Dear Member of Blavatsky Net,
The ideas that have been presented in this newsletter received national attention this past month. During April I was interviewed on national radio by Stu Taylor on the subject of “Darwinism, Design, and Theosophy”. It was broadcast on 60 radio stations around the country reaching an estimated audience of 100,000 listeners. The show lasted an hour – less news and commercials. It presented Theosophy as a third view and attempted to get this message out to a larger audience than usual during this unusual time while metaphysical issues are part of the ongoing national debate on intelligent design.

*************************

Since some listeners from Stu Taylor’s radio show may have just signed up for this newsletter, I thought this issue should continue with some new information from science that supports another area of Blavatsky’s quite distinctive view of human history. It may be fair to point out there is now still more motivation. The material on Darwinism, intelligent design, and Theosophy’s view has been presented in these newsletters, in a special section of the web site, in national and international newspaper advertising and now on national radio. In addition, intelligent design has been the attention of United Lodge of Theosophists in New York. That attention will continue in conferences in June in Philadelphia, in August in San Diego and the topic is also receiving notice in The Aquarian Theosophist.

And no wonder. What an exciting thing to see this issue – with clear metaphysical implications – appearing on the national and international table of discussion. Just today I notice that the State of Mississippi has passed a law saying, amongst other things, that it is okay to discuss the problems with Darwinism. And this is against the background of the ruling of the federal judge in Pennsylvania. He declared criticism of Darwin to be intelligent design in disguise and intelligent design to be creationism in disguise and creationism to be blatantly a reference to God, who in turn is, of course, unconstitutional. Therefore, criticism of Darwinism is forbidden. Mississippians assert that they never had a problem with this issue before. We shall see what happens next.

Meanwhile, back to Theosophy. With all this activity and interest, it seems relevant to bring out more of Blavatsky’s views on the ancient history of man. The second volume of Blavatsky’s master work, the Secret Doctrine published in 1888, has as its theme “anthropogenesis” or the origin of humanity. In my observation this second volume tends to receive much less attention from students than the first volume. This is unfortunate because, rather than being a fantasy as it might seem at first, the second volume is a mine of useful, supportable information that ultimately places man in a quite different context than the place offered to man by modern science. When it is examined in detail it also gives us justification for giving more credence to the more metaphysical sections of volume one that we cannot easily determine for ourselves.

All of these considerations argue for more study of volume two. As many are aware, however, this is complex and difficult. So, what this newsletter will attempt to do is only to show where to find the evidence to support Blavatsky’s claim of the existence of anatomically modern man in the Tertiary Period (to be explained below). A fuller development must compare the geologic periods of modern science to those of her time, compare those to her own periods and absolute times, incorporate knowledge of Theosophy’s “rounds and races”, handle the multiple and fascinating aspects of the so-called Pleistocene period, along with much more. That will not be attempted now. Now we approach the Tertiary Period only.

Definition: The Tertiary Period according to modern science extended from 144 million years ago to 2 million years ago. From oldest to youngest it is divided into the periods Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene. The divisions called Paleocene and Oligocene have been added since Blavatsky’s time.

Darwinian scientists say modern man emerged several hundred thousand years ago – depending on what you count. Blavatsky’s claims are not easy to state simply. For this purpose, I will put it this way: she claims man existed in the Tertiary period.

The first obstacle to considering Blavatsky’s views is Darwinism. Since Darwinism has been dealt with a great deal already, we should move on. Anyone wanting details may consult Evolution.

Enter Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. These two scholars have written a series of books on this subject of very ancient man that provide in-depth scientific treatment of this issue. To my knowledge their work is unique. It is particularly relevant to Theosophists and also to those with an open mind ready to learn what replaces Darwinism.

Richard Thompson is “a scientist by training, a mathematician who has published refereed articles and books in the fields of mathematical biology, remote sensing from satellites, geology, and physics.” Michael Cremo is a writer and editor for books and magazines published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Theosophists may be particularly interested in their background. “In Hidden History of the Human Race” they say:

Richard Thompson and I are members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness that studies the relationship between modern science and the world view expressed in the Vedic literature of India. From the Vedic literature, we derive the idea that the human race is of great antiquity. For the purpose of conducting systematic research into the existing scientific literature on human antiquity, we expressed the Vedic idea in the form of a theory that various humanlike and apelike beings have coexisted for long periods of time.
That our theoretical outlook is derived from the Vedic literature should not disqualify it. Theory selection can come from many sources – a private inspiration, previous theories, a suggestion from a friend, a movie, and so on. What really matters is not a theory’s source but it ability to account for observations. (Hidden History p xix).

