PROBLEMS WITH ANOMALOUS HUMAN REMAINS

© Ian Lawton 2002

[This paper represents an adjunct to Genesis Unveiled (now The History of the Soul)]

Hindu Creationism

Over the years a number of revisionist researchers have attempted to question the orthodox view of human evolution by presenting supposed evidence of modern human remains that date back much farther than 150,000 to 200,000 years. Supreme amongst them though are surely Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson. Their hugely influential Forbidden Archaeology first appeared in 1993, while an abbreviated version was published under the title The Hidden History of the Human Race the following year.[i] They suggest that archaeological evidence of modern humankind’s existence stretching back many millions of years has been ‘suppressed, ignored, or forgotten because evolutionary prejudice has acted as a knowledge filter in the archaeological community’.[ii] Other revisionist researchers have trodden this path before, but not in as much detail and without the broad accompanying philosophy that Cremo and Thompson, at least on the face of it, provide. This is not discussed in the book itself, but they are quite open about it in their introduction:[iii]

Some might question why we would put together a book like The Hidden History of the Human Race, unless we had some underlying purpose. Indeed, there is some underlying purpose. 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 its ability to account for observations. Because of space considerations, we were not 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.

First of all, to avoid confusion I should note that their reference to the Vedic literature is clearly intended to include the later Hindu epics and Puranas in which the theory of world cycles is properly expounded. In any case, they are absolutely right to suggest that their affiliation should not disqualify their work – after all, my own philosophical framework underpins the entirety of this work – although we will find shortly that there may be other more prosaic and factual reasons to question it. It is, however, somewhat disconcerting that they make no real attempt to put their new ‘evidence’ into the broader context of a detailed alternative to evolution, promising that the full elucidation of the ‘Hindu creationist’ paradigm will be forthcoming in another book – which, even though a decade has now passed, is yet to emerge. Moreover, in their work they actually spend little or no time criticising the details of the orthodox theory of evolution per se.

Nevertheless what we can say is that, while their work concentrates on providing supposed evidence that counteracts the theory of human evolution in particular, we already know that the Hindu traditions apply a concept of cyclical creationism to all forms of life, and so we must assume that they are by definition creationists on the full global scale. Further information can be gleaned from Cremo’s 1998 work Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact, which includes the entirety of the reviews and correspondence that resulted from the initial publication. In one response to a critical review he offers the following:[iv]

Hindu cosmology speaks of cycles of creation and destruction. The basic unit of these cycles, which are of vast duration, is the day of Brahma. During the day of Brahma, which lasts about 4.3 billion years, the earth is manifest. During the night of Brahma, which also lasts 4.3 billion years, the earth is unmanifest. According to the Hindu cosmological calendar, we are about 2 billion years into the present day of Brahma. That would be the age of the current earth. Because life has, according to Vedic accounts, been here since the beginning of the current manifestation of earth, we should therefore expect the fossil record to extend back about 2 billion years. And according to modern palaeontology it apparently does go back about 2–3 billion years, with the age of the earth itself being about 4 billion years. In short, there is rough equivalence between Hindu cosmology and modern geology regarding the age of the earth and the extent of the fossil record.

This is all somewhat confusing. On the one hand he asserts that we are only ‘about two billion years into the present day of Brahma’, which ‘would be the age of the current earth’;[v] and on the other that ‘the age of the earth itself [is] about four billion years.’ The former denies the evidence of geology. The latter – given that the best estimate of the age of our planet is in fact four and a half billion years – suggests that that we are already 180 million years late for our next planetary dissolution and that the night of Brahma should already be upon us; but, as far as I can tell, and for better or worse, mother earth and her various inhabitants are still here.

Nor is it clear whether life having ‘been here since the beginning of the current manifestation of earth’ includes human life. If it does, we are left with a further conundrum: how were our distant forebears supposed to walk around on the planet for the first few hundred million years of its existence – when it was still being bombarded by cosmic debris from the formation of our solar system, and the atmosphere was almost certainly poisonous?

