confided in him by word of mouth a number of invaluable secrets; and armed thus . the development Encyclopedia of Ancie. Michael A Cremo is a research associate of the Bhaktivedanta Institute specializing in the history and philosophy of science. His persistent investigations during. Forbidden archeology: The hidden history of the human race. By Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute. xxx‐ viii.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|ePub File Size:||20.70 MB|
|PDF File Size:||13.67 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race. A couple of years ago, in the middle of my talk about my book. Forbidden Archeology to students and professors of earth sci- ences at the Free University of. I perceive in Forbidden Archeology an important work of thoroughgoing .. In Part II of Forbidden Archeology, we survey the body of accepted evidence that is .
Request Username Can't sign in? Forbidden Archeology: He says they fail to give due credit to the advances in technique that distinguish science in recent times from that of the nineteenth century. In Cremo and Thompson's words, archeological and paleoanthropological "'facts' turn out to be networks of arguments and observational claims" that assemble a discipline's "truth" regardless, at times, of whether there is any agreed upon connection to the physical evidence or to the actual work done at the physical site of discovery. Archaeology focuses on human affairs, uses seemingly familiar objects as data, and has a long tradition of amateur participation.
As Michael Lynch reminds us, "scientists construct and use instruments, modify specimen materials, write articles, make pictures and build organizations. In Cremo and Thompson's words, archeological and paleoanthropological "'facts' turn out to be networks of arguments and observational claims" that assemble a discipline's "truth" regardless, at times, of whether there is any agreed upon connection to the physical evidence or to the actual work done at the physical site of discovery.
This perspective, albeit radical, accords with what I see as the best of the new work being done in studies of scientific knowledge. Forbidden Archeology does not conceal its own positioning on a relativist spectrum of knowledge production. The authors admit to their own sense of place in a knowledge universe with contours derived from personal experience with Vedic philosophy, religious perception, and Indian cosmology. In my view, it is just this openness of subjective positioning that makes Forbidden Archeology an original and important contribution to postmodern scholarly studies now being done in sociology, anthropology, archeology, and the history of science and ideas.
The authors' unique perspective provides postmodern scholars with an invaluable parallax view of historical scientific praxis, debate, and development. Pierce J. Flynn, Ph. Mary Leakey and others said the prints were indistinguishable from those of modem humans.
To these scientists, this meant only that the human ancestors of 3.
But according to other scientists, such as physical anthropologist R. Tuttle of the University of Chicago, fossil bones of the known australopithecines of 3. Hence they were incompatible with the Laetoli prints. In an article in the March issue of Natural History, Tuttle confessed that "we are left with somewhat of a mystery. Perhaps, as suggested in the illustration on the opposite page, they coexisted with more apelike creatures.
As intriguing as this archeological possibility may be, current ideas about human evolution forbid it. Knowledgeable persons will warm against positing the existence of anatomically modem humans millions of years ago on the slim basis of the Laetoli footprints. But there is further evidence.
Over the past few decades, scientists in Africa have uncovered fossil bones that look remarkably human. In , Bryan Patterson and W. W Howells found a surprisingly modem humerus upper arm bone at Kanapoi, Kenya. Scientists judged the humerus to be over 4 million years old. Henry M. McHenry and Robert S. Corruccini of the University of California said the Kanapoi humerus was "barely distinguishable from modem Homo.
Scientists normally assign the ER femur, which is about 2 million years old, to prehuman Homo habilis. But since the ER femur was found by itself, one cannot rule out the possibility that the rest of the skeleton was also anatomically modem.
Interestingly enough, in the German scientist Hans Reck found at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, a complete anatomically modem human skeleton in strata over I million years old, inspiring decades of controversy.
Here again, some will caution us not to set a few isolated and controversial examples against the overwhelming amount of noncontroversial evidence showing that anatomically modem humans evolved from more apelike creatures fairly recently-about , years ago, in Africa, and, in the view of some, in other parts of the world as well.
