Michael Cremo lectures at Microsoft
On Wednesday, May 30, 2001,
Michael Cremo presented a
lecture/slideshow on “Forbidden Archeology: Evidence
Against Darwin’s Theory” for Microsoft employees at the
company’s international headquarters in Redmond, Washington.
Learning Channel Special on Atlantis - June 22, 2001
Watch for an upcoming Learning
Channel special called “Atlantis
in the Andes” featuring Michael Cremo and other authorities on
anomalous evidence for ancient human origins. Airdate is June
22, 2001 at 10:00 pm. Check your local stations for time variance.
Origin of the Human Species
Dr. Dennis Bonnette has released
an interdisciplinary work entitled
Origin of the Human Species that critically evaluates the best
arguments supporting and opposing biological evolution, with
extensive analysis of the philosophical possibility of inter-specific
evolution. In it he devotes an entire chapter to Forbidden Archeology.
For more information visit: http://www.amazon.com
You Are Being Lied To
Disinformation Books announces
a new release edited
by Russ Kick called You Are Being Lied To: The
Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion,Historical
Whitewashes and Cultural Myths (April 2001). Michael Cremo
has contributed a chapter on Forbidden Archeology for this
compilation of exposes.
Go to: http://www.disinfo.com
Press Conference on The Disclosure Project
Washington, DC – May 9,
2001 Twenty former government
workers testified that they had witnessed evidence of aliens
and unidentified flying objects at a press conference at the
National Press Club organized by Steven Greer, Director of the
Disclosure Project, a nonprofit research organization
dedicated to disclosing alleged alien sightings.
Go to: http://www.cseti.org for more info.
Lake Turkana, Kenya.
Meave Leakey and her
colleagues have discovered fossil evidence for
a new genus and species of early hominin
called Kenyanthropus platyops. The cranium,
dated to 3.5 million years ago, adds another
twist to the already complex and unresolved
tapestry of human evolution. For complete story go to:
Carbon 14 Dating Update
Tucson – May 14, 2001
A team of American and British
scientists report that radiocarbon levels in Earth’s
atmosphere during the last Ice Age were more than
twice as high as today. Since marking time with
Carbon 14 requires an accurate record of atmospheric
radiocarbon through time, this discovery necessitates
recalculations for a dating method that is already
regarded as highly inaccurate.
Go to: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iceage-01b.html
Unsolved Mysteries Exhibit Opening in Vienna
Michael Cremo will speak
at a conference to open the
Unsolved Mysteries Exhibit June 22-23 in Gartenbaukino,
Vienna. This rare exhibit featuring 300 out-of-place artifacts
from around the world will be shown at the Vienna Arts Center
in Schottenshift from June 22-September 21, 2001.
For more info go to: http://www.unsolved-mysteries.net.
The Earth-Star Gathering,
Songs of the Morning Star Gathering
will take place on the Yankton Sioux Reservation, SD August
For more info contact <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Prophet’s Conference in Victoria, BC
Don’t miss the Prophet’s
Conference at the University of
Victoria, British Columbia August 17-19, 2001!
Check it out at:
REFLECTIONS OF A FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGIST
In August 1999, Meave Leakey
and her colleagues found a nearly
complete hominid skeleton near Lake Turkana, Kenya. The
creature is 3.5 million years old, roughly the same age as
Australopithecus afarensis. The most famous member of the
A. afarensis family is Lucy, discovered in Ethiopia in the 1970s by
Don Johanson, and long trumpeted as a direct human ancestor.
But that distinction is now in danger of being lost to an upstart.
Instead of identifying her find as a new member of the genus
Australopithecus, Meave Leakey stirred up the hominid world by
creating a new genus and species for it: Kenyanthropus platyops.
One feature that especially distinguished the new hominid from
Australopithecus, according to Leakey, was its flat facial profile
(hence the species name platyops, which means “flat face”).
Scientists now cannot be sure that the first human ancestor was
Lucy. Maybe it was Flat Face. That would be quite a shock,
because up to now, everyone has thought the human ancestor
from this time period (3-4 million years ago) was sure to be a
member of the Australopithecus family.
