Puranic Time and the Archaeological Record, by Drutakarma das
=============================================================

This paper was delivered at the 3rd. World Archaeological Congress, New
Delhi, 4th.-11th. December 1994.

Drutakarma Dasa (Michael A. Cremo) joined the Hare Krishna movement in
1973. Since 1976, he has been on the editorial staff of the movement's
Back to Godhead magazine, to which he has contributed dozens of articles.

He has recently co-authored with Mukunda Goswami another book in this
series, Divine Nature: A Spiritual Perspective on the Environmental
Crisis, soon to be published by the North American BBT.

Since 1984, he has served as a research associate in the history and
philosophy of science for the Bhaktivedanta Institute. He is the
co-author, with Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompson), of Forbidden
Archaeology and The Hidden History of the Human Race.

Providing a strong challenge to established academic perception and
methodology, Drutakarma das presents the Vaishnava Hindu worldview on the
fundamental concepts in the approach to and  interpretation of the
archaeological record. He contrasts the currently accepted time concept,
which closely resembles the Judaeo-Christian model, with the ancient
Puranic model and shows us how each tends to supports its own world view.
But Drutakarma argues that the evidence offered by the archaeological
record does not actually support the presently accepted model and thus
questions its value in accurate historical analysis.

Abstract
--------
The time concept of modern archaeology, and modern anthropology in
general, resembles the general cosmological-historical time concept of
Europe's Judaeo-Christian culture. Differing from the cyclical
cosmological-historical time concepts of the early Greeks in Europe, and
the Indians and others in Asia, the Judaeo- Christian
cosmological-historical time concept is linear and progressive. Modern
archaeology also shares with Judaeo-Christian theology the idea that
humans appear after the other major species. The author subjectively
positions himself within the Vaishnava Hindu worldview, and from this
perspective offers a radical critique of modern generalisations about
human origins and antiquity. Hindu historical literature, particularly the
Puranas and Ithihasas, place human existence in the context of repeating
time cycles called yugas and kalpas, lasting hundreds of millions of
years. During this entire time, according to the Puranic accounts, humans
coexisted with creatures in some ways resembling the earlier tool-making
hominids of modern evolutionary accounts. If one were to take the Puranic
record as objectively true, and also take into account the generally
admitted imperfection and complexity of the archaeological and
anthropological record, one could make the following prediction. The
strata of the earth, extending back hundreds of millions of years, should
yield a bewildering mixture of hominid bones, some anatomically modern
human and some not, as well as a similarly bewildering variety of
artefacts, some displaying a high level of artistry and others not. Given
the linear progressivist preconceptions of generations of archaeologists
and anthropologists, one could also predict that this mixture of bones and
artefacts would be edited to conform to their deeply rooted
linear-progressive time concepts.  A careful study of the archaeological
record, and the history of archaeology itself, broadly confirms these two
predictions. Linear-progressivist time concepts thus pose a substantial
barrier to truly objective evaluation of the archaeological record and to
rational theorybuilding in the area of human origins and antiquity.

v v v

The practically employed time concept of the modern historical scientist,
including the archaeologist, strikingly resembles the traditional
Judaeo-Christian time concept. And it strikingly differs from that of the
ancient Greeks and Indians.

This observation is, of course, an extreme generalisation. In any culture,
the common people may make use of various time concepts, linear and
cyclical. And among the great thinkers of any given period, there may be
many competing views of both cyclical and linear time. This was certainly
true of the ancient Greeks. It can nevertheless be safely said that the
cosmological concepts of several of the most prominent Greek thinkers
involved a cyclic or episodic time similar to that found in the Puranic
literature of India. For example, we find in Hesiod's Works and Days
(129-23406-201) a series of ages (gold, silver, bronze, heroic, and iron)
similar to the Indian yugas. In both systems, the quality of human life
gets progressively worse with each passing age. In On Nature (Fragment 17)
Empedocles speaks of cosmic time cycles. In Plato's dialogues there are
descriptions of revolving time (Timaeus 38 a) and recurring catastrophes
that destroy or nearly destroy human civilisation (Po liticus 268 d ff).
Aristotle said in many places in his works  that the arts and sciences had
been discovered many times in the past (Metaphysics 1074 b 10, Politics
1329 b 25) In the teachings of Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles regarding
transmigration of souls, this cyclical pattern is extended to individual
psychophysical existence.

