The Key To Human Kind

THE KEY TO HUMAN KIND.
RONNIE CARLETON
THE FINAL REPORT.

FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY
AND EARTH HISTORY
Written by:
Ronald Carleton Codex Forensics UK 2017
Academic Year: 2015-2017

A REPORT ON EARTH HISTORY,ANTHROPOLOGY,ARCHEOLOGY AND SPACE.
Content goes here THE EARTH TIME LINE

EARLY LIFE
EARLY APES.
THE FIRST HUMAN AND NOT AN APE SPECIES.
CRATER IMPACTS ON EARTH.
ASTEROIDS AND METEORS.
EARTHQUAKES AND VOLCANICS
EARTH LAYERS AND TIME LINE.
FIRST MAMMAL SPECIES
DINOSAURS.
DEEP SPACE AND ITS IMPACT ON CLIMATE.
OTHER LIFE FORMS AND REPORTS.
THE HUMAN FACTOR TIME LINE
Ronnie Carleton
Where's the evolution?
Mass extinctions, like the one that killed the non-bird dinosaurs, leave behind a host of
empty niches unoccupied ecological habitats. Species with a "good enough" set of traits can
take advantage of these resources so, for example, the extinction of one species of leaf-litter-
dwelling scavenger could allow some other species to take advantage of lucrative
scavenging opportunities in leaf-litter. Over the course of many generations, natural selection
will act on these species, allowing them to take better advantage of available resources.
As lineages invade different niches and become isolated from one another, they split,
regenerating some of the diversity that was wiped out by the mass extinction. All of these
processes means that mass extinctions tend to be followed by periods of rapid diversification
and adaptive radiation.
It is often stated by others that the best known example of this occurred 65 million years ago
when mammals began to diversify into the niches formerly occupied by dinosaurs.
I am of the informed opinion that we need to look again and again at the data that has
been already presented by others, at best of the top of their heads answer rather than evidence
that today must stand up and hold true.
What one has to keep in mind at all times, is that in this field nothing is always what it seems
and something may be something else but depends on your own interpretations of what you
see, feel, smell, and its shape. A stick-man painted on a cave wall tells you only that it was
painted a long time ago but a stick-man with a spear chasing a deer or bear tells you much
more.
(Carleton Ronald 2017)
THE TIME-LINE CODEX
Ronnie Carleton 2017
EARTH HISTORY
ANTHROPOLOGY
ARCHEOLOGY.
PLEASE NOTE. ALL DATA HERE IS COPY-WRITE.

When we come to a historic timeline in anthropology or archaeology I give a warning here
and now, that to take dating as others have given it is a high risk guess and full of traps for the
unwary.
Most of such time like dates could be as far out as 1000+ years, if not more and for the reader
or researcher and that means at more or less at each end. The 1000BC for the most is safe
enough but to take on board that from 5MYA to 1000 BC is guess work of the worse kind,
The so called HOMO species is a very good example of this pie in the sky type of research
approach. The fact is, I can assure, you is that we are unlikely to ever get it right and spot on
as true evidence of a race or culture and therefore dating artifacts as part of such a culture is
riddled with interpretations, wishful thinking, and of course downright bad research who
suggested dates as such as true for their own agendas.
INTRODUCTION
WHAT YOU SEE MAY INFORM THE HUMAN BRAIN

THE WRONG INTERPRETATIONS.
It may be hard for many people to take in that what the see is not always real and what I
mean by that is lie on your back and look at puffy clouds as they pass and if you are in the
right state of mind you will see cloud shapes that change as you watch into something you
know. Like animals, plants, people, faces, birds and so on. Your brain tells you what they look
like, your great and noble wisdom later dismisses it all. Why?
You may well state to yourself, They are just fluffy clouds that take on shapes. Not real
Oh! They are real enough same as seeing ghosts, spirits and the underworld, having a feeling
the phone is about to ring and it does just as you read this sentence. There is no one there
when you pick up so do you tell yourself that it is someone who is selling something you dont
want, a friend or family member trying to get you at 02.17am? If it happens in the middle of
the night and you are in bed and you dial back but the caller withheld their number what do
you think now? Feel Fear or worry?
Most of us have looked up the stars and moon on a good clear night. Just a look. We look in a
hidden sense of wonder maybe just as the first real humans or mutants walked on our planet
but what you see and work out in part, what the first humans thought we will never know,
unless they leave artwork across Earth. And they did. Trouble is that humans many thousand
years into the future, like 2017, have most times, very different interpretations of what the art
work was for and why have it there in the first place?
IF THE BONES LOOK HUMAN THEN THE ARE

Not so. If they look HOMO they may well be, old apes and so on. Human? No. I will go as
far to say that many lost tribes also happened before the apes of Africa stood upright and that
they were human. So far all we have is the old stick in the mud human time line and if one
looks closely at ut and the events around it, one can see that there is a lot more of the human
jigsaw missing as well as their art work and until researchers look deeper they are going
nowhere fast with needed evidence one way or the other. So far in 2017, they want to play it
safe and not rock the archeology boat and the archaeological time lines dont need fixing.
They think!Not only fixing to the possible true dates but the data they have is not correct.
In many cases. They are, it seems living in that old maybe world with seas of doubt and tidal
waves of suspect evidence if any, around them.
This is what they have at the moment.
Hundreds of books and papers have been written on the above all based on a late earth
history and what we know but not on what we do not know and that is where the problems
are. If I were to say to you, the reader, that many missing tribes and cultures are missing and
not even mentioned in passing and that this may well have happened before apes stood
upright lost cities under the sea that predate even Egypt all around the earth you would not
take this on board. That is because you want to see the evidence but you will not see anything
if you do not look for it and to look for it you have to go and look for drowned cities from
India, Japan down to the middle and Far East. You need to find symbols of the past that point
you in the right directions, for there will be little or no maps, or for that matter text as such
unless you find a tablet of symbols ot rock carvings or paintings.
Many people do not know that magnetic North is not the same as true North and it may well
be that the Earth shifted due to impacts of meteorites, some of them large and that old buggy,
climate change and rising seas. The earth does shift and the evidence is there. It also wobbles
in case you do not know.
Because we are classified as human does not mean in any form we are smarter than nature.
To do so would say that nature is just part of us rather than the other way around. Nor as a
species we are no longer useful as a mammal species on the earth and nature has its own way
of sorting out a sub normal species like mammals like us or others. There are still dinosaurs of
course and they are called the world leader sub-species very dangerous and destructive to all
kinds of animals and plants, the soil, water sources and even now in space. Time for a massive
cull is it not? Of course big men and women with boys toys that has a red button on it is also
high risk a e to the human mammals and other species. I feel, that if the human species was
reduced to radioactive dust or wiped out in time shortly after the missile launches it might
well be a good thing for other species that adapt and survived. Still the clock is ticking so it is
make your mind up time!
So from the above what does it show? Except for two skulls, all ape like creatures and none of
them could be declared as human as I understand it.
In turn I have placed below my own data but much of it researched as well by others.
THE STARGATE PROJECT DATA.

To write a book on sixteen years of research was and is a major task for someone in their
winter years and if I did not do it now it was not going to get done and knowing my family
and the few friends that know me, all the research and the project would be lost because they
would want to get into the files and as they do not know the passwords, goodbye Stargate
Project and it would be gone into the blue.
Then on thinking on it, that might be a good thing because it is very doubtful that my family
or friends would know what it was all about anyway. I can almost see them scratching their
heads and rolling their eyes and muttering to one another and themselves.
All except one and that one is Ciara McKeeman Carleton my daughter. She and she only
would be able to decode the hidden clues, the little colorful flecks of data that spell out the
DNA of this project and research.
Ciara loves puzzles, she does not always crack them but she gives it a good shot and over the
years she has had implants in her mind scape. Nothing is ever what it seems when you re-look
at it close up and then you know that some people put on this earth may well have been here
before. Not many but some. The lay person who meets them will know but only after they
have gone.
All the people with degrees, some of which in life may be useful,have little or no knowledge of
where the human beings came from but a few may know the names of some prehistory apes
and not know the timeline in years for sure of when they were walking around and were never
human nor could ever be human. The DNA of a small mouse is very close to that of a human
but we did not come from mice or apes so that leaves humans of today part of what humans
were in the past, maybe as far back as 60,000 years ago. but that puts God or Gods not in
religion but imbedded in the mind scape of the brains of what we are and are today.
There is therefore no one God that is over all things much as we would like it to be so and
religion and its wars are all man made and such a waste of lives for something that never was
real. A ladybird or a butterfly is real in summer but they have the wisdom to either die out or
go into a frozen hibernation till late March or early April the following year and start to breed
again.
Everything has a purpose on our planet some of it good, some bad but none of it can be
dismissed out of hand by human beings seeing they don't know much about anything really,
are like sheep and think like sheep when it come to knowledge that is useful.
As I am of the informed opinion that nature gives us the signs, leaves the survival clues for
humans to see but as they are blind to nature they cannot see the writing on the walls, in the
sand and in all our water sources. The human race is already on a headlong clash with nature
now and there is no turning back, no recovery when we find the little monsters being born,
blind and sub human because of what we did and still doing to the life on this planet.
Be frightened, be very frightened because I know what you did to this planet and so do they.
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.
If you are an adult you will know all about Adam and Eve and of course EDEN and a bit
about Adam munching on an apple or a pear which in God's eyes it seems upset the whole
apple cart and both Adam and Eve were chucked out of the big garden into the real world?
And so what. They were not alone because they had all those ape like creatures that had been
eating fruit and one another for thousands of years so their sin, as is written, was a small sin
for all that. In fact it may have set them free, nude as they were to get on with it and enjoy life
with a good bit of sex thrown in to enjoy and all the food they could eat. The problem was the
apes, the big hairy ones that we are told God made in his own image. It seems therefore, that
God, religion, archeology and anthropology and the holy books in Hebrew and Latin got it all
wrong and Adam and Eve were apes and USHER may have been closer to the truth with the
God bit than the rest! Somehow the DNA is not pure, not in fact even close to being pure.
This of course takes us away back in history before we can even get close to understanding the
genetics of the human race.
strange lights in the sky.
UFO star M shower

fireball planet lightening
comet rockets gun shell bursts
flares solar flares moon

sun rainbow solar storms
aircraft other?
-_6,000,000,000 possible age of the Solar system,