Of course, whenever this took place, we might also ask the even more obvious question of exactly how humankind arrived on the planet in the current day of Brahma – the implication being that we were somehow created afresh. I have already commented at length in Genesis Unveiled on the flaws in the Hindu traditions on which Cremo and Thompson base their philosophy, and I can only reiterate my opinion that it is a massive distortion of the original esoteric wisdom of the theory of universal cycles to suggest that human life on earth, or any physical life on any planet for that matter, are subject to subcycles of manifestation and reabsorption within the universal cycle – and as a result operate outside the orthodox cosmological and evolutionary framework. In any case, until and unless further explanation of their underlying philosophy is forthcoming, it remains a puzzling and somewhat logically unsatisfactory one.

But, even if their philosophical framework does not stand up too well, does any of their physical evidence for the far greater antiquity of modern humans stand up?

Humbug?

Perhaps Cremo and Thompson’s most blunt and high-profile critic is Richard Leakey himself, who, when asked to comment on their work, replied with a terse ‘a quick glance at some pages suggests to me that your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool.’[vii] Unfortunately, of course, such reactions allow the authors and their supporters to use this as evidence that members of the establishment are up to their old tricks of conspiring to ridicule and silence their critics. However, there is another possible explanation – and that is that they are too busy to attempt a detailed rebuttal of the huge number of claims made in the book in detail, but do not like to see the public misled.

Nevertheless, a number of other members of the orthodoxy have taken a little more time out to refute them, although they all indicate that to go through the details of every single case would require a lengthy book in itself and most, understandably, restrict themselves to commenting on a few selected examples. To his credit, as we saw previously, Cremo includes all their reviews in Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact.

The most notable critics have been Jonathan Marks, Kenneth Feder, Tim Murray, Wade Tarzia, Colin Groves, and Bradley Lepper, most of whom are anthropologists or archaeologists at leading universities around the world.[viii] All of their papers make important contributions to a proper appreciation of potential weaknesses in Cremo and Thompson’s arguments, and their reviews should be examined by anyone wanting to gain a proper perspective – as, of course, should Cremo’s responses. However, by far the most comprehensive rebuttal has been prepared in full book form by Michael Brass, an archaeology graduate from the University of Cape Town, in his 2002 work The Antiquity of Man.

In the following sections I will conduct my own review of Cremo and Thompson’s work that to some extent draws on these sources, and I will commence with the more detailed evidence before making some rather more general observations. Remember, however, that this is a chapter within a book, and not a whole book, so this review cannot be exhaustive. Still, I do hope to provide enough information to allow a proper judgment to be made as to the validity or otherwise of their claims.

Stone Tools

Cremo and Thompson include chapters on incised bones, eoliths, palaeoliths, and neoliths, in all of which they suggest that there is evidence for stone tool use dating to much earlier epochs than the orthodoxy suggests.[ix] Many of their opponents have focused on this area, but the arguments, especially with respect to the crudest small stone flakes or eoliths, are fraught with problems – not least with respect to distinguishing between flakes that have been deliberately created and those that occur naturally. I do not have time to delve into all the intricacies of these arguments here – nor is it an area to which I consider it profitable to devote much attention, because we know that most of these tools were used by predecessor Homo species anyway.

However, a general criticism is that the authors admit too much evidence that is not supported by other contextual finds – such as associated Homo and animal bones in the case of small eoliths, and, in the case of the larger palaeoliths, the now broadly accepted requirement that the production of one core implement will produce roughly thirty to forty fragments or flakes. This is the type of supporting evidence that modern developments in professional archaeological standards have surely been right to demand.

Skeletal Remains

Cremo and Thompson also include chapters on skeletal evidence of two types – that which has been rejected by the establishment, and that which remains accepted because it is still quoted – although they suggest that both types have been misinterpreted or handled selectively. We will look at each in turn, but first there is a general point that should be made about their use of partial remains.

Partial Remains

Cremo and Thompson often trumpet the discovery of individual leg, arm, back, and other bones that date back as much as several million years ago and display modern human characteristics. They use this fragmentary evidence to consistently suggest that these remains are those of fully modern humans.

In doing so they appear to ignore the fact that the professionals – especially those who in increasing numbers do not support a gradualist view of human anatomical evolution – expect to find such remains, because they accept that one or more species of early Homo dating back to two million years ago or even more were fully bipedal, were no longer arboreal to any significant extent, and were starting to use their hands to produce simple stone tools. Accordingly, of course we would expect significant parts of some of these skeletons to resemble those of modern humans.