When Judaeo-Christian civilisation arose in Europe, another kind of time
became prominent. This time has been characterised as linear and
vectorial.  Broadly speaking, this time concept involves a unique act of
cosmic creation, a unique appearance of the human kind, and a unique
history of salvation, culminating in a unique denouement in the form of a
last judgement. The drama occurs only once. Individually, human life
mirrored this process; with some exceptions, orthodox Christian
theologians did not accept transmigration of the soul.

Modern historical sciences share the basic Judaeo-Christian assumptions
about time. The universe we inhabit is a unique occurrence. Humans have
arisen once on this planet. The history of our ancestors is regarded as a
unique though un-predestined evolutionary pathway. The future pathway of
our species is also unique. Although this pathway is officially
unpredictable, the myths of science project a possible overcoming of death
by biomedical science and mastery over the entire universe by evolving,
space-travelling humans. One group, the Santa Fe Institute, sponsor of
several conferences on "artificial life," predicts the transferral of
human intelligence into machines and computers displaying the complex
symptoms of living things (Langton 1991, p.xv)  "Artificial life" thus
becomes the ultimate transfiguring salvation of our species.

One is tempted to propose that the modern human evolutionary account is a
Judaeo-Christian heterodoxy, which covertly retains fundamental structures
of Judaeo-Christian cosmology, salvation history, and eschatology while
overtly dispensing with the scriptural account of divine intervention in
the origin of species, including our own.

This is similar to the case of Buddhism as Hindu heterodoxy. Dispensing
with the Hindu scriptures and God concepts, Buddhism nevertheless retained
basic Hindu cosmological assumptions such as cyclical time, transmigration,
and karma.

Another thing the modern human evolutionary account has in common with the
earlier Christian account is that humans appear after the other life
forms. In Genesis, God creates the plants, animals, and birds before human
beings. For strict literalists, the time interval is short - humans are
created on the last of six of our present solar days. Others have taken
the Genesis days as ages. For example, around the time of Darwin, European
scientists with strong Christian leanings proposed that God had gradually
brought into existence various species throughout the ages of geological
time until the perfected earth was ready to receive human beings (Grayson
1983). In modern evolutionary accounts, anatomically modern humans retain
their position as the most recent major species to occur on this planet,
having evolved from preceding hominids within the past 100,000 or so
years. And despite the attempts of prominent evolutionary theorists and
spokespersons to counteract the tendency, even among evolution
scientists, to express this appearance in teleological fashion (Gould
1977, p. 14), the idea that humans are the crowning glory of the
evolutionary process still has a strong hold on the public and scientific
minds. Although anatomically modern humans are given an age of about
100,000 years, modern archaeologists and anthropologists, in common with
Judaeo-Christian accounts, give civilisation an age of a few thousand
years, and, again in common with Judaeo-Christian accounts, place its
earliest occurrence in the Middle East.

I do not here categorically assert a direct causal link between earlier
Judeao-Christian ideas and those of the modern historical sciences.
Demonstrating that, as Edward B. Davis (1994) points out in his review of
recent works on this subject, needs much more careful documentation than
has yet been provided. But the many common features of the time concepts
of the two knowledge systems suggest these causal links do exist, and that
it would be fruitful to trace connections in sufficient detail to
satisfactorily demonstrate this.

I do, however, propose that the tacitly accepted and hence critically
unexamined time concepts of the modern human sciences, whether or not
causally linked with Judaeo-Christian concepts, pose a significant
unrecognised influence on interpretation of the archaeological and
anthropological record. To demonstrate how this might be true, I shall
introduce my own experience in evaluating this record from the alien
standpoint of the cyclical time concepts and accounts of human origins
found in the Puranas and Itihasas of India. My subjective path of learning
has led me to take the Vaishnava tradition of India as my primary guide to
life and the study of the visible universe and what may lie beyond. For
the past century or so, it has been considered quite unreasonable to bring
concepts from religious texts directly into the realm of the scientific
study of nature. Indeed, many introductory anthropology and archaeology
texts make a clear distinction between "scientific" and "religious" ways
of knowing, relegating the latter to the status of unsupported belief,
with little or no utility in the objective study of nature (see, for
example, Stein and Rowe 1993, chapter 2). Some texts even go so far as to
boast that this view has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court
(Stein and Rowe 1993, p. 37), as if the state were the best and final
arbiter of intellectual controversy.  But I propose that total hostility
to religious views of nature in science is unreasonable, especially for
the modern historical sciences. Despite their pretensions to a religious
objectivity, practitioners unconsciously retain or incorporate into their
workings many Judaeo-Christian cosmological concepts, especially
concerning time, and implicitly employ them in their day to day work of
observation and theory building. In this sense, modern evolutionists share
some intellectual territory with their Fundamentalist Christian
antagonists.