3,000,000,000 Moon born and formed close to Earth?
1,200,000,000 Lowest form of algae formed in sea. First life?
570,000,000 Cambrian Age,trilobites, sponges in the seas?
500,000,000 Ordovician Age, named by Lapworth 1879 AD, sea changes, climate change,
snails in sea?
Scientists may have discovered in Australia the oldest fossils of animal bodies. These findings
push back the clock on the scientific world's thinking regarding when animal life appeared on
Earth. The results suggest that primitive sponge-like creatures lived in ocean reefs about 650
million years ago.
forensic anthropology data archeology data

YEAR. AREA OR LOCATION. EVENT. DATE IF KNOWN. NOTES.
3,500 MYA. EARTH. SIMPLE LIFE FORMS. BACTERIA AND ALGAE. ?
See above
ICE AGE 675 mya ICE AGE SIMPLE LIFE FORMS >
PALEOZOIC ERA 570-247 MYA.
EARTH. PALEOZOIC ERA CAMBRIAN 570-510 MYA. JAW LESS FISH AND 505 MYA
ORDOVICIAN Seas changing and hot climate change across the planet.
438 MYA SILURIAN Vertebrate animals now developed,large sea scorpions, first leafless land
plants possible. 440MYA
408 MYA DEVONIAN Active volcanoes,mountain formations,bony fishes,leafy land plants,
395 MYA Devonian ? trees, wingless animals leave the sea,old red sandstone formed,
360 MYA CARBONIFEROUS ?
? 340, MYA CARBONIFEROUS
286 MYA PERMIAN
280 MYA ICE AGE Marine life species
ORDOVICIAN 510-440 MYA. Burgess shale worm
MESOZOIC ERA Platystrophia marine shell with flap.
SILURIAN 440- 410 MYA. Sea lilies.
248 MYA TRIASSIC PERIOD DEVONIAN
410-360 MYA. Sharks .Thick vegetation on lands 410-360 Archacopteris plants Archimedes
bryozoa,marine
CARBONIFEROUS 360-290 MYA Goniatites mollusc. Spiders.360-290 mya
251 MYA PERMIAN MASS EXTINCTION.
PERMIAN 290-245 MYA Westlothiana reptile.
TRIASSIC 245-208 MYA Dinosaurs, 146-65 mya. Tyrannosaurus Rex. Meat eater.
245-65 MYA EARTH AGE OF REPTILES. NEW LIFE FORMS.
DINOSAURS. 213 MYA JURASSIC PERIOD First mammals 245-208 mya Coelacanth fish.
Barosaurus dinosaur. Veg. BIRDS. INSECTS. MESOZOIC ERA Archaeopteryx bird 150 mya
Ichthyosaur reptile
JURASSIC 208-146 MYA Bird prophacthon.
Sea 144 MYA CRETACEOUS PERIOD Modern sharks all species. Triceratops horned
dinosaur
CRETACCOUS 146-65 MYA
100 MYA 65 MY BC CRETACEOUS MASS EXTINCTION. Bony fish,Sparnodus. Fresh and
salt water. CENOZOIC ERA Tylocidaris sea urchin. Heart urchins.
65 MYA PALEOCENE PERIOD
65 MYA TO 40,000 BC EARTH CENOZOIC ERA. CONTINENTS AND OCEANS
FORMED Last dinosaur. Triceratops.

NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA JOINED .
PALEOCENE 65-56.5 MYA DINOSAURS GONE.
55 MYA EOCENE PEROID First horse, hyracotherium.
65-56.5 mya Europe N.A A = APE. H. NOT HUMAN
38 MYA OLIGOCENE PEROID EOCENE 56.5-35-23.
4 MYA APES. Apidium 30 mya, Oreopithecus 13 - 7 mya Aegyptopithecus
AFRICA OLIGOCENE 35.4 23.3 MYA Proconsul ape 25mya
25 MYA MIOCENE PEROID
23 MYA Pliopithecus 26 mya Europe and Africa. Limnopithecus, gibbon,
MIOCENE 23.3-5.2 MYA NOTE. It should be made clear that many of the Paleontologists of
the the day tended to spilt or lump a known ape species as a new species and lead to
confussion for many years Ego first facts second (Carleton 2017)
19 MYA KENYAPITHECUS. 8 ADULT 1 CHILD. KENYA AFRICA BONE REMAINS.
(Louis Leakey discovery 1967) NOT HUMAN
A Proconsul africanus. Dating suspect for these remains. Oreopithecus,Sivapithecus,
Bramapithecus.
AFRICA The fossil trail from 14 -2 mya is not complete and more than likely was all
guesswork, not fact. THIS NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED.
16 MYA . APES START TO SPREAD INTO EUROPE
EUROPE AT THIS TIME WAS MUCH WARMER.
Dryopithecus 25-10 mya,Europe,Africa,Asia.
AFRICA/ASIA PLIOCENE 5.2-1.8 MYA Ramapithecus 14 - 7 mya, Kenyapithecus.
AFRICA/ASIA Australopithecus 5 -1 mya,Paranthropus, Plesinthropus.
TETHYS SEA RETREATING. TAKEN OVER BY THICK FORESTS AND A CORRIDOR
FROM SPAIN TO CHINA.
10 MYA OURANOPITHECUS MACEDONIENSIS (Ape) GREECE.
EUROPE colder and dryer and SIVAPITHECUS INDICUS (Ape) PAKISTAN ASIA climate
change
A.africanus 3.5 mya, homo habilis, A.robustus 3.5 mya, Zinjanthropus. 1.8 mya.
8 MYA. RAMAPITHECUS BREVIROSTRIS. APE RAMA'S APE. SIWALIK HILLS
PAKISTAN ASIA. (G. Edward Lewis 1934) SHORT FACED APE.
6-7 MYA SAHELANTHROPUS TCHADENSIS. (TOUMAI) TOROS-
MENALLA,CHAD,AFRICA APE. (Brunet 2002)
6.2 MYA THE START OF MAMMAL EVOLUTION IN AFRICA.< MANY SPECIES
6 MYA ORRORIN TUGENENSIS. TUGEN HILLS,KENYA. APE. (Pickford and B.Senut
2000)
5.8 MYA. ARDIPITHECUS KADABBA WM.MIDDLE AWASH,ETHIOPIA. APE.
(YOHANNES HAILE SELASSIE 1996)
5 MYA JAWBONE AND ELBOW FOSSILS LOTHAGAM VALLEY,KANAPOI, KEYNA.
(Patterson discovery 1967) Dating suspect.
PLIOCENE PEROID
4.4 MYA. ARDIPITHECUS RAMIDUS. ROOT APE. ARAMIS,ETHIOPIA. APE. (Gen
Suwa/Tim White 1992)
3.5 MYA. AUSTRALOPITHECUS ANAMENSIS. KANAPOI,KENYA 4.1 MYA. APE.
(M.Leakey 1994)
3.3 MYA AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS. APE LUCY HADAR,ETHIOPIA (Donald
Johanson 1974)
2.3 mya EARLY TOOL MAKING AFRICA, Rudolfensis? H.erectus erectus Java man, 0.5
H.erectus ?
2.6mya BC. Pleistocene Ice Age. Canada,Scandinavia, Seberia and Britain.
PLEISTOCENE 1.8 MYA- 40,000 BC .
2.5 MYA PARANTHROPUS (Ape WITH S. Crest) WEST TURKESTAN BLACK SKULL.
ALSO P. CRASSIDENS (Possible)
2.0 MYA P.BOISEI. (Ape) OLDUVAI,AFRICA HOMO HABILIS. (Ape) EAST AFRICA
HOMO TREE LINE.

2 MYA PLEISTOCENE PEROID
HOM0 RUDOLFENSIS. (Ape) KENYA,AFRICA Skull 1470 TOOL MAKERS
1.6 MYA 1.8-1.4 MYA ARCHAIC HUMANS, GEORGIA AND ISRAEL
1.8 MYA HOMO HABILIS APE. OLDUVAI,TANZANIA (Louis Leakey 1960)
AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI ZINJ. OLDUVAI,TANZANIA (Mary and Louis Leakey
1959)
1.4 mya. FIRST USE OF CONTROLLED FIRE. ACHEULEAN TOOL, ETHIOPIA AFRICA
1.2 MYA A. AFRICANUS. TAUNG BABY TAUNG,SOUTH AFRICA. APE. (Raymond Dart
1924)
HOMO ERECTUS. JAVA MAN TRINIL, JAVA,ASIA Eugene Dubois 1891
0.3 MYA SINANTHROPUS PEKINENSIS. PEKING MAN. ZHOUKOUDIAN BEIJING
CHINA. (Erectus) (Davinson Black 1929)
0.1 MYA HOLOCENE PEROID
HUMAN SEPARATION FROM THE APES AS A HOMO SPECIES AND HUMAN ?
NOTE; There was in my opinion no such separation then and it was two species of mammals!
HUMANS, CHIMPANZEES AND GORILLAS SPLIT FROM THE COMMON ANCESTOR
H.steinheimensis 0.25 NOTE; Humans as we know them today were a species in their own
right but with genetic changes.
HUMANS MOVED ON WHILE CHIMPS AND GORILLAS MARKED TIME AND STILL
DO. NOTE; No present days apes have progressed in to a human
800,000 BC HOMO ERECTUS JAVA SPAIN ARCHAIC HUMANS AT ATAPUERCA.
SPAIN 500,000 BC ASIA HOMO ARCHAIC. Massive brow ridge.
START DNA CLOCK HERE.
Very slow change of skeleton shape. Well behind African Homo 1 mya
450,000 BC.PEKING MAN HOMO ERECTUS.
CHINA 300,000 BC low cranial front.
H.erectus 350.000 BC FIRE USE IN EUROPE, HUNGARY AND NW FRANCE.