The most definitive distinguishing factor of modern humans, however, would appear to be their skull shape and size. We should bear this in mind when we examine detailed cases.

Rejected Evidence

The cases rejected by the orthodoxy represent something of a mishmash – even the authors admit that ‘doubts remain as to the true age of these bones.’[x] Those that include any hint of cranial remains are summarised in Figure 1. And just to demonstrate that we can all be selective about how we present evidence, I have deliberately included the rebuttive aspects of each case in the ‘Other Details’ column.

Figure 1: Supposedly Anomalous Human Remains

We can see straight away that all but one of these cases date to the nineteenth century, and it would seem quite clear that they have been discarded by the orthodoxy not because they were embarrassing but because there was too much doubt about their authenticity – due to the possibility either of deliberate hoaxing, of intrusive modern burial into a lower stratum, or of misinterpretation of the remains themselves.[xi] Moreover, Cremo and Thompson admit that some of the remains that can still be located have been subjected to modern dating analysis by professionals – hardly the acts of people anxious to cover them up.

If more modern finds existed in abundance to back these up, I think we can safely assume that some of these older finds would once again be reassessed by the professionals – although of course the authors would probably argue that they would be ignored, covered up, or misinterpreted straight away.

Accepted Evidence

If we turn now to Cremo and Thompson’s critique of the evidence accepted by the orthodoxy, we find that they devote chapters to a variety of cases: to Java man; to Beijing man; to the Piltdown skull hoax – which they infer is typical of the type of fraud that is occasionally and deliberately perpetrated by the establishment, when in fact it was that very establishment that insisted on performing sufficient tests to ultimately reject it as only a recent remain; and even to the possibility of ‘living ape-men’ – although it is not entirely clear how the continued existence of such creatures would support their main argument.[xii]

Perhaps the most important of these cases are covered in the final chapter, which concentrates on African finds.[xiii] Much of it is devoted to discussion of the orthodox debates surrounding australopiths and early Homo species such as Homo habilis, subjects upon which I will make a general comment shortly. Nevertheless, two sets of accepted remains are discussed at the beginning of the chapter that are not only important in themselves but also provide good case studies of Cremo and Thompson’s work. It is to Michael Brass’ critiques thereof that we will turn, and the first, which we will consider in some detail, concerns the ‘Reck skeleton’:[xiv]

In 1913 the German geologist Hans Reck was searching at Olduvai Gorge when his helpers came across an anatomically modern skeleton in Bed II (out of a sequence of five beds, with Bed I being the oldest). Bed II is dated at 1.2 mya. Louis Leakey paid the site a visit in 1931 with Reck and came to the same conclusion, namely that the skeleton was not an intrusive burial due to the layer above the skeleton being intact. Later however, after soil samples were tested from Bed II and the skeleton, they published their revised conclusions, in the prestigious journal Nature: a grave filling from Bed V. . . .

Cremo and Thompson reject the revised conclusion on the invalid basis that ‘perhaps Reck was simply tired of fighting an old battle against odds that seemed more and more overwhelming.’ Further details are given by Morell that go unmentioned by Cremo and Thompson: ‘Meanwhile, in England the death knell was sounding for Olduvai Man. Several independent geological tests had been run on the skeleton and soil samples. These showed that the body had been buried in Bed II in comparatively recent times, when a fault exposed that horizon. Sometime after the burial, Beds III and IV eroded away; then Bed II had been covered over by the deposits of Bed V. Reck had mistaken the soil of Bed V for that of Bed III – an easy enough error to make as both are a deep red in colour.’

Cremo and Thompson point out that Bed V has an age of 400,000 BP, so the skeletal remains ‘still give a potentially anomalous age for the fully human skeleton.’ However, Bed V is divided up further: Masek Beds, Ndutu Beds and the Naisiusiu Beds. The Lower Ndutu Bed began accumulating around 400,000 BP, and ended c. 75,000 BP. The Naisiusiu Beds are dated between 22,000 – 15,000 BP.