But there are other ways to comprehend historical processes in nature. How
this is so can be graphically sensed if one performs the mental experiment
of looking at the world from a radically different time perspective - the
Puranic time concept of India. I am not alone in suggesting this. Gene
Sager, a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Palomar College
in California, wrote in an unpublished review of my book Forbidden
Archaeology (Cremo and Thompson 1993): "As a scholar in the field of
comparative religion, I have sometimes challenged scientists by offering a
cyclical or spiral model for studying human history, based on the Vedic
concept of the kalpa. Few Western scientists are open to the possibility
of sorting out the data in terms of such a model. I am not proposing that
the Vedic model is true....However, the question remains, does the
relatively short, linear model prove to be adequate? I believe Forbidden
Archaeology offers a well researched challenge. If we are to meet this
challenge, we need to practice open-mindedness and proceed in a
cross-cultural, interdisciplinary fashion" (personal communication, 1993).
The World Archaeological Congress provides a suitable forum for such
cross-cultural, interdisciplinary dialogue.

This cyclical time of the Puranas operates only within the material
cosmos. Beyond the material cosmos lies the spiritual sky, or brahmajyoti.
Innumerable spiritual planets float in this spiritual sky, where material
time, in the form of yuga cycles, does not act.

Each yuga cycle is composed of 4 yugas. The first, the Satya-yuga lasts
4800 years of the demigods. The second, the Treta-yuga, lasts 3600 years
of the demigods. The third, the Dvapara-yuga, lasts 2400 years of the
demigods. And the fourth, Kali-yuga, lasts 1200 years of the demigods
(Bhagavata Purana 3.11.19). Since the demigod year is equivalent to 360
earth years (Bhaktivedanta Swami 1973, p. 102), the lengths of the yugas
in earth years are, according to standard Vaishnava commentaries, 432,000
years for the Kali-yuga, 864,000 years for the Dvapara-yuga, 1,296,000
years for the Treta-yuga, and 1,728,000 years for the Satya-yuga.  This
gives a total of 4,320,000 years for the entire yuga cycle. One thousand
of such cycles, lasting 4,320,000,000 years,  comprises one day of Brahma,
the demigod who governs this universe. A day of Brahma is also called a
kalpa. Each of Brahma's nights lasts a similar period of time. Life is
only manifest on earth during the day of Brahma. With the onset of
Brahma's night, the entire universe is devastated and plunged into
darkness. When another day of Brahma begins, life again becomes manifest.

Each day of Brahma is divided into 14 manvatara periods, each one lasting
71 yuga cycles. Preceding the first and following each manvatara period is
a juncture (sandhya) the length of a Satya-yuga (1,728,000) years.
Typically, each manvantara period ends with a partial devastation.
According to Puranic accounts, we are now in the twenty-eight yuga cycle
of the seventh manvatara period of the present day of Brahma. This would
give the inhabited earth an age of 2.3 billion years. Interestingly
enough, the oldest undisputed organisms recognised by
palaeontologists - algae fossils such as those from the Gunflint formation
in Canada - are just about that old (Stewart 1983, p. 30). Altogether, 524
yuga cycles have elapsed since this day of Brahma began. Each yuga cycle
involves a progression from a golden age of peace and spiritual progress
to a final age of violence and spiritual degradation. At the end of each
Kali-yuga, the earth is practically depopulated.

During the yuga cycles, human species coexist with other human-like
species. For example, in the Bhagavata Purana (9.10.20)  we find the
divine avatara Ramacandra conquering Ravana's kingdom Lanka with the aid
of intelligent forest dwelling monkey men who fought Ravana's
well-equipped soldiers with trees and stones. This occurred in the
Treta-yuga, about 1 million years ago.

