to persistent prejudice. ”
One contemporary authority – Binford – states: “There is little chance of confusing the traces left by a human hand – in a split or cut – with those resulting from the action of animals.”
However, shark teeth are sharper than those of terrestrial predatory mammals – such as wolves – and can leave scars on the bones that look like marks from a cutting tool. After examining fossil whale bones from the paleontological collection of the Museum of Natural History in San Diego, we concluded that it is actually possible for shark teeth to leave scars similar to those of cannons.
The bones we examined were of a small type of Pliocene whale. We examined the cuts using a magnifying glass. What we saw were evenly spaced, parallel to the longitudinal ridges on both surfaces of the bone. Exactly such traces can be expected from the serrated edge of the shark’s tooth. We also noted traces of bone fracture. They could be the result of an oblique impact where the teeth scratched the surface of the bone instead of being cut into it.
Having this knowledge, it should be possible to re-examine the bones of the Pliocene whale from Italy and arrive at a relatively plausible conclusion as to whether the traces of them have been left by the teeth of the shark. The parallel edges and cuts on the surface of the fossils would be almost a sure sign of this. And if careful examination of V-shaped incisions also reveals uniform, parallel longitudinal ridges, this should also be seen as evidence of the action of the jaws of a shark. It cannot be expected that the surface of the scars left by flint edges would have similar uniform furrows.
Halitherium from Poonsay, France
In 1867, at the International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archeology in Paris, L. Bourgeois provoked a sensation by presenting a bone from Halitherium, but with traces resembling cuts made by human hand. Halitherium is a species of extinct sea cow – an aquatic, marine mammal of the Sirenia class. ,
The fossilized bones were discovered by Abbot Deloy-ney in shell layers at the Barrier, near Pointe, in northwestern France. Deloneus was very surprised to see – on a fragment of the shoulder bone – a series of cuts. The surface of these cuts was identical to that of the rest of the bone and they were clearly distinguishable from the fresh scratches; this showed that the scars were very old. The fossil bone itself was discovered in an undisturbed layer, which in turn testified that the traces on it were from the same geological age. In addition, the depth and sharp edges of the incisions indicated that they were made before fossilisation of the bone. Some of the scars seemed to be left by two separate, intersecting beats.
Even de Mortier had admitted that the cuts did not appear to be the result of movement of the earth’s layers or of external pressure. However, he refused to accept them as being left by human hands, mainly because of the Miocene age of the layer in which they were found. In 1883 he wrote the following: “They are too old for the existence of man.” Once again, we face a clear case of theoretical prejudices that dictate how a particular set of data is to be interpreted.
“A series of mineralized bone primitive tools discovered under the auspices of Red Kragh and Coralin Kragh, Suffack County.” It is now believed that the upper Red Crag – in eastern England – marks the boundary between the Pliocene and the Pleistocene, and is therefore between 2 and 2.5 million years old. Coraline Kragg is older and dates to the Late Pliocene, which dates from 2.5 to 3 million years. The layers beneath these formations, consisting of detritus, contain materials belonging to the Eocene and Pliocene periods. Therefore, the objects found in them may be between 2 and 55 million years old.
One group of findings consists of triangular specimens. In his report Moir wrote the following: “They are all made of broad, flat and thin pieces of bone – perhaps parts of large ribs – from which it has been obtained, by breaking, a precisely defined shape. In any case, the triangular shape was obtained by fractures that are perpendicular to the natural “veins” of the bone. “Moir conducted various experiments with bones and concluded that his findings were” undoubtedly a work of the human hand. ” According to him, the triangular pieces of fossilized whale bones found in the layers under Coralin Kragh could have been used as spear tips. He also discovered whale ribs shaped like sharpened cannons.
Together with other researchers, Moir discovered bone tools and bone incisions in various layers of the Cromer Forest deposit, from the earliest to the latest. The youngest deposits of this deposit are 0.4 million years old and the oldest deposits are at least 0.8 million years old. According to some scientists, they could be 1.75 million years old.
In addition to his own findings, Moir also mentions a bone discovered by Mr. Wincope of Woodbridge, Suffack County. The latter had in his private collection “a fragment of ribs, partially cut at both ends”. The object came from a detrital layer under Red Cragg and, according to Moir, was “viewed by both its discoverer and the late Rev. Ozmond Fisher as admissible evidence of human activity.” No one would expect to find traces of incision in such an ancient fossil.
SA Nott found a piece of wood cut with a saw in the Cromer Forest field near Mundesley. Most of the strata at this site are between 0.4 and 0.5 million years old.
In his comments on this find, Moir made the following observations: “It appears that the flat end of the piece was due to the cutting with a sharp flint, and I think that in one place the cutting line was corrected, which often happens and now, when working with a steel saw. “Shortly thereafter, Moir notes:” The sharpened end seems to be blackened, perhaps by the action of fire; the find may be a primitive root-digging stick. ”
There is some possibility that creatures of the species Homo erectus existed in England from the time of the strata in the Cromer Forest deposit. However, the level of technological development that must be assumed by this wooden blade with traces of saws rather speaks to the capabilities of Homo sapiens. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how this type of cut could be obtained using stone tools. Even small flint plates attached to a wooden handle could not reach as flat a surface as the find, since the wooden part would be wider than the flint teeth. Therefore, a narrow section could not be made with such a tool. One whole flint blade on a saw on the other hand would be extremely fragile and would not withstand the entire operation. Moreover, making such a blade would be a huge achievement. Therefore, it appears that such a cut can only be the result of the operation of a metal saw. Of course, a 0.4-0.5 million year old metal saw would be a serious anomaly.
It should be noted that engraved bones, bone implants and other artifacts from the Red Krag and Cromer Forrest deposits are hardly mentioned in modern textbooks and reference books. This is especially remarkable in the case of the Cromer Forrest materials, which, from a chronological point of view, come close to the picture accepted by contemporary paleoanthropology.
Elephant Trap from Dulish, England
The discovery of a strange element in Dorsetshire’s landscape – the “elephant moat” at Dulish – is the work of Ozmond Fisher, a member of the Geological Society. Here’s what he says in an article in The Deejay Shop (1912): “The ditch was dug in limestone and has a depth of 12 feet (3.7 tons); its width is just as much as a person can pass through it. No natural disturbance of the terrain can be traced along its axis, and the flint layers located on both sides are consistent. The bottom of the moat is made of limestone and its sides and one end are vertical. The other end opens diagonally to the steep slope of a valley. A considerable amount of remains of Elephas meridionalis have been found in the ditch filling, but no other fossils … In my opinion, it was created by humans, somewhere towards the end of the Pliocene, and it was intended to serve as an elephant trap. “Elephas meridionalis – the” southern elephant “- existed in Europe from 3.5 to 1.2 million years ago. Therefore, while it is possible that the bones from the Dyulish ditch would refer to the early Pleistocene, it is also possible that they were from the Late Pliocene.
The pictures show that the vertical walls of the trench were dressed very carefully, as if a huge chisel had been used. Fisher also refers to reports of similar ditches still used by primitive hunters, even in the modern era.
Later excavations at the site by the Dorset Field Club, mentioned in a brief note in Ney-Cher magazine (October 16, 1914), revealed that “the ditch did not end with a shaped bottom, but continued. down into a series of narrow, branching voids in the limestone. ” However, it cannot be ruled out that the ancient people may have taken advantage of the small crevices in the rocks to create a larger hole in the limestone. It would be worth examining the elephant bones from the ditch filling to check for any traces of the blade.