Cremo and Thompson also provide a lengthy attempt at rebutting the radiocarbon tests performed on the Reck skeleton by Reiner Protsch in 1974 – which showed it to be a mere 16,920 years old – and this too is critiqued by Brass in detail. His most telling comment is that any contamination of the sample by material from Bed II, during its burial therein, would tend to make the test date older than it really should be, and not younger.

The second case concerns the ‘Kanjera skulls’ and ‘Kanam jaw’ discovered by Louis Leakey near Lake Victoria in the mid-1930s. The identification and dating of these remains has been the subject of some controversy, which is rather too lengthy to cover in detail here. However, Brass’ detailed critique indicates that, once again, more recent studies have tended to confirm that these remains do not represent a significant anomaly.[xv]

In fact we find in a number of other cases that not only has new evidence emerged since Cremo and Thompson’s work was first published in 1993, but also there is a great deal of highly relevant evidence that was already available that they omit.[xvi] At the very least this might suggest that a revised edition should be prepared.[xvii]

The Laetoli Footprints

There is one more case that Cremo and Thompson discuss toward the end of the final chapter, and that is the notorious ‘Laetoli footprints’ uncovered in various stages by Mary Leakey’s expeditions in Tanzania in the late 1970s. One particular set of prints appear to be distinctly like those of modern humans, and there is no doubt that they date to 3.7 million years ago. The key question has always been whether these could have been made by an australopith, which as we have seen was probably the first hominid to mix bipedalism with arborealism. The situation has been made more complex by the fact that, for a long time, no complete foot skeleton of any australopith had been discovered.

However, just such a specimen has more recently come to light in South Africa, belonging to Austalopithecus africanus and dubbed Little Foot.[xviii] It would appear from this that australopiths did have a divergent big toe, as do apes and chimpanzees, but that they also had the ability to draw it in. In fact an experiment with a male and female chimpanzee walking on wet sand, performed by Ron Clarke who discovered Little Foot, revealed that the male did draw in his big toe as he walked, whereas the female did not – he puts this down to the more confident stride of the former. There are a number of other sets of prints at Laetoli, and some of these do show divergent big toes, which tends to confirm Clarke’s hypothesis. Moreover, the most recent evidence suggests that the supposedly human prints are not consistent with a modern human gait, whereas they are with that of an australopith. Taken with the overriding fact that the remains of the latter have been found in abundance at Laetoli, all this seems to indicate that, once again, Cremo and Thompson’s attempt to reinterpret orthodox evidence is inappropriate.

With that, let us now turn to some more general criticisms of their work.

Exaggerating the Conflicts

Cremo and Thompson tend to seize on any areas of ongoing debate among members of the establishment itself in order to demonstrate how little they really know and the extent to which they are speculating. However, this really is somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps they would rather that the professionals pretended that they knew absolutely all the answers, and hid any debate from public view – although, in order to have it both ways, this is exactly what the authors suggest they do do on other occasions.

I have already indicated in Genesis Unveiled that the establishment view of australopiths has changed somewhat over time, and that in the light of increasing evidence they have come to be seen as bipedal apes that remained arboreal to a significant degree. As a result it is by no means clear whether the Homo lines are descendants of one of the many species of australopith, or of an ancestor common to both. Moreover, the classification of Homo habilis as a separate species is coming under challenge from a number of quarters.

These issues pose serious challenges to the professionals who continue to attempt to develop and refine our family tree. To suggest that they know next to nothing, however, and are preserving a fatally flawed framework in order to hold on to a similarly flawed evolutionary paradigm, is in my view nonsense.

Allegations of Bias

As in any debate that stirs up emotions, Cremo and Thompson accuse the establishment of being selective in the presentation and interpretation of the evidence, while the establishment returns the accusation with interest. My own judgment, for what it is worth, is that the establishment is broadly in the right in this case. Apart from any selectivity already noted in the authors’ work, the modern chemical testing of remains, for example, is questioned when it does not support their argument and extolled when it does. Moreover, they do not comment on the increasing evidence of genetic analysis at all.