Actually, the annoucement
of K. platyops by Meave Leakey is
just the latest shot in a war against Australopithecus that has
been waged by generations of the Leakey family since the
early part of the twentieth century.
As early as the 1930s, Louis
Leakey had been arguing that
Homo erectus couldn’t have been a human ancestor, and later,
in the 1950s, when Australopithecus became firmly accepted as
a human ancestor, he also objected to this. Mary Leakey
followed her husband and Richard Leakey followed his father
in declaring Australopithecus not a human ancestor.
Today, Louis and Mary Leakey
are both deceased, and
Richard Leakey has largely retired from paleoanthropology,
occupying himself with environmental affairs in Kenya. So
Richard’s wife Meave has moved into the front lines of the
Although Meave Leakey is
speaking cautiously, she has
created a new genus for her creature, calling it Kenyanthropus
rather than Australopithecus. The name is significant.
Anthropus means "human" whereas pithecus means "ape."
So Meave Leakey is obviously putting K. platyops in the human
line, implying that Australopithecus is nothing more than an
extinct ape, unrelated to humans.
Of course, my reply is that
nor Australopithecus are human ancestors because there is
evidence that anatomically modern humans existed alongside
them and before them.
Indeed, some of this evidence
was discovered by the Leakeys
themselves! For example, Mary Leakey in 1974 discovered at
Laetoli dozens of footprints, which she characterized as
indistinguishable from modern human footprints. She found them
in layers of solidified volcanic ash 3.7 million years old. In 1973,
Richard Leakey reported the discovery of a femur (ER 1481) at
Lake Turkana. He characterized it as indistinguishable from the
femur of a modern human, and it was dated at about 1.9 million
years. (Mary and Richard Leakey, influenced by their commitment
to the theory of evolution, did not think their discoveries belonged
to modern humans, even though that is the most straightforward
interpretation.) In the 1930s, Louis Leakey endorsed Hans Reck’s
discovery of an anatomically modern human skeleton in Upper Bed
II of Olduvai Gorge, in layers over 1 million years old.
Put this evidence from the
Leakeys together with numerous other
examples of evidence for extreme human antiquity documented in
Forbidden Archeology and Flat Face and Lucy both fail as human
Michael A. Cremo
For details of Michael Cremo’s Spring 2001visit to Hungary go to:
FORUM: Comrades in the Evolution Revolution
Letters to email@example.com:
Question: The bottom
of the Piri Ries Map shows an eastwards
extension of coastline from the lower tip of the S. American
continent which has been identified by some as the edge of the
Antarctic continent. However, if you look at an oceanographic
map of this area, there is a remarkable similarity between the
Piri Reis extension and the underwater Scotia Ridge – which,
if the sea level were lower, or the Ridge raised, would match
very closely the unbroken coastline (as shown in the Piri Reis
map) all the way to South Georgia Island and east of there to
the limits of the map. Any comments regarding this observation
would be appreciated.
I will say that I’m not an expert on the Piri Reis
map, although I am familiar with discussions of it from a
variety of sources, and have a picture of the map in front of
me now. Your suggestion seems worthy of consideration.
I guess the next step for you would be to determine when
the Scotia Ridge was last exposed during times of lowered
sea levels. Of course, it is generally accepted that sea
levels all around the world were lowered during the Ice Ages
by at least a couple hundred feet. So I guess it depends upon
how deeply the Scotia Ridge is submerged. If you come up
with any answers to these questions, please let me know.
Michael A. Cremo
I have many books and read
extensively all of the archeology books I can find. Unfortunately,
most are just the tired old worn-out conspired books printed in
government approved publications for mass-consumption, or
too technical for the average Joe six-pack to even begin to
ponder their weighty depths. Your book was and still is an
easy read. Your book should be required reading for all junior
and senior high school children. It is in my house.
Question: I am a student
at Ohio State University and I need
to write a paper about human evolution for one of my classes.
