Tracing mitochondrial DNA sequences even further back, geneticists have been able to determine that there are 33 clans present in the world, an odd number, since, of course, it corresponds to the 33 degrees of Scottish rite Masonry. And of these, 13 clans are from Africa.483 While the odd correspondence between the number of genetic clans and Masonry’s “sacred number” of 33 may be and probably is coincidental, the occurrence of 13 African clans is intriguing, and we shall return to it presently.
Ultimately, of course, geneticists have traced all human origins to a common mother, “mitochondrial Eve,” who lived in Africa some 150,000 years ago.484 While some may leap on this fact as yet another “scientific confirmation of the Bible,” it really is not, for all that such genetic evidence indicates is that of all possible ultimate clans, only “Eve’s” survived. There may have been other such ultimate clan mothers but their stock died out for whatever reason.485 Mitochondrial Eve’s descendents spread from Africa up through the Middle East, and thence to colonize the rest of the world.486
A comparison of these results with the O’Briens’ examination of the indications of genetic engineering in the Kharsag tablets is illuminating, and highlights a number of problems, for on the one hand, the results of modern genetics appear to diametrically contradict the O’Briens’ analysis, but on the other, there are minor indications that confirm it.
There are strong arguments against the O’Briens’ analysis presented by modern genetics, and these may be boiled down to essentially two points:1. The age of modern mankind indicated by genetics is approximately 150,000 years old, yet the Kharsag tablets were written much later, and the impression given by the O’Briens’ analysis is that the genetic engineering subtly indicated in them does not occur at that period of time. In short, the timing is wrong; and,
2. The location of the engineering, as the O’Briens understood it, was in the Middle East near modern-day Lebanon, whereas the genetics indicates an origin from Africa. In short, the location indicated in the tablets is wrong.
This augurs poorly for a correspondence between modern science and ancient texts.
But there are very slight and minor indications of some correspondence between these genetic findings and the Kharsag Tablets as the O’Briens interpreted them, and oddly enough, these lie in the numbers recorded in both:1. In the Kharsag Tablets, the original number of human “clan mothers” was 14,487 whereas genetic science indicates the number of primordial African clans to be 13, a close agreement and one suggestive perhaps of some deep correspondence between the two data points in high antiquity;
2. The number of European “clan mothers” — seven — is a numerical component of the number 14, again, a very slight indicator that perhaps there is some deeply rooted historical and scientific basis for the claims the O’Briens make concerning the Kharsag Tablets.
While such “evidence” does not permit us to draw conclusions one way or another about the possible correspondences between modern genetics and these ancient texts, they do highlight the nature of the problems of synthesizing the two that now confront us, and suggest some speculative solutions. But a synthetic and speculative resolution of this problem will require a closer look at the wider scientific context from which to view the problem, to which we now turn.
B. EVOLUTIONARY CHRONOLOGY OF THE ORIGINS OF MAN AND THE CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEM
1. Evolutionary Chronology of Human Origins and Proto-Humans
While scientists are often divided over this or that detail of the evolutionary origins of humans, there is a general consensus over the chronological relationship of various operational classifications of other species within the human genus. There are numerous presentations of this standard model but for our purposes we will rely on the article “Human Evolution” in the online Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia for its relative accessibility. It is best to lay this out in an ordered numerical sequence, noting that we summarize only the major components, and not disputed intermediary species posited by some paleontologists and anthropologists:1. Evidence from genetics suggests that 4 to 8 million years ago, gorillas and chimpanzees split from the line leading to humans. DNA evidence demonstrates that approximately 98 percent of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees;488
2. The first diversion within the origins of modern man according to the standard models occurs with the divergence of the genus Homo from Australopithecines approximately 2.3–2.4 million years ago;489
3. Homo habilis flourished approximately 2.4–1.4 million years ago, evolving in southern and eastern Africa, diverging from Australopithecines;490
4. The next major evolutionary leap occurred with Homo erectus, who lived from approximately 1.8 million to a mere 70,000 years ago, the latter date indicating some contemporaneous existence with modern Homo sapiens sapiens. Homo erectus is believed also to have evolved larger brain capacity in some populations and to have fabricated and made use of simple stone tools, leading some to classify them as a separate species;491
5. There is still debate over where Homo neanderthalensis, which lived from approximately 400,000 years ago (a significant date as we shall see), is a part of the evolutionary tree of modern man or no; that is, is it a separate species or is it a sub-species of Homo sapiens? DNA evidence suggests that the two species shared a common ancestor no later than 660,000 years ago. The Wikipedia article notes, however, that “a recent development in 2010 indicates that Neanderthal did indeed interbreed with Homo Sapiens at cerca [sic] 75,000 B.C. to create modern humans...”492 giving a DNA content of modern humans that is approximately 1–4 percent Neanderthal, a significant amount given that humans and chimpanzees differ only in 1.5 percent of DNA.493 What is most interesting, however, is that this 1–4 percent of DNA that is common to modern man and Neanderthal man is present only in non-African humans;494
6. Sometime between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago differences in skull cranial capacity developed, accompanied with a similar development in the sophistication of stone tools, allowing paleontologists to speculate these populations are the first beginnings of the genus Homo sapiens;495
7. Finally, as we have seen, the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens occurred approximately 150,000 years ago, spreading from Africa, through the Middle East, to the rest of the world.
