THE ENIGMA OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC CRESCENT

By Patrick C. Chouinard

A group of scientists who recently formed the North Atlantic Bio-Cultural Organization (NABO) have made it clear that Asiatic migration is not the only possible path taken by prehistoric peoples into the New World. They posed the question “Could Kennewick Man, the 10,000 year old Caucasian-like skeleton found in the Columbia River in Washington State, be related to the oldest cultures of Western Europe?” This question is part of a new theory emerging about how North America developed, and how the dispersal of peoples across the North Atlantic could have formed a circumpolar Mesolithic culture which was responsible not only for mass migration between the two major continents, but also the interbreeding and establishment of hybrid cultures.
The Center for the Study of the First Americans at Oregon State University recently began to process genetic testing of human remains found both in Eastern North America and Western Europe.
Further examination of the human mitochondrian cells, may now prove a Caucasoid link to the origins of the first Americans dating as far back as 28,000 BC. Known as the “power packs” of DNA, these cells helped scientists form four categories of ancestral groups or lineages are viewed as the founding genetic material on which Native Americans are based. Congruent with existing dogma, and fueling the argument in favor of Asiatic origins for the New World population, they could be traced back to Siberia and northeast Asia, specifically in the Baikal and Altai-Sayan regions. However, there is a fifth lineage that is also credited as one of the founding genetic strains of present-day Native Americans. Known as the “haplogroup X,” this genetic signature is the vestige of either a later population found in Europe and the Middle East or a possibly primeval population of Caucasoid ethnic groups that inhabited Asia and was also part of the tribes that followed the coastline on small boats to a point where they could disembark and settle.
Kennewick and Spirit Cave Man, are one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the idea that Europeans settled and lived in North America thousands of years before the first Viking expeditions. Such widely-distributed journals as Ancient American magazine have been instrumental in validating and bringing to light the idea of contact between Old World and New World cultures before Columbus, but such finds make even these ancient dates seem relatively recent. If the genetic testing is correct, than our attitude towards Native Americans and are whole view of the world must inevitably change for good or for bad. I hope this brief article has prompted more curiosity about this subject. My curiosity is already peaked. ■

THE OLDEST SCRIPT FOUND IN THE INDUS VALLEY

By Patrick C. Chouinard

A new discovery made by archaeologists in Pakistan may help prove that Mesopotamia was not the first civilization to develop a system of writing, and that the invention of script itself is far older than previously thought. Graham Hancock, a journalist and amateur archaeologist who has been the target of criticism from mainstream academics for his controversial theories, firmly believes that civilization as we know it is merely a vestige of a once glorious age on which many of our Atlantean myths are based. To a limited degree, this find may help support his contention.
The site, known as Harappa, the location of the ancient Indus valley civilization which also bears its name, was settled in 3500 B.C., and over the succeeding millennia grew in a vast urban sprawl that became one of the chief civilizations of ancient times. The new find itself, however, changes all the rules. The artifact uncovered was an ancient piece of pottery dating back almost six thousand years to around 5500 B.P.
The pottery had etched into its surface various “plant-like” and “trident-shaped” symbols. According to BBC Online News, “Experts believe these may have indicated the contents of the jar or signs associated with a deity.”
Most recently, it was Egypt that was credited as the birthplace of writing. A collection of small, clay tablets engraved with an archaic form of hieroglyphics was found in 1998 in the tomb of the Scorpion King, one of the rulers of Egypt prior to the foundation of the glorious Old Kingdom. Carbon-14 dating revealed that the tablets had been inscribed around 3300-3200 B.C., a few centuries earlier than the supposed invention of cuneiform writing around 3100 B.C. by the Sumerians.
Archaeologists now believe that this system of writing did not develop as a natural outgrowth of a spoken language. They contend that it was invented at the order of a ruler who needed to find the best way to make records and levy taxes. A uniform system of writing would be the perfect agent for not only civic leaders, but priests wishing to put down in writing their various incantations, descriptions of holy rites and the stories which their faiths were based upon. It is very probable that pre-Columbian civilizations such as the Aztec and Maya also were based on such practical necessity.
The key to understanding the Indus Valley script is an extrapolative comparison to known Egyptian hieroglyphics. But unlike the Scorpion inscriptions, as the author of a recent BBC article on the subjects states, there was nothing that could be used to compare with the Harappan script, no common Rosetta stone from which to unlock its mysteries.
“It’s a big question as to if we can call what we have found is true writing,” Dr. Richard Meadow told BBC News Online, “but we have found symbols that have similarities of what became Indus script.” Meadow told BBC that his excavators will continue to search for more examples of this unique writing system in order to determine if it is indeed a genuine form of writing, and, if so, how it developed from its primitive form to the more advanced writing we see today. The Harappan Civilization left no linguistic descendents; their language is essentially dead, which makes the task of deciphering it next to impossible. The Rosetta Stone was important because it contained two other known languages: ancient Greek and Demotic. Champollion, the eighteenth century linguist who cracked the code of the hieroglyphs, used these two languages to cross-reference it, after which the ancient writing could be read at last. No such relic for the Harappan Civilization exists today, at least to our present knowledge.
Dr. David Whitehouse made the following observation in an article in BBC News:
“What we know of the Harappan civilizers makes them unique. Their society did not like great differences between social classes or the display of wealth by rulers. They did not leave behind large monuments or rich graves. They appear to have been a peaceful people who displayed their art in smaller works of stone. Their society seems to have petered out. Around 1900 B.C., Harappa and other urban centers started to decline as people left them to move east to what is now India and the Ganges.”
Whitehouse closes his article by stating that perhaps writing arose independently in three places at once between 3500 B.C. and 3100 B.C. Doubtless, there is much more to this story than mainstream scientists or archaeologists are prepared to admit. The clock is constantly turning back the antiquity of civilization, as new evidence is uncovered. This teaches us that the truth is subjective to the discoveries of the hour, leading to a veritable transformation of our understanding of modern archaeology. In time, more relics will be unearthed and perhaps the visions of Graham Hancock and others will be forever validated.

