When writing Forbidden Archeology, I anticipated that it would be of interest to scholars in science studies disciplines, such as history of science, philosophy of science, and sociology of scientific knowledge. I was not mistaken.
2.2.1. Hillel Schwartz (1994) “Earth Born, Sky Driven: A review of The Sky in Mayan Literature (edited by Anthony F. Aveni), Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America (by James Axtell), Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson), Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American
Working Class (by Eric Lott), Children of the Earth: Literature, Politics and Nationhood (by Marc Shell).” Journal of Unconventional History, vol. 6(1), pp. 68-76. Reprinted by permission of Journal of Unconventional History and Hillel Schwartz.
Hillel Schwartz is a historian. The following passages related to Forbidden Archeology have been excerpted from Schwartz’s article, unique for its overall favorable judgment on the book.
Current jabber about the distortions of the Other, about figuration and disfiguration, about social and historical construct, about the “packing” and “unpacking” of symbols, about—in short—codes and decoding, must be put in the context of this new convention, which has been nurtured since World War II by cryptographers, cyberneticists, biochemists, linguists, French psychiatrists, structural anthropologists, literary analysts and, today, representational historians. For even if the most radical postmodern stance in any field is to subvert all stances, all “optics,” it is a stance anchored in the belief that to decode is to make ready for change—a change which has to do penultimately with welcoming a multifocal world whose denizens need to cherish, and identify with, the global diversity of humanity, or animality, or biosphericality.
Whether those who engage in such critical tactics or “optics” would warm to a global embrace, or would instead resist globalism as another subtle form of tyranny and “hegemony,” it is clear that the present urge to decode goes beyond intellectual curiosity, psychological intrigue with forms of disguise, or a desperate lust to solve unsolved mysteries. Our urge to decode has to do (as does each of the books I have taken in tow for this review) with revealing identities and, I would argue, with the need to reveal identities-in-common at this fin de siecle and fin de millennium, when all seems in flux…
Forbidden Archeology takes the current conventions of decoding to their extreme. The authors find modern Homo sapiens to be continuous contemporaries of the apelike creatures from whom evolutionary biologists usually trace human descent or bifurcation, thus confirming those Vedic sources that presume the nearly illimitable antiquity of the human race—all toward the implicit end of preparing us for that impending transformation of global consciousness at which Bhaktivedanta brochures regularly hint. Decoding certain chipped flints or “eoliths” as, many of them, very ancient stone tools, and recoding evidence others have rejected either as hoaxes or natural phenomena (metallic spheres, shoe prints, iron nails and gold threads in old stone, carvings, footprints), Cremo and Thompson discern the working presence of anatomically modern humans perhaps as far back as the Cambrian era, long before the age of dinosaurs, or at least in the early Pleistocene, tens of millions of years before the carbon-dates assigned to the Leakeys’ [Johanson’s, actually] celebrated hominid (?) skeleton, Lucy. Forbidden Archeology reads surprisingly well for what is basically an 828-page critical catalogue of two centuries of archeologicalevidence doubted or spurned by Western scientists. Despite its unhidden religious partisanship, the book deserves a reckoning in this review for its embrace of a global humanity permanently distinct from other primates. Other beings deserve our deepest respect, but humanity stands alone, its bloodlines unsullied by apes or ramapithecus. There are, as it were, originary castes of beings, each worthy, each separate. However, evolutionary processes may operate to refine life within a caste, they do not operate to translate a being from one caste to another. Meditating upon our uniqueness (I am here supplying the missing links of the thesis), we may come to realize that what can change (awaken) humanity is no mere biochemical exfoliation but a work of the spirit, in touch with (and devoted to) the ancient, perfect, perfectly sufficient, unchanging wisdom of the Vedic masters.
2.2.2. Tim Murray (1995) Rev i ew of Forbidden Archeology. British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 28, pp. 377-379. Reprinted by permission of the Council of the British Society for the History of Science and Tim Murray.
Tim Murray is head of the archeology department at Latrobe University in Melbourne, Australia. He is also a historian of archeology. In December of 1994, I met Murray at the World Archeological Congress 3 in New Delhi, India, where I presented my paper “Puranic Time and the Archeological Record” in a section he cochaired. During one of the breaks, he mentioned that he had been asked to review Forbidden Archeology for British Journal for the History of Science. He said that although he disagreed with the book’s conclusions and methods, he hoped I would find his review fair. He had already submitted the review, but it had not yet been published.