PLEASE NOTE; In my research here I do not regard the early ape like creatures as 'human'
as many people do or think.
The early apes were not human or even close to being so though I have listed the 'walking
apes' they are 'advanced apes' and not humankind.
300,000 NEANDERTHAL MAN INTO EUROPE. NOTE, The first human!
230,000 BC ARCHAIC HOMO, DALI,CHINA. Massive brow ridge. low cranial cault
H.sapiens neanderthalensis soloensis,rhodesinsis human, 230,000 years ago to 35,000 years
ago.
200,000 BC NEANDERTHALS INTO EUROPE Greek skull dated 250,000 -300,000 years
PETRALONA THE CROSS OVER.
150,000 BC ACHEULIAN 2 AFRICA EARLY HOMO SAPIENS?, AFRICA HAND AXES
AND BLADES .
100,000 BC INDONESIA, NGANGDONG, ARCHAIC HOMO ACHEULEAN EUROPE.
BIFACE MAKERS
90,000 BC TRUE HOMO BARBED BONE SPEAR, KATANDA,AFRICA
90,000 BC MODERN HUMAN BURIAL, SKHUL AND OAFZEH,ISRAEL. H.erectus
MORE EVIDENCE OF HEARTH USE.
Cro-Magnon Man. 50,000 years ago East Europe and spread from there.POSSIBLE INDUS
VALLEY. >
CARLETON'S MODEL 2017
82,000 BC. ATITLAN ERUPTION.
80,000 BC. HOMO ERECTUS 'THE DWARF SPECIES' ISLAND OF FLORES,
INDONESIA. FOUND 2004 A?
73,000 BC TOBA ERUPTION.
50,000 BC enter Cro-Magnon Man
50,000 BC > START OF 'HUMAN HISTORY' MODERN MIND.
46,000 BC AFRICA BEADS FOUND IN BURIAL GROUND,ENKAPUNE YA MUTO,

KENYA, AFRICA
45,000 BC STONE TOOLS AT BOKER, ISRAEL
40,000 BC. EUROPE MODERN HUMANS IN EUROPE AND SIBERIA ASIA HAFTED
AXE, HUON, NEW GUINEA.
40,000 BC ABORIGINAL HUNTERS REACH AUSTRALIA BY SEA. SMALL STONE
TOOLS SET IN BONE HANDLES FOUND IN ISRAEL
ASIA MODERN HUMAN SKULL IN NIIAH CAVE, BORNEO.
ALL OTHER TYPES OF HUMAN APE LIKE CREATURES NOW EXTINCT. WHY?
30,000 BC ENGRAVED ART OBJECTS HAYONIM CAVE, ISRAEL FRANCE CAVE ART,
CHAUVET,
FRANCE, VOGELHERD,GERMANY ?
ASIA 38,000 BC HUMAN USE OF CAVES IN NORTH BORNEO,ASIA. ?
EUROPE CRO- MAGNON MAN REACHES EUROPE.
37,000 BC. PHLEGRACAN FIELDS CALDERA ERUPTION.
35,000 BC Exit the Neanderthals 35,000 years ago Last Neanderthals die out.< ?
35,000 BC. BABOON FIBULAS FOUND IN BORDER CAVE AND MAY HAVE BEEN
COUNTERS. (Maths.)
AFRICA 33,000 BC. SMALL TOOLS DECORATED WITH QUARTZ STONE IN
ZAIRE,AFRICA
28,000 BC ABORIGINALS GRIND STONES TO MAKE TOOLS.
START ALL UFO/ALIEN REPORTS FROM HERE.
=UFO/LIGHTS IN THE SKY
34,250-19,000 BC FRANCE PALAEOLITHIC ROCK SHELTER,LES EYZIES SW
FRANCE.
WINTER SITE. REINDEER AND HUMAN REMAINS FOUND (16 YEAR OLD
FEMALE) ? ROCK PAINTINGS ALSO IN AND AROUND SHELTER.
27,500 BC ? ROCK PAINTINGS AT APOLLO CAVE,NAMIBIA, AFRICA. NEW DATING.

24,000 BC. CAVE PAINTINGS AT THE APOLLO SITE, NAMIBIA, SW. AFRICA.
26,000 BC RITUAL BURIAL,LAKE MUNGO, NEW WALES, AUST
25,000 BC ? BURIALS AND ART SUNGIR, RUSSIA. 1ST HUMAN CREMATIONS IN
AUSTRALIA. Suggest cannibalism!
CLAY ROOF HOUSES BUILT IN EUROPE.
23,000 BC FIRST HUNTER GATHERERS CLAY STATUETTES MADE.
21,000 BC IVORY BOOMERANG MADE IN POLAND AND EARLIEST IN EUROPE.
20,000 BC. LAST ICE AGE PEAK. > < LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM = LGM* COLD DRY
AND WINDY. STORMS.
LOW SEA LEVELS BORNEO, JAVA. ?
20,000 BC. CAVE PAINTINGS IN LASCAUX IN FRANCE, ALTEMIRA IN SPAIN.
20,000 BC MASTODONS ROAM NORTH AMERICA. RELATED TO MAMMOTHS
AFONTOVA CULTURE.
LATE NEOLITHIC. BURIAL AND GRAVE GOODS. POTTERY
20,000-10,000 BC SIBERIA MICRO BLADES, SCRAPERS AND MAMMAL BONES.
(Reindeer, woolly mammoth.)
18,000 BC. HUNTER GATHERERS SETTLE IN ZAIRE,AFRICA. HUMAN CAVE LIVING
KUTIKINA, SOUTH TASMANIA,AUSTRALIA.
17,000 BC. WILD CEREAL GATHERING NR. LAKE KINNERET. SEA OF GALILEE ?
FIRST ROCK PAINTINGS IN AUSTRALIA. 16,000 -10,000 BC.
HUTS WITH MAMMOTH BONE ROOFS IN EUROPE. WEST RUSSIA
15,000 BC INDONESIA TRIBES USE SPEARS TO HUNT WITH.
15,000 BC 15,000 BC ICE SHEETS BEGIN TO MELT. RAIN AND GLOBAL WARMING
FOR 10,000 YEARS SPAIN ?
CAVE PAINTINGS AND SIGNS,ALTAMIRA,SPAIN
13,500 BC. RISING SEA LEVELS NEAR EAST WILD WHEAT,BARLEY,LENTILS
DOMESTICATION
13000 BC MASSIVE FLOODS ACROSS EGYPT. LARGE ICE AGE BURIAL GROUND,
KOW SWAMPLAND VICT?
13,000 BC. TERRACOTTA FIGURES CRAFTED BY TRIBE IN ALGERIA,N. AFRICA .
FIRST CROSSING BY HUMANS FROM ASIA INTO ALASKA VIA BERING STRAIT.
FIRST POTTERY BY JOMON HUNTERS ASIA.
12,OOO BC 12,000 BC MASTODONS ROAM SIBERIA. RELATED TO MAMMOTHS.
11,150 BC MISSOULA SUPER FLOODS. ? ROCK ART IN CAVES AT BHIMBEKTA,
INDIA.
11,000 BC CAVE DWELLERS IN NW. EUROPE MAKE HAND TOOLS FROM OBSIDIAN
CAVE USE IN FUKUI, NAGASAKI,JAPAN !? AMERICANISM FIRST HUMANS ARRIVE
IN CHILE. ? WARM WEATHER PERIOD THAT STARTED AROUND 11,600 BC 11,000
BC ? SPAIN. ALTAMIRA CAVE AND CAVE ART.(Bison), MASKS,ENGRAVINGS.
10,500 -9500 BC MISSISSIPPI SUPER FLOODS!
EUROPE CAVE DWELLERS IN GREECE USE OBSIDIAN FOR TOOLS.
10,000 BC RETREAT OF THE LAST ICE AGE AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
FARMING OF SQUASH IN MEXICO HEAVY RAINFALL IN ASIA. FARMING STARTS
IN ASIA. END OF FLOODS ACROSS EGYPT FROM 13000 BC NEAR EAST. WILD
SHEEP AND PIG MANAGEMENT
9,500 BC EARLY POTTERY MAKING IN NORTH AFRICA 9,000 BC ?
JAPAN 9,000 BC JOMON PERIOD JAPAN. ART WORK ON CLAY POTS FRANCE CAVE
SITE,HERAULT. LAYERS OF HUMAN USE
LATE NEOLITHIC 9000-2500 BC LENTILS,PEAS AND CHICK PEAS FOUND. NEAR
EAST FIRST TOWNS AND VILLAGES APPEAR. POTTERY IN USE IN NEAR EAST.
COPPER USE, ANATOLIA E. EUROPE FARMING IN THE BALKANS, EUROPE BLACK
SEA AREA POTTERY SPREAD TO SE. EUROPE
PERU
9,000 BC. HUNTER GATHERERS MAKE STONE TOOLS IN PERU, SOUTH AMERICA.
USA CLOVIS HUNT BISON IN NORTH AMERICA. CHINA MILLET FARMING IN
NORTH CHINA
8,500 BC CHINA. RICE FARMING IN SOUTH CHINA. EGYPT, W. DESERT MUD PANS
HUMAN NEOLITHIC USE. 8500-5000 BC. ABU BALLAS. GERMANY. PALEOLITHIC
CULTURE. FLINT SCRAPERS, TANGED POINTS. HUNTING CAMP.
8300 BC GLOBAL WARMING USA/CANADA 9,000 BC BISON HUNTED ON THE
PLAINS OF NORTH AMERICA.
8,000 BC ? 8,000 BC WEST AFRICA NATIVE ARTISTS DO CAVE PAINTINGS. EARLY
NEOLITHIC NEAR EAST.
8000-2000 BC. S. AFRICA ALBANY .LATE STONE AGE INDUSTRY POTTERY AT
MEHRGATH, PAKISTAN. FARMING, DOMESTICATION. INDUS VALLEY CATTLE
HERDING,SAHARA, AFRICA ? AFRICA HUMAN FIGURES PAINTED ON ROCK IN
NORTH AFRICA. SETTLEMENT IN JERICHO WITH DWELLINGS BUILT. MUD BUILT
BUILDINGS IN WESTERN ASIA.
EUROPE SHELLFISH USE IN COASTAL TRIBES IN EUROPE AS FOOD.
7,500 BC. USA FIRST KNOWN CEMETERY FOUND IN ARKANSAS, NORTH AMERICA
SOUTH AMERICA CERAMICS IN USE, AMAZON VALLEY MAJOR CLIMATIC
EPISODE THROUGH THE WORLD.
7,500-5,500 BC DRY AND WARM CONDITIONS MEXICO
7,000 BC. MEXICO. FARMERS GROW CROPS
CHINA PIGS DOMESTICATED IN CHINA.
N.AFRICA FISHING COMMUNITY ESTABLISHED IN SAHARA AREA, N. AFRICA W.
ASIA FARMING STARTS IN WESTERN ASIA.
7,250-6,000 BC MIDDLE EAST. AIN GHAZAL, EAST BANK OF THE R. JORDAN.
LARGE SETTLEMENT.
AJUERADO PHASE ?
MEXICO PLASTER HUMAN STATUES.
6,000 BC GOATS AND CATTLE NOW DOMESTICATED.
7,000 BC CROPS GROWN IN MEXICO. EUROPE FARMING SPREADS ACROSS
EUROPE IRRIGATION CANALS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
LIGHTS IN THE SKY OBSERVED AND RECORDED ON BRAHMAN TABLETS *