Fisher is the author of another interesting discovery. In his 1912 report, he writes the following: “While searching for fossils in the Eocene strata at Barton Cliff, I came across a piece of gagat-like (black amber) square-shaped material – 9.5 inches (24.7cm) long. ) – and 2.25 inches (5.85 cm) thick … At least on one of its sides there were scars that looked like traces of the workpiece that gave it the correct square shape. The find is now at the Sedgwick Museum in Cambridge. “The gag is a solid velvety coal material that is suitable for polishing and is often used in jewelry. The Eocene covers the period from 55 to 38 million years ago.
Concluding words on the question of bones with traces of human activity
It is very interesting indeed that so many serious scientists and researchers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries – independently of each other and repeatedly – reported bone and conch marks originating from the Miocene, Pliocene and Early Plains-Tocene strata. They viewed these marks as traces of human activity. Researchers who have made similar claims include Desnoyeux, De Katrephage, Ramorino, Bourgeois, Delo-Ney, Bertrand, Lozeda, Garrigue, Philhall, Von Duker, Owen, Necklace, Calvert, Capellini, Broca, Ferret, Bellucci, Bellucci, Bellucci , Moir, Fisher and Kate.
Were they all mistaken? It could be that way. Yet, fossil bone cuts are not something that is likely to develop delusions – they can hardly be considered romantic or particularly inspiring. Were the above scientists not the victims of any deviation of thought characteristic of the XIX and the beginning of the XX centuries? Or is it really possible that animal bones from the Pliocene and earlier periods provide abundant traces of the existence of primitive hunters?
Assuming that such evidence does indeed exist, we might ask ourselves – why then do we not find it today? One of the good reasons for this is that no one is looking for them. If a paleoanthropologist is convinced that there were no human beings in the Middle Pliocene capable of producing tools, then he would hardly think about the nature of the traces of animal bones from that period.
Eolithic: the stones of discord
In the nineteenth century, researchers discovered numerous stone tools and weapons in layers from the early Pleistocene, Pliocene, myo-price, and earlier periods. Reports of these findings appeared in standard scientific journals and, accordingly, were discussed at scientific congresses. Today, however, almost no one has heard of them. Entire categories of facts have simply evaporated.
We have been able to get a good deal of these “buried” testimonies and the review we have prepared will take us from the hills of Kent in England to the valley of Irawadi, Burma. There have been cases where researchers discovered anomalously ancient stone production even at the end of the 20th century.
The anomalous stone tools that we will look at fall into three main categories: (1) eoliths; (2) primitive paleoliths and (3) advanced paleoliths and neoliths.
According to some experts, eoliths (or “dawn stones”) are pieces with naturally shaped edges, but they can be used for different things. It is alleged that such debris was selected by humans and used as tools with minimal or no further processing. For the untrained eye, eolithic stone tools often resemble ordinary rock fragments, but specialists have developed a system of criteria for identifying traces of processing and use. At the very least, to identify a find as an eolite, it is to demonstrate clear traces of use.
In the case of more advanced stone tools designated as ‘primitive paleoliths’, the traces of processing are more obvious and one can usually see an aspiration for the whole stone to be shaped as a recognizable tool. The questions that such findings raise usually focus on determining their exact age.
The third category of monuments – developed Paleolithic and Neolithic – includes anomalously ancient stone tools that resemble the finely processed and polished stone tools belonging to the Late Paleolithic or Neolithic.
Most researchers view the Eolites as the most ancient type of tool followed by Paleolithic and Neolithic. We will use the terms mainly in another sense – as descriptive of the quality of workmanship of the findings. It is impossible to determine the age of a tool, based solely on its shape.
Eoliths of Kent Plateau, England
The small town of Aytheim, Kent, is located about 27 miles (44 km) southeast of London. In the Victorian era, Benji-amen Harrison kept a freezer in the city, and in his spare time roamed the surrounding hills and valleys and collected flint tools. Although they have long been forgotten, they have for decades been a cause of endless debate among the scientific community.
In many cases, Harrison consulted Sir John Prestwich, a well-known English geologist, who lived nearby. In addition, Harrison maintained regular correspondence with other paleoanthropological scientists and carefully described and mapped his findings. In this respect, he followed all standard procedures.
Harrison’s first finds were polished stone artifacts of the Neolithic type. According to modern ideas, Neolithic cultures first appeared about 10,000 years ago and are commonly associated with agriculture and ceramics. The neoliths that Harrison found were scattered around the earth around Aitam.
Later, he began to discover paleoliths in the gravel layers of ancient river beds. Although coarser than Neolithic implements, they could also without a doubt be defined as the creation of a human hand.
What was the age of these Paleolithic guns? According to Prestwich and Harrison, some of the artifacts found around Aytam could be related to the Shiocene. Some 20th-century geologists, such as Francis Edmunds of the Geological Survey of the United Kingdom, also thought that the river beds where many of the tools were found were of Pliocene age. Hugo Ober-Mayer – a leading name in paleoanthropology since the beginning of the twentieth century – argued that flint tools collected by Harrison on the Kent Plateau should be attributed to the Middle Pliocene. Dating in the Middle or Late Pliocene would mean that these artifacts are between 2 and 4 million years old. According to modern anthropologists, paleoliths found in the Som region of France can be attributed to her & Noto erectus, which determines their age at about 0.5 – 0.7 million years. It is considered,
Among the Paleolithic cannons that Benjamin Harrison collected from the Kent Plateau, there were several that seemed to relate to some more primitive culture. These were eoliths, the “stones of the dawn.” The Paleolithic, discovered by Harrison, though rough in appearance, bore traces of long processing that would give them the necessary shape – a blade or a weapon. However, the Eolithic cannons were, in fact, naturally split flakes, the edges of which could only be seen retouched. Such tools are still used by primitive tribes in different parts of the world who take a flint, split one end, and then use it as a scraper or cutting edge.
According to critics, Harrison’s eoliths were merely a figment of his imagination – the most common flint pieces. But Leland W. Patterson – a modern authority in the field of stone tools – thinks it is possible to distinguish between the crudest purposeful processing and natural action. “It would be difficult to imagine,” Paterson says, “how arbitrarily applied forces could create a homogeneous and one-way retouch on much of the edge of a fragment.”
A large part of Harrison’s findings were single-face cannons, with only one surface subjected to systematic processing. If we follow Patterson’s criteria, we should classify them as human-made. On September 18, 1889, AM Bell, a member of the Geological Society, wrote to Harrison: in conclusion, I will support him unconditionally. ”
On November 2, 1891, Alfred Russell Wallace – one of the most famous scholars of his time – accidentally visited Benjamin Harrison at his gas station in Aitam. Harrison showed Wallace his collection of stone tools and took him to some of the fields. Wallace acknowledged the veracity of the artifacts and asked Harrison to write a comprehensive report.
