Gedanken:
Good points. However, would you not agree that Physics and Evolution take on very different dynamics. The implications to belief as to human origins entails many factors that rock the foundations of our beliefs. As such ,I feel you are comparing apples and oranges.
Proof? As the reviews state, Dr. Cremo raises some great questions in his book. Here is an example of omissions in the record:
Cremo, Michael A. (1999) "Forbidden Archeology of the Paleolithic: How Pithecanthropus Influenced the Treatment of Evidence for Extreme Human Antiquity" Presented at the "History of Archeology Session" at the European Association of Archaeologists Conference, Bournemouth, UK, September 15-18, 1999.
Abstract:
Over the past two centuries, researchers in Europe and elsewhere have found anatomically modern human skeletal remains and artifacts in geological contexts extending to the Pliocene and earlier. In the late nineteenth century, these discoveries attained wide circulation among archeologists and researchers in allied fields (geology, paleontology, anthropology). At this early point in the history of archeology, a fixed scheme of human evolution had not yet emerged, and researchers were able to approach the evidence of extreme human antiquity with little theoretical bias. With the discovery of Pithecanthropus (Java man) in the late nineteenth century and the discovery of Australopithecus in the early twentieth century, archeologists and others were finally able to construct a credible and widely accepted theoretical picture of human origins, with the anatomically modern human type arriving rather late on the scene. This caused the earlier evidence for extreme human antiquity to be dropped from active discourse, and eventually forgotten. In the late twentieth century, finds that could be taken as evidence for extreme human antiquity continue to be made. But archeologists often interpret them to fit within the now generally accepted scheme of human evolution. It is therefore possible that commitment to a particular evolutionary scheme has resulted in a process of knowledge filtration, whereby a large set of archeological evidence has dropped below the horizon of cognition. This filtering, although unintentional, has left current researchers with an incomplete data set for building and rebuilding our ideas about human origins.
Cremo, Michael A. (1997) "The Later Discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon and Their Bearing on the Moulin Quignon Jaw Controversy" XXth International Congress of History of Science, Lige, Belgium.
This paper was accepted for presentation at the XXth International Congress of History of Science, at Lige, Belgium, July 20-26, 1997, in the section Earth Sciences in the Contemporary Period (Since 1800).
Abstract
When Jacques Boucher de Perthes reported stone tools in the Pleistocene gravels of northern France at Abbeville, he was ignored by the French scientific establishment. Later, he was vindicated by English scientists, who came to the Abbeville region and confirmed his discoveries. But some of these same English scientists later turned on him when he reported the discovery of the famous Moulin Quignon jaw. Eventually the discovery was proved a hoax. That is how the standard history goes. But when considered in detail, the hoax theory does not emerge with total clarity and certainty. Boucher de Perthes felt the English scientists who opposed him were influenced by political and religious pressures at home. In order to restore his reputation and establish the authenticity of the Moulin Quignon jaw, Boucher de Perthes conducted several additional excavations at Moulin Quignon, which yielded hundreds of human bones and teeth. But by this time, important minds had been made up, and no attention was paid to the later discoveries, which tended to authenticate the Moulin Quignon jaw. This lack of attention persists in many histories of archeology. This paper details the later discoveries of Boucher de Perthes at Moulin Quignon, addresses possible reasons for their scanty presence in (or complete omission from) many histories of the Moulin Quignon affair, and offers some suggestions about the role the historian of archeology might play in relation to the active work of that science.
Cremo, Michael A. (1999) "Forbidden Archeology of the Early and Middle Pleistocene: Evidence for Physiologically and Culturally Advanced Humans." World Archeological Congress 4,
Capetown, South Africa, January 8-14, 1999. Abstract:
In 1998, M. Morwood reported stone tools at 800,000 years on Flores Island, Indonesia, 15 miles from nearest land. Morwood concluded toolmaking hominids arrived by boat. According to standard ideas, the only hominid then in existence was Homo erectus. Boatmaking and sailing are normally associated with anatomically modern humans. Morwood chose to elevate Homo erectus culturally, but one could also elevate the Flores hominid physiologically to Homo sapiens sapiens. Anatomically modern human femurs of the same age from Java offer corroborating evidence. In 1997, H. Thieme reported advanced wooden hunting spears in German coal deposits about 400,000 years old. Spears are normally associated exclusively with anatomically modern humans. Thieme chose to raise the cultural status of European Homo erectus, but another possibility is to posit anatomically modern humans. Discoveries of anatomically modern human bones by Boucher de Perthes at Abbeville, France, in deposits the same age as the German spears, offer corroborating evidence. The paper reviews other skeletal and artifactual evidence for anatomically modern humans in the Early and Middle Pleistocene in Africa, North America, and South America, in addition to the Asian and European evidence mentioned above. This evidence is consistent with accounts of extreme human antiquity found in the ancient Sanskrit writings of India.