THE LOST CITY OF THE CHACHAPOYAS

By Patrick C. Chouinard

The enigmatic ruins of a lost city, veiled in the thick mist of Peru’s eastern rainforest for more than five centuries, now gives archaeologists a new understanding of an ancient and sophisticated culture. The Chachapoyas, an ancient Peruvian civilization that was eventually conquered and assimilated by the Inca Empire in 1480, has once again come to life thanks to the efforts American explorer Gene Savoy. In 1965, he followed the old Inca roads to the center of the Chachapoyas kingdom. For several days his expedition combed the cloud forest for any sign of the lost civilization. It seemed as if the search had been in vain. Finally, they found the first ruins 9,400 feet above sea level. This first site was called Gran Pajaten, after a local colonial settlement dating back to the sixteenth century.
There the team explored a complex of slate-and-mortar circular structures, many of which were covered with mosaic-like stone figures of humans, animals, and birds, apparently condors.” Huge mummy cases, similar in appearance to the statues of Easter Island stood guarding cliff-dwellings that were used primarily for ceremonial and religious observances, burial rites and a place to house the priests before the onset of the rituals.
The Chachapoyas settled in eastern Peru around 700 AD and flourished there unabated until the Inca conquest eight hundred years later. In the spring of 2000, Savoy hit the headlines once again. He and his entourage of explorers uncovered Cajamarquilia—one of the most elusive Chachapoyas cities and one of the most important.
Extending for many square miles through dense rain forest, the city contained over a 150 man-made structures, including temples, burial sites as well as civic and residential complexes. Miles of winding roads and terrace cliffs make their way across the 65 sq km site. Along the way are situated some 36 burial towers.
BBC reports that the explorers in their moment of glory almost imagined that they had located the lost city of El Dorado, the famed city of gold which the Spaniards were so obsessed on acquiring. Savoy admitted, however, that there was no sacred hoard of gold hidden from prying eyes. Nevertheless, they maintained a veil of secrecy over its location to protect it from vandals and looters. Now, excavation at the site continues, as the thick vegetation that has concealed the glorious city for over a thousand years in the dense jungle of eastern Peru is gradually being removed and, at times, literally hacked away by hundreds of Native assistants wielding machetes. The Chachapoyas, the elite bodyguard of the Inca in later times, now speaks to the world of its splendor and glory. Never again will another American civilization vie for its artistic gifts and unique and brilliant culture. ■

The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon

By Robert M. Schoch
Boston University

Semir Osmanagic announced it to the press with fiery conviction: “The history of civilization has to be rewritten,” he said. “Bosnia will become a giant on the world archeological map” (quoted from a May 4, 2006 Reuters Report By Daria Sito-Sucic). On the outskirts of the Bosnian town of Visoko, half an hour drive northwest of Sarajevo, Osmanagic claimed there were two monstrous pyramids (dubbed the “Pyramid of the Sun” and the “Pyramid of the Moon”), and perhaps several smaller pyramids as well. Even the prestigious New York Times picked up the story: “Some See a Pyramid to Hone Bosnia’s Image. Others See a Big Hill.” (New York Times, May 15, 2006, page A8). At least four different websites were devoted to the “Bosnian Pyramids” (http://www.bosnianpyramids.org/ http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/ http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/ and http://www.piramidasunca.ba/). The supposed pyramids formed the stuff of heated debate at other websites (most notably, perhaps, that of the Archaeological Institute of America, http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/osmanagic/update.html), chat-rooms, and blogs across the Internet.

Were they really man-made pyramids, perhaps dating back thousands of years? (Some advocates placed them as much as 12,000 or 14,000 years in the past.) Now covered with soil, trees, and other vegetation, Bosnian pyramid buffs argued that the “pyramids” needed to be excavated to reveal their glory and prove that Bosnia, of all places, was the virtual origin of, well not just pyramids, but perhaps even civilization. Tunnels reputedly associated with the pyramids were said to contain cryptic engravings that could just possibly be the oldest writing ever discovered. Detractors, on the other hand, saw the so-called pyramids as simply interesting, but perfectly and completely natural, geomorphologic features – – that is, they are just big hills. Some even argued that the whole notion of the Bosnian pyramids was not just a mistake or an ill-conceived notion, but a downright hoax designed to bring prestige, fame, power, and money to Bosnia, Visoko, and the head of the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation, the Bosnian-American (he now resides in Houston much of the time where he maintains a business) Semir (“Sam”) Osmanagic (also spelled Osmanagich). Indeed, on May 12, 2006, National Geographic ran an article on their website titled “Pyramid in Bosnia — Huge Hoax or Colossal Find?” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/pyramid-bosnia-1.html). It did not help Osmanagic’s case, at least in the eyes of the traditional academic community, that he is an advocate of “alternative history” (see his website http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/), and of his numerous books (mostly published in Bosnian), the one widely available in English, titled The World of the Maya, almost seems purposefully written to provoke the ire of traditional archaeologists.

Having more than a casual interest in ancient pyramids (after all, I am the author of two books focusing on pyramids: Voyages of the Pyramid Builders, and Pyramid Quest), I wanted to see first-hand what all the pyramid fuss in Bosnia was about. If there really was a huge pyramid, larger than the Great Pyramid of Egypt, in Bosnia, then I wanted the opportunity to study it. On the other hand, if there were no pyramids in Bosnia, that would be important to know too. But how to get to Bosnia? The answer turned out to be easy. My friend and professional colleague, Dr. Colette M. Dowell, simply contacted the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation and Semir Osmanagic. Initial contact was followed up with emails and phone calls, and quickly we received an invitation to visit Visoko and see the “pyramids” for ourselves. We made the trip to Bosnia during July and August 2006.