Sir John Prestwich, who was one of the most respected stone experts, also acknowledged the authenticity of Harrison’s findings. Responding to repeated attacks that the Eoliths were “natural facts” rather than artifacts, in 1895 Prestwich stated the following: “Although the authors of such claims have been invited to show such natural examples, and it has been three years since this challenge was posed, they have not yet found even one similar… As long as the flowing water has some constructive force, it usually smooths all the edges and turns the flint into a more or less rounded pebble. ”
In another article published in 1892, Prestwich made the following important observation: “If we subtract the creations of modern savages – such as the stone tools of Australian natives – from their grips, we will notice that they show neither more nor finer treatment than these early Paleolithic specimens. ”
It is therefore unnecessary to attribute the Kentish Plateau Eoliths to some primitive species of apes. Given that in practice the Eoliths are identical to the stone tools created by Homo sapiens sapiens, we must assume that it is quite possible that they (and the Paleoliths) were created by perfectly modern humans who inhabited England in the middle and the late Pliocene. As we will see in Chapter 7, in the nineteenth century, scientists repeatedly discovered bones from modern, anatomically speaking humans in Pliocene age strata.
It is interesting to note that today’s specialists regard stone human tools as undoubtedly human creatures, absolutely identical to the Harrisons discovered by Harrison. As an example, we can give the roller cannon and the plates from the lower levels of the Olduva defile, which are extremely rough. However, scientists have not questioned their status as artificially created objects.
Some critics have argued that even if Harrison tools were made by humans, they may not have been referred to as the Pliocene. It may have been that they had fallen into the Shchocen strata much later.
In order to resolve the dispute concerning the age of the Eolites, the British Association – a prestigious scientific society – has funded excavations in the upper layers of the river plateau, as well as elsewhere in the vicinity of Aitam. The idea was to prove that the eolites were located not only on the surface but also in the sich, deep in the Pliocene precursor gravel layers. Harrison had already discovered several in situ eoliths (some found in pillars, for example), but excavations funded by the respected British Association would be more convincing. The British Association charged Harrison himself with the direction of research, under the supervision of a committee of scientists. Harrison wrote in his diary that he had discovered many examples of in situ eoliths, including “thirty convincing.”
In 1895, Harrison was invited to present his Eolites at a meeting of the Royal Society. Some of the scientists remained skeptical, but others were very impressed. Among them was ET Newton, Fellow of the Royal Society and a Fellow of the Geological Survey of Great Britain. On December 24, 1895, he sent Harrison a letter saying the following regarding stone tools: “Some of them, and this is the least that can be said, bear clear traces of human processing … They were created deliberate and therefore of the only intelligent being that we know of – Man. ”
Prestwich died in 1894, but Harrison continued his excavation of the plateau and his answers to the skeptics; even in the absence of a prominent mentor. He won the cause of the Eolites from the Kent Ray E. Lancaster Plateau, which at the time was the director of the British Museum (Natural History).
One might ask why we pay so much attention to Harrison’s eolites. One reason is to show that not all evidence of this kind is marginal and miraculous. Highly anomalous findings have often been the subject of serious, protracted debate in elite scientific circles. In many cases, their defenders have held as many prestigious positions as their opponents. We hope that by providing a detailed description of this interaction of contradictory opinions, we will give the reader the opportunity to answer the following question on their own – whether the evidence was indeed rejected for purely objective reasons or whether it was suppressed and forgotten simply because it did not. have met the requirements of some particular theories?
Harrison died in 1921 and his body was buried in the cemetery of St. John’s Parish Church. Peter, in Aytam. The plaque commemorated on July 10, 1926, on the north wall of the church, reads: “IN MEMORIAM. – Benjamin Harrison, of Aitam, 1837-1921, a local conservationist and archaeologist whose discoveries of Eolithic flint tools from the Aitam region gave rise to fruitful scientific research in the remotest of ancient humanity. ”
But these “fruitful scientific studies in the area of the farthest human antiquity,” which were initiated by the Kenyan Plateau Eolites, were buried with Harrison. Here’s what happened. In the 1990s, Eugene Dubois discovered and promulgated the famous, though still dubious, “monkey man” of Fr. Java. Many scholars have accepted that the Javanese man, who was not accompanied by stone implements, is a true precursor to man. However, since it was discovered in strata of the Middle Pleistocene, numerous evidence of hominids capable of creating the tools of labor but existed during the Miocene and early Pliocene were simply devoid of any attention. How could such hominids have emerged long before their supposedly humanoid precursor? Such a thing was impossible; thus,
The discoveries of J. Raid Moir in the East of England
Our research trip will take us to the South East coast of England and the discoveries of J. Reid Moir – Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute and chairman of the East Anglia Prehistoric Society. In the course of his research, which began in 1909, Moir discovered flint tools in and under the layers of Red Krag and Coralin Krag.
The Red Crag Formation, in which Moir made some of his most significant discoveries, is made up of the shell-sands of the sea that once washed the shores of eastern England. In some places, under Red Krag, another similar formation, called ESoralin Krag, may be discovered.
Exploration of modern geological features has shown that Red Krag is at least 2-2.5 million annually. Therefore, Coralin Krag should be older. In the East of England – under Red Krag and Coralin Krag – there are detrital layers, sometimes called the “bone” layers. They are made up of all sorts of materials – sands, gravel, shells and bones, which originate from various older formations, including the Eocene London clays.
J. Red Moir discovered in the detrital layers beneath Red Kragh and Carolyn Kragh, stone tools that could show traces of varying degrees of deliberate processing. In concluding that coarser implements should be as far back as the Eocene, Moir argued that “it is necessary to acknowledge a much greater antiquity of the human race than previously thought.”
Moir tools may be of late Pliocene at the latest. According to conventional evolutionary theory, however, no trace of stone can be expected to process the people who inhabited England 2-3 million years ago.
Moir believed that the creators of the oldest and coarsest of the tools he found “represent an early and primitive stage of human evolution.” But even today, there are known tribes that create many primitive stone implements. Therefore, even the coarsest tools found by Moir beneath the layers of Red Kragh may be made of beings that were very similar to Nomo sapiens sapiens.
The findings themselves have been the subject of intense controversy. Many scientists have identified them as the result of natural forces rather than anthropogenic processing. However, Moir has found many influential supporters. Among them was Henry Broy, who personally investigated the sites. In Moir’s collection, he discovered undoubted sling stones that were found in layers beneath Red Kragh. Moir was also supported by Archibald Gaykey, a respected geologist and president of the Royal Society, and by Sir Ray Lancaster, director of the British Museum. Lancaster identified among the Moir materials a representative type of tool, which he named “rostocarinate”. These two words draw attention to two of the main characteristics of artifacts. Rostro refers to the working end of a tool that resembles a beak,
Lancaster provided a detailed analysis of what he called the “Norwich Trial.” This find – a particularly good example of the ‘rostro-carinate’ type of tool – was discovered under Red Kragh at Whitlingham, near Norwich. If the artifact really comes from the layers under Red Krag, it must be more than 2.5 million years old. The Norwich Trial combines two characteristics – clear traces of deliberate processing and a clear stratigraphic position. In his 1914 report to the Royal Lancaster Institute of Anthropology, he wrote: “It is not possible for anyone who is familiar with both flint processing and natural flint splitting to say that there is the slightest possibility of it the formation of the experienced Norwich flint was the result of something other than human activity. ”Lancaster believed,
An important set of materials was discovered by Moir at Foxhol, where he found, in the midst of the late Pliocene strata of Red Kragh, stone tools. They should be more than 2 million years old. In 1927, Moir wrote the following: “The finds consist of the remains of a flint-making workshop and include stone hammers, cores from which plates were ripped, finished cannons, numerous debris and several burned stones that show that this place is a burning fire … If the famous Foxhole Human Jaw, whose shape is not particularly primitive, really comes from the ancient surface now covered by Red Crag deposits and a thick glacial gravel layer, we can conclude that the anatomical the characteristics of these people were not very different from ours. ”
The jaw that Moir mentions has an interesting history. Some of the scientists who dealt with her thought that she looked like a modern man. Unfortunately, Foxhall’s jaw is not available for further research. It could add arguments in favor of the thesis that Foxhole flint guns are human-made. But even without the jaw, the tools themselves are proof enough of the existence of humans in England during the Late Pliocene – perhaps 2.5 to 2.5 million years ago.
