Hominids & Humbug

Trouble in the House of Darwin?

spread_image

It may be a truism that when we are committed to something, we tend to work everything else around it. This would hold for personal as well as public strategy. We all do it—to some extent. And that is fine. Unless… unless there’s something amiss with the premise itself. So let’s cut to the chase. Let’s look at the premise, taken for granted by those who subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, the premise that man “evolved” and that he did so in one particular place. Called monogenism, this is the earmark of Darwinism past and present; it holds that that place was Africa.

• That mankind is found on other continents only because groups of humans moved out of Africa to populate the world.

• That the most recent of those migrations (apart from the one to Oceania) was to the Americas—otherwise virgin land until some 15 or 20 thousand years ago.

• That these future American Indians crossed the Bering Strait from Siberia.

 

These are the premises of Darwinian monogenism. Everything must conform to it, follow suit. None of the world’s people, accordingly, are actually aboriginal to their home. Only Africans. Even the Australian aborigines, theory insists, came originally from Africa, perhaps 60,000 years ago. We’re all made-over Africans—supposedly. Which brings us to the first little problem:

Since our ultimate forefathers were Africans, we must—if the theory is to be upheld—have acquired other racial traits—whether Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid, etc.—by mutating into those types; i.e., by changing through the alleged process of natural selection. But we have a problem right here because, given the evolutionary timetable, there just wasn’t enough time after leaving Africa to do all that evolving. Stripped of certain ad hoc manipulations (like “punk eek”, see below), Darwinian evolution requires very large blocks of time, many millions of years. The 50,000- or 80,000- or even 100,000-year window for changing, say from black to white, doesn’t even come close.

If early man evolved only in Africa, what are the actual facts that support this premise? The out-of-Africa doctrine, though floated for decades if not centuries, did not become an idée fixe until less than thirty years ago. In fact, before then, there was a vague consensus among scholars that the first humans came out of Asia, that Adam and Eve were brought forth somewhere in the dim East.

And yes, there are hominid remains in China (Hubei and Guangxi provinces) and other parts of the Orient. Homo erectus, even australopithecine traits, has been recognized in fossil specimens as far afield as Micronesia (Palau Man) and Australia (Kow Swamp Man). But those facts along with that entire line of inquiry went down the memory hole once “African Eve” (“mitochondrial Eve”) became de rigueur in the late 1980s.

Everything is made to fit the favored theory, presented quite seriously as unassailable fact by theorists who are not above calling their opponents “fruitcakes” or outright frauds. Of course, that’s where the research money is—the favored theory. That’s where the promotion is—in both senses of the term. That’s where the books and journals and jobs and lecture tours and awards and TV shows and even the fame and fortune are.

But as a result, it has become hard to find information on early hominids in non-African locations. It is buried. But it is there. Take America, for example. In his book, Forgotten Worlds (Inner Traditions, 2012, p. 162), my colleague Patrick Chouinard notes “examples of people who shouldn’t be in pre-Columbian America but seem to creep from the undergrowth to stun the world… Belief in Asian migration across the Bering Strait has reached almost biblical proportions. It is a story that most archeologists… are trained to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. But why?”

The answer to that question is—because the premise demands it; monogenism cannot survive unless it can be proven that everyone (except Africans, of course) migrated into their present lands.

But there is an alternative, called polygenism (in the last several decades it has also been known as the “multiregional” approach). There is no ax to grind here, no premise to prove; the data simply suggests that man arose independently in different parts of the earth. Not just Africa. The greatest minds of twentieth century anthropology were polygenists: Roland Dixon, Franz Weidenreich, Carleton Coon. But then a weird drama was staged by their enemies, who feared that polygenism—if allowed to go any further—would eventually bring down the (monogenic) House of Darwin.

So they devised a most ingenious tack: make polygenism politically incorrect! The scheme met with success, in a gambit that twisted the facts of independent origin, ultimately accusing the polygenist of giving too much credit to the early race of Caucasians. This, argued the accusers, opened the door to an unseemly Eurocentric bias and white supremacy. Definitely a no-no.

But it was all a great ruse, a clever trick to upstage those who fell outside of the paradigm, the classic mold, and the evolutionary mold.

(Incidentally, academicians are still pulling the race card in underhanded ways, in order to trounce alternative thinking; for example, writings about a lost race of whites in the South Seas on the ancient land of Mu are “pseudoscience” and “rubbish” according to Professor Patrick Nunn (Vanished Islands and Hidden Continents in the Pacific, University of Hawaii Press, 2009, p. 85) who denounces their “racist implications… [so] abhorrent to right-thinking people.” Likewise was the announcer of Washington State’s 9,000-year-old semi-Caucasoid Kennewick Man accused of inciting “a racist rampage.”)

