Suppressed Archaeology:

The subject of suppressed archaeology is a delicate topic to say the least. Just the mention of the word 'suppression' evokes a wince from many as it suggests the deliberate concealment of facts (for reasons unknown), and is a label which academia would go to lengths to reject. Perhaps the most pertinent question therefore, is to what lengths.?

 

As this article will show, there are several examples in the recent archaeological record which can be said to fall into one of the above categories, leading one to wonder if such suggestions have any substance. While each case appears isolated in relation to the others, their cumulative presence reveals a darker side of humanity perhaps best summed up by the quote '..History is Written by the Victors..', a situation which while understood in a historical context, goes a long way from justifying itself in the modern world.

 

In archaeological/historical terms, there appear to be three primary motives behind such activities.

Fear of Challenging the Official Line - (i.e. Isolationism Vs Diffusionism).

Racial Prejudice - (i.e. Origin of the Egyptian Dynastic Rulers).

Cultural Suppression - (i.e. Waipua, New Zealand - See Below).

 

Isolationism Vs Diffusion: The Americas

Since the official line was first adopted by the Smithsonian Institute that any similarities between Pre-Columbian New world cultures and Old world remains (such as Pyramid building, Mummification, Solar Worship etc) were developed independently from each other, all discoveries that challenged this belief have been officially classed as 'anomalous' or 'fake', as acceptance of their existence would undermine the official belief in isolationism, something which has until recently effectively discontinued research in this area.

'...It only takes one Dinosaur Bone to Prove that Dinosaurs Existed...'

'Underhill, et al (1996) noted that at least: "One Mayan male [has been] previously shown to have an African Y chromosome". James Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, was present among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya'. In addition, Dr. Wiercinski (1972) produced evidence to demonstrate that at least some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975). (8)

Back in the 1960s, the renowned Smithsonian archaeologist Betty Meggers argued that similarities between the pottery of the contemporaneous Valdivia culture in Ecuador and Japan�s Jomon culture indicated that Japanese fishermen had �discovered� America about 5,000 years ago. Whilst the theory was lambasted by critics, the largest ever genetic study of native South Americans was conducted recently, and the results identified a sub-population in Ecuador with a clear link to eastern Asia. The study, published in PLOS Genetics, concluded that Asian genes had been introduced into South America sometime after 6,000 years ago � the same time the Jomon culture was flourishing in Japan. (9)

(More about Prehistoric Japan)

The Olmecs:

 (As they Portrayed Themselves).

Whilst much of the attention of the Old World/New World debate has traditionally focused on the structural similarities between the buildings, there are several other prominent cultural similarities which have provoked a strong argument in favour of external connections before Columbus' arrival. The strongest candidate for a surviving population of overseas travellers lies in the shape of the enigmatic Olmecs who's art and culture speak of a multicultural society, well versed in script, pyramid building, calendar systems, and with several artistic, linguistic and now genetic links with Old world cultures.

(More about the Olmecs)

The genetic evidence provides a platform upon which one would expect academia to question the previous assumptions of the past but there is a traditional resistance to change, and although that is exactly what the genetic studies demand it is likely that we will have to wait another 60 years before such change is embraced. Why?

The Smithsonian 'Black Hole'

The resistance to change concerning a re-evaluation of Pre-Columbian cultural contact (even in the face of facts) reveals a dogmatism that goes beyond scientific rigour. Perhaps these are what might be called 'intellectual remnants of the past', but even today we find that certain 'scientific' establishments are still promoting theories, but refusing to recognise legitimate criticism of the theories they promote.

One of the most commonly mentioned establishments in this area also happens to be one of the largest in the world, and therefore stands almost impervious against such allegations, but the Smithsonian Institute have been meticulously recording their own activities for over 100 years now, so that while it would seem logical that requests for artefacts (recorded as being held by them) which contradict their theories would be offered for scientific inspection, this has not been the case, as the catalogue of 'disappeared' controversial artefacts in possession of the Smithsonian appears to be growing by the year.