Note what we now have in the major steps of the model summarized above, for the first two steps account for divergences of genuses within the primate family itself; in other words, we are not yet dealing with the genus Homo of “humanids” (if we may be permitted to coin that term), themselves.
It is with step 3 that we are dealing directly with evolutionary processes within the human genus itself, and note carefully what we have, for there are essentially five major components or “steps” in that process. If this sounds vaguely familiar, it should, for not only does it square in its broad outlines with the Native American Indian traditions of different ages typified by different humanities that were surveyed in the previous chapter, but more importantly, it will be recalled that among the Aztecs there were exactly four such previous ages, giving a total of five “humanities” if one counts the current age and modern Homo sapiens sapiens.496 The case that the Native Americans inherited their legends from much higher antiquity has thus grown a bit stronger, for such observations imply by their very nature a more sophisticated pitch of civilization and scientific observation able to make such observations.
It is now time to throw the final monkey wrench into the works: the research of Vedic scholars Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson...
2. The Cremo-Thompson Archaeological Anomalies and Genetic Antiquity Problems
As noted, Cremo and Thompson are scholars of the Vedic literature of ancient India. But why would they become involved in a study of the scientific origins of man in conjunction with Vedic literature? Cremo’s answer puts it “country simple”: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 worldview 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.497
We share Cremo’s and Thompson’s convictions about the antiquity of humans — of whatever species — but adopt here as our methodology an even wider context in ancient texts, in what they indicate concerning human origins, where those origins come from, and, to a limited extent, the motivations recorded in those texts for the engineered creation of humans. We do so in order to propose a speculative resolution of the models of modern science on the one hand, and of the texts on the other.
Just how radical is Cremo’s and Thompson’s approach to this question may be readily appreciated by a brief survey of anomalous archaeological evidence that has been conveniently “forgotten” by modern science in its rush to avoid the implications that this evidence suggests. This evidence is presented in chapter six of their book The Hidden History of the Human Race, a chapter entitled, aptly enough, “Evidence for Advanced Culture in Distant Ages.”498 Here we survey a small but significant sampling of the data they have collected.
Dating by stratigraphy is a common method of dating the approximate age of an object embedded in certain geological layers of the earth... that is, unless the object and the stratum in which it is embedded is “inconvenient” to the standard model. One such object was reported in 1844 by Sir David Brewster, who stated that “a nail had been discovered firmly embedded in a block of sandstone from the Kingoodie (MyInfield) Quarry in Scotland.”499 A nail embedded in sandstone would hardly be inconvenient, except in this instance the sandstone into which it was embedded happened to be from the Devonian period, making the date — if the find was genuine — between 360 and 408 million years old, far older than any evolutionary models for the origins of even the genus of “humanids,” as shown above!
This wasn’t all.
Cremo and Thompson note that on June 22, 1844, a story ran in the London Times that a gold thread (!) had been found embedded in a stone at a depth of eight feet. Once again, the stratigraphic context proved to be inconvenient, for the stone into which it was embedded was from the Early Carboniferous age, that is, “between 320 and 360 million years old.”500
There was more bad news...
On June 5, 1852, an article innocently and innocuously entitled “A Relic of a Bygone Age” appeared in Scientific American. Cremo and Thompson cite the relevant portion of the article for our purpose:“A few days ago a powerful blast was made in the rock at Meeting House Hill, in Dorchester, a few rods south of Rev. Mr. Hall’s meeting house. The blast threw out an immense mass of rock, some of the pieces weighing several tons, and scattered fragments in all directions. Among them was picked up a metallic vessel in two parts, rent asunder by the explosion. On putting the two parts together it formed a bell-shaped vessel, 4-1/2 inches high, 6-1/2 inches at the base, 2-1/2 inches at the top, and about an eighth of an inch in thickness. The body of this vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition metal, in which there is a considerable portion of silver. On the side there are six figures or a flower, or bouquet, beautifully inlaid with pure silver. The chasing, carving, and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some cunning workman. This curious and unknown vessel was blown out of the solid pudding stone, fifteen feet below the surface. It is now in the possession of Mr. John Kettrell. Dr. J.V.C. Smith, who has recently travelled in the East, and examined hundreds of curious domestic utensils, and has drawings of them, has never seen anything resembling this. He has taken a drawing and accurate dimensions of it, to be submitted to the scientific. There is not [sic] doubt but that this curiosity was blown out of the rock, as above stated; but will Professor Agassiz, or some other scientific man please tell us how it came there? The matter is worthy of investigation, as there is no deception in the case.501
As Cremo and Thompson note, the pudding stone of the area in which the vessel was blasted loose from the rock, dates from the Precambrian period; that is, the stratigraphic dating of the object would make it over 600 million years old! Cremo and Thompson’s concluding words about this discovery say it all:
By standard accounts, life was just beginning to form on this planet during the Precambrian [period]. But in the Dorchester vessel we have evidence indicating the presence of artistic metal workers in North America over 600 million years before Leif Ericson.502
And of course, metalworking art implies intelligence and technology to manufacture it.