Since the last eighteenth-century discussions of human antiquity and of the physical and cultural evolution of humanity have been marked by severe disputation and accusations of fraud, histories of palaeoanthropology and of quaternary geology (such as Grayson’s The Establishment of Human Antiquity, New York, 1983, and more recently Van Riper’s Men among the Mammoths, Chicago, 1993) have all canvassed the reasons for disputation and some (such as Spencer’s Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery, Oxford, 1990) have delved deep into disciplinary psychology to establish the motivation for fraud. No one could deny that mainstream quaternary archaeology is unaware of its capacity to generate controversy. Furthermore, a knowledge of the discipline (and of its practitioners) clearly demonstrates that there is no single point of view about the meaning of the palaeoanthropological fossil record. Indeed it should be emphasized that practitioners have had altogether too much fun fighting amongst themselves to be much concerned with other possible combatants. Cremo and Thompson’s massive work clearly demonstrates that others now want to play the game.
Whatever else Forbidden Archeology might be, it is a book with a point of view. Despite more than 900 pages of discussion, this can be fairly simply summarized. First, there is a contention that quaternary archaeologists have ignored what is described as being clear and unambiguous evidence (fossils and artefacts) of a much higher human antiquity than that accepted by ‘the scientific community’. Note that Cremo and Thompson are not claiming that the scientists have rejected evidence of there being ancestral forms of fully modern human beings other than those currently recognized (i.e. members of the genus Australopithecus and earlier forms of the genus Homo). Instead, they are claiming that evidence of fully modern human beings has been found in the Tertiary geological record, and that knowledge of these radical data has been suppressed by practitioners for the last century or so. Secondly, the explanation for this ‘Major Scientific Cover-Up’ (their words, not mine) is to be found in the ‘evolutionary prejudices’ of ‘powerful groups of scientists’ who are members of the ‘scientific establishment’ who together act as a ‘knowledge filter’, reinforcing the dominance of ‘evolutionary prejudices’ by dispensing with anomalous and potentially destabilizing data. Thirdly, that Cremo and Thompson are not clear whether this filtration process is conscious (in the sense of cover-up or fraud) or simply the unconscious recommitment to normal science by research drones who have all power for original thought squashed out of them by the system.
Cremo and Thompson rest their case on two general assumptions. First, that the plausibility of conventional quaternary archaeology and paleoanthropology depends not on the actual evidence adduced by practitioners, but on the cognitive plausibility of evolutionary theory. Secondly, that scientists will move hell and high water to ‘preserve the paradigm’ and thus dispose of inconvenient evidence or ‘freeze out’ inconvenient practitioners. It is worth noting that in this, as in any good conspiracy theory, there are goodies and baddies, seekers after truth and representatives of the ‘dominant paradigm’. At stake is the potential liberation of the human mind through deeper understanding of the meaning of human history. For Cremo and Thompson, if you do not accept the plausibility of evolutionary theory, then the flimsy edifice of quaternary archaeology that it supports crashes to the ground, leaving the way free to pursue another pathway towards enlightenment. For them, the vast store of anomalies (the documentation of which takes up the bulk of the volume), when taken together, provides compelling support for an attack on the paradigm of human evolution and on the data which have, up to this point, been seen to support it.
It should be noted that theirs is far from being a disinterested analysis, as Forbidden Archeology is designed to demolish the case for biological and cultural evolution and to advance the cause of a Vedic alternative. This is a piece of ‘Creation Science’ which, while not based on the need to promote a Christian alternative, manifests many of the same types of argu ment: first, an attempt to characterize the opposition as motivated by the need to preserve their view of the world rather than a desire to practice unfettered inquiry; secondly, to explain the currently marginal position of your alternative as being the result of prejudice, conspiracy and manipulation rather than of any fault of the theory itself; thirdly, to present the opposition (in this case mainstream palaeoanthropology and quaternary archaeology) as being united as a ‘secret college’ to manipulate the public mind and to exclude non-professionals from being able to control science for the benefit of all.