In 1921, American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborne declared himself in favor of the cannon and proposed treating it with the Pliocene. According to him, the evidence for the existence of humans throughout the Pliocene “already rests on the solid foundation provided by the Foxhol flint, in which the traces of human activity are beyond doubt.” Among the guns, Osborne identified punchers, sharp-pointed artifacts similar to arrowheads, scrapers and side scrapers.
Osborne supported not only the Foxhol flint but all of Moir’s other work: “The discoveries of J. The Raid Moirs, which testify to the existence of schismatic people in the East of England, ushers in a new era in archeology… They provide conclusive evidence that there were people in Southeast Britain who were intelligent enough to handle flint and smoke fire; this was before the end of the Pliocene and before the beginning of the first ice age. ”
Another scientist who was won over the cause of the Fox finds was Hugo Obermeyer, previously a firm and clear opponent of the Aolithic discoveries. Obermeier was among those researchers who believed that the eolites were the result of natural forces similar to those observed in cement and limestone mills. In 1924, however, he wrote the following: “The Foxhol discoveries are the first evidence of the existence of humans through the Tertiary we have.” The Tertiary spans the Eocene to Pliocene periods.
Moir made several discoveries at the later Cromer Forest site in Norfolk. The tools found there should be between 0.8 and 0.4 million years old. There is also another view that the date of the lower strata of the Cromer Forest Formation can be traced back to 1.75 million years ago.
However, a large number of scholars continued to reject Moir’s findings as authentic tools. S. Hazeldeen Warren, for example, claimed that they were due to the effect of the geological pressure that pressed the flint pieces to the solid limestone layers. He cites several stone fragments from the Eocene Bullhead deposit in England as evidence of this. Here’s what Warren says about one of these items in his report to the Geological Society of London, delivered in 1920: If we look at it individually – within its own characteristics and regardless of the accompanying materials and circumstances of its discovery, we would hardly doubt its proximity to the Mousterian finds. “The term ‘mustard’ describes a conventional flint production from the second half of the Pleistocene, so-called by the name of the Mustier deposit, France. According to Warren, it was impossible to find tools in Eocene strata. However, these non-prejudiced researchers may wonder whether he did not actually find an authentic tool in the Eocene strata at Essex Warren.
During the discussion that followed Warren’s report, one of the scientists present pointed out that in some cases Moir’s guns were found in the middle of tertiary deposits rather than directly on solid limestone. This argument should refute Warren’s explanation based on earth pressure.
At one point, disputes over Moir’s findings were made available for resolution by an international scientific committee. It was formed at the request of the International Institute of Anthropology and included eight prominent European and American anthropologists, geologists and archaeologists. The group has come out in support of Moir’s findings. They concluded that the flint at the base of the Red Crag at Ipswich originates from undisturbed strata, which date back to the Pliocene. Also, the treatment of flint was definitely a matter for human hands. The commissioners also did four drilling in the detrital beds under Red Kragh and discovered five typical samples with their own hands. These guns should be at least 2.5 million years old. And since the same detrital layers contained materials of a more ancient, Eocene character,
Louis Kapiten, one of the members of the committee, stated the following: “There are undisturbed layers in Red Kragh that contain processed flints (we ourselves have become acquainted with them). They cannot be the result of anything other than the activity of humans or hominids that existed through the Tertiary. In our view, prehistorians, this fact is absolutely proven. ”
Surprisingly, even after the commission’s report, Moir’s opponents – including Warren – continued to persevere in their efforts to prove that flint tools were the result of natural forces. Warren hypothesized that the flint was crushed by the movement of icebergs on the ocean floor near the shore. To our knowledge, however, no one has yet proven that the icebergs are capable of doing anything resembling the numerous traces of shocks and the careful retouching observed on Moir’s guns. Moreover, many of the Red Crag specimens lie in the middle of the sediments, not on a solid rock on which the icebergs can crush them. We can also add the note of an English archeologist – J. M. Coles, – according to which Foxhol guns come from layers, that represent land, not beach deposits. This observation also disputes the iceberg hypothesis.
Shortly after Warren introduced his theory of icebergs, disputes subsided. Here’s what Coles wrote in 1968: “The fact that the scientific world has not yet been able to accept without serious hesitation one of the two opinions is probably due to the remarkable lack of attention to this problem in East Anglia that is being observed this may be true in part, but there is another possible explanation – perhaps some elements in the scientific community have decided that silence will bury Moir’s findings better than a clear public disagreement. Ever since the 1950s, the scientific community has been firmly behind the theory of the early Pleistocene African evolutionary center. And, therefore, there is hardly any sense in constantly trying to disprove evidence of the existence of humans in England during the Pliocene era, which, from a theoretical point of view, is impossible. On the contrary, it would only bring inconvenience and harm. In addition, such disputes would support the activity of both parties. A policy of silence – purposeful or not – has proven to be a hugely successful way of hiding Moir’s findings. There is no need to disprove something that is not even worth mentioning, and it can hardly be very useful to maintain it. A policy of silence – purposeful or not – has proven to be a hugely successful way of hiding Moir’s findings. There is no need to disprove something that is not even worth mentioning, and it can hardly be very useful to maintain it. A policy of silence – purposeful or not – has proven to be a hugely successful way of hiding Moir’s findings. There is no need to disprove something that is not even worth mentioning, and it can hardly be very useful to maintain it.
Coles is the only exception to the usual instinctive denial of Moir’s findings (or of complete silence). He considered it “unfair to ignore all this material simply without paying attention,” and in a 1968 publication hesitantly suggested that some of the guns might be authentic.
Although most of today’s authorities do not even mention the findings of Moir, one of the few negative remarks can be found in the book by B. W. Sparks and R.J. West Glacier Period in Britain: “At the beginning of this century, publications appeared describing the many flint artifacts discovered in layers from the early Pleistocene. Among these are flintstones, some of which are biphasis (two-faced) found in Red Kragh, near Ipswich, and the so-called ‘rostro carinati’ from the base of Norwich Kragh, near No-Ruich. Nowadays, they are all regarded as natural products because they do not meet the requirements that are required to be recognized as cannon. These requirements are as follows: the item must belong to a series of permanent characteristics, be found in a geologically possible place of residence,
Without going into lengthy commentary, we can point out that Moir and other authorities – such as Osborne and Captain – were able to identify Red Krag specimens as different types of guns (axes, punchers, scrapers, etc.) comparable to those from common Paleolithic stone industries, such as the Mousterian. The Foxhole site, along with the Foxhole jaw, has been accepted by many scientists as a geologically feasible habitat. Moir interpreted it as a workshop and noted the presence of traces of fire. And when it comes to retouching from several countries, this is not the only criterion that can be applied to the search for traces of human activity on stone objects. And even so, MS
Burkitt was a member of an international commission which, in the 1920s, inspected Moir’s findings. In his 1956 book The Old Stone Age, he gave positive reviews of them.