EGYPT 6,600 BC WHEAT AND BARLEY GROWN IN NILE VALLEY.
REF MADE IN EGYPT TO CRASHED UFO. WALL PAINTINGS SHOW WHAT SEEMS
TO BE A DISC.*
6,500 BC. FARMING STARTS IN THE INDUS VALLEY S. AMERICA CERAMICS IN USE
IN NORTH COLOMBIA. FIRST CEREAL FARMING IS SOUTHEAST EUROPE GRAIN
CROPS GROWN IN PERU. HOLY LAND METAL CASTING IN SOUTH LEVANT.
6,300 BC BRITAIN FIRST FARMING IN BRITAIN.
6200 BC DRAINAGE OF LAKE AGASSIZ INTO ATLANTIC. EUROPE USE OF CATTLE
FOR PLOUGHING AND CART PULLING.
6100 BC STOREGGA LANDSLIDE.
6,000 BC WOODEN HUTS BUILT IN EUROPE (VILLAGE)
N.AFRICA CATTLE DOMESTICATED IN SAHARA AREA YAMS AND TARO
CULTIVATED, NEW GUINEA.
6,000 BC. UBAID 1 TURKEY FIRST TOWNS IN TURKEY TURKMENISTAN 6000 - 3000
BC.
SETTLEMENT AND WALLED.CITY AND CEMETERIES. POTTERY NEOLITHIC IN
CHINA AND EAST ASIA
6000-2000BC. CHINA MILLET GROWN IN YELLOW RIVER VALLEY,CHINA
5,800 BC MESOPOTAMIA IRRIGATION CANALS. DONKEYS USED IN NILE AREA AS
PACK ANIMALS.
5700 BC EGYPT TOWNS BEING BUILT.
5,500 BC MEXICO FARMING OF MAIZE/BEANS, MEXICO PANAMA CERAMICS IN
USE ECUADOR COAST/ PANAMA.
5550 BC BLACK SEA FLOOD. possible N Iraq.
BRONZE IN USE NEAR EAST
5300 BC EGYPT HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING STARTS. ?
MESOPOTAMIA PICTOGRAPHIC SIGNS EVOLVE INTO CUNEIFORM SCRIPT
5200 BC. EUROPE WOOL REPLACED PLANT FIBERS. HORSE RIDING SPREADS
5,000 BC. CHINA JADE IMPORTED INTO THE YELLOW VALLEY,CHINA FROM
SIBERIA.
EGYPT. OLD KINGDOM ORGANIZATION.
ARABIA. USE OF THE HORSE SPREADS IN ARABIA. GOLD IN USE, VARNA,
BULGARIA, EUROPE EARLY COPPER AND METAL WORKING IN EUROPE.
POTATOES AND SUNFLOWERS, ANDES CHUMASH TRIBE USE FISHING AS A WAY
OF LIFE, CALF, NORTH AMERICA.
5000 BC SAHARA GREEN AND VERY FERTILE.
5,000 BC FARMING ACROSS THE WORLD, NEW HUNTING AND GATHERING.
4860 BC MOUNT MAZAMA CALDERA ERUPTION.
DOMESTIC ANIMALS
SEE 7,000 BC EGYPTIAN HISTORY AND ARCHEOLOGY.
EGYPT NEOLITHIC. BADARIAN CULTURE.
4800-4500 BC
UBAID 2
MESOPOTAMIA. BAKED CLAY SICKLES, PAINTED POTTERY, FLAKED CHERT
HOES PERSIAN GULF TO COASTAL SYRIA IN THE NW. IRAQ SETTLEMENTS AND
TOWNS
Migration of Arattan and Summer tribes from the mountains.
Migration 1 4600 BC ASIA INDUS VALLEY STATE ORGANIZATION, CITIES AND
TOWNS. INDUS SCRIPT IN USE.
EGYPT ROYAL TOMBS OF UR
4500-4000 BC UBAID 3 + 4
PAINTED POTTERY. BRONZE USE IN EUROPE/
ARATTAN AND SUMERIAN MIGRATION TRIBES. Migrations 2 4400 BC.
EUROPE CHARIOT USE SPREADS TO THE EAST AEGEAN. PALACE CIVILIZATION
4000-3200 BC URUK SUMERIAN CULTURE see ubaid

BRONZE WORKING IN CHINA, ERLITOU CERAMICS IN USE E. NORTH AMERICA
AND MESOAMERICA
4000-3000 BC. LOWER NUBIA EGYPT. A-GROUP CULTURE. LIVESTOCK REARING
AND RITUAL BURIAL
4,000 BC CHARIOTS IN USE IN THE NILE AREA
4000 BC PORTUGAL. ALGARVE. 13 CHAMBERED TOMBS WITH LONG PASSAGE
WAYS. VAULTED CHAMBERS. CALLSID BEADS, AMBER PENDANTS,FLAT
AXES,DAGGERS.
3850 BC METEORITE SWARM
3900 BC EUROPE MINOAN SCRIPTS STARTED. LINEAR A+ B MINOAN AND
MYCENAEAN CIVILIZATIONS TO 3250 BC 3800 BC ANDES LLAMS USED AS PACK
ANIMALS. WOOL FROM ALPACAS CHINA CITIES AND STATE ORGANIZATION.
3500 BC LATE URUK BRONZE USE THAIL BRONZE WORKING IN EGYPT MEXICO
ABEJAS PHASE. TEHUACAN VALLEY 3500-1500BC MAIZE GROWING. ANATOLIA
IRON WORKING STARTS.
CHINA CHINESE IDEOGRAMS.
LEVANT LINEAR ALPHABETIC SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT. ?
HITTITE HIEROGLYPHIC IN USE.
DYNASTIES AND KINGS OF ANCIENT EGYPT. EGYPT TOWNS AND LOCAL
KINGDOMS, UPPER NILE.
3250 -3050 BC 3250 BC JEMDET NASR NAKADA 1 AMRATIAN CULTURE.
3200- 2990 BC JEMDET NASR IRON USED IN EUROPE
3150-3050 BC. ARCHAIC PERIOD PREDYNASTIC.
KING SCORPION, NARMER. EGYPT. MEMPHIS RELIGIOUS CENTER.
3100 BC NARNER PALETTE HISTORY RECORD
3090 BC HOR_AHA IN POWER
EGYPT 3050- 2890 BC. 1ST DYNASTY. MEMPHIS CITY BUILT. MENES,AHA, DJER,
DJET, DEN. Menes and Aha may well be one in the same.
ENGLAND CAUSEWAY CAMP BERKSHIRE. NEOLITHIC.
3200 BC THAMES VALLEY GRAVELS.
3050-2850 BC NAKADA 2 GERZEAN CULTURE IRON USE SUB SAHARA
3000 BC NEAR EAST HEBREW,PHOENICIAN,ARAMAIC AND SOUTH ARABIAN
SCRIPTS USED.
2900-2700 BC EARLY DYNASTIC 1 ED 1 2900 BC
2890-2649 BC EGYPT 2ND DYNASTY. HOTEPSEKHEMWY, RE'NEB, NINETJER,
PERIBSEN, KHASEKHEMWY, Peribsen links himself to Set rather than Horus.
2850-2781 BC NAKADA 3 DYNASTY 0
2800 BC STONE AGE IN BRITAIN. STONE STRUCTURES AND STONEHENGE
NOTE. I suggest the work and use of what is now known as Stonehenge started well before
this date before the stones were in place.
2800-2500 BC ETRUSCAN CIVILIZATION EUROPE GREEK ALPHABET IN USE.
TRANSMITTED LATER TO ETUSCANS AND ROMANS.
SOUTH AMERICA PERU. EARLY STAGES OF STATES IN PLACE
2700-2600 BC EARLY DYNASTIC 2 ED 2
2700 BC GREEK AND ETRUSCAN CITY STATES
2686-2181 2649-2575 BC OLD KINGDOM EGYPT ?
ZANACHT, ZOSER, SEKHEMKHET, KHABA, HUNI. ZOSER BUILT STEP
PYRAMID,SAQQARA.
2650 BC. PYRAMID BUILDING STARTS IN EGYPT FIRST STEPPED PYRAMID
STARTED FOR PHARAOH ZOSER 2600- 2340 EARLY DYNASTIC 3 ED 3 A 2600 BC
2600 BC ETHIOPIA ARABIAN ALPHABET ADOPTED. IRAN
2575-2465 BC EGYPT 4TH DYNASTY.
2570 BC BUILDING STARTS GAZA CHEOPS SNEFRU, KHUFU (Cheops), DJEDEFRE,
KHAFRE (Chephren, menkaure (Mycerinus) SHEPSESKAF. (PYRAMID AGE, GIZA AND
DAHSHUR) ? ASIA . ASIAN SCRIPTS