The Smithsonian Institute was first established in 1846 'For the increase and diffusion of Knowledge. It currently proclaims itself as the 'Worlds largest museum and research complex'. There are numerous reports of unsuccessful attempts to locate artefacts registered as being taken by the Smithsonian, something which the Institute responds to by noting that they are also a collection of museums and suppositories, each housing an age of insufficiently recorded artefacts, which has led to a situation where they are having difficulty retrieving them. This explanation may be acceptable in general, but when the same reply is given for every single known case of recorded 'giant' bones from the Mound Builders of the Mississippian Americas, one has no choice but to raise an eyebrow.

(Image Courtesy of James Vieira)

(James Vieira - Mound Builders and the Giants of America)

The recent collation by James Vieira of hundreds of reports associating the Smithsonian with authentic recorded discoveries of 'giant' skeletons from the Mounds of the Mississippi cultures has brought the subject back to the frontline again. These discoveries were reported regularly in the local newspapers at the turn of the 20th century as the mounds were being opened on an unregulated basis with the likely thought of treasure as the motive. However, following the analysis, recording and extraction of almost a thousand burial mounds, numerous of which revealed extraordinary sized skeletons, ranging between 7 and 8 ft tall, and with Indian traditions themselves stating that before their arrival, a race of giant men inhabited the Mississippi area, the Smithsonian has gone to great efforts to do nothing more about these claims, and has been unable to provide any of the samples mentioned over the years.

Again, we are left to ask Why..?

(More about the Mound Builders)

 (More about Giants)

The Egyptian Conversion from Black to White.

The question of the race of ancient Egyptians was raised historically as a product of the scientific racism of the 18th and 19th centuries, linked to models of racial hierarchy (1). A variety of views circulated about the racial identity of the Egyptians and the source of their culture. These were typically identified in terms of a distinction between the "Black African" and pale or "Darkened Caucasian" (including Eurasian and Asiatic) racial categories. Some accounts argued that Egyptian culture emerged from more Southerly African peoples, while others pointed to influences from the Near East.

The 2001 Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt states that "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study.� Kemp states that the "black/white argument is understandable as a symptom of modern political expression�' (1)

The extraordinary attempts by the establishment to 'whiten' the original look of Early Dynastic Egyptians were highlighted recently through the farcical reconstruction of King Tutankhamen (funded by the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt and the National Geographic in America), which was eventually returned for repainting following an outburst of demonstration against it. It has highlighted the need for an examination of the motives behind what seems to have been a common-place activity by modern Egyptian Authorities.

Two authentic and contemporary images of Tutankhamen.

Tutankhamen's Grandmother (left), and Father (right)

The Following Images are of the 'official' 2005 reconstruction of Tutankhamen's face.

Following considerable pressure, the head was eventually rejected and returned for colour touching. The fact remains that it was attempted - without resistance this would have been the face of Tutankhamen today.

 

The official responses to accusations of deliberate 'whitening', demonstrate the existence of racial conflict within the Egyptian scientific arena today.

When pressed on the issue by American activists in September 2007, the current Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass (above, right) stated that "Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilization as black has no element of truth to it." While Dr. Ahmed Saleh (above, left), the former archaeological inspector for the Supreme Council of antiquities stated that the procedures used in the facial re-creation made Tut look Caucasian, "disrespecting the nation's African roots." (1) During his time in office, Hawasss resisted any DNA testing of Mummies.  (6) Hawass was sacked from his position in 2011 (7), following charges of misconduct, and a near jail sentence for misappropriation.

The 'Cocaine Mummies':

Egyptian history has been put into question more than once. As well as the ongoing debate over the colour of the Early Dynastic Egyptians, there is also a considerable amount of controversy over the discovery of the 'Cocaine Mummies', an investigation which ended up revealing both cocaine and Nicotine in several authentic Egyptian Mummies housed in collections around the world. Although the clear conclusion to these findings are that the Egyptians were in contact/trade with South American cultures (The Coca plant Erythroxylaceae is native to the Americas), the theory remains automatically rejected by certain establishments.

(More about the Cocaine Mummies)

The Giza Controversy.