The author was particularly impressed with the site at Torrington Hall, two miles (3.2 km) south of Ipswich, where flint tools were found in Red Krag beds. “At Torrington Hall, just above the artifacts, mussels were found, with two inseparable shells … it was not possible that there would have been some later displacement of the gravel layers, which would have led to the fragmentation of the flint as it would have ruptured the flakes. the fragile connections between the shells. ”
Burkitt then made a startling conclusion concerning the tools found in and under Red Crag: Some of them can even be referred to pre-modern times. ”In other words, he was ready to accept the existence of intelligent cannon-producing hominids in England more than 5 million years ago. And since there is ample evidence, including bones, of the existence of perfectly modern humans before the Pliocene began, there is no reason to reject the possibility that the Moir findings of the Red Krag Formation were created by Homo sapiens more than 5 million years ago years.
Among the supporters of the materials found by Moir was Luis Leakey, who wrote in 1960 the following: “It is more than possible that primitive people existed in Europe during the early Pleistocene, as they did in Africa. In any case, it appears that some of the specimens found in the Red Crag strata are man-made and cannot be considered as the result of natural forces. The guns from the Red Crag strata may not refer to the early Pleistocene, but to the late Pliocene. ”
Two famous denials of the Eolites
Considering the literature on paleoanthropology, we can sometimes come across some categorically critical publication, which is generally used again and again to invalidate certain claims. In the case of European Eoliths, there are two such examples. These are A. Broy’s article claiming that pseudo-Eolites were created by the geological pressure in the Eocene formations at Clermont (Oasis), France, and the text by A. S. Barnes, with which the author attempts to prove through statistical analysis at the angles of impact on the flint core that eolite flint production is of natural origin.
In 1910, Henry Broy conducted studies that he believed should end the Aeolian controversy. In his publication, often quoted later, he reports that he has discovered flint-like tools; the site was in the Thaneth Formation near Bel-Assis, near Clermont. The formation referred to the early Eocene, suggesting that the findings are about 50-55 million years old. Broy, however, could not imagine that there may have been human beings during the Eocene. How did these flint objects appear then? During the excavation, Broy discovered several flint debris, near which flaked off fragments lay. Some of these flakes had a “heel” formed on impact. In other pieces, there were peelings that looked like retouches. According to Broy, all this was due solely to the pressure of the earth’s layers.
Is it really possible for this pressure to produce the results observed by Broy? Leland W. Patterson, one of the modern specialists in stone tools, argues that in such conditions it is very rare to get clearly shaped “heels” of impact. This usually requires a deliberate blow.
Perhaps Broy has drawn illustrations of the best examples of flint flakes found adjacent to the piece from which it was cleaved. However, the traces of cleavage and retouching on them are much coarser than on the cores and plates chosen by the author as an illustration of pseudo-elites. According to Brey, they were all the result of natural cleavage caused by geological pressure. However, this view would be justified only if he had found the flakes of the better-looking eoliths, also in the neighborhood of the parent. There were no such cases.
The unsatisfactory nature of Brey’s hypothesis of geological pressure would be all the more apparent if we consider what he calls “two truly exceptional objects whose location – inside the strata – is absolutely certain.”
Broy claims that the first object is literally indistinguishable from any Azilo-Tardenoise, ie. front scraper. Generally, scientists attribute the Azilo-Tardenoaz type cannon to Homo sapiens sapiens that inhabited Europe during the Late Pleistocene. In the description he gives to the second exceptional object, Brey compares it to the blade found on a French object from the Late Pleistocene – Les Eisy. The pressure of the Earth’s layers does not seem to be an adequate explanation for these two tools, which are over 50 million years old.
Yet Broy’s article is still cited as evidence that eoliths are more a natural than an artificial product. This type of citation is a very effective propaganda technique. After all, how many people would bother to dig up Brey’s original text and see for themselves if it made any sense in his statements?
Brey’s categorical publication appeared in 1910 and preceded most of Moir’s discoveries in eastern England. When the latter’s findings began to attract attention, Broy went to England to meet them on the spot. Surprisingly enough, he supported Moir and accepted that the guns found in the Red Krag formation at Foxhall formation were authentic. In addition, Broy stated that some of those found in the Red Crag strata were “absolutely indistinguishable from classic flint tools.” The age of the deposits that lie beneath the Red Crag varies between 2 and 55 million years. Later, Brey took up the evasive position again. A later edition of his book, People in the Old Stone Age, published in 1965 – after his death – only mentions that “a number of the plates could be regarded as being the work of a human hand, though their cleavage angle spoke against it.” One might rightly be surprised by the fact that Broy makes no mention of objects that were, in his own words, “not just eolithic but completely indistinguishable from classic flint tools.”
Another important element in Aeolian disputes is the testing of the platform angle proposed by Alfred S. Barnes. Although he was on Moir’s side in the 1920s, Barnes later opposed him. In 1939 he became the author of a work which, according to a number of modern experts, proved to be a deadly blow against the English eoliths of Moir. Barnes was not limited to Moir. His research, entitled “The Differences between Natural and Human Footprints on Prehistoric Flint Tools,” also examines stone castings from France, Portugal, Belgium and Argentina.
One of the main ones of the Eolithic supporters was that the natural forces were unable to cause the peelings observed on the objects in question. Barnes dedicated his search to some metric that could prove whether or not that was the case. To that end, he chose an element he called the “platform-to-corner” angle. Barnes explains the following: “The platform-to-corner angle is the angle between the platform or the surface on which the impact or force is applied – to break the plate – and the mark from the blade left at the point of impact.” the angle created must be sharp.
The angle observed with natural products should be blunt.
We cannot but admit that it is not clear from Barnes’ description what exact angle is to be measured. We spoke with stone tools specialists at the San Bernardino Regional Museum, California, including Ruth D. Simpson’s capacity in the area, but they also couldn’t determine what angle Barnes measured. In any case, he believed. Ma-mark has discovered an objectively measurable characteristic by which he can distinguish the natural traces of human activity.
In order to be effective, this measurement should be applied not to a single copy but to a large sample of samples from the production in question. According to Barnes, such a sample “can be considered human-made if, in less than 25% of the samples, the platform-to-corner angle is blunt (more than 90 °). After setting this condition, Barnes comes to devastating conclusions: none of the Aolithic he explored, including those of Moir, were human-made. It is interesting to note that Moir himself was aware of Barnes’ criterion and believed that his findings fell within the required values. For Barnes, however, and for almost the entire scientific community, this has put an end to the dispute.
We should also not forget that, at that time, disputes affecting the Eolithic and other Tertiary stone industries were no longer the hottest problem in leading circles in science. The findings, related to the Java man and the Beijing man, contributed to the growing conviction of scientists that the key transition from probable ancestors to able-bodied humans (or protochore) took place somewhere in the early or middle Pleistocene. This trend has made the supposed stone implements of Pliocene people a side issue, without much concern. However, Barnes fulfilled the important (though dirty) task of removing unnecessary remains from inappropriate facts. Every time it happened that the topic of many old flint industries was raised, and it still happens, scientists could safely refer to Barnes’ publication. Even nowadays, stone-tool researchers apply the Barnes method.