Given the cycle of yugas, the periodic devastations at the end of each
manvatara, and the coexistence of civilised human beings with creatures in
some ways resembling the human ancestors of modern evolutionary accounts,
what predictions might the Puranic account give regarding the
archaeological record? Before answering this question, we must also
consider the general imperfection of the fossil record (Raup and Stanley
1971). Hominid fossils in particular are extremely rare. Furthermore,
only a small fraction of the sedimentary layers deposited during the
course of the earth's history have survived erosion and other destructive
geological processes (Van Andel 1981).

Taking the above into account, I propose the Puranic view of time and
history predicts a sparse but bewildering mixture of hominid fossils, some
anatomically modern and some not, going back tens and even hundreds of
millions of years and occurring at locations all over the world. It also
predicts a more numerous but similarly bewildering mixture of stone tools
and other artefacts, some showing a high level of technical ability and
others not. And, given the cognitive biases of the majority of workers in
the fields of archaeology and anthropology over the past 150 years, we
might also predict that this bewildering mixture of fossils and artefacts
would be edited to conform with a linear, progressive view of human
origins. A careful investigation of published reports by myself and
Richard Thompson (1993) offers confirmation of these two predictions. What
follows is only a sample of the total body of evidence catalogued in our
lengthy book. The citations given are for the single reports that best
identify particular finds. Detailed analysis and additional reports cited
elsewhere (Cremo and Thompson 1993) offer strong confirmation of the
authenticity and antiquity of these discoveries. Incised and carved
mammal bones are reported from the Pliocene (Desnoyers 1863, Laussedat
1868, Capellini 1877) and Miocene (Garrigou and Filhol 1868, von Ducker
1873). Additional reports of incised bones from the Pliocene and Miocene
may be found an extensive review by the overly sceptical de Mortillet
(1883). Scientists have also reported pierced shark teeth from the
Pliocene (Charlesworth 1873), artistically carved bone from the Miocene
(Calvert 1874) and artistically carved shell from the Pliocene (Stopes
1881).  Carved mammal bones reported by Moir (1917) could be as old as the
Eocene.

Very crude stone tools occur in the Middle Pliocene (Prestwich 1892) and
from perhaps as far back as the Eocene (Moir 1927, Breuil 1910, especially
p. 402). One will note that most of these discoveries are from the
nineteenth century. But such artefacts are still being found. Crude stone
tools have recently been reported from the Pliocene of Pakistan (Bunney
1987), Siberia (Daniloff and Kopf 1986), and India (Sankhyan 1981). Given
the current view that tool-making hominids did not leave their African
centre of origin until about 1 million years ago, these artefacts are
somewhat anomalous, what to speak of a pebble tool from the Miocene of
India (Prasad 1982).

More advanced stone tools occur in the Oligocene of Europe (Rutot 1907),
the Miocene of Europe (Ribeiro 1873, Bourgeois 1873, Verworn 1905), the
Miocene of Asia (Noetling 1894), and the Pliocene of South America (F.
Ameghino 1908, C. Ameghino 1915). In North America, advanced stone tools
occur in California deposits ranging from Pliocene to Miocene in age
(Whitney 1880). An interesting slingstone, at least Pliocene and perhaps
Eocene in age, comes from England (Moir 1929, p. 63).

More advanced artefacts have also been reported in scientific and
non-scientific publications. These include an iron nail in Devonian
Sandstone (Brewster 1844), a gold thread in Carboniferous stone (Times of
London, June 22, 1844), a metallic vase in Precambrian stone (Scientific
American, June 5, 1852), and a chalk ball from the Eocene (Melleville
1862), a Pliocene clay statue (Wright 1912, pp. 266-69), metallic tubes in
Cretaceous chalk (Corliss 1978, pp. 652-53), and a grooved metallic sphere
from the Precambrian (Jimison 1982). The following objects have been
reported from Carboniferous coal: a gold chain (The Morrisonville Times,
of  Illinois, U.S.A., June 11, 1891), artistically carved stone (Daily
News of Omaha, U.S.A., April 2, 1897), an iron cup (Rusch 1971), and stone
block walls (Steiger 1979, p. 27).