Above all, bear in mind that Cremo and Thompson can put their case forward however they like – as can all revisionist authors, myself included – without years of close scrutiny and peer review from professional colleagues to check whether they are presenting it in a fair and balanced way. Members of the professional community do not have that luxury. Despite the imperfections of peer review, and the possibility of short-term manipulation or even suppression of evidence by professionals with an axe to grind, in the long term which of these mechanisms is most likely to get closest to the truth? Wade Tarzia sums it up nicely:[xix]

The authors posit a vast ‘knowledge filter’ and often indict the honesty and biases of scientists. A fairer judgment is that scientists are human and have human potentials for failings; in my mind, this means that knowledge is accumulated at a slower rate than in a perfect world, but accumulate it does. At the most cynical point, I could posit that untruthful biases are uncovered because scientists eventually criticise loose thinking if only to further their careers. At their best, scientists – indeed, all scholars and artists – love truth and are driven to know how the world is made. Multiply these drives by the number of scholars living, and it all adds up to a normally self-corrective tradition that Cremo and Thompson reject with little basis.

Timescales

My final comment on Cremo and Thompson’s work is a brief one about their timescales. The oldest supposed evidence on which they place any real reliance is that of anomalous tools and artefacts, the earliest instances of which supposedly date back to the commencement of the Cambrian epoch around 570 million years ago, but which do not become significant in number until the Carboniferous, some 365 million years ago. As for supposedly anomalous modern skeletal remains, isolated cases are reported from the start of the Eocene about 55 million years ago but do not really become numerous until the advent of the Pliocene about 5 million years ago.[xx]

This is a huge spread, but unfortunately nowhere do they make it clear how they think this evidence fits into their view of the Hindu cycles. I have already indicated in Genesis Unveiled that Cremo seems to be confused about when the current earth was formed and therefore the starting point for the current day of Brahma, which may be either four and a half billion years ago or two billion years ago depending on which of his statements you rely upon. However, he does elsewhere suggest that we are currently in the twenty-eighth maha yuga of the seventh manvantara, which would favour the latter option, however much it goes against the evidence of geology.[xxi] Yet clearly none of their supposedly anomalous physical evidence even remotely ties in with either of these figures for the commencement of the current day of Brahma, so we are left to wonder whether it is perhaps the start of the current manvantara that should signal the emergence of modern man, but again at roughly 120 million years ago there seems no obvious tie-up. The fact that Cremo and Thompson appear not to even attempt to provide a tie-up between their evidence and their cyclical framework is unfortunately just another shortcoming that has still not been addressed.

Conclusion

I must emphasise that I do not think that the establishment has all the answers regarding humankind’s history on earth. It is precisely because the archaeological and mythological orthodoxy largely fails to take account of a more spiritual approach thereto that I have written Genesis Unveiled. However, with respect to the relatively solid foundation of the physical evidence of human evolution – and despite the fact that there are many gaps in our understanding that remain to be filled – I think they broadly have it right.

Cremo and Thompson’s efforts to push the emergence of modern humans much farther back are in some ways heroic, and before I had chance to research these topics in any detail myself I found their work persuasive and exciting. However, I cannot escape the fact that it must be seriously questioned on a number of counts, both philosophical and factual.

Source References

[i] Because I comment in some critical detail on their work I should indicate that I do have a copy of both. Because the intricate detail of the original does not materially affect our consideration of the arguments, however, and because Hidden History is less formidable to the general reader, my references are all to the latter.

[ii] Cremo and Thompson, Hidden History (Govardhan Hill, 1994), jacket text.

[iii] Ibid., Introduction, p. xix.

[iv] Cremo, Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact (Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, 1998), Section 3.1.2.1, pp. 198–9; he is responding to a critical review by palaeoanthropologist Colin Groves.

[v] This suggestion seems to be corroborated when he suggests elsewhere that we are currently in the twenty-eighth maha yuga of the seventh manvantara (to confirm the rough arithmetic, refer back to Figure 3); see ibid., Section 1.1, p. 6.

[vi] For a fuller explanation of these criticisms, see the paper entitled ‘Problems With Anomalous Human Remains’ on my website at www.ianlawton.com/guindex.htm. The most complete rebuttal, which includes highly detailed case studies, is provided by archaeological researcher Michael Brass in his 2002 work The Antiquity of Man.