On closer inspection, however, it will appear that Barnes’s categorical rebuttal may need rebuttal. Here’s what Canadian anthropologist Alan Lyle Brian wrote in 1986: “We’re still a long way from solving the problem of how to distinguish” natural effects “from artifacts. More studies are needed to this end. The way this issue has been resolved in England – by applying the Barnes method for statistical analysis of the platform-to-corner angle, is not universally applicable to all cases where it is necessary to distinguish natural from artificial products. ” a telephone conversation of May 28, 1987, with one of us, Brian also made the cautious suggestion that Barnes had gone too far in trying to eliminate all the anomalous European flint industries.
Oldwood production, referring to the lower levels of the Olduwy defile, is another example of a complex that does not meet Barnes’ criteria. Taking into account the extremely primitive nature of the findings, which, according to Louis Leakey, are comparable to Moir’s materials, it should give us the impression that their authenticity has never been challenged by the scientific community. This may be due to the fact that the Aldovan production supports the dogma hypothesis of human origin in the context of African evolution.
Given the views defended by Brian and other researchers, it should be clear to us that we cannot justify a complete denial of the Eolites and other early flint production, which is based solely on the Barnes method.
New examples of eolite guns from America
Despite the tremendous efforts of Broy and Barnes, the eolithic question continues to haunt archeologists. Recently, several abnormally old, primitive stoneworks similar to the Eolithic have been discovered in the Americas.
Most archaeologists support the theory that hunters from Siberia have crossed into Alaska, using the terrestrial link resulting from the sea level decline; it was caused by the last ice age. During this period, the Canadian Ice Shield discouraged migration to the South. It was not until about 12,000 years ago that a free corridor emerged that allowed the first American immigrants to penetrate into what is now the United States. These were the so-called ‘Clovis Hunters’, known for their characteristic spearheads. They correspond to the developed stone tools from the end of the Paleolithic in Europe.
Contrary to this theory, many – excavated by modern archeological methods – have been found in America by traces of people who are about 30,000 years old. Among them are El Cedral in Mexico, Fr. Santa Barbara off the coast of California and the cave dwelling of Bocquario do Sittio da Pedro Furada in Brazil. Other controversial deposits are much older.
George Carter and the Texas Street field
One of the good examples of disputed early American Cretaceous production, similar to that of European Eoliths, is that of George Carter. In the 1950s, he directed the explorations of Texas Street in San Diego. At this site, at levels corresponding to the last interglacial period, that is, from 80,000 to 90,000 years ago, Carter discovered furnaces and rough stone implements. Critics were immediately found to make fun of the discovery, identifying the alleged implements as a natural product or “carifacts”. Later, Carter was publicly disgraced in a Harvard lecture course called “Fantastic Archeology.” Still, Carter offered clear criteria for distinguishing these tools from naturally occurring fragmented stones, with his claims backed by experts in the field – for example, John Whitehoff.
In 1973, Carter made larger excavations on Texas Street and invited many archaeologists to come and get acquainted with the site firsthand. Almost no one responded to the invitation. Here’s what Carter said about the case: “San Diego State University has remained adamant in refusing to look at what is being done in its own backyard.”
In 1960, one of the editors of Science, the journal of the American Academy of Scientific Progress, asked Carter to write an article on early American people. Carter complied with the request, but when the editor sent the text to two scholars for review, they rejected it.
When the magazine informed Carter about the incident, he replied in a letter (the date was February 2, 1960): “I should assume that you had no idea of the power of the feelings that possess this area of science. Attempts to push through an idea related to early American people are almost hopeless. There is something I would like to share with you, just for the idea: I correspond with a specialist whose name I cannot use, since – although I think I’m right – this recognition will cost him the job. I have contact with another such anonymous scholar who, shortly after graduating from university, found materials that prove my thesis. He and his colleagues, however, suppressed the findings. They were just sure that if they were to get their attention, it would cost them a chance to get a doctorate. At a meeting, a young specialist approached me and told me the following: “I sincerely hope you will prevail. I would also support you if I dared, but it would cost me my job. “At another meeting, another young man sat next to me to tell me:” At some excavations, they found the same guns as yours, but they just didn’t publish them. . ”
The crippling effect this negative propaganda has had on Carter’s findings is described by archaeologist Brian Reeves, who in 1986 wrote the following to his co-authors: the last inter-glacial period? … Given the amount of critical “evidence” presented by established archaeologists, the author [Reeves] took a skeptical stance uncritically, defining objects and findings as natural phenomena. “But when you worked hard to look at the materials Reeves changed his mind. He concluded that the objects were indeed made by human hands and that the Texas Street site was indeed as ancient as Carter claimed.
Luis Leakey and Calico
At an early moment in his career, Louis Leakey, who later gained fame with the discoveries of the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, suddenly fell into radical ideas about the prehistory of people in America. At the time, scientists believed that the penetration of the first humans on the continent could not have taken place more than 5,000 years ago.
Here’s Liky’s recollection: “In 1929-30, when I was conducting student exercises at Cambridge University … I began to say to them that there should be people in the New World for at least 15,000 years. I will never forget one case: it so happened that Ales Hudlika – this great scientist at the Smithsonian-Unn – had come to Cambridge and my professor (I was still an assistant) told him that Dr. Leakey explained to the students that there must be people in America at least 15,000 years ago. He flew into my room and didn’t even wait for us to shake our hands. ”
Hudlick asked, “Lycie, what are those things I hear? Do you teach heresy? ”
“Not at all,” said Likie. ‘
“On the contrary! Said Hrdlika. – You tell students that there are people in America for 15,000 years. What is your evidence? ”
Leakey replied: “Nothing safe, just supporting data. But considering that people live from Alaska to Cape Horn, speak a huge amount of different languages, and have had at least two civilizations, it is not possible that they have only been in these places for the few thousand years that you allow them. ”
Leakey continued to harbor unorthodox ideas about this matter, and in 1964, at the Kaliko field in the Mojave Desert, California, tried to collect some material. The site was located on the shore of Lake Manix, the dry place of Lake Toxic. The excavations – led for eighteen years by Ruth D. Simpson – have found 11,400 eolithic artifacts belonging to various levels. Radioactive isotope dating showed
– for the earliest of these levels
– about 200,000 years old.
However, as happened with Texas Street, most archeologists rejected Calico artifacts as a natural product, and now the Calico deposit is silenced in popular archaeological work. Lyki’s biographer, Sonia Cole, says: “For many of the colleagues who asked Luis and his family admiration and friendship, Calico’s years were a period of sadness and confusion.”
However, the Calico artifacts also found their defenders, who argued that these were human-made objects, not natural geo-objects. Here’s what he says – in 1979 – Philip Tobias, the famous collaborator of Raymond Dart, the discoverer of Australopithecus: “When Dr. Leakey showed me a small collection of Calico finds … I was immediately convinced that some – though not all – the specimens demonstrate undoubted traces of human activity. ”
In 1986, Ruth D. Simpson stated, “Nature would find it difficult to create numerous patterns that resemble human-made ones, with absolutely one-way retouching made in a unified, purposeful way. The site at Calico gave a large number of completely one-sided cannons, with a uniform retouch on the edge. These include front scrapers, side scrapers and incisors. ‘Single-sided and one-way cut-offs, as found in Calico, are characteristic of European Eoliths. Such specimens can also be found in the Old Indian productions in East Africa. One of the best tools found at Calico is a beak cutter (Fig. 3.12). There is also mention of bolas (Topas lassas).
