Table Of ContentTable
of
Contents
INTRODUCTION
Ascended
Apes
or
Fallen
Angels?
Forbidden
Archeology:
The
Hidden
History
of
the
Human
Race
The
Extreme
Antiquity
of
Nonhuman
Species
Genes,
Design,
and
Designer
Beyond
Stones
and
Bones:
Alfred
R.
Wallace
and
the
Spirit
World
What
is
a
Human
Being?
Matter,
Mind,
and
Consciousness
The
Cosmic
Hierarchy:
A
Cross-Cultural
Study
Apparitions,
Angels,
and
Aliens
Paranormal
modification
and
Production
of
biological
form
A
Universe
Designed
for
Life
Human
Devolution:
a
Vedic
Account
HUMAN
DEVOLUTION
A
VEDIC
ALTERNATIVE
TO
DARWIN’S
THEORY
MICHAEL
A.
CREMO
Dedicated
to
His
Divine
Grace
A.
C.
Bhaktivedanta
Swami
Prabhupada
om
ajnana-timirandhasya
jnananjana-shalakaya
caksur
unmilitam
yena
tasmai
shri-gurave
namah
INTRODUCTION
My
book
Forbidden
archeology,
coauthored
with
Richard
L.
Thompson,
documents
archeological
evidence
for
extreme
human
antiquity,
consistent
with
the
Puranas,
the
historical
writings
of
ancient
India.
This
evidence
places
a
human
presence
so
far
back
in
time
as
to
call
into
question
the
Darwinian
account
of
human
origins.
In
his
review
of
Forbidden
archeology
published
in
Geoarchaeology
(1994
v.
9,
pp.
337–340),
Kenneth
Feder
said,
“When
you
attempt
to
deconstruct
a
well-accepted
paradigm,
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
a
new
paradigm
be
suggested
in
its
place.
The
authors
of
Forbidden
archeology
do
not
do
this,
and
I
would
like
to
suggest
a
reason
for
their
neglect
here.
Wishing
to
appear
entirely
scientific,
the
authors
hoped
to
avoid
a
detailed
discussion
of
their
own
beliefs.”
It
is
not
true
that
my
coauthor
and
I
were
trying
to
avoid
a
detailed
discussion
of
our
own
alternative
account.
Rather
we
were
hoping
to
ignite
just
such
a
discussion.
But
some
practical
considerations
compelled
us
to
proceed
in
stages.
In
my
introduction
to
Forbidden
archeology,
I
wrote:
“Our
research
program
led
to
results
we
did
not
anticipate,
and
hence
a
book
much
larger
than
originally
envisioned.”
I
was
genuinely
surprised
at
the
massive
number
of
cases
of
archeological
evidence
for
extreme
human
antiquity
that
turned
up
during
my
eight
years
of
historical
research.
Forbidden
archeology
went
to
press
with
over
nine
hundred
pages.
“Because
of
this,”
I
wrote
in
the
introduction,
“we
have
not
been
able
to
develop
in
this
volume
our
ideas
about
an
alternative
to
current
theories
of
human
origins.
We
are
therefore
planning
a
second
volume
relating
our
extensive
research
results
in
this
area
to
our
Vedic
source
material.”
Human
Devolution:
a
vedic
alternative
to
Darwin’s
theory
is
that
second
volume.
The
reasons
for
its
late
appearance
have
more
to
do
with
the
time
it
takes
to
research
and
write
such
a
book
rather
than
any
desire
to
avoid
a
detailed
discussion
of
a
Vedic
alternative
to
Darwinism.
Nevertheless,
I
am
not
unhappy
that
Human
Devolution
appeared
after
Forbidden
archeology
rather
than
along
with
it.
Before
presenting
an
alternative
to
the
Darwinian
concept
of
human
origins,
it
is
reasonable
to
show
that
one
is
really
necessary.