2500 BC EUROPE URBAN DEVELOPMENT, N. ALPS, LA RENE CULTURE. EUROPE
CLASSICAL GREEK . BUILDING OF PARTHENON
2500 BC INDUS CIVILIZATION AND WRITING IN USE. ? IRON USE COMES TO
CHINA . NOTE. Suggest the date for this Indus civilization start was 3000 BC
2470 BC THE PALERMO STONE RECORDS OF EARLY KINGS 2465-2323 BC EGYPT.
5TH DYNASTY. USERKAF, SAHURE, NEFERIRKARE-KAKAI, SHEPSESKARE-INI,
NEFEREFRE, NEUSERRE, MENK AUHOR, DJEDKARE-IZEZI, UNAS. ED 111 B
2500 BC FIRST TOWNS IN SAHEL, AFRICA
2335-2323 BC ALEXANDER THE GREAT CAMPAIGNS.
2340-2159 BC DYNASTIC OF AGADE. SARGON 1, NARAMSIN, SHARKALISHARI
2323-2150 BC EGYPT. 6TH DYNASTY. TETI, PEPI 1, MERENRE, PEPI 2. 2280-2117 BC
GUTIAN PERIOD ERRIDUPIZIR, ELULUMESH
2200 BC. MIDDLE JOMON PERIOD STARTS IN JAPAN.
2117 BC TIRIGAN 2200 BC CAMEL INTRODUCTION INTO SAHARA AFRICA
MEXICO. CITY OF TEOTIHUACAN DOMINATES MIDDLE MEXICO.
ASIA WATER BUFFALO USED FOR TRACTION SE ASIA
2112-2004 BC 3RD DYNASTIC OF UR URNAMMU, SHULGI, IBBISIN,
2025 1763 BC ISIN-LARSA PERIOD. ISBIERRA, DAMIKILISHU 2004 BC MELAMIE
CONQUEST
2200 BC ? MEXICO PICTORIAL WRITING IN MEXICO.
MAYA HIEROGLYPHS
2181-2940 BC EGYPT.
FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD 2150- 2040 BC
WARS MEMPHIS GOV OVERTHROWN BY LOCAL WAR LORDS
2150-2040 BC 7TH AND 8TH DYNASTY. Breakdown of central authority. Re-established by
Mentuhotep.
2040-1991 BC 2 datess MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT. MIDDLE KINGDOM. XLth

DYNASTY.
1783 BC UPPER EGYPT THEBES MENTUHOTEP 2, MENTUHOTEP 3, MENTUHOTEP
IV.
1991-1783 BC EGYPT. AMENEMHET 1, SENWOSRET (Sesostris) AMENEMHET
2,SENWOSRET 2, SENWOSRET 3 AMENEMHET 3, AMENEMHET 4, QUEEN
NEFRUSOBEK. Internal strife during this time 2000 BC BIRTH OF THE MARI KINGDOM
SYIRA TELL-HARIRI
2000 BC ALASKA INUITS SETTLE IN THE ARCTIC
CYPRUS. COPPER MINING. LINKS TO EGYPT. EGYPT AND HITTITE EMPIRES 14 c
TURKEY ALACA HUYUK 160 MILES EAST OF ANKARA SETTLEMENT. WALLED
TOWN. ROYAL BURIAL GRAVES, GRAVE GOODS BRONZE OBJECT INLAID WITH
GOLD.
IRON DAGGERS,. POSSIBLE LINK TO THE BLACK SEA AREA ANATOLIA
SETTLEMENT. ASSYRIAN LINKS.
BRONZE AGE IN EUROPE 2000- 700 BC
1900 BC ROMAN EMPIRE PEAK.
PERU COPPER AND GOLD IN USE PERU. COPPER IN N.A.
1894-1595 BC OLD BABYLONIAN DYNASTY.
SUMUABU, 1792 BC HAMMURABI, 1647 BC AMMISADUGA. 1894 BC
1800 - 1200 BC ANDEAN SETTLEMENTS IN PERU.
1890 BC WALL PAINTING OF MEN SEMITICS TOMB OF KHMUNHOTEP 1783-1550 BC
with donkeys entering Egypt
EGYPT SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD. 1783-1550 BC.
1750 BC MARI KINGDOM FALLS SYRIA BABYLONIANS INVADE
1745 BC TEXT FOUND SOBEKHOTEB III EGYPT XIIIth-XVIIth DYNASTIES. WARS
AND CONFLICT. 79 slaves named 45 were HYKSOS
MESOAMERICA CLASSIC MAYA PERIOD.
1700 BC EUROPE RUNIC ALPHABET DERIVED FROM ETUSCAN. GERMANIC

TRIBES, INDIA. AHAR,RAJSTHAN,ARAVALLI HILLS. AHAR 1 SETTLEMENT 2500-
1500 BC . COPPER IN THE ARAVALLI HILLS. BLACK AND WHITE POTTERY. LARGE
MUD BRICK AND STONE SETTLEMENT. COPPER SMELTING.
1600 BC KOREA +JAPAN CHINESE IDEOGRAPHS INTRODUCED.
1550-1070 BC. EGYPT. NEW KINGDOM 1550-1070 BC XVIII th DYNASTY
1550-1307 BC. EGYPT AHMOSE, AMENHOTEP (Amenophis 1),TUTHMOSIS 1 AND 2,
THUHMOSIS 3 QUEEN HATSHEPSUT, AMENHOTEP ( Amenophis 2)TUTHMOSIS IV,
AMENHOTEP 3 AMENHOTEP IV (Akhenaten), SMENKHARE, TUTANKHAMEN,AY,
HOREMHEB.
1520 BC THERA ERUPTION.
1500 BC SHANG DYNASTY STARTS IN CHINA
1380 BC. KNOSSOS LABYRINTH DISTRUCTION.
1307-1196 BC EGYPT. XIXth DYNASTY 1307- 1196. RAMESSES 1, SETI 1, RAMESSES 2
(Ozymandias) MERNEPTAH, SETI 2, AMENMEASE. SIPTAH, QUEEN TWOSRET.
1196-1070 BC. EGYPT. XXtH DYNASTY 1196- 1070 BC. SETHNAKHT, RAMESSES III,
RAMESSES IV, RAMESSES VII, RAMESSES VIII RAMESSES IX, RAMESSES X,
RAMESSES XI.Internal breakdown, tomb robbery and tombs reused
1100 BC 1070- 712 BC. EGYPT. 3RD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD
1070-712 BC XXIst DYNASTY. SMENDES, AMENEMNISU, PSUSENNES 1, AMENOPE,
OSORKON 1, SIAMUN, PSUSENNES 2.
1000 BC AFRICA EARLY ORGANIZATION IN SOUTH AFRICA.
AKJOUJT, MAURETANIA AREA.
COPPER MINE AND COPPER ARROW HEADS IRAN ACHAEMENID TRIBE.
FROM PERSIAN TRIBES INTO IRAN 1000 > BC.
945-712 BC EGYPT. XXIInd DYNASTY
945-712 BC LIBYAN. SHOSHENQ 1, OSORKON 2, TAKELOT 1, SHOSHENQ
2,OSORKON 3,TAKELOT 2, SHOSHENQ 3, PAMI, SHOSHENQ 5, OSOKON 5. (Nubian
kings have control)
911 BC LATE ASSYRIAN ADADNIRARI 11, ASHURNASIRPAL 11, SHALMANESER

111 878-712 BC. EGYPT. XXIIIrd DYNASTY
878-712 BC NUBIA AND THEBES. PEDUBASTE 1, OSORKON IV, PEFTJAUWYBAST.
724-212 BC EGYPT. XXIVth DYNASTY, SAIS.
712-332 BC EGYPT LATE KINDOM
712-332 BC. SHEBAKA, SHEBITKU. TAHARQA, TANTEMANI.
712-657 BC XXVth NUBIA AND THRBES DYNASTY
712- 657 BC Assyrian invasions 667 and 664 BC
700 BC BRONZE AGE IN SE ASIA 700- 300 BC
TURKEY. AL MINA HARBOR SETTLEMENT AT THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER
ORONTES GREEK POTTERY, AND TRADE GOODS
1. 664-525 BC EGYPT. ufo or lights in the sky reports.
XXVIth DYNASTY 664-525 BC SAIS. PSAMMETICHUS 1 (Psam-tik), PSAMMETICHUS
2, APRIES, AMASIS, PSAMMETICHUS 3 526-525 BC. Return to old kingdom styles 612 BC.
NEO-BABYLONIAN. NEBUCHADNEZZAR, NABONIDUS.
600 BC CORSICA TOMBS AND COLONY FOUNDED FROM PHOCAEA IN TURKEY.
ETRUSCAN CULTURE. ETRUSCAN MATERIAL IN TOMBS SUGGESTS STRONG
ETRUSCAN LINKS.
589-100 BC GREEK SICILY AGRIGENTO. GREEK COLONY AND CITY. TEMPLES TO
THE DORIC ORDER. (Wine, olives)
559 BC PERSIAN CYRUS 11, DARIUS 1
CARLETON'S MODEL
THE HUMAN MIND-SCAPE TODAY IS NOW A MUTANT, GENETICALLY DAMAGED

VIA OUR PAST AND MORE SO IN THE FUTURE. WE ARE OR WILL BE THE ALIENS
OF TOMORROW.
You may well ponder on this but if we look at the human minds of early humans and not apes,
it is not hard to work out that in 2016 something has gone badly wrong and not all to do with
DNA and our genetic codes. 80% of human adults in the west have some brain and mind
damage due to progress and greed and what is classified as 'progress' now spells disater in the
human mammal populations world wide.
THE FUTURE DECLINE OF HUMANS.