But I digress. The point is that no lie lasts forever. No sly tactics—like this bigot-baiting—will distract us for very long; for we are getting closer all the time to a world audience that hungers for the truth—and sees through agenda. In the course of researching and writing three books on ancient mysteries, I came across a serious blow to that agenda.

One of those “givens” in today’s paleo-anthropology is that the people who migrated from Siberia into the New World less than 20,000 years ago were of the modern type (i.e., homo sapiens). However, the record indicates otherwise: earlier types of hominids were all over the Americas. This challenges not only Bering Strait dogma, but also Afro-centrist gospel. No wonder we don’t hear about it.

So I must ask: How can the standard model, which is taught in every textbook and at every major university, explain 42,000-year-old crude chopping tools in America? (George Stuart, Discovering Man’s Past in the Americas, National Geographic Society, 1973, p. 36). Stone tools of a similar (or even older) date have been uncovered in South Carolina, west-central Illinois, and Sheguiandah, Ontario (Martinez, The Mysterious Origins of Hybrid Man, Bear & Co., 2013, p. 500). Fist hatchets (the hand ax typical of Neanderthal Man) have been unearthed in Abilene, Texas, along with dolichocephalic skulls (long-headed), which is irreconcilable with the brachycephalic skulls (round-headed) belonging to the Mongoloid people who, out of Siberia, became the supposed founders of America. Texas also gave us fossil men with “visor” brows (Harold S. Gladwin, Out of Asia, McGraw-Hill, 1947, p. 59). That massive brow ridge is characteristic of the primordial, pre-sapiens races.

Even older than Neanderthal is the hominid known as Homo erectus (or pithecanthropus); his toolkit, of the type called Acheulean, has been found in the Catskill Mountains (New York State) and dated 70,000 BP (Arthur Keith, Ancient Types of Man, Harper & Brothers, 1911, p. 484). I should mention that all these citations come from books published before the 1980s, which is to say, before African Eve became the darling of anthropology, curtailing any mention of hominids in other parts of the world.

If 70,000 BP sounds over the top for an American date, let us note that “artifacts left by early man in the Americas [up to] 70,000 years ago are now becoming plentiful … Many ancient sites yield only stone tools” (Jeffrey Goodman, The Genesis Mystery, Times Books, 1983, p. 214-5). Let me also refer Atlantis Rising aficionados to your Reader Forum, where one correspondent wrote in about Dinosaur State Park near Glen Rose, Texas (Daniel Porter, “Happisburg Footprints,” AR #108. p. 6), the same state where those Neanderthal axes were found. Here, human and dinosaur petrified footprints were found side-by-side in the mudflats of the Palaxcy River.

Whatever the true date of those footprints, the evidence suggests that part of the human race occupied America a very long time ago. The same correspondent went on to report that the Smithsonian came down to Glen Rose and bought out the footprints. After this, a person referred to as Dr. Baugh traveled to the Smithsonian to look at the display, only to find out they denied ever having the footprints.

Fortunately, similar evidence is available in Arizona (at Lee Canyon). Chipped in the rock are ancient pictograms including one of an “animal quite evidently intended to represent a dinosaur.” Another showed an elephant attacking a man. “The elephant in America dates back at least 30,000 years. The dinosaur belongs to an even earlier tropical era” (Richard Dewhurst, The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America, Bear & Co., 2014, 103-4).

But we are not done with the Southwest and its hoary past. Here, too, are traces of cannibalistic groups, for example, at a pre-Anasazi site that yielded bones with telltale cut-marks and later, legends of man-eating giants. Might they be the same archaic types of the Southwest mentioned by Harold Gladwin (Men Out of Asia, McGraw-Hill, 1947, p. 89) and dated 27,000 BP? These hominids sported the erectoid prognathous profile (mid-face jutting out) and trademark beetle brow. (Pithecanthropines of great size, who worked out-sized stones, once lived also in Argentina; see below.) Cannibalistic giants appear in Navajo and Paiute legend. These beetle-browed specimens were also flatfooted, a trait associated with most pre-sapiens types.

Continuing north, we have similar ancient footprints with no arch, in Nevada and Utah (Steiger, Mysteries of Time and Space, Dell Publishing, 1974, p. 20). Eastward, kindred discoveries have been made in Nebraska and Kansas. Early in the twentieth century, Nebraska skulls (found at Long Hill) proved to be low and receding with strongly marked supraorbital ridges. Typified by prognathism, overhanging brow, and sloping forehead, they looked all the day like classic Neanderthal specimens (William Corliss, Ancient Man: The Sourcebook Project, 1978, 672).