In general, however, the ranks of traditional paleoanthropology have met Calico’s findings with silence, ridicule, or denial. However, Ruth Simpson states: “The data of many ancient people in the New World is increasing rapidly and it will soon not be possible to ignore them simply because they do not fit the current models of prehistoric America … To make them equal and impartial reassessments, flexible thinking is needed. ”
Current to Esperanza, Brazil
The authenticity of Calico’s cannon was confirmed by a find from Brazil. In 1982, Maria Beltraau opened – in the state of Bahia – a series of murals with murals. In 1985, a borehole was drilled in Toca da Esperanza (the Cave of Hope) and excavations carried out in 1986-7 found a complex of rough tools and bones of Pleistocene mammals. When the bones were tested by the method of radioactive isotopes, values exceeding 200,000 years were obtained. The highest recorded age was 295,000 years. The discovery was made known to the scientific public by Henri de Lumley, a famous French archeologist.
The guns were made of quartz debris and resembled those found in the Olduva Gorge. The closest quartz site was located about 10 km from the cave.
Here’s what De Lumley and his associates say in their report: “These data appear to indicate that early humans infiltrated American territory much earlier than previously thought.” They continue: “In light of the findings at It is much easier to interpret Esperanza stone production than the Calico site in the Mojave Desert, located near Yermo, San Bernardino County, California. Her age is somewhere in the range of 150-200,000 years. ”
According to De Lumley and his team, people and hominids traveled from North Asia to America several times during the Pleistocene. The early migrants who created the tools from the Brazilian cave were, in their view, representatives of Homo erectus. Although this view is consistent with the generally accepted picture of human evolution, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that the tools were made by physically modern humans. As we have mentioned several times before, similar items are still made by people in different parts of the world.
Monte Verde, Chile
Another archaeological site that is relevant for the assessment of primitive stone tools is the Monte Verde Site in southern Central Chile. According to a message in Mammoth Trump-Pitt (1984), the site was first surveyed by archaeologist Tom Dillihai in 1976. Although its age – between 12,500 and 13,500 years old – is not too anomalous, the materials found there the standard theory for “Clovis hunters” is questioned. The culture of the people of Monte Verde has nothing to do with that of the “Clovis hunters.” Although they also made various advanced double-barreled guns, the bulk of the findings consist of minimally modified stone tools. In fact, to a large extent, they were simply selecting natural debris in the area. In some of them, only traces of use can be observed; others clearly show traces of retouching along the working edge. These characteristics are very reminiscent of the description of European eoliths.
In this case, the exciting issue of artifacts against “natural effects” was resolved by a fortunate circumstance: the site was located in a swampy area that created the conditions for the preservation of non-perishable materials of plant and animal origin. As a result, two of the guns were found along with their wooden handles. The foundations of twelve structures made of boards and stakes were also found. There were large common stoves and small charcoal stoves plastered with clay. On one of the clusters clay stored nearby, it showed the footprint of a child of 8-10 years. Also found were three rough wooden staves, held by stakes. Among the finds were chromium stones (metatheses), along with remains of wild potatoes, herbs and plants off the coast that were high in salt. The Monte Verde site provides interesting insights into the creatures that may have produced and used the rough stone implants, distributed throughout Europe during the Pliocene and Miocene and Africa and dated at the border between the Pliocene and Pleistocene. In this case, their culture was provided with household appliances made of durable materials. The cultural level is far from subhuman and is what we would expect from physically modern people in primitive rural environments even today.
New discoveries in Pakistan
In other parts of the world, outside North and South America, tools similar to Eolithic, which do not conform to the standard ideas of human evolution, are still being discovered. Some relatively recent discoveries made by British archeologists in Pakistan can be cited as an example. These rough cutting tools are about 2 million years old. However, if the dominant idea of the “African swing” is to be believed, then the human ancestor of this period – Homo habilis – should have inhabited only Africa.
Some scholars have tried to discredit Pakistani findings. Anthropologist Sally McBrierty complains in a message in the New York Times that the discoverers “did not provide sufficient evidence that the specimens are so ancient and human-made.” The review we made on the anomalous stone tools makes us suspicious of such accusations. Scientists usually require more evidence of abnormal findings than those who fit the well-established notions of human evolution.
A paper published in 1987 by the British New Scientist magazine stated that McBrierty was too skeptical. Concerning the doubts regarding the stratigraphic context and age of the stone implements, the journal reads as follows: “Robin Denel, field director of the Palaeolithic Project of the British Archeological Mission and of the University of Sheffield, claims that such doubts are not valid in the case guns from the Soan Valley, southeast of Rawalpindi. He and his colleague Helen Rendell, a geologist at the University of Sussex, say that the specimens in question, all of them quartzite, were so firmly embedded in a layer of conglomerates and coarse sandstone, referred to as the Upper Sivalik series, that they were to be released with the aid of on the chisel.
How is McBrierty’s suspicion that stone objects were not made by human hands? New Scientist gives a more moderate view: “Danel believes that at least eight of the specimens found are” undoubted artifacts. ” In Danel’s view, the least doubtful specimen is a quartzite fragment believed to have been struck on three sides by a stone hammer, most likely by some hominid. As a result, seven flakes were cleaved. The facet processing and the fresh appearance of the ‘core’ traces make it a ‘very convincing’ example of human intervention. ”
What is the fate of Pakistani finds? Scientists arguing that the first representative of the Homo genus, who left Africa about 1 million years ago, was Homo erectus, have apparently remained firm in their intention to discredit guns from Pakistan – at the age of 2 million – instead of to rethink their views. We could imagine how these people would react to stone tools discovered in the Miocene context.
Siberia and India
Other Asian sites, in Siberia and northwestern India, have also found numerous stone implements, about 2 million years old.
In 1961, hundreds of primitive river rock tools were found in Gornoaltaysk, located on the Ualininka River in Siberia. According to the publication of Russian scientists – AP Okladinov and LA Ragozin – the guns were found in layers between 1.5 and 2.5 million years old.
Another Russian explorer, Yuri Monakhov, discovered stone tools similar to European eoliths in a site off the Lena River near Deering Yurlah in Siberia. The dating of the formations from which the findings originated was made using a potassium-argon and magnetic method and showed an age of approximately 1.8 million years.
Some recent discoveries in India also bring us back 2 million years ago. Numerous stone implements have been found in the area of Sivalik hills in northwestern India. The ascents are named after the half-divine Shiva (Siva in Sanskrit), the ruler of the forces of cosmic destruction. In 1981, Anek Ram Sanhian of the Anthropological Institute of India discovered a stone tool near the village of Haritaliangar; it was removed from the Trotrot Plei-formation, which is over 2 million years old. Other cannons were found in the same layers.
