Chaordic: any self-organizing,
adaptive organization the
In addition to updates on
Michael Cremo's Forbidden Archeology
NEWS
Article on Carlos Ribeiro
in Nexus magazine
The current issue of Nexus
magazine (vol. 8, no. 1,
Ancient Aussie: The oldest
human DNA ever recovered
Australian scientists studying
ancient human fossils have
“Millennium Man” predates
“Lucy”
The discovery of “Millennium
Man” by a French and Kenyan
Australian Zircon Crystal
dated at 4.4 Billion Years
January 14, 2001 – A Science
Team announced in the journal
Memories: Rethinking History
The Centre for Neural Science
at New York University has
FORTHCOMING EVENTS
MUFON of Orange County
hosts Michael Cremo
Michael Cremo featured
speaker at First Annual Northwest
Star Knowledge “Heart
of the Heart” Conference
10th Annual International
UFO Congress
REFLECTIONS OF A FORBIDDEN
ARCHEOLOGIST
While some members of the
orthodox archeological establishment are
(*)Ian Hodder. Always momentary,
fluid, and flexible:
Michael A. Cremo
Letters to www.mcremo.com:
Question: I read all
your correspondence with great interest as
Answer: Thank you
for your words of encouragement. As for
1. I find honesty to be the
best policy in all fields of life, including
Sincerely yours,
Question: You
appear to make claims without any solid evidence
Answer: I am approaching
things as an historian of archeology.
behavior of which harmoniously
combines both characteristics
of chaos and order.
-word coined by Dee Hock,
founder of VISA
__________________________________________________
Amidst a kaleidoscope of
changes we hope that you are
experiencing progress toward
your personal and organizational
goals!
research, media outreach,
and feedback, we welcome your
contributions to facilitate
critical thinking and networking amidst
our diverse community of
Forbidden Archeology compatriots.
–Lori Erbs, Newsflash Editor.
Jan-Feb 2001) includes an
article by Michael Cremo
“The Excavations of Carlos
Ribeiro.” The Nexus
blurb reads: “In the 1860s,
Portuguese geologist Carlos
Ribeiro found worked flints
in Miocene strata dated at
five to 25 million years
old, but his findings on this early
date for the emergence of
toolmaking humans are largely
unknown today.”
NEWS ROUNDUP
dents “out-of-Africa”
theory
recovered DNA that throws
into question the theory that
modern Homo sapiens spread
throughout the world in a
single migration out of
Africa about 100,000 years ago.
Go to: http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/evolution_outofafrica010109.html
science team is at least
six million years old, predating “Lucy”
and other previous finds.
Go to: http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/dailynews/hominid_kenya001204.html
Nature that a small zircon
crystal collected from Jack Hills, Australia
dates back to 4.4 billion
years. This find is catalyzing yet another
paradigm shift in scientists’
theories of the origin of planet earth.
Go to: http://www,earthfiles.com/earth203.htm
(story courtesy of Linda
Moultin Howe)
discovered that every time
a memory is pulled into consciousness,
the brain takes it apart,
updates it and then makes new proteins
in the process of putting
the memory back into long-term storage.
(Article by Sandra Blakeslee
in New York Times Sept. 19, 2000)
http://www.nytimes.com
for a guest lecture on Wednesday,
March 28, 2001 at 7:30 pm
in Costa Mesa, California.
Go to:
http://www.mufonoc.org for details
UFO/Paranormal Conference
Memorial Day Weekend (May
25 – 28) 2001 in Seattle.
Now is not too early to
register!
Go to: http://www.seattleartbellchatclub.com
for full details.
March 2-4, 2001 - Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, Sheraton Four Points
Center Go to: http://www.star-knowledge.com
for more info.
March 4-10, 2001 – River
Palms Resort, Laughlin, Nevada
Go to: http:///www.ufocongress.com
for more info
striving the maintain their
exclusive authority and control over the
process of picturing the
past for the rest of society, some few
archeologists are starting
to take notice of the evolving situation
represented by personalities
such as this forbidden archeologist,
with his roots in the ancient
Vedic tradition of India. In a perceptive
article in Antiquity a couple
of years ago (*), Cambridge University
archeologist Ian Hodder
wrote: "Day by day it becomes more
difficult to argue for a
past controlled by the academy. The
proliferation of special
interests on the 'fringe' increasingly
challenges, or spreads to,
the dominant discourse itself" (p. 699).
The "forbidden archeology"
phenomenon has done both. Over
the past few years, I have
certainly been working to challenge
the "dominant discourse,"
and, indeed, through my presentations
at mainstream archeological
conferences, sometimes resulting in
my papers appearing in otherwise
orthodox professional
archeological publications,
the challenge has in fact spread
into the realm of the dominant
discourse. Of course, this is
not just true of me and
my work, but of that of many others
working in the fields of
alternative history and archeology.
Ian Hodder took notice in
his article of the varieties of virtual
alternative knowledge communities
springing up on the web,
acknowledging that "many
are extremely well informed."
(p. 699) He then said
that "it is no longer so easy to see
who is 'in' the academy
and who is 'outside." (p. 700)
Hodder is not just a theorist.
He is actively involved in the
excavations of the old Hittite
city of Catal Huyuk in Turkey.
In a practical demonstration
of his views expressed above,
he has involved New Age
goddess worshipers and
ecofeminists, who have an
interest in the site, in the ongoing
exploration and development
of the site. Hopefully, things
will continue to progress
in this direction, with academy-trained
archeologists and well-informed
representatives of alternative
wisdom traditions cooperating
to produce new ways of
understanding the past.
Hodder cited efforts by North American
archeologists to "work
together with native Americans and
integrate the use of oral
traditions in archeological interpretation."