The afternoon we arrived in Bosnia, Osmanagic insisted on taking us straightaway to the so-called “Pyramid of the Sun.” I observed the excavated areas of huge stone blocks; blocks that I was told were most definitely not natural. Clearly, Osmanagic insisted, they were man-made concrete blocks that cannot be explained geologically, put into place with a sophisticated ancient technology that has now been lost. Amazingly, he explained, the “concrete” blocks proved to be harder and more durable than any modern concretes or cements. But he and I were apparently seeing different things, perhaps viewing an entirely different world. Where he saw concrete blocks and human intervention, I saw only perfectly natural sandstones and conglomerates that had broken into larger or smaller blocks due both to tectonic stresses and gravity slumping. For a week and a half this seemed to be the dominant theme: Osmanagic and others who worked with and for him insisting that this or that feature can never occur in nature, and thus must be artificial and human-made, versus me finding a perfectly reasonable geological explanation for each of the same features.

The geology around Visoko is incredibly rich, and I suggested to Osmanagic that, in lieu of “pyramids,” he might redefine his “Archaeological Park” as a “Geological-Archaeological Park” and focus more on the geology. Visocica Hill (the one dubbed “Pyramid of the Sun”) and Pljesevica Hill (“Pyramid of the Moon”) are composed of layers of sandstone, clay, mudstone, siltstone, and conglomerates apparently deposited in an ancient lake and river system during Miocene times (about 5.3 to 23 million years ago). The rocks have been tilted and bent due to tectonic stresses. The tectonic forces plastically deformed the clays and mudstones, but the sandstones and conglomerates broke into semi-regularly shaped pieces that Osmanagic and his team have excavated in numerous places, interpreting them as “pavements,” “terraces,” “concrete blocks,” “foundation stones,” and so forth. Interestingly, and tellingly, the sizes of the sandstone and conglomerate blocks found are a function of the thickness of the original rock layers. Thin sandstone layers, stressed tectonically, broke into small blocks while thick and durable conglomerate layers broke into massive blocks. This is exactly the pattern expected among natural rock formations. The sandstones also typically preserve various sedimentary and depositional features, such as ripple marks and the traces of ancient burrowing animals. These same rocks are also rich in paleontology. In some of the sandstone layers, and in many of the mudstone layers, I found large accumulations of fossil leaf debris and even some fairly complete Miocene fossil leaves. I believe that the real treasure of Visoko may be a huge fossil biota just waiting to be uncovered, not some imaginary pyramids.

While wondering the streets of Visoko, being offered all sorts of pyramid souvenirs, from tee shirts to copper plates bearing depictions of the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun (stylistically rendered either as a stepped Mayan-style pyramid or, less frequently, as a smooth-sided Giza-style pyramid), I continued to hope against hope that I could find some “truth” underlying the “pyramid mania” that has gripped the region. One last possibility might be the evidence of the reputed tunnels found in the area that supposedly connect one pyramid to another. We had the opportunity to explore one tunnel that is currently open; to put it mildly, I was disappointed with what I saw. The tunnel had clearly been entered and modified in recent times, as evidenced by the graffiti found in places, the collapsed ceilings and walls, and the stories that the Yugoslavian army (Bosnia and Herzegovina was part of the former Yugoslavia) had once used the tunnels for military purposes, and possibly purposefully destroyed parts of them. If this was an ancient tunnel, it was difficult to tell now. The much-touted “ancient inscriptions” seem not to be ancient at all. I was told by a reliable source that the inscriptions were not there when members of the “pyramid team” initially entered the tunnels less than two years ago. The “ancient inscriptions” had been added since, perhaps non-maliciously, or perhaps as a downright hoax.

So, no pyramids, but there are many fascinating and genuine archaeological wonders in Bosnia. On the summit of Visocica Hill, which overlooks Visoko, are the remains of a medieval fort built on top of Roman ruins, and there is also evidence of Neolithic occupation of the hill, dating back perhaps 5,000 years. While in Bosnia we also visited megalithic ruins attributed to the Illyrians (circa 4th century B.C.), a possible Paleolithic cave (unfortunately, we had neither the time nor equipment to enter it; I would love to return and explore it), and fascinating medieval cemetery monuments to the dead.

Despite my failure to validate the Bosnian pyramid dreams, Semir Osmanagic and all the members of the Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation were most gracious hosts. They spared no effort to make sure that I could view all aspects of the so-called pyramids, even arranging for me to take a short airplane ride to see them from the air. Bosnia is a beautiful country with amazing scenery and a rich history. The people are extremely friendly and hospitable, and Bosnia exhibits a wonderful mixture of Western (Austro-Hungarian) and Eastern (Turkish and Islamic) traditions. Even in the absence of pyramids, it is certainly a country worth visiting.

Stonehenges on both sides of the Atlantic

By Robert M. Schoch
Boston University

North of Boston, near North Salem, New Hampshire, is a labyrinth of megalithic stones that have been the object of wonder and a topic of heated argument for more than two centuries. Sprawling over a couple of dozen acres are found stone walls and various structures that at first glance look like building foundations, cellars, tunnels, and caves – – all composed of laid stone, sometimes still in natural shapes and sometimes roughly worked. The largest placed stone has been estimated at eleven tons. Parts of the complex have been given evocative names, for example, the “Oracle Chamber” and the “Sacrificial Table.” Large erected stones on the periphery of the complex are aligned with significant astronomical positions such as the sunrise and sunset on the equinox, mid-summer and mid-winter sunrises and sunsets, and apparently various lunar motions and stellar alignments, some of which appear to date to the second millennium B.C. This is the site variously known as “Mystery Hill,” “Mystery Hill Caves,” or since the 1980s as “America’s Stonehenge.”

What is “America’s Stonehenge”? Superficially it bears little similarity to the Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain of England. How old is America’s Stonehenge? Who built it and why? What was it originally like? These are all unanswered questions, but many answers have been proposed.