The paper is about the pros and cons of teaching human
evolution in public schools. I was wondering if you know of
any Peer Reviewed articles i.e. in scientific journals that
challenge the current theories of evolution. If you do, would
you be able to e-mail me any information. Thank you.
Answer: At the
present moment anti-evolution views are not
very popular among scientists, and are therefore not often
found in peer-reviewed journals. But perhaps even more
significant is that there are no articles in peer-reviewed journals
that actually support the current theories of evolution. The
current theory is based on molecular biology and genetics.
Genes code for proteins, and changes in genes supposedly
result in different proteins being produced in different ways
that change the structure of organisms on the biomolecular
level. The idea is that by natural selection, the biomolecular
changes that confer some advantage are preserved and those
that don't are not preserved. Supposedly, this process can
result in new structures. So if evolution is true, one should be
able to show step by step how complex features of living things
(such as the eye, the immune system, etc.) have come about
in a step by step fashion on the biomolecular level. If one can't
do this, then one hasn't shown in a scientific way that evolution
actually happens. It becomes merely an article of scientific faith.
Biochemist Michael Behe says:
"In the past ten years
Journal of Molecular Evolution has
published more than a thousand papers. Of these, about one
hundred discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought
to be necessary for the origin of life, about fifty proposed
mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, and
about eight hundred were analyses of sequences. There
were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates
in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is
not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss
detailed models for intermediates in the development of
complex biomolecular structures, whether in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the
Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any science
journal." Behe 1998, p. 183.
"The idea of Darwinian molecular
evolution is not based on
science. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in
journals or books—that describes how molecular evolution
of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or
even might have occurred. There are assertions that
such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported
by pertinent experiments or calculations." Behe 1998, p. 183
Behe, Michael J. (1998) Intelligent
design theory as a tool
for analyzing biochemical systems. In William A. Dembski,
ed. Mere Creation: Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design.
Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, pp. 177-194.
He makes the same point in
his book Darwin's Black Box.
There can be found in peer reviewed journals articles that
contain evidence contradicting the theory of evolution, but
the articles will not be presented as being anti-evolutionary.
In my book Forbidden Archeology, I have presented lots
of evidence from peer-reviewed journals that contradicts
the current theory of human evolution.
Also, we have to keep in
mind that scientific ideas are formed
not just on the basis of articles in peer-reviewed journals, but
by papers published in peer reviewed conference proceedings
volumes and in books putting forth scientific concepts. After all,
Darwin didn't publish his theory of evolution in a peer-reviewed
journal. He published it in a book. So I think you can look at
books like Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, Icons of
Evolution by Jonathan Wells, and Mere Creation, edited by
William A. Dembski. And from those books you can see how
the authors extract information from peer-reviewed scientific
journals that contradicts the theory of evolution.
I have recently had a paper
contradicting the current theory
of human evolution published in a peer reviewed conference
proceedings volume. The paper is called Puranic Time and
the Archaeological Record, and it can be found in Time and
Archaeology, edited by Tim Murray, published by Routledge,
I hope this gets you started
in a helpful direction. You could
also look at the www.icr.org website.
Michael A. Cremo
Question: I was directed
to your site by a Christian
creationist, who owns a copy of your book "Forbidden
Archeology" and regularly quotes from it.
As you perhaps know, Christian
creationists argue for
a universe only several thousands of years old. I have
not yet had the opportunity to read your book, but as
far as I know, you argue for precisely the opposite
thing as the young earth creationists, and in fact
believe the earth to be even older than the 4.5
billion years argued for by conventional science.
I therefore found it somewhat
perplexing that your
work is so popular amongst young earth creationists. I
have been wondering if you would mind to comment on
this? If you have already done so on a web page, you
can simply refer me to the URL and I'll go read it up
for myself. (And if not, it might be a good idea to
write such a page, in which you make your stance on
young earth creationism clear?)
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Answer: It is
a fact that Forbidden Archeology is liked by some
(but not all) young earth creationists. Why is that? I don't think
it will take a page to explain it, but perhaps I can start an FAQ
page on my web site, and this letter and my reply could go on it.