The human population of our planet is at an all tile high and will peak around 2020
2021
Carleton Ronald.
NOT MUCH TIME I KNOW.
THE HUMAN POPULATION OF THE WORLD WILL PEAK 2020

Our planet is overpopulated by the human mammal and in the next few years 2020+ will have
peaked and like all mammals when this happens there will be a crash much the same as voles
and lemmings do due to disease, natural disasters and in the human kind added hunger and
wars. As humans we have polluted our habitats for the last forty years, there is now dead
areas in our seas many wildlife and fish species are in decline or already gone, the ice-caps are
melting, the main forests and jungles are being cut down and yet for all that the human mind
is unable to take in the disaster pending now. There is no stopping it and we cannot do a U
turn and as we carry on we will of course see the results with massive floods and rising seas,
more virus mutants, and hunger. The human mind today is so brainwashed with facts and
figures from goverments, we are deaf and blind that we are on the way out and may very
soon become an endangered species or lost forever.
IT WAS GODS FAULT HONEST.
Of course many of us will blame everyone else, including God or Gods but it matters little now
because the Gods and God is blind and deaf and religion will be of little use when we start to
die off in great numbers. The human mammal, all of us must share the blame for such a
pending disaster. It will come and I have no doubt at all that many people will climb on the
band -stand and voice their wisdom when in fact they no longer have an answer because they
never listened to the main Question, why?
The facts and evidence of this are already there and I have no doubt others in time, if there is
time, will add to this and maybe come up with some solutions in part. There are just too many
human mammals on our planet and nature will provide a cull, deep space will be the trigger
and earth will be the target area that will set off a chain reaction.
Large sums of money will be of no use, mobile phones and computers will die, and the new
aliens will be produced by female humans that are left by the DNA male human sperm.
Damaged sperm I should add.
Those of us that are left will have to learn how to survive, learn the skills of old, make tools
and the use of fire and hunt anything that can be eaten because there will be a great hunger
on the land. Those that expect handouts or do not have survival skills will die quickly and all
those that have a religion will have to work together with others so some good will come out of
it and for the planet. A natural cull is needed and it will come but not before a man made one!
A large comet from space or a number of then will change the shape of the earth and in theory
change the poles of our planet so that the north and south as we know it now is no longer there
and it will be much colder in some areas, maybe -30 below and a few areas will be hot +90
during the day and -2 at night. Trees like pines in Europe will of course start to die off before
this as will the animal species that live there now and earthquakes will be much more common
as will volcanic activity world wide and the ash will hide the sun for weeks maybe months and
in such areas it will get even colder where nothing will live there. Welcome to the new world
and God had no part to play in it, no seven day wonder, no religion, no wars, and only a few
DNA changed humans who will struggle on standing upright like some of the apes in the dark
past. They may even crawl on all fours like a demented crab.
So as you can see, I have research knowledge and of the subjects I love not just for the sake of
it because if that was the case then it is wasted and nothing gained by it or for all living things.
If I include here all that I know and use, then the reader may well find something in it to help
make our planet safe and healthy. If they can even read or do maths without a computer aid
they might well me ahead.
THE NEANDERTHAL DAWN.

ARCHEOLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT 20122
NEANDERTHAL DAWN.
ARCHEOLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT 2017 EARLY HUMANS.

CHAPTER ONE.
Much has been written and filmed about the early apes and the first human, reputations made
and lost, fraud, and ego going hand in hand and those who work in the field of archeology,
scratch or shake their heads at such going skulduggery, but brave as they are, even foolhardy
they struggle on seeking answers and getting more questions instead.
Thirty years of research, notes scribbled here and there, papers half finished or not at all I
still seek, I find and now I put it all together as my research here. Half way through 76 years
of age I have at least discovered a number of things, three that are important to me; The study
of archeology is life though I look at the dead and rattle bones, history often repeats itself and
the human race as a species in on the road to extinction, and somewhere out there, hidden
bones and clues to early man like the Neanderthals who led us into what we are today.
This research starts with the dawn of the Neanderthal but must also in passing deal with those
great pretenders, the early upright apes who many call Homo and yet cannot claim that they
were or are human but some still do.
Neanderthal man is like a salmon coming back to the river where it was first an
egg in gravel, then a fry followed as a fingerling and migrated to the sea for years and turned
silver then became known as the fish of knowledge. The man, the first, keeps coming back like
the salmon of knowledge but not living just to haunt us and is little more now than a wisp of
wood smoke.
That is what happens when your mind is left open because no matter what else you have been
doing over the years the seed of early humans has been planted and you keep going back to it,
looking at it finding out more, deleting old research data and adding more.
This research of mine therefore leaves questions to be answered and rechecking and that is
what I have done over the years. It may come to nothing or little but it has opened doors into
the world of early humans and DE-cluttering the mind of this researcher. Now all that is left
to do is write it up and from there when and if it gets finished what to do with it.
BONES OF CONTENTION DATA.
Ronnie Carleton (c) 2017
What is it with archaeology and bones that in the past causes so many debates, some very
heated on the subject of bones of past apes, ape men and the first humans?
It is not a question that can be easy answered because there are two sides, or two answers to it
and maybe as this research of mine will show both wrong because of dating and interpretation
of the subject.
There is in my mind and my own opinion that the walking apes of Africa in the past were not
and never were 'human' until the time of the coming of the Neanderthals and it is at this stage
that the change took place, not through the well-known and broadcast opinions of experts but
because the human beings from that time to now are the result of mutations caused by some
biological or chemical agent.
Thirty years of study and research has brought me to this final conclusion. What has been put
forward in the past on early upright apes, the research into their bones and the thousands of
books and papers written on that subject is in fact a wildlife study of primates, good
information but lacking conviction to suggest that these were our early genetic links. It was
not in any way a useless study because it did for the most, give us a better understanding in
the evolution of apes which I should point out stopped dead in its tracks because there is no
evidence anywhere that it continued in present day apes or other primates world-wide.
This research does not just look at Early Humans as humans but as I suggested before it starts
with the Neanderthals because in my opinion and the supporting evidence there is little point
in going back further in history like Zing above or other apes. They will of course be
mentioned from time to time but only in passing. What moved out of Africa at two points was
not apes though some of the upright apes did migrate long distances but never went anywhere
in a boat or raft. The Neanderthals unknown to many were in fact and advanced culture of
Homo and it was much later that Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthals crossed paths even for a
time living almost side by side.
Then something went wrong and the Neanderthals died out either by disease or killed off.
What I discovered about past research that in many areas of human data there is a lot of
science jargon but little wisdom involved and each paper written is repetitive. That is because
most of other peoples research is in fact copied from others and no fresh field work done that
would at least present some evidence that would stand up without it being 30 thousand years
each side of the recorded data by a research. Unless I am missing something, 30 thousand
years in human progress is a very long time which to be left in the dark of what happened how
and why? This suggests to me guesswork by some of the past researchers rather than good
down to earth research, like field work.
Here I am talking about the Neanderthals onwards and enter Cro-Magnon many years later
but both thinking humans rather than apes with sticks and stones in Africa. What therefore
migrated out of Africa by two suggested routes were apes, followed by some Neanderthals, a
small group in fact and Cro-Magnon did not come from Africa though I will suggest and of
the opinion that some small groups migrated there in time.
Cro-Magnon where they did show up came from the NE of Europe or and the Indus Valley
which leaves the question still unanswered today where in Europe or Asia did they come and
why if they are being linked to early humans why were they hairless?
Old bones and skulls will only give part of the answer but without background research of a
site and area that is all you have in the long run, old bones that can be dated sometimes yet no
evidence looked for or found of who this tribe was and what was their natural history.
As a child in Ireland my first reaction of seeing a black man in 1948 was that he was from
Africa and a good friend of Tarzan the Ape Man and when I was told that he did in fact come
from an island of South America and his family in the past may have come from Africa but as
slaves I was more than disappointed. Later when I was told another man came from India I
was again disappointed because he did not look like any Indian I seen in the cinema and wore
not a single feather in his hair and did not carry an axe or bow and arrow.
For a boy, such events were indeed rare but always ended up as a wet squib and put out of the
mind quickly as other things took over. Without knowing it at the time, the seeds had been
sown and my interest in tribes of all kinds increased until it became Anthropology and
Archaeology studies that remains with me today. I therefore ploughed on, research and re-
researched and made some journeys to strange places in search of answers and sometimes I
got them.
THE HUMAN THAT TIME FORGOT.
If we look at the modes of archaeology worldwide and more so when it comes to early apes
and early humans most deal with what others have found in the way of bones and of course
naming such a find at a named site. Their finds for the most deal with the apes classified by
some as Homo meaning Hominid genus which it is said that Humans belong. Early apes
were never human so the name Homo is misleading and wrong and because an ape stands
upright, face and neck forward of the spine, uses stone tools, like a rock or club (stick) it
cannot be classified therefore as a thinking human or have a group religious culture.
Todays chimps in Africa can and do use some tools like stones and sticks but they still build a
bed high in trees before night fall to be safe and they will kill other chimps if they are not part
of the group then eat them. They will also kill and eat other monkeys and have dinner.
They are not human but primitive but they can think and they can copy learn. My research
here is based on the Neanderthal boundary of their world which runs from as far East in, Asia
Teshik Tash, NW to Denmark, Norway and Sweden, SW to Morocco and a thin belt of North
Africa taking in the Mediterranean Sea, SE to the Persian Gulf. Therefore included within the
boundary are the countries of Italy, Israel, Crimea, France, Germany, Croatia, Belgium,
Spain, Gibraltar, Belgium and the South of the UK. I call this the Research Project Areas or
RPA to keep it simple for the reader and myself in writing up my research. Forty years of
start and stop research, scribbled notes, hidden notebooks, scribbles and drawings, marked
text in old books, maps and field research in Borneo, and India, Museum and University visits
and last but not least, computer research all massed a wealth of material chaff that had to be
sorted. Sorted it now is and the research project is the result. I have named it for reference as ;
BONES OF CONTENTION PROJECT 2017 and for good reason as you will see.
It would be useless of course to leave out the classification by others of early Homo species
mentioned and their dates suggested as well as early Apes because to do so would take away
the main points of my own research and therefore would be no evidence of comparison to
work with or leave room for debate on my and other findings over the last forty years.
The forensics within this research (2011/2017 may not always agree with others in the same
field but at least I hope it will give food for thought that poor interpretation of artefact's,
geology, dating and habits of culture can no longer be ignored or excepted as good stand up
evidence. There is no room for fiction in field archaeology and less so when it comes down to
dating of bones and bone fragments and looking at the dating of the past of such in some cases
it does suggest guesswork of the worse kind along with slap happy archaeology interpretation
just so a paper can be rushed through and published in scientific journals and magazines to
help build the human ego.
In my research this is not the case because I dont need approval or praise from others much
younger than me. What I do need and except for this research would be constructive input or
comment that would add to the research and points made where I may have gone down the
wrong track. Of course that could happen to anyone and did but if we can learn from
mistakes then we are still on the right track and not throw the baby out of the pram!
Research into the Neanderthals will of course continue by others long after I am gone which I
hope it will. If I have just uncovered a fragment of new evidence into the human Neanderthal
then I will feel that after many years I have completed something worthwhile.
SUGGESTED TIME LINES FOR EARLY APES AND HUMANS.
APES.
FAMILY; Oreopithecidae10
Apidium 30 mya
Oreopithecus 30 mya
Pongidae.
Pliopithecus 26-27 mya Africa and Europe.