Solid historical records of America’s Stonehenge date back to the early nineteenth century when Jonathan Pattee lived on and at the site from 1826 to 1855. Pattee and his family used parts of the structure as foundations for buildings and as root cellars, and some people have suggested that Pattee and his five sons built the structures. But, based on one of the stones that is surrounded by a tree stump that began growing in 1769, at least part of the structure must date prior to Pattee’s time. In modern times a number of charcoal samples have been collected from the site, in more or less close approximation to the stone structures, and radiocarbon analyses have yielded dates from historical times to around 2,000 B.C.

Since Pattee’s time, the site has had a checkered history. It was used as a ready quarry (not unlike the Great Pyramid in Egypt during Muslim times), and the structures were dismantled and rock carried away to build local foundations, churches, and other buildings. It is estimated that perhaps 40% of the rock was removed during the nineteenth century.

In the 1890s a professor of architecture at Dartmouth College, Hugh Morrisson, argued that Native Americans who had no tradition of such stone building could not have erected the structures. In 1936/7 William B. Goodwin purchased the property, carried out various excavations and studies, and promoted the view that Culdee Monks from Ireland had circa 1000 A.D. crossed the Atlantic, settled in New Hampshire, and built the site. In the 1950s the area came under the control of Robert E. Stone who first leased and then purchased “Mystery Hill.” In 1958 Stone opened the site to the public, and he initiated a still-ongoing program of serious study, documentation, excavation, and restoration of the site.

Numerous researchers have become involved with, or offered interpretations of, America’s Stonehenge. Opinions range from the notion that it is, after all, simply colonial foundations and root cellars, to linking it to ancient European cultures, such as those that constructed megalithic buildings in Malta and Greece, to thinking in terms of a medieval influx of Europeans across the Atlantic (variations on the themes of Norse warriors or Irish Monks), to attributing the sighting stones constructions to ancient Native Americans. The late Barry Fell, in particular, popularized the concept that some of the stones found at America’s Stonehenge (and many found elsewhere as well) contain cryptic inscriptions written in various Celtic or Gaelic (Ogham), Iberian, and Phoenician scripts, giving clues as to potential builders, or at least visitors to, the site (see Fell’s book, America B.C.). Other researchers have countered that the so-called inscriptions are simply plow marks, root remains, or natural erosion features in the stone.

I am convinced that there was contact between the Old and New Worlds in pre-Columbian times, but I would not hang the case on America’s Stonehenge. I have had the opportunity to explore the site firsthand, and I do not know what to make of it. I tend to think it is not all of one piece – – that is, it may be a mixture of modern (eighteenth and nineteenth century) and ancient structures, but even among the ancient portions I could find no definitive evidence of non-Native American influence. In some ways America’s Stonehenge is a microcosm of the general arguments often encountered in archaeology where the hard evidence is just too sparse to come to a definitive conclusion. It may seem like a copout, but in the case of America’s Stonehenge I rather not judge until, and unless, some compelling evidence is discovered that can be used to firmly attribute and date it.

Turning to the “real” Stonehenge in England, which definitely is thousands of years old and astronomically aligned, new theories and developments continue to be proposed. Last year (2005) Timothy Darvill, professor of archaeology at Bournemouth University, and archaeologist Geoff Wainwright announced that they had found the exact quarry from which the bluestones of Stonehenge were taken over 4,000 years ago. Site of the quarry: Carn Menyn, a mountain in the Preseli Hills of Pembrokeshire, in southwest Wales. This meant, according to their interpretation, that huge monoliths had been quarried and moved some 240 miles to the site of Stonehenge, a truly incredible feat. But just this month (June 2006), geologists from the Open University using geochemical analyses, led by Professor Olwen Williams-Thorpe, have countered that the bluestones used to construct Stonehenge were not moved over two hundred miles by humans, but brought the distance by Ice Age glaciers and then utilized by ancient humans. Even if this proves to be the case, and as a geologist it certainly makes sense to me, it was still a truly monumental feat to carve the bluestones and erect them as the magnificent structure that we see today.

The Crowned Dragon of China and New Archaeological Finds in the Americas

By Robert M. Schoch
Boston University

The discovery of a new species of dinosaur was reported earlier this year (February 2006) from 160 million-year-old fossil beds of northwest China. The scientific name, Guanlong wucaii, meaning in Chinese “Crowned Dragon,” is apt since this relatively small bipedal dinosaur (it stood about three and a half feet tall, and had an overall length of about ten feet) carried on its head a large complex crest, perhaps brightly colored when the animal was alive, which may have been used in behavioral displays to either attract, or perhaps threaten, other members of its species. The Crowned Dragon was probably covered in simple feathers, as is known to have been the case for other members of its taxonomic group, not for flight but as protection and insulation. As a side note, the close connection between certain dinosaurs and birds is now generally recognized, and indeed if you eat a chicken or turkey, you are effectively eating a little dinosaur-form of animal.

But what makes the Crowned Dragon so exciting to some paleontologists, and members of the general public, is that it is apparently a primitive form of tyrannosaur, that group made famous in the popular eye by the fierce Tyrannosaurus rex who roamed western North America about 70 million years ago. Although hailed by some reporters as the ancestor of T. rex, the Crowned Dragon was much more likely a member of a primitive side branch of tyrannosaurs, sort of a distant cousin tens of millions of generations removed. Still, the Crowned Dragon is certainly related to North American T. rex, but it is found in China. What is going on? Back then the continents and oceans were in different positions, global climatic patterns were not the same as today, and dinosaurs were free to roam from one region of the world to another, regions that are now separated by oceans or mountain ranges.

Jump forward to modern times – – well, modern times from a geological perspective. The continents and oceans are positioned as we know them, and many a mainstream archaeologist has suggested, or simply assumed, that there was no connection between the classical Old World and the civilizations of the New World for the very simple reason that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans posed impenetrable barriers to contact and cross fertilization until Columbus crossed the Atlantic in 1492. Over the years a number of scholars have questioned this dogma, including yours truly (in my book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders), yet old and entrenched ideas die slowly. But why am I bringing this topic up? I cannot help think about it as I review a few new archaeological discoveries from the Americas that have just been made public (May 2006).