These two authors first wrote “Forbidden Archeology” in 1996. That book described a great deal of archeological evidence showing mankind existed millions of years ago. Then two years later they published “Forbidden Archeology’s Impact” that detailed the reception to their first work. These two works have been known to Theosophists, but I am under the impression that Theosophists are not very aware of their next book “Hidden History of the Human Race – The condensed edition of Forbidden Archeology”, published in 1999.

Cremo says:

The unabridged edition of “Forbidden Archeology” is 952 pages long. It thus presents quite a challenge to many readers. Richard L. Thompson and I therefore decided to bring out “The Hidden History of the Human Race” – a shorter, more readable, and more affordable version of “Forbidden Archeology. “The Hidden History of the Human Race” does, however, contain almost all of the cases discussed in “Forbidden Archeology.”
This last book is the subject of this newsletter. Theosophists concerned with determining truth for themselves or for confirming the teachings of Blavatsky should definitely be aware of the books by these authors. To date, the books written and edited by Cremo and other BBT staff have sold more than ten million copies and have been translated into many languages. We Theosophists have a little catching up to do. (They have also published yet another book that is relevant to Theosophists and it will probably be the basis of some future newsletter.)

The book jacket may sum it up best:

Over the past two centuries researchers have found bones and artifacts showing that people like ourselves existed on earth millions of years ago. But the scientific establishment has suppressed, ignored, or forgotten these remarkable facts. Why? Because they contradict the now dominant view of human origins, which holds that humans like ourselves evolved within the past 100,000 years from more apelike ancestors. The Hidden History of the Human Race, a book sure to ignite controversy, brings these paradigm-breaking discoveries to light. Deploying an unexpectedly great number of convincing facts, deeply illuminated with critical analysis, Cremo and Thompson challenge us to rethink our understanding of human origins, identity, and destiny.
Michael Cremo, in the introduction to “The Hidden History of the Human Race”, elaborates:

In Part I of “The Hidden History of the Human Race”, we look closely at the vast amount of controversial evidence that contradicts current ideas about human evolution. We recount in detail how this evidence has been systematically suppressed, ignored, or forgotten, even though it is qualitatively (and quantitatively) equivalent to the evidence favoring currently accepted views on human origins. 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. Certain categories of evidence simply disappear from view, in our opinion unjustifiably. This pattern of data suppression has been going on for a long time.
More from the book jacket:

“I believe this book to be one of the landmark intellectual achievements of the late twentieth century… Never before has the case for a complete re-evaluation of the human story been made more reasonably and rationally.” – From the forward by Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods.
“A stunning description of some of the evidence that was once known to science, but which has disappeared from view due to the “knowledge filter” that protects the ruling paradigm.” -Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial.

Actually, my aim in this newsletter is to persuade you to acquire your own copy of “Hidden History” and to study it yourself. This is what must occur to achieve personal conviction and to spread the knowledge. Toward that end here are some more words of Graham Hancock in the book’s preface.

It will take more conservative scholars a long while, probably many years, to come to terms with the revelations it contains. Nevertheless, Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson have put the revelations out there and the clock cannot now be turned back. Sooner or later, whether we like it or not, our species is going to have to come to terms with the facts that are so impressively documented in the pages that follow, and these facts are stunning.
Cremo and Thompson’s central proposition is that the model of human pre-history, carefully built-up by scholars over the past two centuries, is sadly and completely wrong. Moreover, the authors are not proposing that it can be put right with minor tinkering and adjustment. What is needed is for the existing model to be thrown out the window and for us to start again with open minds and with absolutely no preconceptions at all.

*************************

The two authors then set about putting the record straight by showing all the other research results that have been edited out of the record during the past two centuries, not because there was anything wrong or bogus about the results themselves, but simply because they did not fit with prevailing academic opinion.

Anomalous and out-of-place discoveries reported by Cremo and Thompson in “The Hidden History of the Human Race” include convincing evidence that anatomically modern humans may have been present on the Earth not just for 100,000 years or less (the orthodox view), but for millions of years, and that metal objects of advanced design may have been in use at equally early periods. Moreover, although sensational claims have been made before about out-of-place artifacts, they have never been supported by such overwhelming and utterly convincing documentation as Cremo and Thompson provide.

In the final analysis, it is the meticulous scholarship of the authors and the cumulative weight of the facts presented in “The Hidden History of the Human Race”, that really convince. …

Never before has the case for a complete re-evaluation of the human story been made more reasonably and rationally than it is in these pages.