It gets decidedly worse. A chalk ball was discovered in 1862 in strata 45–55 million years old near Laon, France, and reported in the April 1862 edition of The Geologist.503
A coin, with curious and indecipherable inscriptions, was discovered in Illinois in strata that would date it between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago (there’s that date again!).504 The finding was reported in 1871 by William E. Dubois of the Smithsonian Institution. What makes this particular coin so significant is what Dubois said about it, for noting its uniform thickness, Dubois concluded that it must have “passed through a rolling-mill; and if the ancient Indians had such a contrivance, it must have been pre-historic.”505 For Cremo and Thompson, the evidence again suggests “the existence of a civilization at least 200,000 years ago in North America.”506 And that, precisely, was the problem, for “beings intelligent enough to make and use coins (Homo sapiens sapiens)” were not around, according to the geneticists, until only 150,000 years ago!507
There are clay figurines found at Nampa, Idaho in strata two million years old;508 a gold chain embedded in Carboniferous coal discovered in Illinois in coal dating from 260–320 million years old;509 an iron cup found in Oklahoma coal approximately 312 million years old;510 a metallic machined rectangular tube, in other words, a machined object, discovered in France in layers of chalk 65 million years old;511 and on and on the list could go.
One of the most interesting and most anomalous pieces of evidence recorded in Cremo’s and Thompson’s inventory of “inconvenient artifacts” is an obviously machined, small metallic sphere with three parallel grooves around its equator, found in strata from the Precambrian period in South Africa, said to be almost three billion years old, almost three quarters of the age of the Earth itself!512
All of this throws a rather thorny problem into the mix, for if, on the one hand, modern man and his ancestors are at best only 2.4 million years old, then who was here doing all of this? And note two dates here: the metallic tube discovered in France in chalk beds 65 million years old, and the Illinois coin that is between 200,000 and 400,000 years old, two significant dates as we shall see in a moment. But for now, the question is, if Homo sapiens sapiens is only 150,000 years old, and if it is generally agreed that he did not begin to use coins until only much later, then, once again, who was here, and what were they doing?
3. The Chronology of the Cosmic War and the Ancient Texts
If there are “inconvenient artifacts” tens, even hundreds, of millions of years old, or in one instance, billions of years old, and if these show evidence of machining and therefore of technology, then one answer immediately presents itself from the ancient texts: there were “others” here, our genetic cousins perhaps, who were clearly civilized, possessed of a technology, and perhaps every now and then, directly intervening
in the course of human development and evolution.
And if this be the case, as Cremo’s and Thompson’s evidence clearly suggests, then we have found the probable and ultimate origin and reason for why Native American “myths” of various ages of creatures and different “humanities” was so broadly accurate, for they did ultimately stem from an advanced culture in “high antiquity” that actually observed the “monsters” and wars described in their legends.
Let us look closer at the chronological problem now posed by four entirely different data sets:1. the data set of modern genetics indicating the probable origin of modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, approximately 150,000 years ago “out of Africa”;
2. the data presented by certain ancient texts as to the significant date of approximately 200,000 years ago;
3. the data presented by geological and astronomical evidence that I recounted in The Cosmic War; and finally,
4. the anomalous and “inconvenient artifacts” presented by Cremo and Thompson.
Is there a way to harmonize and synthesize these very different models of human history? And if so, what agenda or agendas might that harmonization suggest was operative at different points of history and in different regions and cultures?
In my previous book The Cosmic War, I stated the following about the chronological problem, and the above list of disparate data sets:In order to tie together all the disparate pieces that I believe may form components of this gigantic scenario of cosmic war and catastrophe, of giants and chimeras, of “gods” and men and Nephilim, it is essential to paint in very broad strokes. While I do entertain discussion of broad chronological and other scientific and archaeological considerations, I do not enter into lengthy examinations of disciplines related to and affected by the Cosmic War hypothesis, such as evolutionary biology, anthropology, or even theology, philosophy, comparative religion, and esoteric or occult history. That such fields are affected by this hypothesis should be obvious. But to discuss each of these implications in detail would not only require several lengthy tomes in their own right, it would also distract attention from the main themes of the scenario...
Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men: The Surviving Elites of the Cosmic War and Their Hidden Agenda Page 25