Human skeletal remains described as anatomically modern occur in the
Middle Pleistocene of Europe (Newton 1895, Bertrand 1868, de Mortillet
1883). These cases are favorably reviewed by Keith (1928). Other
anatomically modern human skeletal remains occur in the Early and Middle
Pleistocene of Africa (Reck 1914, L. Leakey 1960d, Zuckerman 1954, p. 310;
Patterson and Howells 1967, Senut 1981, R. Leakey 1973), the Early Middle
Pleistocene of Java (Day and Molleson 1973), the Early Pleistocene of
South America (Hrdlicka 1912, pp. 319-44), the Pliocene of South America
(Hrdlicka 1912, p. 346; Boman 1921, pp. 341-42)), the Pliocene of England
(Osborn 1921, pp. 567-69), the Pliocene of Italy (Ragazzoni 1880, Issel
1868), the Miocene of France and the Eocene of Switzerland (de Mortillet
1883, p. 72), and even the Carboniferous of North America (The Geologist
1862). Several discoveries from California gold mines range from Pliocene
to Eocene (Whitney 1880). Some of these bones have been subjected to
chemical and radiometric tests that have yielded ages younger than
suggested by their stratigraphical position. But when the unreliability's
and weaknesses of the testing procedures are measured against the very
compelling stratigraphic observations of the discoverers, it is not at all
clear that the original age attributions should be discarded (Cremo and
Thompson 1993, 753- 794).

Human-like footprints have been found in the Carboniferous of North
America (Burroughs 1938), the Jurassic of Central Asia (Moscow News 1983,
no.4, p. 10), and the Pliocene of Africa (M. Leakey 1979).  Shoe prints
have been reported from the Cambrian (Meister 1968) and the Triassic
(Ballou 1922).

In the course of negotiating a fashionable consensus that anatomically
modern humans evolved from less advanced hominids in the Late Pleistocene,
scientists gradually rendered  unfashionable the considerable body of
compelling contradictory evidence summarised above. It thus became
unworthy of discussion in knowing circles. Richard Thompson and I have
concluded (1993) that the muting of this evidence was accomplished by
application of a double standard, whereby favoured evidence was exempted
from the severely sceptical scrutiny to which disfavoured evidence was
subjected.

One example from the many that could be cited to demonstrate the operation
of linear progressive preconceptions in the editing of the archaeological
record is the case of the auriferous gravel finds in California. During
the days of the California Gold Rush, starting in the 1850s, miners
discovered many anatomically modern human bones and advanced stone
implements in mineshafts sunk deeply into deposits of gold-bearing gravel
capped by thick lava flows (Whitney 1880). The gravels beneath the lava
were from 9 to 55 million years old, according to modern geological
reports (Slemmons 1966). These discoveries were reported to the world of
science by J. D. Whitney, state geologist of California, in a monograph
published by the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Harvard University.
From the evidence he compiled, Whitney came to a non-progressivist view of
human origins - the fossil evidence he reported indicated that the humans of
the distant past were like those of the present.

To this W. H. Holmes (1899, p. 424) of the Smithsonian Institution
replied: "Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of
human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to
announce the conclusions formulated, notwithstanding the imposing array of
testimony with which he was confronted." This attitude is still prominent
today. In their college textbook, Stein and Rowe assert that "scientific
statements are never considered absolute" (1993, p. 41). But they also
make this very absolute statement: "Some people have assumed that humans
have always been the way they are today. Anthropologists are convinced
that human beings...have changed over time in response to changing
conditions. So one aim of the anthropologist is to find evidence for
evolution and to generate theories about it." Apparently, an
anthropologist, by definition, can have no other view or purpose. Keep in
mind, however, that this absolute commitment to a linear progressive model
of human origins, ostensibly areligious, may have deep roots in Judaeo-
Christian cosmology.

One of the things Holmes found especially hard to accept was the
similarity of the purportedly very ancient stone implements to those of
the modern Indians. He wondered (1899, pp. 451-52) how anyone could take
seriously the idea that "the implements of a Tertiary race should have
been left in the bed of a Tertiary torrent to be brought out as good as
new, after the lapse of vast periods of time, into the camp of a modern
community using identical forms?"  The similarity could be explained in
several ways, but one possible explanation is the repeated appearance in
the same geographical region of humans with particular cultural attributes
in the course of cyclical time.  The suggestion that such a thing could
happen is bound to strike those who see humans as the recent result of a
long and unique series of evolutionary changes in the hominid line as
absurd - so absurd as to prevent them from considering any evidence as
potentially supporting a cyclical interpretation of human history.
      