I
have
therefore
welcomed
the
chance
to
introduce
to
scientists
and
other
scholars
the
evidence
in
Forbidden
archeology
before
moving
on
to
systematically
presenting
an
alternative.
After
hearing
the
Forbidden
archeology
presentations,
many
ask,
“If
we
did
not
evolve
from
the
apes,
then
what
alternative
explanation
do
you
propose?”
To
them,
I
reply,
“Do
you
admit
a
new
explanation
is
required?
If
not,
I
have
more
work
to
do
in
showing
that
one
is
required.
And
if
you
do
admit
that
a
new
explanation
is
really
required,
then
it
is
not
just
my
responsibility
to
come
up
with
a
new
explanation.
It
is
also
your
responsibility.
We
should
all
be
thinking
about
this.
Of
course,
I
have
some
ideas
about
what
the
explanation
should
be,
but
you
should
also.”
My
first
scientific
presentation
of
Forbidden
archeology’s
evidence
and
Vedic
perspective
was
in
December
of
1994
at
the
World
Archaeological
Congress
in
New
Delhi,
India.
My
paper
“Puranic
Time
and
the
Archeological
Record,”
delivered
in
the
section
on
time
and
archeology
chaired
by
Tim
Murray
and
D.
P.
Agrawal,
drew
a
large,
appreciative
audience.
That
paper
was
later
chosen
for
publication
in
the
peer
reviewed
conference
proceedings
volume
time
and
archeology,
edited
by
Tim
Murray
and
published
by
Routledge
in
its
One
World
Archaeology
series
in
1999
(pp.
38–48).
In
March
1995,
I
presented
my
paper
“The
Impact
of
Forbidden
archeology”
at
the
Kentucky
State
University
Institute
for
Liberal
Studies
Sixth
Annual
Conference
on
Science
and
Culture.
This
paper
set
forth
the
Vedic
background
for
my
research.
It
also
reviewed
the
initial
scientific
reactions
to
the
publication
of
Forbidden
archeology.
In
July
1996,
I
was
invited
by
the
Institute
for
the
Study
of
Theoretical
Questions
of
the
Russian
Academy
of
Sciences
to
lecture
on
Forbidden
archeology
in
Moscow.
I
then
spoke
about
my
work
at
a
symposium
organized
by
the
Institute
for
Oriental
Studies
of
the
Russian
Academy
of
Sciences.
After
my
presentation,
Indologist
Evgeniya
Y.
Vanina
commented:
“I
think
that
the
statement
you
have
made,
and
your
paper,
are
very
important
because
they
touch
upon
.
.
.
how
to
look
at
the
texts
of
the
classical
tradition
as
sources
of
information.
There
is
a
tendency
among
scholars
to
say
whatever
the
vedas—and
the
Puranas,
the
Ramayana,
and
the
mahabharata—are
saying,
it
is
all
myth
and
concoction,
and
there
is
no
positive
information
in
it.
.
.
.
I
think
that
such
a
negativist
attitude
toward
the
ancient
and
early
medieval
Indian
texts
as
sources
of
information
should
definitely
be
discarded.”
While
I
was
in
Russia,
I
was
also
invited
to
give
a
talk
on
Forbidden
archeology
to
a
large
audience
of
physicists
at
Dubna,
the
science
city
outside
Moscow.
In
October
1996,
I
spoke
about
the
evidence
in
Forbidden
archeology
at
the
International
Conference
on
Revisiting
Indus
Sarasvati
Age
and
Ancient
India
in
Atlanta.
In
July
1997,
in
Liège,
Belgium,
at
the
XXth
International
Congress
for
History
of
Science,
I
presented
a
detailed
study
of
one
of
the
cases
documented
in
Forbidden
archeology.
This
paper,
“The
Later
Discoveries
of
Boucher
de
Perthes
at
Moulin
Quignon
and
Their
Impact
on
the
Moulin
Quignon
Jaw
Controversy,”
appeared
in
Proceedings
of
the
XXth
International
Congress
of
History
of
Science,
vol.