I have no doubt that there will be some who will read this book and profit from it. Certainly it provides the historian of archaeology with a useful compendium of case studies in the history and sociology of scientific knowledge, which can be used to foster debate within archaeology about how to describe the epistemology of one’s discipline. On another level the book joins others from creation science and New Age philosophy as a body of works which seek to address members of a public alienated from science, either because it has become so arcane or because it has ceased to suit some in search of meaning in their lives.
Above all, this is a book about belief. Cremo and Thompson believe the Vedas provide a more accurate and internally consistent explanation for life of earth, but for all the talk about logic and consistency their system on the whole simply would not function without the existence of a ‘supreme conscious being’. In an interesting example of projection Cremo and Thompson distinguish between their true and justified belief and the views of their evolutionary opponents, which are characterized by them as being
‘unscientific’. For them, followers of evolutionary theory do so out of ignorance, fear, or blind faith, with the need to believe overcoming dispassionate assessment and objective argument.
What to do with this book and its claims? One path is to take each case raised by Cremo and Thompson and by a steady process of attrition to demolish their account. This can be (and is being) done. But this does not go to the heart of the volume or explain why the authors believe so strongly in the existence of Tertiary humanity. For that we have to go to the Vedas and in my view this can only be a personal journey. For the practicing quaternary archaeologist, current accounts of human evolution are, at root, simply that. The ‘dominant paradigm’ has changed and is changing, and practitioners openly debate issues which go right to the conceptual core of the discipline. Whether the Vedas have a role to play in this is up to the individual scientists concerned. Although Cremo and Thompson might characterize archaeologists and palaeoanthropologists as being at the wrong end of a knowledge filter, it is fair comment that nothing in the 900 or so pages of Forbidden Archeology seems to undermine Cremo and Thompson’s belief that Vedic literature got it right long before the advent of archaeological inquiry.
Related Correspondence 2.2.2.1. Letter to Dr. Tim Murray, June 25, 1995.
Murray was editing the volume of the World Archeological Congress 3 proceedings in which my paper was to appear.
In one of your faxes regarding the WAC3 proceedings, you mentioned that your review of Forbidden Archeology for British Journal of the History of Science will soon be out. I’ve noticed that the University of Florida library tends to get journals rather late, so if it’s not too much trouble, could you please fax me a copy of the printed version when you receive it?
Another review is just out. Stoczkowski in L’Homme (Jan.-Mar. issue), like you, does not share my “views or approach.” But then I would not expect him (or you) to do that. I am, however, honored that you (and he—and, I suppose, the book review editors) considered Forbidden Archeology worthy of notice. What I found interesting in Stoczkowski’s review was his accurate depiction of the metastate of archeology today. He said that the standard history of science tells us that empirical science triumphed over religious views in Europe in the nineteenth century. But the practical truth, he reflected, is that contemporary archeology and anthropology must contend with a variety of other voices, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses (he noted their books sell in millions of copies around the world), the Christian Creationists in the United States, the advocates of extraterrestrial intervention in human origins, and now this—the
Vedic view represented by Forbidden Archeology. And what to speak of the relativist, constructivist critique of science, which he also dwelled upon.
2.2.2.2. Letter to Dr. Tim Murray, January 12, 1996.
I recently read your review of Forbidden Archeology in British Journal for the History of Science. I liked it. At this point I am not expecting unqualified endorsements from mainstream archeologists and historians of archeology, but I do appreciate the book being taken somewhat seriously.
There are a few places where I thought you did not quite accurately represent Forbidden Archeology. For example, you took some pieces of ad copy from the jacket of the popular abridged edition of the book, which appeared under a different title, and represented them as if they were part of the text of Forbidden Archeology. That gives a somewhat misleading impression of what a reader will find in Forbidden Archeology. I don’t object that you used the ad copy, just that you did not identify it as such and did not say it was not from the book actually under review.
Forbidden Archeology relies more on an epistemological critique of scientific methods as applied in archeology than on conspiracy theories. Some of your comments seem to ignore that, and give the mistaken impression that Forbidden Archeology should be grouped in the category of conspiracy literature.
For example, you said, “…there is a contention that quaternary archeologists have ignored what is described as being clear and unambiguous evidence (fossils and artefacts) of a much higher human antiquity than has been accepted by ‘the scientific community.’”