But it turns out we have not exhausted our resources with the Laetoli footprints, the Kanapoi humerus, and the ER femur.
Over the past eight years, Richard Thompson and I, with the assistance of our researcher Stephen Bernath, have amassed an extensive body of evidence that calls into question current theories of human evolution. Some of this evidence, like the Laetoli footprints, is fairly recent. But much of it was reported by scientists in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And as you can see, our discussion of this evidence fills up quite a large book.
Without even looking at this older body of evidence, some will assume that there must be something wrong with it-that it was properly disposed of by scientists long ago, for very good reasons. Richard and I have looked rather deeply into that possibility. We have concluded, however, that the quality of this controversial evidence is no better or worse than the supposedly noncontroversial evidence usually cited in favor of current views about human evolution.
But Forbidden Archeology is more than a well-documented catalog of unusual facts. It is also a sociological, philosophical, and historical critique of the scientific method, as applied to the question of human origins and antiquity.
Each of these scholars has a unique perspective on SSK, but they would all probably agree with the following programmatic statement. Scientists' conclusions do not identically correspond to states and processes of an objective natural reality. Instead, such conclusions reflect the real social processes of scientists as much as, more than, or even rather than what goes on in nature.
The critical approach we take in Forbidden Archeology also resembles that taken by philosophers of science such as Paul Feyerabend, who holds that science has attained too privileged a position in the intellectual field, and by historians of science such as J. Rudwick, who has explored in detail the nature of scientific controversy. As does Rudwick in The Great Devonian Controversy, we use narrative to present our material, which encompasses not one controversy but many controversies - controversies long resolved, controversies as yet unresolved, and controversies now in the making.
This has necessitated extensive quoting from primary and secondary sources, and giving rather detailed accounts of the twists and turns of complex paleoanthropological debates. For those working in disciplines connected with human origins and antiquity, Forbidden Archeology, provides a well-documented compendium of reports absent from many current references and not otherwise easily obtainable.
One of the last authors to discuss the kind of reports found in Forbidden Archeology was Marcellin Boule. In his book Fossil Men , Boule gave a decidedly negative review. But upon examining the original reports, we found Boule's total skepticism unjustified. In Forbidden Archeology, we provide primary source material that will allow modem readers to form their own opinions about the evidence Boule dismissed. We also introduce a great many cases that Boule neglected to mention.
From the evidence we have gathered, we conclude, sometimes in language devoid of ritual tentativeness, that the now-dominant assumptions about human origins are in need of drastic revision. We also find that a process of knowledge filtration has left current workers with a radically incomplete collection of facts. We anticipate that many workers will take Forbidden Archeology as an invitation to productive discourse on 1 the nature and treatment of evidence in the field of human origins and 2 the conclusions that can most reasonably drawn from this evidence.
In the first chapter of Part I of Forbidden Archeology, we survey the history and current state of scientific ideas about human evolution. We also discuss some of the epistemological principles we employ in our study of this field. Principally, we are concerned with a double standard in the treatment of evidence. We identify two main bodies of evidence. The first is a body of controversial evidence A , which shows the existence of anatomically modem humans in the uncomfortably distant past.
The second is a body of evidence B , which can be interpreted as supporting the currently dominant views that anatomically modem humans evolved fairly recently, about , years ago in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere. We also identify standards employed in the evaluation of paleoanthropological evidence. After detailed study, we found that if these standards are applied equally to A and B, then we must accept both A and B or reject both A and B. If we accept both A and B, then we have evidence placing anatomically modem humans millions of years ago, coexisting with more apelike hominids.
If we reject both A and B, then we deprive ourselves of the evidential foundation for making any pronouncements whatsoever about human origins and antiquity.
Historically, a significant number of professional scientists once accepted the evidence in category A. Volume 93 , Issue 1. Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account. If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username.
First published: January Tools Request permission Export citation Add to favorites Track citation. Share Give access Share full text access. Share full text access. Please review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article. Volume 93 , Issue 1 January Pages Related Information.