Forbidden Archeology

Most of us have been led to believe that modern humans came into being only a hundred thousand years ago more or less.  Some of us have been taught that we were created far more recently.  But a very interesting book claims that modern humans have been around for millions of years.  In Forbidden Archeology, Michael Cremo and Dr. Richard Thompson present hundreds of pieces of evidence to back up this claim.  Much of it dates from the 19th century and has been collecting dust in the back rooms of museums throughout the world.

It has been several years since I read the book but it left a powerful impression upon me to this day.  In the following video, the authors give a brief overview of their case:

The scientific establishment has repeatedly dismissed evidence of the presence of modern humans in the distant past.  While I cannot claim that Forbidden Archeology presents a bullet-proof case, it does highlight the need for serious consideration of this evidence.  It also illustrates the fact that the scientific establishment is strongly opposed to the idea of modern humans having existed for millions of years.

Why is this so?  Could it be that such an admission would lead to further questions – questions about the antiquity of the various races of humanity?  Aside from its supporting evidence, the Out of Africa/ Mitochondrial Eve theory is popular because it allows the establishment to claim (not very effectively) that the races of Man are a recent phenomenon and, therefore, of little significance.  The discovery that Mankind is millions of years old would throw a monkey wrench into this schema.

The authors of Forbidden Archeology give no hint of race-realism (not that I can remember) and they seem to believe that the opposition, by the scientific establishment, to their theories is simply a matter of defending the status qu0.  That there is no underlying foundation to this opposition other than that they don’t want to be proven wrong.  But if we look at it from a racial science perspective, then this opposition makes a lot more sense; it has an ideological element that is grounded in politics.


About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in book/movie/video reviews and links, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Forbidden Archeology

  1. Aside from its supporting evidence, the Out of Africa/ Mitochondrial Eve theory is popular because it allows the establishment to claim (not very effectively) that the races of Man are a recent phenomenon and, therefore, of little significance. The discovery that Mankind is millions of years old would throw a monkey wrench into this schema.

    Well spotted. Mitochondrial Eve is when genetic history begins, according to the mainstream (just as the Crusades are when political history begins). You can’t look previous to Mitochondrial Eve for the reasons you’ve outlined, but you also can’t look a the Seven Daughters of Eve which either hypothesizes or proves that Europeans are genetically quite distinct even from other Caucasoid peoples (e.g. Indo-Aryans). That book is next on my list after Who Stole Feminism?; I’ll report back.

  2. B.B. says:

    Bradley T. Lepper & Colin Groves over at sum up the problems with Cremo & Thompson’s archaeological theories.

    On another note, I wholeheartedly recommend Who Stole Feminism.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Yep. It does appear that the review you cited tears apart the claims of “Forbidden Archeology”. Though it’s been a long time since I read the book, the critique brought back details I had forgotten. Thanks for sharing!

  3. bob sykes says:

    First of all, the 16/18s rRNA and mt- and Y-DNA data are the best evidence for evolution of all organisms, and very strong data is needed to dispute it. The chief problem is the rate of mutational change. But this can be checked against K/Ar and U/Pb dating methods, and the accepted rate is likely correct within a factor of two.

    So, with both mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA arguing for an African origin within the last 200,000 years or so, archaelogical finds suggesting much older human origins are suspect, Especially since the great majority of hominim/hominid finds in Africa are consistent with the genetic data.

    Furthermore, the rate of evolution is likely very much higher than is normally believed. The high IQs of Ashkenazi Jews probably arose beginning in Medieval Europe only 500 years ago. Certainly, the Sephardic Jews display no such advantage.

    Recall also the Russian foxes, which were domesticated in only 20 generations.

    I like “Forbidden Archeology”, too, but the authors are probably cranks. So is Van Daniken and Velikovsky. Entertaining, but cranks.

    • a.n.animus says:

      Bob is talking (Russian fox) about this

      which was one of the highlights of the Nova episode “Dogs decoded”.

      It would be difficult for an intelligent, scientifically minded person to watch that episode and remain unconvinced of the race realist position.
      It is also clear after watching it, what exactly must be done to close the “achievement gap”, but I really doubt that anything like that is feasible.