X.,
earth
Sciences,
Geography,
and
Cartography,
edited
by
Goulven
Laurent
and
published
by
Brepols
in
2002
(pp.
39–56).
In
October
of
1997,
I
presented
lectures
on
Forbidden
archeology
to
students
and
faculty
of
archeology,
anthropology,
and
biology
at
the
University
of
Amsterdam,
the
Free
University
of
Amsterdam,
the
University
of
Leiden,
the
University
of
Groningen,
the
University
of
Utrecht,
and
the
University
of
Nijmegen
in
the
Netherlands,
and
at
the
Catholic
University
of
Louvain
and
University
of
Ghent
in
Belgium.
In
November
of
1997,
I
lectured
on
Forbidden
archeology
at
universities
in
Hungary,
including
the
Eötvös
Loran
Science
University
in
Budapest,
the
University
of
Szeged,
and
the
University
of
Eger.
In
January
1999,
I
presented
a
paper
titled
“Forbidden
Archeology
of
the
Middle
and
Early
Pleistocene”
at
the
fourth
World
Archaeological
Congress
in
Cape
Town,
South
Africa.
In
March
and
April,
I
gave
lectures
on
Forbidden
archeology
at
universities
in
England,
Poland,
Hungary,
and
the
United
States,
including
City
University
of
London,
the
University
of
Warsaw,
the
University
of
Delaware,
the
University
of
Maryland,
and
Cornell
University.
In
September
1999,
I
was
invited
to
speak
on
Forbidden
archeology
at
the
University
of
Oklahoma
School
of
Geology
and
Geophysics,
as
part
of
the
Shell
Oil
Colloquium
Series.
Also
in
September
I
presented
a
paper
titled
“Forbidden
Archeology
of
the
Paleolithic”
at
the
European
Association
of
Archaeologists
Fifth
Annual
Meeting
at
Bournemouth
in
the
United
Kingdom.
The
paper
was
selected
for
inclusion
in
a
conference
proceedings
volume
edited
by
Ana
C.
Martins
for
British
Archaeological
Reports
(forthcoming).
In
March
2000,
I
was
invited
to
speak
on
Forbidden
archeology
in
a
lecture
series
of
the
Royal
Institution
of
Great
Britain,
one
of
the
world’s
oldest
scientific
societies.
The
lecture
was
given
in
the
Royal
Institution’s
headquarters
in
London.
Later
that
year,
in
September,
I
presented
a
paper
titled
“The
Discoveries
of
Carlos
Ribeiro:
A
Controversial
Episode
in
Nineteenth-Century
European
Archeology”
at
the
European
Association
of
Archaeologists
Sixth
Annual
Meeting,
in
Lisbon,
Portugal.
In
November
2000,
I
lectured
on
Forbidden
archeology
at
universities
in
Hungary.
In
June
2001,
I
lectured
on
Forbidden
archeology
at
the
Simon
Fraser
University
in
Vancouver,
Canada.
In
September
2001,
my
paper
“The
Discoveries
of
Belgian
Geologist
Aimé
Louis
Rutot
at
Boncelles,
Belgium:
An
Archeological
Controversy
from
the
Early
Twentieth
Century”
was
accepted
for
presentation
at
the
XXIVth
Congress
of
the
International
Union
of
Prehistoric
and
Protohistoric
Sciences,
held
in
September
of
that
year
in
Liège,
Belgium.
In
October
2001,
I
lectured
on
Forbidden
archeology
at
Pennsylvania
State
University
and
Cornell
University.
In
November
2001,
I
lectured
on
Forbidden
archeology
at
the
Charles
University
in
Prague,
in
the
Czech
Republic,
at
the
invitation
of
the
faculty
of
philosophy.
In
January
and
February
2002,
I
toured
South
India,
with
lectures
at
universities
and
other
scientific
and
cultural
institutions,
such
as
the
Bharatiya
Vidya
Bhavan
in
Mumbai
(Bombay)
and
the
Ana
University
in
Chennai
(Madras).
