From the fossils of Homo sapiens that are supposedly millions of years old, to not-even-human fossils, wild claims have been made on the basis of some really poor evidence. This sub-section looks at some of the best known examples.
Anomalous human remains
Agree or disagree? Please comment! If you've never commented before, you may have to wait until I approve it: please be patient.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
5 Responses to Anomalous human remains
Michael Cremo in Atlantis Rising issue #88 has discussed an interesting example of an amateur find of an allegedly Cretaceous human skull. He says:
“a fascinating article published in 1933 in the Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society (The Brownwood Skull, September, vol. 5, pp. 95-98). The article, by researcher Cyrus Newton Ray (1880-1996), told of a human skull blown out of a huge limestone boulder in Brownwood, a small town located in the very center of
Texas…”
I read the article and it appears credible. What do you think of it? This is among the better ones Cremo has come up with.
What worries me about this is the idea that a skull can be blown out of limestone boulder and still be recognisable. In fact, if we go back to contemporary reports, we find a very different story. To quote from a local newspaper, The Kerrville Mountain Sun, Thursday January 5 1933, page 2:
DISCOVERY OF SKULL IN TEXAS STIRS SCIENTISTS
Brownwood, Jan. 3.- Parts of a human skull found near Brownwood November 14, has caused much interest among scientists. A story on the find appeared in the current publication of Science Service, Washington, D.C.
Several men interested in the discovery have come to Brownwood to view the fragments and look over the ground where discovered. Dr. E. H. Sellards and Prof. I. A. Pearce of the University of Texas, Sid Thomas, graduate student in the University, and Dr. Cyrun N. Ray, Abilene, president of the Texas Archaeological and Paleontological Society, were among the visitors.
The find was made while rock was being excavated for road building. It was thought at first the skeleton was imbedded in solid limestons, but closer study showed the bones lay under a heavy ledge.
After detailing characteristics of the bones, Science Service said:
“Whether or not the skeleton represents an early race of people in Texas, or an Indian race is at present unknown. In the absence of associated fossil animals or other evidence from the conditions of the occurrence, the age of the remains is altogether problematical. It is, however, in the opinion of the scientists a remarkable Indian skull, making it important that search be made for more complete representation of the race to which it belongs.”
So, it was determined within a few weeks of the discovery that it wasn’t “blown out of a huge limestone boulder”; why do you think Michael Cremo doesn’t quote this element of the discovery?
Your last question is the one which points to a common problem with much off-stream archaeology. Instead of studying any anomaly to try and determine exactly what has happened they ignore anything which contradicts their story – I wont honour them with the term ‘theory’. They also misreport as in this example.
I’d love to comment properly, but the text entry block isn’t working correctly and (having poor eyesight) it’s virtually impossible to read through what i’m writing. It doesn’t help that the ‘Enter your comments here …’ prompt remains overwritten on what I’m trying to write, and the text is a very pale grey.