No. 55: Jan-Feb 1988
In past issues of SF, we have presented considerable evidence for the existence of humans in America well before 12,000 years ago -- the "acceptable" limit. For example, in SF#54, we mentioned the 300,000-BP site in Brazil. There are many more. Of course, controversy hangs over all these sites and the dates assigned to them. The controversies about the specifics are good; but now the archeological establishment seems to be trying to enforce the 12,000-year dogma through authoritarian pronouncements in key publications. By way of illustration, we have P.S. Martin's article in Natural History, entitled "Clovisia the Beautiful!", bearing the subtitle:
"If humans lived in the New World more than 12,000 years ago, There'd be no secret about it."
Now, some archeologists are even trying to roll forward the 12,000-year date. See, for example, R. Lewin's review in Science (referenced below), which is subtitled:
"In recent years anthropological opinion has been shifting in favor of a relatively recent date (not much more than 11,500 years ago) for the first human colonization of the Americas."
In all of these articles, anomalous data are simply labelled "erroneous."
(Martin, Paul S.; "Clovisia the Beautiful!" Natural History, 96:10, October 1987. Also: Lewin, Roger; "The First Americans Are Getting Younger," Science, 238:1230, 1987.)
The practical effect of this whole business is that a discipline of "shadow archeology" is forming outside the establishment. In this relatively undisciplined and unrefereed environment, we find books and reports loaded with anomalies, dealing not only with early humans in the Americas, but pre-Viking European contacts, expeditions to the Americas from the Orient, ancient pyramids in Australia, etc. As a matter of fact, all scientific disciplines are paralleled by "shadow disciplines," which are often "staffed" by amateurs and mavericks. But enough of this musing. The consequences are now being recognized by a few scientists and philosophers. A long article in a recent issue of Nature provides some pithy, pertinent comments:
"The current predicament of British science is but one consequence of a deep and widespread malaise. In response, scientists must reassert the pre-eminence of the concepts of objectivity and truth."
"By denying truth and reality, science is reduced to a pointless, if entertaining, game; a meaningless, if exacting, exercise; and a destinationless, if enjoyable, journey."
(Theocharis, T., and Psimopoulos, M.; "Where Science Has Gone Wrong," Nature, 329:595, 1987.)