In
April
and
May
2002,
I
toured
the
Ukraine
and
Slovenia,
speaking
at
universities
and
scientific
institutions
such
as
the
Kiev
Mogilanskaya
Academy
and
the
Institute
of
Archeology
of
the
Ukrainian
Academy
of
Sciences.
I
also
spoke
to
archeologists
in
the
archeology
department
of
the
Dnepropetrovsk
Historical
Museum.
In
November
and
December
I
returned
to
the
Ukraine
for
another
series
of
such
talks
at
universities
and
historical
museums
in
Odessa,
Kharkov,
and
Lvov.
As
I
am
writing
this
introduction
in
December
2002,
I
am
preparing
a
paper
on
the
California
gold
mine
discoveries
reported
by
geologist
Josiah
D.
Whitney
for
the
fifth
World
Archaeological
Congress,
to
be
held
in
Washington,
D.C.,
in
June
2003.
I
am
with
archeologist
Ana
Martins
of
Portugal
co-
organizer
of
a
section
on
history
of
archeology
for
the
Congress.
In
terms
of
ordinary
scholarship,
this
modest
collection
of
conference
presentations,
publications,
and
university
lectures
is
not
overly
impressive.
But
given
the
explicit
Vedic
anti-evolutionary
content
of
the
papers
and
lectures
they
are,
I
believe,
historically
significant.
They
show
that
scientists
and
historians
of
science,
whether
or
not
they
agree
with
the
conclusions
expressed
in
the
presentations,
now
consider
such
presentations
part
of
the
active
discourse
in
their
disciplines.
In
that
sense,
they
demonstrate
that
Forbidden
archeology
accomplished
one
of
its
major
purposes—sparking
a
discussion
within
the
world
of
science
about
anomalous
evidence
for
extreme
human
antiquity
and
a
Vedic
perspective
on
human
origins.
The
presentations
show
that
fundamentalist
Darwinists
within
the
world
of
science
have
not
been
as
successful
as
they
would
like
to
be
in
maintaining
a
boundary
between
science
and
what
they
call
religiously
motivated
“pseudoscience,”
to
use
their
favored,
and
charmingly
cranky,
terminology.
I
personally
do
not
accept
the
increasingly
irrelevant
distinctions
some
try
to
make
between
scientific
and
religious
ways
of
knowing.
I
see
myself
as
neither
scientist
nor
religionist,
but
as
a
human
being
prepared
to
use
various
ways
of
knowing
in
the
pursuit
of
truth.
Forbidden
archeology
was
widely
reviewed
in
the
professional
journals
of
archeology,
anthropology,
and
history
of
science.
I
included
the
complete
texts
of
these
reviews,
along
with
related
correspondence,
in
my
book
Forbidden
archeology’s
Impact,
which
attracted
its
own
set
of
academic
reviews.
For
example,
Simon
Locke
wrote
in
Public
understanding
of
Science
(1999
v.
8,
no.
1,
pp.
68–69),
“Social
constructivism,
reflexivity,
and
all
that
is
postmodern
have
inspired
a
variety
of
experiments
in
new
literary
forms
to
enliven
the
staid
old
world
of
the
standard
academic
study.
.
.
.
As
attempts
to
document
the
social
process
of
knowledge
production
and
capture
some
of
its
reflexivity,
they
are
both
consistent
and
courageous.
So,
too,
Michael
Cremo’s
book.
The
‘impact’
the
book
documents
is
that
of
Cremo’s
earlier
work,
Forbidden
archeology.
In
this
latest
book
rather
than
construct
his
own
historical
narrative,
Cremo
opts
for
the
far
more
interesting
strategy
of
directly
reproducing
much
of
the
source
material
from
which
any
such
narrative
would
be
constructed.