**************************

Chapter 2 of the book begins:

Intentionally cut and broken bones of animals comprise a substantial part of the evidence for human antiquity. They came under serious study in the middle of the nineteenth century and have remained the object of extensive research and analysis up to the present. (p 11)
Here are some more quotes:

Along these lines, Armand de Quatrfages, a member of the French Academy of Sciences and a professor at the Museum of Natural History in Paris [known to students of the Secret Doctrine] wrote in his book “Hommes Fossiles et Hommes Sauvages (1884): “The objections made to the existence of humans in the Pliocene and Miocene periods seem to habitually be more related to theoretical considerations than to direct observation.” (p 13)

On another dispute:

One established scholar said that Miller’s claim is “as reasonable as the Loch Ness Monster or a living mammoth in Siberia,” while Miller countered that “these people don’t want to see man here because their careers would go down the drain.” (p 14)

More quotes:

Furthermore, Demere suggested that it was very unlikely that anything about the find would ever be published in a scientific journal, because the referees who review articles probably would not pass it. (p 14)
The April 1868 proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences contain this report by F. Garrigou and H. Filhol: “We now have sufficient evidence to permit us to suppose that the contemporaneity of human beings and Miocene mammals is demonstrated.” The evidence was a collection of mammalian bones, apparently intentionally broken … (p 16)

Here is a choice bit of reasoning:

In “Le Prehistorique,” de Mortillet did not dispute the age of the Dardanelles formation. Instead, he commented that the simultaneous presence of a carved bone, intentionally broken bones, and a flint flake tool was almost too perfect, so perfect as to raise doubts about the finds. This is quite remarkable. In the case of the incised bones of St. Prest, de Mortillet complained that no stone tools or other signs of human presence were to be found at the site. But here, with the requisite items discovered along with the carved bone, de Mortillet said the ensemble was “too perfect,” hinting at cheating by Calvert. (p 18)

More:

But he would not admit they could be the product of human work, mainly because of the Miocene age of the stratum in which the bones were found. De Mortillet wrote in 1883, “This is much too old for man” Here again, we have a clear case of theoretical preconceptions dictating how one will interpret a set of facts. (p 22)

To show the variety of evidence:

In a report delivered to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1881. H. Stopes. F.G.S. (Fellow of the Geological Society), described a shell, the surface of which bore a carving of a crude but unmistakably human face. The carved shell was found in the stratified deposits of the Red Crag, which is between 2.0 and 2.5 million years old. ( p 23)
The interesting conclusion to that section of the book:

It is really quite curious that so many serious scientific investigators in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century independently and repeatedly reported that marks on bones and shells from Miocene, Pliocene, and Early Pleistocene formations were indicative of human work. Among the researchers making such claims were Desnoyers, de Quatrages, Ramorino, Bourgeois, Delaunay, Betrand, Laussedat, Garrigou, Filhol, von Ducker, Owen, Collyer, Calvert, Capellini, Broca, Feretti, Belliucci, Stoppes, Moir, Fisher, and Keith.

Were these scientists deluded? Perhaps so. But cut marks on fossil bones are an odd thing about which to develop delusions – hardly romantic or inspiring. Were the above-mentioned researchers’ victims of a unique mental aberration of the last century and the early part of this one? Or does evidence of primitive hunters really abound in the faunal remains of the Pliocene and earlier periods?

Assuming such evidence is there, one might ask why it is not being found today? One very good reason is that no one is looking for it. Evidence for intentional human work on bone might easily escape the attention of a scientist not actively searching for it. If a paleoanthropologist is convinced that toolmaking human beings did not exist is the Middle Pliocene, he is not likely to give much thought to the exact nature of markings on fossil bones from that period.

Their third chapter begins with a preliminary description of apparent tools and weapons found in the Tertiary:

Nineteenth-century scientists found many stone tools and weapons in Early Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, and older strata. They were reported in standard scientific journals, and they were discussed at scientific congresses. But today hardly anyone has heard of them. Whole categories of facts have disappeared from view.
We have, however, managed to recover a vast hoard of such ‘buried’ evidence, and our review of it shall take us from the hills of Kent in England to the valley of the Irrawady in Burma. Researchers of the late twentieth century have also discovered anomalously old stone industries.. (p 29)

Finally, the authors break out of their details and remark:

One may question the necessity of giving such a detailed treatment of the Harrison eoliths. One reason is to show that evidence of this kind was not always of a marginal, crackpot nature. Rather anomalous evidence was quite often the center of serious, longstanding controversy within the very heart of elite scientific circles, with advocates holding scientific credentials and positions just as prestigious as those of the opponents. By presenting detailed accounts of the interplay of conflicting opinion, we hope to give the reader a chance to answer for himself or herself the crucial question – was the evidence actually rejected on purely objective grounds, or was it dropped from consideration and forgotten simply because it did not lie within the parameters of certain circumscribed theories? (p 33)

On another find:

Lankester wrote in a Royal Anthropological Institute report in 1914: “It is not possible for anyone acquainted with flint-workmanship and also with the non-human fracture of flint to maintain that it is even in a remote degree possible that the sculpturing of this Norwich test flint was produced by other than human agency,” Lankester thought tools of this type might be of Miocene age.