[vii] Cremo, Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact, Section 4.30, p. 349.

[viii] The sources are as follows: Marks, Jonathan, ‘Review of Forbidden Archaeology’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 93, Number 1 (1994), pp. 140–41 (see also ibid., Section 2.1.3). Feder, Kenneth, ‘Review of Forbidden Archaeology’, Geoarchaeology 9, Number 4 (1994), pp. 337–40 (see also ibid., Section 2.1.4). Murray, Tim, ‘Review of Forbidden Archaeology’, British Journal for the History of Science 28 (1995), pp. 377–9 (see also ibid., Section 2.2.2). Tarzia, Wade, ‘Forbidden Archaeology: Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena’, Creation/Evolution 14, Number 1 (1994), pp. 13–25 (see also ibid., Section 3.1.1). Groves, Colin, ‘Creationism: The Hindu View’, The Skeptic 14, Number 3 (1994), pp. 43–5 (see also ibid., Section 3.1.2). Lepper, Bradley T., ‘Hidden History, Hidden Agenda’, Skeptic 4, Number 1 (1996), pp. 98–100 (see also ibid., Section 3.1.4).

[ix] Cremo and Thompson, Hidden History, Chapters 2–5.

[x] Ibid., Chapter 7, p. 124. All the rejected evidence is considered in this chapter.

[xi] For detailed comments on the rejection but not deliberate cover-up of the Calaveras skull see, for example, Paul Heinrich’s 1996 posting to a variety of Internet discussion sites, which is reproduced in Cremo, Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact, Section 5.3.2.10, pp. 485–7. See also Groves (ibid., Section 3.1.2, pp. 185–6) on the reasons why a comparison of the Foxhall jaw – which was discovered by workmen and has now been lost – with the accepted Java man, Heidelberg jaw, and Beijing man finds is entirely inappropriate. Also see Feder’s 1999 work Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries.

[xii] Cremo and Thompson, Hidden History, Chapters 8–11.

[xiii] Ibid., Chapter 12.

[xiv] Brass, The Antiquity of Man (PublishAmerica, 2002), Chapter 3, pp. 92–3. The original source for Morrell’s analysis is her 1996 work Ancestral Passions, p. 66.

[xv] Brass indicates that, once again, a prime source of new material on this case is Morell, Ancestral Passions (Touchstone, 1996), p. 92.

[xvi] Brass lists the following highly prominent archaic Homo and Homo sapiens remains omitted from Cremo and Thompson’s original work. The sites at which they were found, and relevant sources, are listed as follows: Elandsfontein, South Africa (Klein and Cruz-Uribe, 1991); Laetoli 18, Tanzania (Klein, 1999); Ileret, Kenya (Klein, 1999); Jebel Irhoud, Morocco (Grun and Stringer, 1991); Bodo, Ethiopia (Klein, 1999); Broken Hill, Zambia (Stringer, 1986); Florisbad, South Africa (Brink, 1987); Omo, Ethiopia (Klein, 1999); Klasies River, South Africa (Grine et al., 1998); and Border Cave, South Africa (Sillen and Morris, 1996). Although some of these sources are quite recent, he maintains that the finds had been published elsewhere beforehand.

[xvii] A second edition of Hidden History was published in 1999, but it contains very little in the way of updates.

[xviii] Brass indicates that the sources for further information on Little Foot, and on the various experiments and other analyses relevant to the Laetoli footprints, are Clarke, R. J., and Tobias, P. V., ‘Sterkfontein Member 2 Foot Bones of the Oldest South African Hominid’, Science 269 (1995), pp. 521–4, and Clarke, R. J., ‘Discovery of Complete Arm and Hand of the 3.3 Million-year-old Australopithecus Skeleton from Sterkfontein’, South African Journal of Science 95 (1999), pp. 477–80.

[xix] Tarzia in Cremo, Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact, Section 3.1.1, p. 165.

[xx] Cremo and Thompson, Hidden History, Appendix (s.v. General Summary), pp. 267–78.

[xxi] Cremo, Forbidden Archaeology’s Impact, Section 1.1, p. 6. To confirm the rough arithmetic, refer to Figure 3 in Genesis Unveiled.