The aforementioned Siberian and Indian finds, which are 1.5-2.5 million years old, contradict the traditional notion, which consists in the following: the first representative of the JaaNoto that spread beyond Africa was Homo erectus, and this happened before about 1 million years. Here is a recent example. In 1982, KN Prasad of the Geological Survey of India announced the discovery – in the Miocene Nagri Formation, near Haritaliangar Village – of a “primitive ax-like river stone cannon”. The village is located in northwestern India, at the foot of the Himalayas. Here is what Prasad states in his report: “The gun was discovered in situ, but the time of the measurements of the geological deposits made to determine the thickness of the layers. Measures were taken to clarify the location of the material, to check for possible-. It is true that it does not come from ancient times. ”
According to Prasad, the cannon was made of a very primitive creature known as Ramapithecus. Finding river rock tools in such ancient sediments, he says, is evidence that early hominids – such as Ramapithecus – also created guns, walked on two legs, and may have used these guns to hunt. for days, however, most scientists view ramapithecus not as a precursor to man, but as the ancestor of modern orangutans. The Ramapithecus thus defined was certainly not the creator of stone tools.
In this situation, who made the Miocene tool described by Prasad? It is quite possible that these were anatomically modern people who lived through the Miocene. Even supposing that it is the work of some more primitive creature – such as Homo habilis – would also raise many questions. According to conventional wisdom, the first tools of the tool appeared in Africa about 2 million years ago.
Who made the eolite tools?
It is possible that even after hearing all the arguments in favor of the eoliths being made by humans (and many of these arguments are completely convincing), one may continue to have very reasonable doubts. The question is: can we forgive this person for not accepting the Eolites? The answer is yes but with one caveat. The caveat is this: this same man must deny other similar stonework. This means rejecting many commonly accepted productions, such as the Aldovan of East Africa, discovered by Louis and Mary Leakey. If we compare the Eolithic drawings of the Kent Plateau of East Anglia with the guns of the Olduva Defile, we are unlikely to see much difference in craftsmanship.
The most sensible conclusion is that both the European Eoliths and the Al-Dawan guns from East Africa were created purposefully. But from whom? Scientists accept, virtually without objection, that the Aldovan guns were made of Homo habilis, one of the primitive hominids. Therefore, it should not be absolutely unacceptable – for these same scientists – to accept the possibility that the East Elites and the Kent Plateau, some of whom are comparable in age to the Aldovan Cannons, were created by some creature similar to Homo habilis.
However, there is another possibility. In her book on Oldwan stone tools, Mary Leakey writes the following: “Recently, an interesting contemporary example of the use, as cutting tools, of untreated plates has been discovered in South West Africa. We could pay him some attention. An expedition from the Windhoek State Museum found two groups of this Jimba tribe that still use stone tools. Not only did they make cutters to break the bones and do other hard work, but they also served – when cutting and tearing – with unretouched and unattached simple plates. “In this situation, nothing stops us from accepting the opportunity for physically modern people to stand behind even the roughest stone tools found in the Olduva Gorge and across Europe’s eolite deposits.
The standard answer is that there are no fossils to indicate the presence of humans of the modern species at that time – during the early Pleistocene or Late Pliocene, 1 to 2 million years ago. In contrast, there are fossils from Homo habilis. The remains of Homo sapiens, however, are very rare even in late Pleistocene sites where many stone tools and any other traces of human habitation are found.
In addition, as will be apparent from chapters seven and twelve, scientists have discovered the skeletal remains of people with completely modern anatomy in layers that correspond to the lower levels of the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. Of these, we may mention the fossil human skeleton discovered in 1913 by Dr. Hans Reck – in layer II of the Olduva Gorge – and some of the human femur found by Richard Leakey at Lake Turkana in Kenya – in a formation that is slightly older than layer I in Olduvai.
It is therefore incorrect to claim that there is no evidence to support the presence of modern humans in the lower levels of Olduvai. In addition to the fossil evidence, we also have a message from Mary Leakey about some inexplicable circular stone structure from the DK deposit at the bottom of layer I. It suggests that “they may have been placed to support clusters in the ground. or bars that formed a shelter or a primitive hut. ”
“As a general impression,” she writes, “the circle is reminiscent of contemporary designs that are often made by today’s nomadic tribes. They erect low stone walls around their dwellings to serve as a support against the wind or to support branches that are curved at their upper end and are covered with skins or grass. “For illustration, Mary Leakey attached a photo of a similar temporary hut. , the work of the Okombambi tribe of South West Africa (now Namibia).
Leakey’s interpretation was not welcomed. But if we accept its version, there will be an obvious question: if it is convinced that the structure is similar to those created by modern nomadic tribes, such as the Ombomb, for example, why not assume that the Oldduwa Circle4 was made 1.75 million years ago by people with modern anatomy?
It is interesting to note that there is evidence that some of the tools of the Olduva Defile have been very developed. Here’s what J. Desmond Clark in 1971 in the preface to the study of Mary Leakey: “There are also artifacts that traditionally should be associated – from a typological point of view – with much later eras (late Late Paleolithic or even later periods) – miniature scrapers, awls, chisels … and a roller-shaped cannon with grooves and openings. “However, it must be noted that such guns, which refer to the” Late Paleolithic or later “, are attributed to the activity of Homo sapiens , not w & Noto habilis or Homo erectus. Advanced shaped stone tools have also been found in European eolite complexes. And so we could accept the possibility,
In addition, Lewis and Mary Leakey discovered – also in Plate I of the Olduwy defile – stones for marshes and implements, apparently intended for the treatment of leather, which may have been used to make moose belts. It seems to us that the use of bolas for catching game requires intelligence and dexterity beyond the capabilities of Nomo habilis. This impression is reinforced by the recent discovery of almost the entire skeleton of Nomo habilis, which showed that this hominid was much more human-like than previously thought.
Where is this taking us? We find that today people continue to make stone tools of all kinds – from primitive to advanced. And as is clear from this and the next two chapters, the same diversity is found in the Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, even in the Eocene. The simplest explanation is that people with modern anatomy, who create this whole set of tools today, have created them in the past. We could also imagine that these people coexisted with more primitive human-like beings who also made stone tools.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Michael Cremo was born in Schenectady, New York on July 15, 1948. He is a member of the World Archaeological Congress and the European Association of Archaeologists, as well as the Philosophy of Science Association and the History of Science Society.
In 1973, he joined the Hare Krishna movement and took the name Drutakarma Dasa, and after 1976 wrote dozens of articles for the journal Back to Godhead. In 1984, he became Assistant Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the Baktivedanta Institute. He co-wrote with Sadaputa Dasa (Richard Thompson) the books “Forbidden Archeology” and “The Hidden History of the Human Race” (literally translated “The Hidden History of Human Civilization” but in Bulgarian it was published as “The Secret” history of human civilization ‘), presenting the Vaishnavist views on archeology and the Puranic model as opposed to the Judeo-Christian model.
He presented these ideas to the Third World Archaeological Congress (1994) and to the V World Archeological Congress (June 21-26, 2003), where he organized a presentation session on the topic of “History of Service” -isms “in archeology” in section Colonialism, Identity and Public Responsibility.
Over the years, he has participated in many scientific conferences and symposiums, television and radio broadcasts, lectures and multimedia presentations in many places around the world – the Royal Institute of Great Britain, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Darwin Museum in Moscow, universities and colleges in: Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, Maryland, Newark, Berkeley, Seattle, London, New Castle, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Louvain, Bern, Groningen, Utrecht, Ghent, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Moscow and others .