There is one further example in Egypt that should be noted, as recent reports have highlighted a need for disclosure ahead of suppression. The origin of the monuments at Giza have long been in debate. It wasn't more than a hundred years ago that they were believed to have been built be the hand of God. Today, we have an official date of c. 2,560 BC (10), even though the orientation of the pole-shaft gives only two possible precise dates of either 2,170 BC or 3,350 BC, and radiocarbon dating of the site places it at least 500 years earlier, c. 3,100 BC, little has been made of these starkly obvious facts.

The Case of Waipoua Forest, New Zealand

(A Twentieth Century Archaeological Cover-up Exposed).

Between the late 1970's and the late 1980's, extensive and very expensive archaeological excavations were conducted in the Waipoua Forest. The detailed mapping and notes of the complex of stone walls, hearths, stone structures defined as altars by the archaeologists, incised obelisks, petroglyphs (rock carvings), standing stone circles, circular stone mounds and stone-lined waterways was instead sent away to remain hidden under a 75 year embargo, restricted until 2063. In 1988, archaeological records on the Waipoua Forest excavations were transferred from Kaikohe to the National Archives in Auckland. At the end of the archaeological excavations, all public access to the area was denied. Visitors wanting to see the stone artefacts were turned away. DOC denied access requests by historians and archaeologist. The official reason given by DOC was that the area had been declared tapu and that it was under a Waitangi Treaty claim. (2)

What wasn't at first realised is that certain information had been discovered which would rewrite regional history overnight as it included evidence of a earlier cultural presence in New Zealand before the Moari. When the significance of the Waipoua information was realised, certain New Zealand Government Departments produced an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention to withhold this archaeological information from the public for a period of 75 years and signed by an Archaeologist, Michael Taylor. So it was that a huge body of historical information was earmarked for suppression and successfully hidden away for 8 years.

In 1996, a researcher called Gary Cook tried without success to get a copy of the archaeological report covering the 70's-80's dig. In the end Gary acquired the services of a lawyer, who made submissions to the Ombudsman to force the lifting of the illegal embargo. Submissions to the Ombudsman lead to the release of a large body of material, but the radio carbon dates were absent. After further complaint, the files were finally released, but were still incomplete. There was a vital report missing from samples tested at the Radiocarbon Testing Laboratory at the University of Waikato. Data already released showed material from the excavation fell within the known occupancy of modern Maori (The official Government date for the arrival of the first people, from Eastern Polynesia, is the late 13^th century. Kupe is said to have featured in the 14^th century.) But there was no sign of the data showing the much earlier date.

Then, in a strange twist of fate the missing file surfaced, sent anonymously to Hokianga historian Joan Leaf, who with Noel Hilliam, had complained about the lack of access to the information in a Radio Pacific interview in 1996. The data from a food midden at Motuhuru showed a True Age date of 950 plus or minus 50. This was the missing report exclaimed over by Ned Nathan, on a 1000 year old cat�s eye shell, collected from a midden by Michael Taylor in 1986. The readings confirmed there were already people living in the area now called Waipoua Forest when the ancestors of modern Maori arrived. On the same file was another reading of a pipi shell, collected from a midden excavated at Kokohuia, Omapere by Michael Taylor. It also carried the radiocarbon date of 900 plus or minus 50 years. (2)

The restrictions would have remained in place until 2063, were the legalities not challenged under law through an incentive instigated by Gary Cook. Without this, the true history of New Zealand would have been withheld from the public record.

Last but Not Least...

'Dinosaur bones Carbon-14 dated to less than 40,000 years':

Regardless of the implications, researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones (something which should not be possible in several million year old fossilised bone) - the answer it seems is that the bones are considerably younger than previously assumed.  Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old. 

Also in 2009, the team of Dr. Phil Wilby discovered a fossilized squid that contained a sac of ink so well-preserved that it could be used in a pen for writing, found in rock that is considered to be 150 million years old.  In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters.  Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded.  That is, if they are over 65 million years old as the conventional wisdom says.

The news is stunning and more than some can tolerate.  After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.  Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers. (4)

(Link to Full Article)

(Anomalous Archaeological Discoveries)

(Ooparts - Out of Place Artefacts)

(Ancient Science and Technology)

(A-Z Index of Pages)