Speaking of early man in Kansas: Some years ago The Kansas City Times reported on an apparent race of giants (two skeletons with huge bones) who once lived along the Missouri River. The frontal bone was very low, differing radically from any of the existing races of Indians; the forehead almost flat, receded back in a flat slope. The skull was not too different than the one collected in Central California in the 1970s by Charles Ostrander: thick brow ridge and small braincase (Virginia Steen-McIntyre,  “The Enigmatic Ostrander Skull.” Pleistocene Coalition News (#9-10, 2010, p. 17).

Very prognathous, too, was Minnesota Woman, dated 40,000 BP, with large teeth (bigger than Neanderthal’s) and long arms. She was, however, gracile and fairly large brained: 1,345 cc, suggesting a fine mixture of H. erectus with more modern people. Minnesota Woman, I am afraid, broke all the rules. For one thing, she appears to be a hybrid, not an “evolved,” race. For another, her 40,000-year-old age defies the supposed 20,000 BP date for the Bering crossing. Finally, her archaic dentition and arms tell us that Africa is not the only place to look for pre-sapiens types.

Stephen J. Gould, who was a star of paleo-anthropology in the late twentieth century, was rather a contradiction in terms. On the one hand, he invented “punctuated equilibrium” (punk eek) in order to save Darwinism from observed rapid change, by positing a quick form of evolution—which, in my view, is actually an oxymoron (besides which, it is easier to explain rapid change by the simple fact of race mixing, cross-breeding). Be that as it may, Gould, on the other hand, casually presented evidence that contradicts the very premise of modern evolution; for he mentioned inhabitants of our own continent who possessed “shortened foreheads, prominent cheeks, deep-set eyes, and slightly apish nose” (Stephen J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, W.W. Norton, 1980, p. 165). Do the experts think we’re so dumb that we won’t notice these glaring contradictions?

What we have seen in North America is no less conspicuous south of the border:

If Minnesota Woman was prognathous but large-brained, quite similar hybrids have been discovered in Brazil at the Lagoa Santa caves. Prognathous and dolichocephalic, these earliest Brazilians, buried among the bones of extinct animals, had hardly any forehead, a wide space between the eyes, and thick skull walls. Yet their well-developed brain and chin marked them as “a primitive race mixed with other elements” (Roland Dixon, The Racial History of Man, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923, p. 458). Brazil’s Sumidouro cave specimens were also thick-skulled and large-browed. Significantly, the earliest fossil woman in Brazil was named Luzia, after one of Africa’s first hominids—the famous Lucy. At least 11,000 years old, Luzia looked nothing like the Paleo-Indians. Thinking (or imagining) that her features had the cast of Australia’s aborigines, theorists then went on a wild goose chase, searching for the migration route taken by Luzia’s people from Australia to America.

But bogus migrations are not the answer to this puzzle. As Chouinard (p. 164) concludes, it is more likely that “these races, found in North and South America, represent an earlier stage in American evolution… [They] speak for polygenism.”

Another marvelous hybrid, this one discovered in Patagonia and called Miramar Man, combined the sloping forehead and ultra-dolichocephaly of the most archaic hominids, with the smooth brow, good chin, and large brain (1450 cc) of Homo sapiens. This early Argentinean hybrid, called Homo pampaeus, caused quite a stir a hundred years ago. Alarmed by reports of hominid findings in Argentina, the Smithsonian sent their man down to examine the evidence. Observing the sapiens traits and shamelessly ignoring the archaic ones, the Smithsonian, with a sigh of relief, declared the case a false alarm.

But the region was full of fossil men whose anatomical features were a perfect blend of modern and archaic. A controversial scholar named Florentino Ameghino was the polymath paleontologist who brought H. pampaeus to the light of day. The creature, he thought, not only possessed “a simian peculiarity of skull,” but also his crude stone tools at Monte Hermoso were at the erectoid level. Also screaming pithecanthropus was Argentina’s Baradero skeleton, with its long arms reaching to the knees. Homo sinemento, in the same region, was very prognathous and dolichocephalic, had no chin, yet he possessed an almost modern dental arch and gracile build—an apparent and very early blend of anatomically modern humans and pithecanthropines.

The House of Darwin, thought to be the winning team, has many adherents. But built on a weak foundation, we will, in the years to come, watch it all fall down, more like a house of cards than an authentic theory of man.

 

Susan Martinez, Ph.D., earned her doctorate in anthropology at Columbia University, where she also served as lecturer in ethnolinguistics. She is author of The Mysterious Origins of Hybrid Man, and many other books.

By Susan B. Martinez, Ph.D.