It is noteworthy, however, that a fairly open-minded modern archaeologist,
when confronted with the evidence catalogued in my book, himself brought
up, in a somewhat doubting manner, the possibility of a cyclical
interpretation of human history to explain its occurrence. George F.
Carter, noted for his controversial views on early man in North America,
wrote to me on January 26, 1994: "If your table on p. 391 were correct,
then the minimum age for the artefacts at Table Mountain would be 9
million [years old]. Would you think then of a different creation - [one
that] disappeared - and then a new start? Would it simply replicate the
archaeology of California 9 million years later? Or the inverse. Would the
Californians 9 million years later replicate the materials under Table
Mountain?"

That is exactly what I would propose - that in the course of cyclic time,
humans with a culture resembling that of modern North American Indians did
in fact appear in California millions of years ago, perhaps several times.
"I find great difficulty with that line of reasoning," confessed Carter.
But that difficulty, which encumbers the minds of most archaeologists and
anthropologists, may be the result of a rarely recognised and even more
rarely questioned commitment to a culturally acquired linear progressive
time sense.

It would, therefore, be worthwhile to inspect the archaeological record
through other time lenses, such as the Puranic lens. Many will take my
proposal as a perfect example of what can happen when someone brings their
subjective religious ideas into the objective study of nature. Jonathan
Marks (1994) reacted in typical fashion in his review of Forbidden
Archaeology: "Generally, attempts to reconcile the natural world to
religious views end up compromising the natural world."

But until modern anthropology conducts a conscious examination of the
effects of its own covert, and arguably  religiously derived, assumptions
about time and progress, it should put aside its pretensions to universal
objectivity and not be so quick to accuse others of bending facts to fit
religious dogma. Om Tat Sat.

Notes and  References

   Ameghino, C. (1915) El femur de Miramar. Anales de Museo nacional de
historia natural de Buenos Aires, 26:433-450.

   Ameghino, F. (1908) Notas preliminares sobre el Tetraprothhomo
argentinus, un precursor de hombre del Mioceno superior de Monte Hermoso.
Anales de Museo nacional de historia natural de Buenos Aires, 16:105-242.

   Ballou, W. H. (1922) Mystery of the petrified "shoe-sole" 5,000,000
years old. American Weekly section of the New York Sunday American,
October 8, p. 2.

   Bertrand, P. M. E. (1868) Crane et ossements trouves dans un carriere
de l'avenue de Clichy. Bulletin de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris
(Series 2), 3:329-335.

   Bhaktivedanta Swami, A. C. (1973) Srimad-Bhagavatam (Bhagavata
Purana), Canto Three, Part Two. Los Angeles, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

   Boman, E. (1921) Los vestigios de industria humana encontrados en
Miramar (Republica Argentina) y atribuidos a la epoca terciaria. Revista
Chilena de Historia y Geografia, 49(43):330-352.

   Bourgeois, L. (1873) Sur les silex consideres comme portant les
margues d'un travail humain et decouverts dans le terrain miocene de
Thenay. Congres International d'Anthropologie et d'Archeologie
Prehistoriques, Bruxelles 1872, Compte Rendu, pp. 81-92.

   Breuil, H. (1910) Su la presence d'eolithes a la base de l'Eocene
Parisien. L'Anthropologie, 21:385-408.

   Brewster, D. (1844) Queries and statements concerning a nail found
imbedded in a block of sandstone obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield)
Quarry, North Britain. Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, Notices and Abstracts of Communications, p. 51.

   Bunney, S. (1987) First migrants will travel back in time. New
Scientist, 114(1565):36. 

   Burroughs, W. G. (1938) Human-like footprints, 250 million years old.
The Berea Alumnus. Berea College, Kentucky, November, pp. 46-47.

   Calvert, F. (1874) On the probable existence of man during the Miocene
period. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain
and Ireland, 3:127.