The
result
is
a
multi-faceted
textual
kaleidoscope,
in
which
a
wide
range
of
the
many
discourses
surrounding
contemporary
science
reflect
and
refract
each
other
in
fascinating
array
.
.
.
Cremo
has
provided
here
a
resource
of
considerable
richness
and
value
to
analysts
of
public
understanding
[of
science].
.
.
.
It
should
also
make
a
useful
teaching
resource
as
one
of
the
best-documented
case
studies
of
‘science
wars,’
and
raising
a
wide
range
of
issues
covering
aspects
of
‘knowledge
transfer’
in
a
manner
sure
to
be
provocative
in
the
classroom.”
The
positive
or
negative
nature
of
the
Forbidden
archeology
reviews
in
academic
journals
is
not
as
significant
as
the
very
fact
that
the
reviews
appeared
at
all.
They
represent
another
form
of
acknowledgement
that
the
Vedic
critique
of
the
Darwinian
theory
of
human
evolution
represented
by
Forbidden
archeology
is
a
genuine
part
of
contemporary
science
and
scholarship.
As
Kenneth
Feder
said
in
his
Geoarchaeology
review
(pp.
337–338),
“The
book
itself
represents
something
perhaps
not
seen
before;
we
can
fairly
call
it
‘Krishna
creationism’
with
no
disrespect
intended
.
.
.
While
decidedly
antievolutionary
in
perspective,
this
work
is
not
the
ordinary
variety
of
antievolutionism
in
form,
content,
or
style.
In
distinction
to
the
usual
brand
of
such
writing,
the
authors
use
original
sources
and
the
book
is
well
written.
Further,
the
overall
tone
of
the
work
is
superior
to
that
exhibited
in
ordinary
creationist
literature.”
Jo
Wodak
and
David
Oldroyd
published
a
lengthy
review
article
about
Forbidden
archeology
in
Social
Studies
of
Science
(1996
v.
26,
pp.
192–213).
In
their
article,
titled
“Vedic
Creationism:
A
Further
Twist
to
the
Evolution
Debate,”
they
asked
(p.
207),“So
has
Forbidden
archeology
made
any
contribution
at
all
to
the
literature
on
palaeoanthropology?”
They
concluded,
“Our
answer
is
a
guarded
‘yes’,
for
two
reasons.”
First,
“the
historical
material
.
.
.
has
not
been
scrutinized
in
such
detail
before,”
and,
second,
the
book
does
“raise
a
central
problematic
regarding
the
lack
of
certainty
in
scientific
‘truth’
claims.”They
also
commented
(p.
198),
“It
must
be
acknowledged
that
Forbidden
archeology
brings
to
attention
many
interesting
issues
that
have
not
received
much
consideration
from
historians;
and
the
authors’
detailed
examination
of
the
early
literature
is
certainly
stimulating
and
raises
questions
of
considerable
interest,
both
historically
and
from
the
perspective
of
practitioners
of
SSK
[sociology
of
scientific
knowledge].
Indeed,
they
appear
to
have
gone
into
some
historical
matters
more
deeply
than
any
other
writers
of
whom
we
have
knowledge.”
In
the
first
few
pages
of
their
article
(pp.
192–195),
Wodak
and
Oldroyd
gave
extensive
background
information
on:
The
International
Society
for
Krishna
Consciousness,
of
which
the
authors
of
Forbidden
archeology
are
members
(“a
modern
variant
of
the
Bhakti
sects
that
have
dominated
Hindu
religious
life
over
the
last
one
and
a
half
millennia”);
the
teachings
of
the
movement’s
founder,
Bhaktivedanta
Swami
Prabhupada
(“for
Prabhupada,
science
gives
no
adequate
account
of
the
origin
of
the
universe
or
of
life”);
the
Bhaktivedanta
Institute
(they
comment
on
“the
boldness
of
its
intellectual
programme”);
and
Vedic
chronology
(“partial
dissolutions,
called
pralaya,
supposedly
take
place
every
4.32
billion
years,
bringing
catastrophes
in
which
whole
groups
of
living
forms
can
disappear”).