limnopithecus.
Hylobates (Gibbon) Recent.
Symphalangus (Siamang) Recent.
Aegyptopithecus 30 mya
Dryopithecus 25-10 mya, Europe, Asia and
Africa
(Includes; Sivapithecus,Proconsul,Bramapithecus.)
Pongo ( Orang-utan) Recent.
Pan (Chimpanzee) Recent.
Gorilla, Recent.
Hominidae.
Ramapithecus 14-7 mya
( Includes Kenyapithecus)
Australopithecus 5-1 mya
(Includes Paranthropus,Plesianthropus.)
Homo.
Homo Human species (Man) Recent.
NOTE;
The above is the suggested data by J.Z,YOUNG in her book
Introduction to the Study of Man
To the layperson the above data presented by Young may mean little or nothing except for the
mention of Orang-utan, chimpanzee, gorilla and Man which can be identified with as
known yet to many others the jumble of possible data on apes may mean much more.
THE MISSING TRIBES.
The discovery of human remains on the island of Flores in Indonesia of a missing tribe is of no
surprise to me because if we look at a map of that area there could well be many more
discoveries there. I am of the opinion still after seeing a small female nude in the rain forests
of Borneo a few years back that she and the remains found have a link.
The skulls show the small size compared with a skull of resent past history and it is not of a
child but full adult, more than likely and aged person.
The female I seen and have had reports on when I was back in Borneo in 2004 was modern
looking and small build. She was not alone judging for later reports and local Borneo tribes
did still talk about them and were I felt staying well away from the areas that they may have
lived. Both were no more than 3 feet or 1 M high .The other problem I have with this that I
always did feel that there were two or even three different stages of human progress in all
parts of the world rather than just the one that was always being pushed towards Africa as
the start of human kind. I am also of the opinion that humans as we know them today, have
been short changed in the data time line and and were much older in the dates suggested.
I do agree that Africa had ape like creatures that may well have progressed towards an
evolution path but not human but I disagree strongly that this was the main stage for
mankind today. Asia and South East Asia is I feel a major source of human kind and more
advanced at the time when the ape in Africa stood upright. The Indus Valley is another
possibility. The human apes died away as did some aspects of early man but the small tribes
in Asia were still around 1300 years ago and also in the rain forests of Borneo, a few groups
still remain, for the moment untouched by western minds and thinking but there at the
sources of many of the rivers. Missing Tribes is not a Myth. It is a fact as are sunken cities
world wide,though in some cases reported the evidence is thin on the ground but not the
sunken cities around the coasts of the world.
The rainforest's of Borneo are for the most still hidden from public gaze in most of the
areas as I know from my time there and on a revisit They are hard to get into and most of the
time travel by boat is the only highway to even get to the edge of the wilder and remote parts
of it.
Once you are inland from the coast you do enter a world of rain-forest, high moist
temperatures, rain most days with a thunder storm thrown in just for the fun of it, leeches
which can be found almost everywhere even away from the rivers and streams, crocodiles that
can and will eat you if given the chance, all types of bats and snakes, and plants that cure or
kill. From a tribal point of view there is no shortage of food or natural building materials,
fresh water in the side streams is plentiful and if you want to live a life well away from other
more advanced tribes such as those on the coast, you can lose yourself and never have to
worry about being found if you dont want to.
The KG Walau area is a good example of this if you move west and SW into rain forest. I
would suggest to also seek evidence of small people NE and E of Borneo on the TAWI TAWI
groups of islands because these people could and did move from Island to Island on primitive
rafts of bamboo. I am talking here about four or more Pygmy Races of Tribal peoples who
were located in and around Borneo and other Islands and though a few tribes will have died
out or killed off, there will be still survivors and genetic links to be found. There will also be
bones somewhere and the real possibility of DNA extraction from these to match with other
samples from living tribes.
Any expedition to the rain-forests would have to be worthwhile, involves
archaeologists, biologists of the rain forest type, anthropologists, tribal guides, Asia
Departments of Sciences, and of course the local government and tribal intuitions. There
would also need to be up front funding over a few years and continued if the research
evidence is positive. Most of all the local people must be protected at all costs and respected.
There has always been, a political problem of movement between the borders and
into the rainforest's of Indonesia and Malaysia, mainly by the military establishment of
Indonesia.
Medical and Genetic personal would need to be recruited and work on results fast because of
the rainy seasons. Local people would need to be involved from the beginning and from local
tribes. Without their involvement the project would not get off the ground and therefore fail.
My last trip in 2004 involved an 18-hour flight from the UK to Sabah, a boat ride and a lot of
walking. You gain more information from tribal elders than you will from any local city
resource unless it deals directly with archeology. Books of the area are useful to a point but
communications with elders is more useful. They talk with you and not at you as officials do.
Many of the tribes in Borneo that are known, were and in some areas still are, fond of
removing the head of anyone who offends them and I have seen skulls that belonged to
invaders from Japan in long houses. Other skulls were passed down over the years and this
includes a number of skulls of people from the west going back around 200 years + If present
day skulls were taken from Westerners, France, Spain, Europe and the UK then they must be
well hidden but I have no doubt at least a few men have lost their heads over local tribal
women!
My own research into small people and that includes the medical condition of Dwarfism,
showed that the medical condition is totally separate from small tribal men and women. On
looking at tribal similarities in the Asia area I came up with skull sizes and features but with
no loss of human intelligent even though the brain of the human remains found in Asia was
small by modern standards. Small people in a number of tribes in Africa and SE Asia are
known but what is not known at the moment is what tribes and links are still to be found in
remote areas such as in Borneo.
There is in my opinion a common genetic link between them and the pygmy tribes of Africa.
To get to Africa they would have to go by raft or small boat over vast areas of open sea and
vice versa. If we then take a movement or possible movement of such people Island hopping
east and SE then in time they would reach the west coasts of South America. I feel that this
was the case of some of the tribal groups in the Amazon areas and there may well be a DNA
link here.
Let us look at Borneo and the blowpipe and dart use. In my own observations the blowpipe is
a useful and deadly weapon in the right hands, the poison on the darts is quick acting when it
hits the prey and this poison is obtained from a tree bark and other vines of the same species
off tree as well as the poison from tree frog species The groups in South America are the same
and their poison works in the same way.
The blowpipe is shaped and made as in Borneo and there is no way that the making
and use of a blowpipe here was a matter of luck in its design. It had to be passed on and the
only way that could happen is by contact within the two groups at some stage.
When that happened I dont know.
Proof of this would require DNA testing in all groups and the remains of past humans in such
groups but I am sure that there will be evidence of inherited traits in both groups though they
live thousands of miles apart with the Pacific Ocean between them.
Though there may well now be a spoken language barrier between the Asia and
South America groups there would be I am sure a well-known non-spoken language and again
the only way to test this is to take a member of one group and place them with another to see
how well communication works. Language games would also be useful to support this. I know
that many will disagree with these findings but until they come up with a much better theory
then we all need to act in conserving the tribes of small people and of course their remains.
What they dont need is religion brought in from outside, disease and unnecessary western
artifacts that we claim to be useful. We do need to learn from such people before all is lost.
WHO WERE YOU?