   Capellini, G. (1877) Les traces de l'homme pliocene en Toscane.
Congres International d'Anthropologie et d'Archeologie Prehistoriques,
Budapest 1876, Compte Rendu. Vol. 1, pp. 46-62.

   Charlesworth, E. (1873) Objects in the Red Crag of Suffolk. Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 2:91-94.

   Corliss, W. R. (1978) Ancient Man: A Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts.
Glen Arm, Sourcebook Project.

   Cremo, M. A., and Thompson, R. L. (1993) Forbidden Archeology: The
Hidden History of the Human Race. San Diego, Bhaktivedanta Institute.

   Daniloff, R., and Kopf, C. (1986) Digging up new theories of early
man. U. S. News & World Report, September 1, pp. 62-63.

   Davis, Edward B. (1994) Review of Cameron Wybrow (Editor): Creation,
Nature, and Political Order in the Philosophy of Michael Foster
(1903-1959); The Classic Mind Articles and Others, with Modern Critical
Essays, and Cameron Wybrow: The Bible, Baconism, and Mastery over Nature:
The Old Testament and Its Modern Misreading. Isis 53(1):127-129.

   Day, M. H., and Molleson, T. I. (1973) The Trinil femora. Symposia of
the Society for the Study of Human Biology, 2:127- 154.

   De Mortillet, G. (1883) Le Prehistorique. Paris, C. Reinwald.

   Desnoyers, J. (1863) Response a des objections faites au sujet
d'incisions constatees sur des ossements de Mammiferes fossiles des
environs de Chartres. Compte Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences, 56:
1199-1204.

   Garrigou, F., and Filhol, H. (1868) M. Garrigou prie l'Academie de
vouloir bien ouvrir un pli cachete, depose au nom de M. Filhol fils et au
sien, le 16 mai 1864. Compte Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences,
66:819-820.

   The Geologist, London, 1862 Fossil man, 5:470.

   Gould, S. J. (1977) Ever Since Darwin. New York, W. W. Norton.

   Grayson, Donald K. (1983) The Establishment of Human Antiquity. New
York, Academic Press.

   Holmes, W. H. (1899) Review of the evidence relating to auriferous
gravel man in California. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report 1898-1899,
pp. 419-472.

   Hrdlicka, A. (1912) Early Man in South America. Washington, D. C.,
Smithsonian Institution.

Issel, A. (1868) Resume des recherches concernant l'anciennete de l'homme
en Ligurie. Congres International d'Anthropologie et d'Archeologie
Prehistoriques, Paris 1867, Compte Rendu, pp. 75- 89.

   Jimison, S. (1982) Scientists baffled by space spheres. Weekly World
News, July 27.

   Keith, A. (1928) The Antiquity of Man. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, J. B.
Lippincott.

   Langton, C. G. (1991) Preface. In Langton, C. G., et al., eds.
Artificial Life II: Proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Life Held
February, 1990 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the
Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings Volume X. Redwood City,
Addison-Wesley, pp. xiii-xv.

   Laussedat, A. (1868) Sur une machoire de Rhinoceros portant des
entailles profondes trouvee a Billy (Allier), dans les formations
calcaires d'eau douce de la Limagne. Compte Rendus de l'Academie des
Sciences, 66:752-754.

   Leakey, L. S. B. (1960) Adam's Ancestors, 4th edition. New York,
Harper & Row.

   Leakey, M. D. (1979) Footprints in the ashes of time. National
Geographic, 155:446-457.

   Leakey, R. E. (1973) Evidence for an advanced Plio-Pleistocene hominid
from East Rudolf, Kenya. Nature, 242:447-450.

   Marks, J. (1994) Review of Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of
the Human Race, by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. 1993. San
Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institue. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
93:140-141.

   Meister, W. J. (1968) Discovery of trilobite fossils in shod footprint
of human in "Trilobite Bed" - a Cambrian formation, Antelope Springs, Utah.
Creation Research Society Quarterly, 5(3):97-102.

   Melleville, M. (1862) Note sur un objet travaille de main d'homme
trouve dans les lignites du Laonnais. Revue Archeologique, 5:181- 186.

   Moir, J. R. (1917) A series of mineralised bone implements of a
primitive type from below the base of the Red and Coralline Crags of
Suffolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 2:116-131.