The American archeologists
involved in one such effort said
that it shows "scientific
knowledge does not constitute a
privileged view of the past
. . . it is simply another way of
knowing the past." (**)
My own effort has been focused on
bringing the Vedic tradition
of India into mainstream
archeological discourse,
thus contributing another way of
knowing the past.
toward a reflexive excavation
methodology. Antiquity 71
(1997): 691-700.
(**) R. Anyon et al. Native
American oral traditions and
archaeology. American
Archaeological Bulletin 14(2)
(1996):14-16.
____________________________
FORUM: Comrades in the
Evolution Revolution
I too believe the universe
to have a Creator, although I believe
this through faith in the
Bible as the word of God, as well as
viewing the theory of evolution
with common sense and a deep
lifelong interest in archaeology.
Even though I disagree with
your opinion that the ancient
Indian writings portray
the truth of our origins, you are still doing a
good work by lifting up
God as the Creator and attempting to shine
light on the darkness.
I do have one concern, though.
It is that after you have used
impeccable science and stressed
the importance of documenting
ancient finds in relation
to others, using scientific proofs, etc.,
your work will be discounted
because of your semi-religious view
regarding the Hindu writing.
If you would stick to the
pure science, you would win many
converts. These potential
converts, upon hearing or reading of
your spiritual beliefs,
will discount your discoveries as being the
work of a fanatic, or somehow
not based in science.
Thank you for extremely
interesting and enlightening reading.
your concern about my openly
acknowledging my spiritual
commitment, I have a few
things to say:
the scientific. I don't
wish to behave diplomatically, pretending to
be something I am not.
2. I believe it is a genuine
scientific question as to whether or
not God has an intelligible
and scientifically meaningful role to
play in discussion of the
origin of our species. In general, I don't
think it is ultimately possible
to consider this question, or any other
important scientific question,
apart from the question of God. The
attempt to put God outside
science is arbitrary and artificial, and I
don't wish to play along
with that intellectual prejudice.
3. My practical experience
is that I have not suffered too much from
openly acknowledging my
Vedic perspective on science. For
example, earlier this year,
I was invited to speak at the prestigious
Royal Institution in London,
one of the world's oldest scientific
societies, even though in
my proposal to them I openly announced
my Vedic perspective. Furthermore,
I have been invited to present
papers at many scientific
conferences, and in each case, the
proposals I submitted announced
my Vedic perspective. In each
case, the proposals passed
peer review, and were accepted, and
when I have actually presented
my papers, I have found hearers
displayed considerable interest.
I have presented such papers,
openly acknowledging my
Vedic perspective, at the World
Archeological Congress,
the European Association of
Archeologists, the International
Congress for History of Science,
etc. In some cases, my papers
openly acknowledging my
Vedic perspective have been
published in peer-reviewed
conference proceedings volumes.
For example, my paper
Puranic Time and the Archaeological
Record, originally
presented at the World Archaeological
Congress, came out
last year in a peer-reviewed
conference proceedings volume
titled Time and Archaeology,
edited by archaeologist Tim
Murray, and published by
Routledge, as part of its One World
Archaeology series.
4. Actually, in the scientific
world today there is a great interest in
questions of science and
religion, and the barriers between the two
are not as strong as they
were even a few years ago. Of course,
there are some who would
like to keep the barriers up. But I am
more concerned with those
who have more open minds.
Michael A. Cremo
to back it up. Where
is your original research, where are your
empirical results? Have
you done anything but try ineffectively
to debunk other theories
by twisting facts? I think not.
My claim is that if one
looks at the entire history of archeology,
one will find that over
the past 150 years, archeologists and
other earth scientists have
reported in their professional literature
large amounts of evidence
for extreme human antiquity, putting
humans back much further
in time than current theories allow.
A further claim is that
this evidence, recorded in the primary
scientific literature, is
not transmitted through the secondary
literature (i.e. textbooks,
popular presentations) or cited in today's
primary scientific literature
because it contradicts evolutionary
preconceptions. My
original research has been to document
those two claims by showing
the existence of such reports and
the process by which they
have been eliminated from current
discourse in archeology.
The reports and the recorded process
of their elimination from
discourse constitute empirical evidence
for my claims.
My work is highly controversial,
and I expect varieties of
reactions. Yours represents
one type of reaction, but it is not
the only one. My empirical
results, as defined above, can be
found in my book Forbidden
Archeology. They can also be found
in the papers I have presented
at professional archeological
conferences. For example,
you can see my chapter in Time and
Archeology, a peer reviewed
conference proceedings volume
edited by archeologist Tim
Murray, and published last year by
Routledge (London). The
chapter was orginally presented at the
World Archeological Congress.
The paper I presented at the
XXth International Congress
of History of Science was also
selected for publication
in a peer-reviewed conference
proceedings volume (forthcoming)
and the paper I presented
last year at the European
Association of Archeologists annual
meeting is coming out in
a peer-reviewed conference proceedings
volume to be published by
British Archeological Reports. I was
also invited earlier this
year to lecture for the Royal Institution of
Great Britain, one of the
old, established scientific societies in
England.
Also, here are some selections
from a review article about
reviews of Forbidden Archeology:
"It must be acknowledged that
Forbidden Archeology brings
to attention many interesting issues
that have not received much
consideration from historians; and
the authors' detailed examination
of the early literature is certainly
stimulating and raises questions
of considerable interest, both
historically and from the
perspective of practitioners of sociology
of scientific knowledge.
. . . Has Forbidden Archeology made
any contribution at all
to the literature on palaeoanthropology?
Our answer is a guarded
'yes', for two reasons. First, while the
authors go in for overkill
in terms of swamping the reader with
detail . . . much of the
historical material they resurrect has
not been scrutinized in
such detail before. Second, . . .
Cremo and Thompson do raise
a central problematic regarding