It appears that regardless of the age of the earth (a few thousand
or a few billion years), there is evidence, documented in Forbidden
Archeology, that humans have been there pretty much since the
beginning. So I suppose that the young earth creationists
feel comfortable in using the evidence documented in FA because
it supports the creationist part of their program, while overlooking
my talk about an age for the earth in the billions of years. A
reviewer of The Hidden History of the Human Race (the abridged
edition of FA) in Creation Research Society Quarterly, the main
young earth creation journal, said just that. He said that while
he did not share my views on the age of the earth, the evidence
for extreme human antiquity in my book was useful to creationists.
In general, I tend to accept the ages scientists get for the earth,
using various radiometric and chemical methods, as being
roughly correct. Of course, I also believe that any particular
application of a particular dating method could be wrong in a
particular case, because of contamination, misapplication of the
method, etc. But on the whole, I think they give good evidence
for the age of the earth being in the billions of years.
Supplementary evidence from ice cores, tree rings, etc., also,
in my opinion, tends to rule out a young earth.
4/24/2001 Dear Michael,
While my partner and I were out rockhounding in the
California desert this past Sunday we found the skeletal
remains of what we believe to be a Nodosaurus in sandstone.
There were what appeared to be two humanlike footprints
embedded in the same area.
We also found at another
site a human scapula (fossilized
of course) with a chip out of it – it appears a spear may have
struck it. Also, we found an early eolith or paleolith stone tool.
We are meeting with a paleontologist
and an archaeologist from
[a local institution] tomorrow.
I am not sure how to proceed
here, your input would help. We
are planning to go back to the site for more dinosaur remains
this weekend. I was thinking of making a plaster cast of the
footprints. Thank you.
Michael Cremo responds:
First, I want to say that I am not a
dirt archeologist. I am an historian of archeology interested in
anomalous evidence for extreme human antiquity. That said, I
do find your discovery intriguing. I think you have done a good
thing in contacting a paleontologist and archeologist. It would
be good to document whatever statements they make. Either
you could record them, or get them to write statements, or you
could just make notes, depending on how cooperative they are.
When you are collecting human
bones, it is good to photograph
them in place, before you touch them. The place should also
be very carefully recorded. If you have a GPS device, you
could use that. Or at least you should mark the spot very
carefully on a map, and then you should make your own more
detailed map of the place. It is best to collect human bones using
clean metal tongs. Ideally they should be placed in a clean metal
container. Touching bones with your hands or putting them into
organic type bags or boxes introduces new carbon, which could
cause false readings in any radiocarbon (C 14) tests that might
Also, you will want to check
on the legalities of collecting artifacts
and fossils in the particular area where you are working, just to
protect yourselves. There are now some pretty strict laws about
these things. You could also look and see what the US Geological
Survey reports and maps have to say about the area.
Before making casts of the
footprints, make good photographs of
them, in place. Then you can make casts. You can also take a
sample of the rock in which they were found. In addition to a
paleontologist and archeologist, you may also want to consult a
As for the bone, you can
try to confirm that it is a human bone. If
the law allows you to keep the bone, you may want to submit it
to a commercial radiocarbon lab for dating on your own. It only
costs a few hundred dollars to do a test. If you have a human
bone older than 12,000 years you have got something special.
As for the tools, it is also best to photograph them in place before
you remove them. If tools have been lying on the surface in the
desert, sometimes it is possible to date them by dating the “desert
varnish” that forms on them. This “varnish” is a coating of
minerals, and sometimes it contains little pollen grains or other
pieces of plant material that can be dated using the radiocarbon
I will be very interested
in receiving further reports, pictures, maps,
etc. from you, as you get further into this. It sounds very interesting.
Please feel free to write or call.