A thirty-ton monolith (twenty-five feet wide, thirteen feet high, and sixteen inches thick), dated to circa 900 B.C., with enigmatic carvings on it, has been reported from the newly opened archaeological site of Tamtoc, about 550 miles northeast of Mexico City. So far the “Mexican Monolith” has been interpreted as possibly a lunar calendar, but it also contains symbols that have apparently never been seen in the Americas before. Some experts are suggesting that perhaps it is an Olmec carving, or at least related to the Olmecs. The Olmecs formed an early civilization that originated around 1100 B.C. further south in what are now the areas of Veracruz and Tabasco. But where did the Olmec people come from? This has long been a mystery. One distinct possibility, which I discuss in Voyages, is that the Olmec civilization arose at least in part due to an influx of ancient Shang Chinese who crossed the Pacific during the twelfth millennium B.C. Shang pictographs have been identified on Olmec artifacts, most notably by the researcher Michael Xu (Central Oklahoma University), and there is a distinct Chinese tradition of a large group of Shang heading east into the Pacific, never to return to China. Furthermore, the Olmec were pyramid builders, and so were the ancient Chinese, and I believe there are distinct similarities evident between the ancient Chinese pyramids (including some found in the region of Mongolia) and those of the Olmecs. We might also point out that, among Olmec carvings, often on a gigantic scale, are faces that many people view as strikingly African; perhaps the Olmec culture was the original melting pot of races and peoples in America. So where do I suggest that scholars might look as they work to understand the carvings of the newly discovered Mexican Monolith? Ancient China!

There have been other exciting finds reported from South America in recent weeks. From northern Brazil (in the state of Amapa) stories of an “Amazon Stonehenge” have made the news. Reported to consist of 127 granite monoliths, each about ten feet high, arranged in circles in an open field, the structure may date anywhere from about 500 years ago to 2,000 years old. Preliminary work on the site suggests that the stones were used for astronomical observations, indicating a sophisticated interest in the skies, and blocks aligned relative to the winter solstice have been identified.

Also aligned with the solstices is a temple and observatory complex newly discovered in the Peruvian Andes, in the Rio Chillon Valley north of Lima. The observatory itself sits atop a thirty-three-foot high pyramid. On the site are large clay sculptures of animals and a disk bearing a face, along with incised drawings and paintings. Hailed as the oldest astronomical observatory yet identified in the Americas, it dates back some 4,200 years based on radiocarbon dating of burnt materials found in what is interpreted as an offering pit of the temple. Some of the experts are surprised to see evidence of such sophistication and advanced knowledge at such an early period in South American history. However, I am not surprised. Contemporaneously, advanced civilizations were flourishing in Egypt and the Middle East, as well as in the Far East, so why not South America as well? We are all one species, and there may well have been cultural interchange, even if somewhat limited, across the oceans during that very early epoch. At the least, it is something to think about.

The Dubai Conference, 2008

A news report
by Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D.
Boston University

For two days (November 29 & 30, 2008) a star-studded group of ancient history researchers and an enthralled audience congregated at the pyramid-shaped Raffles Hotel, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for “The International Conference on Ancient Studies: The Mysteries of Ancient Civilisations” [note the British spelling].

Day one was devoted to Egypt. Robert Bauval summarized his work on the correlation of the three major pyramids of Giza with the Belt of Orion (representing Osiris to the ancient Egyptians), commemorating the period of circa 10,500 B.C., which for the ancient Egyptians may have represented Zep Tepi, or the First Time. Next, moving our gaze from the stars to the stones, I (Robert Schoch) summarized my work on re-dating the Great Sphinx. The traditional date is circa 2500 B.C.; I presented evidence that the earliest portions of the Sphinx must date back to at least 5000 B.C., and possibly much earlier.

In the afternoon, Mahmoud Marai presented his discoveries in the Western Desert of Egypt, some 700 kilometers west of Abu Simbel. Dating from the Middle Kingdom (circa 2000 B.C.), hieroglyphic inscriptions mention the legendary Kingdom of Yam. Once considered merely a myth, it appears that Yam was a genuine place, perhaps located in the Western Desert, and there was a caravan route from Egypt to Yam. Dr. Thomas Brophy ended the day with a presentation on the astronomy of archaeological sites, dating circa 4800 B.C. and earlier, in the Nabta Playa region of the Western Desert.

Michael Cremo opened day two, addressing the evidence for modern humans hundreds of thousands to millions of years earlier than recognized by conventional archaeologists. Next were discussions of Central and South American archaeology. John Major Jenkins summarized his work on the Mayan long count calendar, culminating in the date of December 21, 2012, when the Solstice Sun will be aligned with the Galactic Center. Dr. Constantino Manuel Torres followed with a presentation on the ancient peoples of San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, analyzing the well-preserved mummies, art, and other cultural remains of the region. In the final presentation, Dr. Luis Eduardo Luna explored the indigenous peoples of the Amazon rainforest, an area of extreme cultural diversity and antiquity. The conference concluded with a lively panel discussion among the presenters as they fielded questions from the audience.

The International Conference on Ancient Studies was unlike anything that had previously been held in Dubai. Grateful thanks go to His Royal Highness Sheikh Ahmed Bin Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, president of Dubai Event Management Corporation, under whose patronage it was held, as well as to the sponsors: The Trade Commission of Chile, Raffles Dubai, the Dubai Convention Bureau, Al Husn Real Estate, Arab Media Group, BurJuman Rotana Dhamani, and AdBox Events. Special thanks go to Dr. Mohammad Naeemat (Chairman of AdBox), Ali Bin Karam (Chief Executive Officer of AdBox), and Jean-Paul Tarud-Kuborn (Trade Commissioner of Chile to the Gulf Cooperation Council). Given the success of the conference, I hope that it will become an annual event.