The argument actually presented in the book is somewhat more subtle than that. We concluded that all evidence in archeology tends to be unclear and ambiguous. As we noted (p. 24):
“All paleoanthropological evidence tends to be complex and uncertain. Practically any evidence in this field can be challenged, for if nothing else, one can always raise charges of fraud.”
In other words, one can always challenge the dating methods, the statistical analysis, the provenance, etc. But there appears to be a double standard. Evidence in harmony with the current consensus tends to be treated leniently whereas evidence that departs from the current consensus is subjected to extremely corrosive scrutiny.
The process of setting aside certain categories of evidence by application of a double standard we called “knowledge filtration.” You said that the authors “are not clear whether this filtration process is conscious (in the sense of cover-up or fraud) or simply the unconscious recommitment to normal science.” In my Introduction to Forbidden Archeology (p. xxvi) I noted: “When we speak of suppression of evidence, we are not referring to scientific conspirators carrying out a satanic plot to deceive the public. Instead, we are talking about an ongoing social process of knowledge filtration that appears quite innocuous but has a substantial cumulative effect.”
Of course, in a few places we do identify instances of conscious fraud (as in the Piltdown case).
You wrote that Forbidden Archeology manifested “an attempt to characterize the opposition as motivated by the need to preserve their view of the world rather than a desire to practice unfettered inquiry ,” implying this was not true [of “the opposition,” i.e. modern archeological science]. Yet you said elsewhere in your review (p. 379): “What to do with this book and its claims? One path is to take each case raised by Cremo and Thompson and by a steady process of attrition demolish their account. This can be (and is being) done.” This sounds much like a stratagem described in Forbidden Archeology (pp. 25-26) whereby “prominent scientists will publish systematic attacks against…unwanted findings.” We noted (p. 26) that “in the parlance of some scientists…these attacks are known as ‘demolition jobs.’” Now it would seem to me that if someone has decided in advance to demolish Forbidden Archeology by discrediting every one of the hundreds of cases discussed therein, this provides a very good example of someone “motivated by the need to preserve their view of the world rather than a desire to practice unfettered inquiry.” It would seem that a less prejudicial person might have proposed to study each case in the book to see whether or not it should be rejected or accepted, without announcing an a priori decision to destroy all of them. What could the motive of such a person be? By the way, who is doing the demolition job?
In any case, none of this detracts from my overall satisfaction with your review. With the exception of pushing the book too much in the direction of conspiracy literature, I found that you fairly accurately represented its substance and spirit, as well as its potential utility to the practitioners of a discipline in the process of fundamentally redefining itself. I especially appreciated the following comments: “I have no doubt that there will be some who will read this book and profit from it. Certainly it provides the historian of archaeology with a useful compendium of case studies in the history and sociology of scientific knowledge, which can be used to foster debate within archaeology about how to describe the epistemology of one’s discipline.” (p. 379)
I was thinking it might be interesting to put together a section for a conference, maybe the next WAC, that would bring together you, me, Dr. Grayson, Dr. Van Riper, and perhaps some others.
Finally, there appears to be an editing mistake in the review (p. 378). The review says: “No one could deny that mainstream quaternary archaeology is unaware of its capacity to generate controversy.” I think the sentence was intended to read: “No one could deny that mainstream quaternary archaeology is aware of its capacity to generate controversy.”
On another matter, how is the volume of proceedings for the WAC section on Time Concepts coming along?
2.2.3. Jo Wodak and David Oldroyd (1996). “ ‘Vedic Creationism’: A Further Twist to the Evolution Debate.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 26, pp. 192-213. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications and the authors.
David Oldroyd recently retired from his position as a historian of science at the School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, in Sydney, Australia. Jo Wodak was, at the time this article was written, his graduate student. I regard their review article as the most significant scholarly response to Forbidden Archeology.
A New/Old Brand of ‘Creationism’
The Creation Science (CS) movement has attracted much attention in recent years, being sufficiently significant to warrant a massive historical study by Ronald Numbers.1 As is
The Creation Science (CS) movement has attracted much attention in recent years, being sufficiently significant to warrant a massive historical study by Ronald Numbers.1 As is