      • jewamongyou says:

        Most people are not willing to make the leap from foxes to humans. In their eyes, humans are a breed apart – not subject to the whims of biology and nature as other creatures are.

      • Well first, I happen to like foxes, and second, that Nova episode is available on the Netflix instant view service. So I’m on board.

        Getting people to accept, first, that humans are a type of animal rather than a freak type of deity who happens to be afflicted with mortality is quite difficult. It’s also quite difficult to get people to accept that humans are a subspecies rather than a race.

      • a.n.animus says:

        What’s odd about this is that I know quite a few atheists who are ardent supporters of evolution, and who DO accept that humans have evolved, but who suddenly become creationists when the topic of subspecies of humans arises.

        Steve Sailer pointed this quandary out before

        “Perhaps the two doctrines currently most de rigueur for entry into intellectual polite society:

        1. That humanity evolved from lower animals according to the process of natural selection outlined by Charles Darwin.

        2. That humanity has not evolved any patterns of genetic variation corresponding to geographic ancestry … well, none other than the obvious ones that we can all see.”

        I can’t see how this doublethink can remain in place indefinitely. Once can transpose virtually every scientific discussion of race onto some other species (foxes, dogs, bees, bears, …) without raising eyebrows. Also, I haven’t noticed anyone getting upset if I suggest a (West African) Black advantage in sprinting or similar activities. It’s only the suggestion of lower average Black intelligence or similar deficiencies in some heritable personality trait (like conscientiousness) that provokes ire. The explanations I have received are usually along the lines of “Well sprinting is *physical*, intelligence isn’t!”.

  4. destructure says:

    Genetic analysis suggests humans and chimps only diverged about 5 MYA. So it would be hard to argue for intelligent hominids earlier than that. The case for intelligent hominids hundreds of millions of years ago would be very difficult because there is no evidence that primates even existed prior to 65 MYA.

    If you like this sort of interesting archeology then you should check out The site is clearly realist. Some of the articles are a bit hokey i.e. giants and atlantis. But a lot of it is legit, too.

  5. John says:

    It depends on what you defined as “Modern Human”. Agriculture is only 5000 to 10000 years old. Evidence suggests that we are not the same people before and after agriculture. Heck, even skulls that are a few hundred years old shows a people with smaller forehead than the modern ones occupying the same region (in this case in England).

  6. seedofjapheth says:

    For some reason there are many in the academic community who think that the Out of Africa theory is the key to combatting “racism” but in reality for most people it makes no difference to them whether or not all human races evolved from the same type of human or not in terms of their racial outlook. Most people base their racial outlook on things that have nothing to do with whether or not out of Africa theory is true.

  7. Surely “modern humans” only appeared ca 40,000 years ago in the form of “Cromagnon Man” who, intriguingly, had a considerably larger brain than so-called “modern man”, a category which we are supposed to believe includes IQ 60 Australian Aboriginies, stone-age New Guinean savages, IQ 50 Congolese pygmies, and all negroids and brown races in general. I would really like to know what is going on here, but the question itself is RACIST..!!

    • destructure says:

      Bantu Education-

      There has been a general trend for more advanced hominid species to have larger brains. Therefore, most people conclude larger brains means more intelligence. This is supported by the fact that brain size and intelligence tends to correlate in populations of Africa, Australia & Eurasia etc. However, that’s not the case in North and South America. Amerindians from North America have larger brains than Amerindians from South America but they’re not more intelligent.

      So how does one reconcile this contradiction? Simple. People at higher latitudes have larger brains because of the colder climate. The fact that larger brains and higher intelligence exist together at higher latitudes in Africa, Australia & Eurasia is largely coincidental. Cro magnons probably had larger brains than humans today because of the climate.

      • Zimriel says:

        destructure, can you give us a link to both brain size data and IQ data between North American Amerinds, and South?

        (Which is not to say I disbelieve. It is well-known that Neanderthals had larger brains than, well, anyone. And in 500,000 years in the Near East and Europe they did jacksquat, civilisationally. That would have been a better example.)

        My theory is that cranial volume imposes an upper limit on IQ. The Neanderthals didn’t reach it. Some of the Maya and Quechua approached it. Many Ashkenazim surpass it and have the genetic problems and/or autism to prove that point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s