Photo: International Conference on Ancient Studies, Dubai, panel discussion on November 30, 2008. From left to right, Dr. Robert M. Schoch, Dr. Thomas Brophy, Dr. Constantino Manuel Torres, John Major Jenkins, Robert Bauval, Michael Cremo, Dr. Luis Eduardo Luna, and Mahmoud Marai. (Photo Credit: Courtesy of Robert M. Schoch, copyright 2008.)

Archaeology and the Historical Jesus: Recent Developments

Craig A. Evans

A major driving force behind biblical archaeology in its early days were apologetics. In recent years these interests have been eclipsed by the new quest for context and meaning. By and large, this new quest has seen major advances on many fronts, especially where it concerns the historical Jesus.
In some cases discoveries touch directly on the story of Jesus as presented in the New Testament Gospels, such as in the 1961 discovery at Caesarea Maritima of the inscription that mentions Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, and perhaps (much more doubtfully) in the 1990 discovery in the vicinity of Jerusalem of an ossuary, whose inscription may contain the name of Caiaphas the high priest. One also thinks of the 1986 discovery of the first-century (BCE or CE) Galilee boat, which has answered some important general questions about this occupation and perhaps one or two very specific questions relating to Jesus and his disciples.
These discoveries are of great interest, to be sure, but of much greater significance are discoveries relating to travel, commerce, economy, social activities, and religious loyalties of the people of first-century Palestine, especially as these things relate to the inhabitants of Galilee.
Here might be mentioned three important areas of archaeological findings in recent years that shed light on aspects of the life of Jesus and the world in which he was active: (1) the Jewishness of Galilee, (2) the existence of pre-70 synagogue buildings, and (3) Jewish burial traditions.

1. The Jewishness of Galilee
One of the most important questions for studying Jesus in his environment asks how Jewish Galilee was in the early first century. Several books in the last decade or so have appeared that address this question in one way or another. Books by Mark Chancey, Sean Freyne, Richard Horsley, Eric Meyers, Marianne Sawicki, and James Strange, among others, immediately come to mind.
The discovery of numerous Greek inscriptions (and a few Latin inscriptions as well), along with a network of roads (for example, linking Caesarea on the Mediterranean and Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee) and major Greco-Roman style buildings and city layouts, has led scholars to reassess the old, quaint notion of Galilee as a cultural and commercial backwater. The significance of the proximity of Sepphoris to Nazareth was immediately appreciated by scholars. It has become apparent that Jesus did not grow up place-bound, in a rustic, unsophisticated environment.
But in the excitement of assessing the implications of a Galilee now seen in a new light, in some circles there was a lack of recognition of just how Jewish much of Galilee was in the pre-70 period. Greco-Roman style urbanization and loyalty to the Torah were not mutually exclusive. The excavations of Sepphoris in the 1980s showed us how urban and wealthy the city of Sepphoris was, but the ongoing excavations of the 1990s and on into the twenty-first century have also shown us how Jewish the inhabitants of this city were in the time before 70.
The discovery of a number of miqvaoth (ritual immersion pools) and stone water pots (which resist ritual impurity; cf. John 2:6) points unmistakably to the Jewish presence. The absence of pork bones, pagan cultic buildings, and coin imprints and other icons offensive to Jewish sensibilities argue not only for a Jewish presence, but the near absence of a non-Jewish population. In short, the evidence thus far uncovered suggests that the people of Sepphoris were either Jewish or at least lived in a manner unobjectionable to Torah-observant Jews.
The upshot of these discoveries is that the intriguing hypothesis (advanced by John Dominic Crossan and a few scholars linked to the Jesus Seminar) that Jesus was influenced by Cynic philosophers resident in Sepphoris is greatly weakened. It is not altogether ruled out, but its plausibility is serious diminished. Moreover, recent excavations in Nazareth itself suggest that the assumption that Jesus and members of his family would in all probability (and perhaps of necessity) have worked in nearby Sepphoris is no longer so obvious. It appears that Nazareth had its own thriving economy—including building, if the evidence of the stone quarries tells us anything. The commercial and economic activities of Nazareth were more than adequate to keep the local residents fully occupied, with little need to seek out-of-town employment.
Ongoing excavations at other sites in Galilee, such as Cana, Capernaum, and Bethsaida lend additional support to the growing conviction that the Jewish population of Galilee embraced its historic faith and traditions. To be sure, Greek language and literature and Greco-Roman architecture were present in Galilee. But this presence co-existed with a people firmly committed to Jewish faith and practice. It is in this world that Jesus grew up and ministered.

2. Pre-70 Synagogue Buildings
The New Testament Gospels and book of Acts leave us with the impression that Jesus frequented Jewish synagogues and that these synagogues seem to have met in buildings designated for this purpose. There are more than fifty references to synagogues. Admittedly, some of these references could be simply to gatherings of Jewish people (which is what the Greek word synagoge actually means) and not necessarily to buildings themselves called synagogues. Howard Kee has argued this view in a series of studies. He suggests that the Gospel writers, especially the author of Luke-Acts, has anachronistically retrojected a post-70 reality into the earlier time of Jesus. Kee’s interpretation not only requires him to interpret the references to synagogue buildings in Josephus in the same manner (cf. J.W. 2.285-89; 7.44; Ant. 19.305) and ignore a clear reference in Philo (cf. Prob. 81-82), it also requires him to date the Theodotos Inscription (CIJ 1404), which thanks various persons for donating money for the building of the synagogue, to a time much later than the pre-70 period.
Archaeology offers this interpretation no support. Not only does the style of incising in the Theodotos Inscription suggest a Herodian date (probably early first century), but its discovery beneath the rubble of the 70-destruction of Jerusalem argues strongly for a pre-70 date. Moreover, the Berenike synagogue inscription from Cyrene of North Africa (SEG XVII 823) dates to the year 56 CE and Ehud Netzer has recently reported the discovery of a synagogue at Jericho, which was damaged by the earthquake of 31 BCE. Kee’s hypothesis has been convincingly rebutted by studies by Richard Oster and John Kloppenborg, who have reviewed the literary and archaeological evidence summarized above.
Even without the more problematic dating of the older, black basalt foundation beneath the ruins of the fourth-century synagogue at Capernaum and the synagogue ruins at Gamla, it seems clear from the archaeological evidence that synagogue buildings did indeed exist in the time of Jesus. Confident of this fact, we can study these early buildings for clarification of aspects of Jesus’ activity (such as seating arrangements, auxiliary rooms, furnishings, and the like). Moreover, this archaeological and inscriptional evidence lends import support to the historical accuracy of the portraits that the New Testament Gospels present.