Wodak
and
Oldroyd
also
make
many
references
to
the
Rg
veda,
vedanta,
the
Puranas,
the
atma,
yoga,
and
karma.
In
common
with
other
reviewers,
Wodak
and
Oldroyd
drew
a
connection
between
Forbidden
archeology
and
the
work
of
Christian
creationists.
“As
is
well
known,”
they
noted
(p.
192),
“Creationists
try
to
show
that
humans
are
of
recent
origin,
and
that
empirical
investigations
accord
with
human
history
as
recorded
in
the
Old
Testament.
Forbidden
archeology
(Fa)
offers
a
brand
of
Creationism
based
on
something
quite
different,
namely
ancient
Vedic
beliefs.
From
this
starting
point,
instead
of
claiming
a
human
history
of
mere
millennia,
Fa
argues
for
the
existence
of
Homo
sapiens
way
back
into
the
Tertiary,
perhaps
even
earlier.”
In
l’anthropologie
(1995
v.99,
no.
1,
p.
159),
Marylène
Pathou-Mathis
wrote:
“M.
Cremo
and
R.
Thompson
have
willfully
written
a
provocative
work
that
raises
the
problem
of
the
influence
of
the
dominant
ideas
of
a
time
period
on
scientific
research.
These
ideas
can
compel
the
researchers
to
orient
their
analyses
according
to
the
conceptions
that
are
permitted
by
the
scientific
community.”
She
concluded,
“The
documentary
richness
of
this
work,
more
historical
and
sociological
than
scientific,
is
not
to
be
ignored.”
And
in
British
Journal
for
the
History
of
Science
(1995
v.
28,
pp.
377
–379),
Tim
Murray
noted
in
his
review
of
Forbidden
archeology
(p.
379):
“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.”
He
further
characterized
Forbidden
archeology
as
a
book
that
“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
for
their
lives.”
Murray
acknowledged
that
the
Vedic
perspective
of
Forbidden
archeology
might
have
a
role
to
play
in
the
future
development
of
archeology.
He
wrote
in
his
review
(p.
379)
that
archeology
is
now
in
a
state
of
flux,
with
practitioners
debating
“issues
which
go
to
the
conceptual
core
of
the
discipline.”
Murray
then
proposed,“Whether
the
vedas
have
a
role
to
play
in
this
is
up
to
the
individual
scientists
concerned.”
This
openmindedness
is
characteristic
of
the
reviews
of
Forbidden
archeology
that
appeared
in
respected
academic
and
scientific
journals,
the
only
exception
being
a
particularly
vitriolic
attack
by
Jonathan
Marks
in
american
Journal
of
Physical
anthropology
(1994
v.
93,
no.
1,
pp.
140–141).
Other
than
that,
demands
to
totally
exclude
the
Vedic
perspective
of
Forbidden
archeology
from
the
discourse
of
science
were
confined
to
the
publications
of
extremist
groups,
such
as
skeptics
societies
(whose
skepticism
does
not
extend
to
the
theory
of
evolution)
and
the
unremittingly
anticreationist
National
Center
for
Science
Education
in
the
United
States
(misleadingly
named
so
as
to
imply
some
governmental
connection).
Also
in
this
category
is
an
attempted
book-length
debunking
by
Michael
Brass
(the
antiquity
of
man).
Wiktor
Stoczkowski,
reviewing
Forbidden
archeology
in
l’Homme
(1995
v.
35,
pp.
173–174),
accurately
noted
(p.
173),
“Historians
of
science
repeat
tirelessly
that
the
Biblical
version
of
origins
was
replaced
in
the
nineteenth
century
by
the
evolution
theory.
In
our
imaginations,
we
substitute
this
simple
story
for
the
more
complex
reality
that
we
are
today
confronted
with