   Moir, J. R. (1927) The Antiquity of Man in East Anglia. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.

   Moir, J. R. (1929) A remarkable object from beneath the Red Crag. Man,
29:62-65.

Newton, E. T. (1895) On a human skull and limb-bones found in the Paleolithic
terrace-gravel at Galley Hill, Kent. Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society of London, 51:505-526.

   Noetling, F. (1894) On the occurrence of chipped flints in the Upper
Miocene of Burma. Records of the Geological Survey of India, 27:101-103.

   Osborn, H. F. (1921) The Pliocene man of Foxhall in East Anglia.
Natural History, 21:565-576.

   Patterson, B., and Howells, W. W. (1967) Hominid humeral fragment from
Early Pleistocene of northwestern Kenya. Science, 156:64-66.

   Prasad, K. N. (1982) Was Ramapithecus a tool-user. Journal of Human
Evolution, 11:101-104.

   Prestwich, J. (1892) On the primitive character of the flint
implements of the Chalk Plateau of Kent, with reference to the question of
their glacial or pre-glacial age. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 21(3):246-262.

   Ragazzoni, G. (1880) La collina di Castenedolo, solto il rapporto
antropologico, geologico ed agronomico. Commentari dell' Ateneo di
Brescia, April 4, pp. 120-128.

   Raup, D., and Stanley, S. (1971) Principles of Paleontology. San
Francisco, W. H. Freeman.

   Reck, H. (1914) Erste vorlaufige Mitteilungen uber den Fund eines
fossilen Menschenskeletts aus Zentral-afrika. Sitzungsbericht der
Gesellschaft der naturforschender Freunde Berlins, 3:81-95.

   Ribeiro, C. (1873) Sur des silex tailles, decouverts dans les terrains
miocene du Portugal. Congres International d'Anthropologie et
d'Archeologie Prehistoriques, Bruxelles 1872, Compte Rendu, pp. 95-100.

   Rusch, Sr., W. H. (1971) Human footprints in rocks. Creation Research
Society Quarterly, 7:201-202.

   Rutot, A. (1907) Un grave problem: une industrie humaine datant de
l'epoque oligocene. Comparison des outils avec ceux des Tasmaniens
actuels. Bulletin de la Societe Belge de Geologie de Paleontologie et
d'Hydrologie, 21:439-482.

   Sankhyan, A. R. (1981) First evidence of early man from Haritalyangar
area, Himalchal Pradesh. Science and Culture, 47:358-359.

   Senut, B. (1981) Humeral outlines in some hominoid primates and in
Plio-pleistocene hominids. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
56:275-283.

   Slemmons, D. B. (1966) Cenozoic volcanism of the central Sierra
Nevada, California. Bulletin of the California Division of Mines and
Geology, 190:199-208.

   Steiger, B. (1979) Worlds Before Our Own. New York, Berkley.

   Stein, Philip L. and Rowe, Bruce M. (1993) Physical Anthropology.
Fifth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

   Stewart, Wilson N. (1983) Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

   Stopes, H. (1881) Traces of man in the Crag. British Association for
the Advancement of Science, Report of the Fifty-first Meeting, p. 700.

   Van Andel, T. H. (1981) Consider the incompleteness of the geological
record. Nature, 294:397-398.

   Verworn, M. (1905) Die archaeolithische Cultur in den
Hipparionschichten von Aurillac (Cantal). Abhandlungen der koniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische
Klasse, Neue Folge, 4(4):3-60.

   Von Ducker, Baron (1873) Sur la cassure artificelle d'ossements
recuellis dans le terrain miocene de Pikermi. Congres International
d'Anthropolgie et d'Archeologie Prehistoriques. Bruxelles 1872, Compte
Rendu, pp. 104-107.

   Whitney, J. D. (1880) The auriferous gravels of the Sierra Nevada of
California. Harvard University, Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoir 6(1).

   Wright, G. F. (1912) Origin and Antiquity of Man. Oberlin, Bibliotheca
Sacra.

   Zuckerman, S. (1954) Correlation of change in the evolution of higher
primates. In Huxley, J., Hardy, A. C., and Ford, E. B., eds. Evolution as
a Process. London, Allen and Unwin, pp. 300- 352.