3. Jewish Burial Traditions
Jewish burial traditions can potentially tell us much about the world of Jesus, and perhaps even clarify at one or two points his teaching and, even more significantly, clarify aspects of his death and burial. The discovery and analysis of hundreds of skeletons and skeletal remains have told us much about the health and longevity of the people. It gives us pause to discover that in a typical two or three generation burial crypt more than one half of the skeletons are of children. Indeed, in some cases two-thirds of the remains are of children. From data such as these, some historical anthropologists have speculated that as many as one fourth of the population in Jesus’ time was ill, injured, and in need of medical help on any given day. This grim possibility gives new meaning to the Gospels’ notice that crowds were attracted to Jesus, because he was known as a healer (e.g., Mark 3:10; 4:1; 5:27-28).
The Jewish practice of ossilegium, that is, the reburial of the bones of the deceased (see the books by E. M. Meyers and C. A. Evans), may explain Jesus’ cryptic remark to the would-be follower who requested that he first be allowed to “bury his father.” Jesus replies: “Let the dead bury their own dead” (Matt 8:22 = Luke 9:60). Byron McCane plausibly suggests that the man has requested delaying discipleship until he has reburied his father’s bones. Jesus has not urged the man to ignore his dying father. Rather, Jesus urges him to allow the dead (i.e., the dead relatives in the family crypt) to see to the final burial of the man’s dead father. Proclaiming the rule of God to the living takes precedence.
Jewish burial practices, including Jewish sensitivities regarding corpse impurity and the sacred duty to bury the dead, argue strongly against the novel theory proposed a decade ago that Jesus’ corpse may well have been unburied, either left hanging on the cross or perhaps was thrown in a ditch, exposed to animals as carrion. It has been pointed out that hundreds, if not thousands, of Jews who were crucified during war time or insurrection were left unburied. This is true, but Jesus was crucified during peace time. It is inconceivable that the bodies of Jesus and the other men would have been left unburied just outside the walls of Jerusalem, during Passover season. The grim discovery in an ossuary of the remains of Yehohanan, in whose right heel bone an iron spike was found, dated to the late 20s of the first century, is graphic evidence that Pontius Pilate permitted the crucified to be buried and sometime later the bones to be gathered and placed in an ossuary in the family crypt—all according to Jewish burial customs.
The remains of two or three other persons executed and then properly buried have also been found. In a tomb from Giv‘at ha-Mivtar in Jerusalem the skeleton of a woman who had been decapitated have been found. In another tomb in Jerusalem, on Mount Scopus, the skeleton of man who had been beheaded was found. Forensic study of these remains indicate that his head was taken off with two strokes or either a sword or axe. The significance of this evidence is that proper burial was permitted even in cases of capital punishment—which is exactly what the Gospels say with respect to Jesus.
Jewish burial practice may also shed light on the reasons why the women returned to Jesus’ tomb early Sunday morning. Evidently their motivation was to perfume Jesus’ body, so that the seven days of mourning could take place. Making note of which tomb contained Jesus’ body (for he was in a tomb reserved for criminals—not in his family’s tomb) they hoped eventually to gather the bones of Jesus and take them to his family’s place of burial. Accordingly, the women took special interest in the tomb. Finding the body removed would, therefore, have occasioned great consternation and not necessarily thoughts of resurrection. The appearances of Jesus, as well as the reality of the empty tomb, convinced his followers and he was indeed resurrected and was not simply a ghost or a vision.
Postscript: The recent hypothesis put forward by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino that the East Talpiot tomb south of Jerusalem, accidentally discovered and hastily excavated in 1980 by Yosef Gat and Amos Kloner, contained the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and various family members has been endorsed by no recognized archaeologist. The high quality tomb, complete with an impressive pointed gable and rosette over the entrance, which symbolize the Jewish temple, probably belonged to a wealthy, aristocratic Jerusalem family, with ties to the temple. Many of the claims and conclusions advanced by Jacobovici and Pellegrino are erroneous and in some cases highly misleading and deceptive.

Craig A. Evans is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada, and author of Jesus and His Contemporaries (Brill, 1995) and Jesus and the Ossuaries (Baylor University Press, 2003). He is also a contributor to Jesus and Archaeology, ed. J. J. Charlesworth (Eerdmans, 2006).