I like converts.

Another scientist won over by the Foxhall finds was Hugo Obermaier, previously a consistent and vocal opponent of Eolithic discoveries. Obermaier was one of those scientists who believed that eoliths were produced by natural forces similar to the forces operating in cement and chalk mills. But Obermaier wrote in 1924: “This discovery of Foxhall is the first evidence we have of the existence of Tertiary man.” (p 37) At one point a formal commission of scientists was formed to investigate a controversial site.

Commission member Louis Capitan stated: “There exist at the base of the Crag, in undisturbed strata, worked flints (we have observed them ourselves). These are not made by anything other than a human or hominid which existed in the Tertiary epoch. This fact is found by us prehistorians to be absolutely demonstrated.” (p 38)

Cremo quotes this private letter written in 1960 by someone associated with the Journal of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science.

“I must assume now that you had no idea of the intensity of feeling that reigns in the field. It is nearly hopeless to try to convey some idea of the status of the field of Early Man in America at the moment. But just for fun: I have a correspondent whose name I cannot use, for though he thinks that I am right, he could lose his job for saying so. I have another anonymous correspondent who as a graduate student found evidence that would tend to prove me right. He and his fellow student buried the evidence. They were certain that to bring it in would cost them their chance for their Ph.D.’s. At a meeting, a young professional approached me to say, ‘I hope you really pour it on them. I would say it if I dared, but it would cost me my job.’ At another meeting a young man sidled up to say, ‘ In dig x they found core tools like yours at the bottom but just didn’t publish them.'” (p 45)

Here is another opinion on how peer review sometimes works:

Lee experienced great difficulty in getting his reports published. Expressing his frustration, he wrote: “A nervous or timid editor, his senses acutely attuned to the smell of danger to position, security, reputation, or censure, submits copies of a suspect paper to one or two advisors whom he considers well placed to pass safe judgement. They read it, or perhaps only skim through it looking for a few choice phrases that can be challenged or used against the author (their opinions were formed long in advance, on the basis of what came over the grapevine or was picked up in the smoke-filled back rooms at conferences – little bits of gossip that would tell them that the writer was far-out, a maverick, or an untouchable). Then, with a few cutting, unchallenged, and entirely unsupported statements, they ‘kill’ the paper. The beauty – and the viciousness – of the system lies in the fact that they remain forever anonymous.” (p 88)

Finally, a more severe case:

On March 30, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of “Quaternary Research”: The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period. Their reasoning is circular. H. sapiens sapiens evolved ca. 30,000 -50,000 years ago in Eurasia. Therefore any H.s.s tools 250,000 years old found in Mexico are impossible because H.s.s evolved ca 30,000-…. etc. Such thinking makes for self-satisfied archaeologist but lousy science!” (p 92)

The upshot of the above situation:

The anomalous findings at Hueyatlaco resulted in personal abuse and professional penalties, including withholding of funds and loss of job, facilities, and reputation for Virginia Steen-McIntyre. Her case opens a rare window into the actual social processes of data suppression in paleoanthropology, processes that involve a great deal of conflict and hurt. (p 93)
Now time is running short for the writing of this newsletter. So, one closing quote. Yes actual bones of tertiary man have also been found. Cremo offers a summary:

As we explain in Chapter 7, fossil skeletal remains indistinguishable from those of fully modern humans have been found in the Pliocene, Miocene, Eocene end even earlier. When we also consider that humans living today make implements not much different from those taken from Miocene beds in France and elsewhere, then the validity of the standard sequence of human evolution begins to seem tenuous. In fact, the standard sequence only makes sense when a lot of very good evidence is ignored. When all the available evidence, implemental and skeletal, is considered, it is quite difficult to construct any kind of evolutionary sequence. What we are left with is the supposition that there have been various type of human and humanlike beings living at the same time and manufacturing stone tools of various levels of sophistication, for tens of millions of years into the past. (p 67)

*************************

May as well allow a voice from the mainstream opposition to end this newsletter. Richard Leaky, the anthropologist, says of “Hidden History”:

Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool. Sadly, there are some, but that’s a part of selection and there is nothing that can be done.

Always enjoy a forthright response. We live in interesting times.

Another Darwinist explains what is wrong with “Hidden History”:

To have modern human beings … appearing a great deal earlier, in fact at a time when even simple primates did not exist as possible ancestors, would be devastating not only to the accepted pattern. It would be devastating to the whole theory of evolution. (W.W. Howells, Physical Anthropologist)

I urge you to read “Hidden History of the Human Race”, judge for yourself and place Leaky, Darwin et al in the balance. 

Happy digging.

Reed Carson

Back to Ancient Man