5/4/2001 Dear Mr. Cremo,
Having written to you before I know that you are one to jump right
on your e-mail and will respond promptly. What I’m writing about
is to find out if anyone in the study of ancient man has found any
cast metal axes or knives in the United States? Well if not, I’m
here to change that. Recently I uncovered or recovered, whichever
term one wishes to use, several pieces which are a burnt copper
colored material. The material is soft enough to be polished using
nothing more than a dry toothbrush. Weight wise the artifacts seem
to be quite a bit heavier than ordinary rocks. All these artifacts are
ornately adorned with very intricate artwork. Recently I read where
anthropologists have selected a spot in Peru that they think may be
the earliest human settlement in the Americas. What I would like to
ask, with a population big enough to build the ancient pyramids
found In Central and South America and Mexico, has anyone
ever found these peoples’ coinage or money? If not, I believe
with everything that I am that I have found just this. I have found
axes, knives and coins all made from this burnt copper colored
material I mentioned before. I once read that gold nuggets are
not found the yellow color that most jewelry is made today, and
that these nuggets are sometimes found to be a burnt copper color.
How big would it be if one were to find gold axes and knives?
And who would one see to have these verified? I will send some
pictures if you are interested so that you can view these artifacts
for yourself. If you would like to view these, let me know.
Michael Cremo responds:
According to the standard concepts,
use of metal, especially copper and silver, as well as gold,
became common in the Late Archaic period among North
American Indians. That would have been about 2000-4000
BC. Metalworking was even more developed in South America.
So there probably are some examples of metal knives and axes.
Gold in its natural state is often alloyed with other metals, and
can be of various colors. Also, metalworkers would mix gold
with copper or silver, and the resulting metals can be of
As far as coinage is concerned,
the standard idea is that the
first coins were used in Lydia in Asia Minor around 700 BC.
Most archeologists think that the economies of the American
cultures were based on barter systems, and elaborate systems
of social exchange. For example, about the Incas, it is said
in the Oxford Companion Archaeology: “….there was no market
economy in the Inca state. La Lone notes the lack of true money,
the absence of marketplaces, and the lack of merchants.” On
the other hand, you can find in my book Forbidden Archeology
an account of the discovery of a copper coinlike object, with
inscriptions in an unknown language. It came from a well boring
over 120 ft. deep, from layers 200,000 to 400,000 years old.
You should carefully document
the exact location of the finds.
It is always best if you can photograph them in place. You
locate the place of discovery on some detailed map of the
region (these can be obtained from the government). And you
should also make your own more detailed sketch of the location.
You should make yourself aware of the legalities of collecting
archeological objects in various places. On private property,
you should have the permission of the owner, and on government
land there are often strict rules about collecting. So you should
inquire about these things with relevant government agencies,
like the Dept. of the Interior, or equivalent state and local agencies.
If there are sediments adhering
to the samples, it is best to leave
them on, rather than cleaning them all off. Your next step could
be to take the objects to an archeologist at a local museum or
university, and they could give you an opinion. Note down the
name and title of the archeologist, and the name of the institution,
and the date and time, and take accurate notes of what he or she
says. If you can get them to give you a written statement on their
letterhead, that would be best.
There are also commercial
archeological companies that might do
this for a fee. The next steps would be to subject the objects to
analysis. X-ray fluorescence spectrometry is a quick, inexpensive
way to learn what metals the objects are made of. Lead isotope
analysis could reveal the source of the ores. Copper and tin all
have lead in them, and by studying the lead content of the object
and comparing it with the known content of various ore sources,
Sometimes it is possible to locate the source of the ore from which
the object was made. You could find a metallurgy lab that would
do this kind of work for you for a fee. Yes, I would like to see one
or two pictures.
Send us your stories about
those anomalous skeletons
discovered in the back yard! We are looking for solid,
well-documented evidence, but all accounts are welcome.
Send to: firstname.lastname@example.org
The information presented
here is not necessarily endorsed
by Michael Cremo or the Forbidden Archeology Newsflash
editor. All material is shared in the spirit of open and free
inquiry to our unique cadre of evolution revolutionaries.
Back to Newsflash
Back to NEWS
Back to Homepage