Bibliography
Chancey, Mark A. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (SNTSMS 118; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991).
—. Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995).
Evans, Craig A. Jesus and the Ossuaries (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2003).
—. “Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus,” JSHJ 3 (2005) 233-48.
Freyne, Sean. Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays (WUNT 125; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
—. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 BCE to 135 CE: A Study of Second Temple Judaism (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998).
—. Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).
Kee, Howard Clark. “The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.: Its Import for Early Christianity,” NTS 36 (1990) 1-24.
—. “The Changing Meaning of Synagogue: A Response to Richard Oster,” NTS 40 (1994) 281-83.
—. “Defining the First-Century C Synagogue: Problems and Progress,” NTS 41 (1995) 481-500.
Kloppenborg, John S. “Dating Theodotos (CIJ 1404),” JJS 51 (2000) 243-80.
McCane, Byron R. “‘Let the Dead Bury Their Own Dead’: Secondary Burial and Matt 8:21-22,” HTR 83 (1990) 31-43.
Meyers, Eric M., ed. Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures (Duke Judaic Studies 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999).
—. Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth (BibOr 24; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1971).
Nagy, R. M., C. L. Meyers, E. M. Meyers, and Z. Weiss, eds. Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996).
Oster, Richard E. “Supposed Anachronism in Luke–Acts’ Use of synagoge: A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee,” NTS 39 (1993) 178-208.
Sawicki, Marianne. Crossing Galilee: Architectures of Contact in the Occupied Land of Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000).
Strange, James F. Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity, with Eric M. Meyers (London: SCM Press, 1981).

Archaeological Evidence for First-century Synagogues in Ancient Judaea

Dr. James F. Strange PhD

In Israel there are ancient structures at Gamala, Capernaum (beneath the white limestone synagogue), Qiryat Sefer, Masada, Jericho, Modi’in, and Herodium. The archaeologists who unearthed these buildings have identified them as synagogues of the first century CE. These halls resemble later synagogues recognized as such from their Jewish art and from dedicatory inscriptions in Greek or Aramaic that actually identify the buildings as “synagogues.”
But are the first century examples actually synagogues? After all, they do not seem to contain Jewish art, nor do they have inscriptions identifying them as such.
There are at least five reasons to identify these seven possible synagogues as the real thing:

1. These buildings organize innermost space in a similar manner, namely, it is rectangular and surrounded on three or four sides by rows of columns, then by ranges of benches on two, three, or four sides.

2. One must use the benches as steps to move from the top bench or landing to the floor. This calls to mind a saying of Jesus in Mark 12:39 and parallels that excoriates the Scribes for preferring the “first seats” in synagogues, presumably on the top rank.

3. Worshipers sitting or standing on the benches must look through a balustrade of columns to see what is going on centrally. This is echoed in the construction of the Diaspora synagogues at Priene in Greece and at Ostia in Italy.

4. The “Jewishness” of these structures is not given by art or inscriptions, but by their presence in a Jewish town or village, or even in a Jewish fortress.

5. Although parts of these buildings resemble structures in the Roman Empire, their total organization is novel. The closest analog is the ancient basilica, but the basilicas we know are far larger than most of these buildings. These buildings resemble one another more than anything else. The commonality between them also suggests strongly that their builders were seeing some structure or structures that gave them the extraordinary idea of arranging seating between the columns and the walls. I believe that “something else” to be the stoa on the temple Mount in Jerusalem.
That is, the space from wall to columns is in effect a porch or stoa. Two porches running parallel with a roof on top is a basilica, as is usually reconstructed on the south side of the Temple court in Jerusalem, following Josephus. The first century synagogues that we have found tend to model themselves after Israel’s holiest shrine.These structures surely represent those mentioned by Josephus and by the New Testament authors and situated in the Holy Land in the first century CE

The Cave of John the Baptist

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

John the Baptist was a fiery preacher for the Lord and would prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. Many came to listen to him and would be baptized by him. In Matthew 3 it speaks about how John was preparing the way for Jesus. John was letting people know that he was coming and that he was the messiah. Later John baptizes Jesus and when Jesus rose up out of the water the heavens split and the spirit of God came down upon Jesus like a dove. In Matthew 14:3-12 it talks about the beheading of John.

Two and a half years ago, Biblical Archaeology Review found what they believe to be the cave of John the Baptist. It all started when Reuven Kalifon, an immigrant from Cleveland who teaches Hebrew at the kibbutz, took some of his students spelunking back when it was still filled with mud and sediment. Kalifon asked Shimon Gibson, who was a friend of his, to take a better look at it. Gibson crawled into the hole and moved a few boulders near the walls to uncover a carving of a head. After seeing this, he organized a full-scale excavation.
During the next five years, the team of excavators cleared out layers of soil and the remnants of 250,000 broken jugs that were supposedly used in purification rituals. They also uncovered an oval shaped stone with a carved out indent in the shape of a right foot. Above the indent on the rock is another indent with a channel connecting the two. This is believed to be a foot baptismal where the oil goes into the indent above the foot and someone sticks their foot into the foot shaped indent while the oil runs over it. This could represent the time when Jesus washed the disciples feet before the passover meal. (John 13)

The cave is located on the communal farm of Kibbutz Tzuba. Kibbutz Tzuba is 2.5 miles away from Ein Kerem; the home village of John the Baptist. The cave was carved into the limestone hill that it resides in by the Israelites during the Iron Age, which was sometime between 800 B.C. and 500 B.C. The cave’s dimensions are 72 feet long, 12 feet deep, and 12 feet wide.[1]
You can view pictures taken of the cave here.
Annotated Bibliography

“John the Baptist’s Cave???.” Biblical Archaeology Review 30.6 (2004): 18-19 – This article speaks about a cave found near Ain Karim; the hometown of John the Baptist. It describes some objects and inscriptions found in the cave along with describing the cave itself.
Shimon Gibson and James Tabor. “John the Baptist’s Cave.” Biblical Archaeology Review 31.3 (2005): 36-41,58 – This article is a follow up from the 2004 Nov/Dec article “John the Baptist’s Cave???”. It lets you make up your own mind by giving you the facts from both sides. It gives evidence to support the claim that it is the cave of John the Baptist, but it also gives evidence to reject that claim.

Cave linked to John the Baptist – This article talks about findings in the cave, how it was found, and what they believe it to be. In this article, they go a lot more in depth than any of the other articles. “Scholars Say John the Baptist Used This Cave For Immersions.”New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 17, 2004. pg. A.9 – Carvings on the walls and ceilings are believed to depict John’s life. In the back of the cave there is a pool that was believed to be an immersion pool used to baptise new believers.