NOTE.
That in fact is one of the many questions in my research when it comes to the Neanderthals
because the human race today and more so the educated human race, unless they work in the
field of biology, archeology, or anthropology then a great amount of knowledge is going to be
lost.
The UN is well aware of such and is I believe doing its best to find solutions of enforced tribal
relocations while some countries, including the USA and the UK make noises but do little to
help sort out this official genocide which is taking place even as I write.
If there is oil, timber, gold, silver and many other materials that would make a
company rich or a country better off than jungle and forest habitats, so be it because to them
it means little as great amounts of hard cash finds a way into the hands of officials to pave the
road into tribal areas, to bribe tribal elders and to hire protection for work groups who are
intent on taking the land, what is on it and have a burn and slash policy. (Carleton 2017)The
USA in 2017 has just binned the Climate Change policy and all to do with cash and overblown
egos in its government as they need the money to buy bricks and wire to build a wall across
the Mexico border much like the Berlin Wall of the past to keep people apart and so that
many US citizens become more paranoid than they already are. It could be that the sand
needed may come from US beaches or shipped in from the Middle East as part of a deal
weapons for sand policy! Today North Korea rattled the US citizens cage and Donald J Trump
stated not six months ago that they would never have a nuclear weapon that could hit the US.
He is wrong again and that puppet in North Korea has a good poker hand and face. Trump
has two sixes both spades and a red button to think about to prove his point.
Will he or wont he?
It all looks like a stand off in a Western, two men with big egos and a small brain ready to
shout , DRAW!
THE ARCHEOLOGY OF AFRICA.

RESEARCH PROJECT 2017
This research Project ( DATA RED CODEX 2016) has now been updated in 2017 and though
changes have been made to my files folders and research work over thirty years I am still of
the opinion that early apes were not early humans as so often put forward as fact. We know
much about early apes, very little about early humans and nothing at all about how it all came
about except the word Evolution is the word used to explain everything and yet nothing as
factual evidence.
I have now included some of the research carried out by others so that at least some sort of
intelligent debate can restart, something that has been lacking in archaeology writing for
many years now. My opinion, with evidence,
is that an early ape is just that, not in anyway, 'human' or for that matter progressed into
human form. They were stand up apes that used tools but the true humans as now known,
were the result of genetic and gene mutations.
Apes today still used tools at times but they have not moved forwards as much as humans
have and this on its own is a good indicator that if humans and apes were linked then apes
today should be able to speak in a language, write, draw, play music, plant a crop and tend it.
There is no evidence anywhere that early apes or today's apes were into crop growing or
farming, one of the main trends of a community or small civilization of early human history.
The study therefore of archaeology is always pushing this agriculture progress of humans but
no such evidence for pre-history apes even today. By that I mean 'organized' agriculture and
not a ape burying fruit or fruit seeds in their natural habitat.
THE EARLY 'APE' LIKE CREATURES.
MEASURING SKULLS AND THE EVIDENCE OF BRAIN SIZE.
There has been much debate about skull and brain size in the cases of early Homos as well as
the overall measuring view of the skulls themselves. A large skull and brain as we know, or
should, does not mean a high IQ if many of todays humans is anything to go by. What is
needed is more research on what is now linked to what when it comes to early skull history
and of course, possibilities. This should also be applied to all bones discovered along with the
skull.
ANTHROPOMETRICS MEASUREMENTS are the main key to all this.
When it comes down to the growth and development of skulls it is one of comparison and
measurements that is needed. A predetermined set of measurements on a number of skulls is
known of different age groups and through the growth stage process; a fixed point is therefore
established.
A common one is the line connecting the anterior midpoint of the foremen magnum, the hole
that is large where the spinal cord exits the skull, to the posterior midpoint of the foremen
magnum.
From here all other measures are taken from this point to other anatomical points on the
FACE and BRAIN CASE. The spot on the mid line between the orbits, farthest anterior
projection of brow-ridges, highest point on the skull vault. As many as 10 to 20 points can be
defined and measured and to display the results a trace of profiles of all skulls known are
aligned on a registration plane. Therefore a classic image shows the skull as onion, with the
younger and smaller skull profiles contained within the older and larger ones.
HOMO SAPIENS (ARCHAIC) HOMO SAPIENS NEANDERTHAL.
The Homo Sapiens Neanderthal is the main part of all my research and I still feel, with
confidence that new finds could be made in the caves of Borneo and other large islands East of
it.
The word "hominid" refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists
of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. (Some
scientists use a broader definition of Hominidae which includes the great apes.) Hominids are
included in the super family of all apes, the Hominidae, the members of which are called
hominids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often
fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.
The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to have occurred 15
to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. Some apes occurring within
that time period, such as Ramapithecus, used to be considered as hominids, and possible
ancestors of humans. Later fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related
to the orange-utan, and new biochemical evidence indicated that the last common ancestor of
hominids and apes occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago, and probably in the lower
end of that range (Lewin, 1987).

Ramapithecus therefore is no longer considered a hominid.
The field of science which studies the human fossil record is known as palaeoanthropology. It
is the intersection of the disciplines of palaeontology (the study of ancient life forms) and
anthropology (the study of humans).
Hominid Species
The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record (note that this
ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence), except that the robust
australopithecines are kept together. Each name consists of a genus name (e.g.
Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a species name (e.g. africanus,
erectus) which is always in lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for
brevity.
Ardipithecus ramidus
This species is a recent discovery, announced in September 1994 (White etal.1994; Wood,
1994). It is the oldest known hominid species, dated at 4.4 million years. Most remains are
skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some
individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier
apes but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other
known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a
forest dweller. This may cause modification of current theories about why hominids became
bipedal, which often link bipedal-ism with a move to a Savannah environment.
(White et al. have since discovered a skeleton which is 45% complete, but have not yet
published on it.)
Australopithecus anamensis.
This species was only named in August 1995. The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in
1994, from Kaposi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mainly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in
Kenya (Leakey et al.1995).
Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive
features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to
those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong
evidence of bipedalism, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely human like.
Note that although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is
not confirmed. This human like bone, humerus arm bone, whatever, is not ,sadly to say, not
human as we know human so I suggest we put this to bed for good.
Australopithecus afarensis
A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an apelike face with
a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws
with large back teeth.
Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 500 cc. The skull is similar to that of a
chimpanzee,except for the more human like teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than
those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans, and shape of the
jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans. However
their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt
that they were bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey, 1994)).
Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were substantially smaller
than males, a condition known as sexual dimorphism.
Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0"). The finger and toe bones are
curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in
most other details (Johanson and Edey, 1981).
Some scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in
trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage. It is more than likely in my opinion that this
species did both and there is no room for doubting that. A nest or bed built off the ground at
night would be good thinking, even today. You dont get eaten!
Australopithecus africanus
A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to afarensis, and was also
bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger,
ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar
body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech.
The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis, the front teeth a little smaller. Although
the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more
similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey, 1981). The shape of the jaw
is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced
compared to afarensis ( Australopithecus afarensis )
Africanus are known as gracile australopithecines, because of their relatively lighter build,
especially in the skull and teeth. (Gracile means "slender", and in palaeoanthropology is used
as an antonym to ("robust".) Despite this, they were still more robust than modern humans.
Australopithecus aethiopicus
A. aethiopicus existed between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is known from one
major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a couple of other lower jaw
specimens which may belong to the same species. It may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei,
but it has a baffling mixture of primitive and advanced traits. The brain size is very small, at
410 cc, and parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are very primitive, most
resembling afarensis. Other characteristics, like the massiveness of the face, jaws and single
tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known hominid, are more reminiscent of A.
boisei (Leakey and Lewin, 1992).
(A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on top of the skull to which chewing muscles attach.)
Here I have a problem with this species of ape not only with others research because the fact
of life is, they still dont know where it realty fits in. This is not surprising as a black skull
and a few other bones dont add up. No question about it but it can be ruled out as in anyway
human. A badger has a sagittal crest but could not be said to be apelike or human like!
Australopithecus robustus
A. robustus had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more robust skull and
teeth. It existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. The massive face is flat or dished, with no
forehead and large brow ridges. It has relatively small front teeth, but massive grinding teeth
in a large lower jaw.
Most specimens have sagittal crests. Its diet would have been mostly coarse, tough food that
needed a lot of chewing. The average brain size is about 530 cc.
Bones excavated with robustus skeletons indicate that they may have been used as digging
tools but by who or what is not clear or of course, when?
Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei)
A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was similar to robustus, but the face
and cheek teeth were even more massive, some molars being up to 2 cm across. The brain size
is very similar to robustus, about 530 cc. A few experts consider boisei and robustus to be
variants of the same species. The experts, so called, dont know in fact.
Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecines,

because their skulls in particular are more heavily built.
Homo habilis
H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with him. Habilis
existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many
ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less, and the back teeth are smaller, but still
considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably
larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the
australopithecines at the low end and Homo erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also
more human like. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in habilis brain
casts, and indicates it was probably capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have
been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb.) in weight.
Habilis has been a controversial species. Some scientists have not accepted it, believing that all
habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. Many
now believe that habilis combines specimens from at least two different Homo species.
NOTE; There is I should warn, that there is no evidence that would stand up to support this
idea that this species is linked to other homo species or humans!
Homo erectus
H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has
protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a
brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc,
while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey, 1994).
Some Asian erectus skulls have a sagittal crest. The skeleton is more robust than those of
modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall
and slender, like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of
Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates
that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons
have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis,1989).
I note there is little mention of pelvic size by other researchers with ref to the above because
they were far too bust looking at skulls and teeth along with leg and arm bones? Homo habilis
and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and is
found through Africa and Asia (and was probably in Europe, but no unknown skeletal
remains are known from there). Evidence from the Peking Man site in China indicates that
erectus used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.
Homo sapiens (archaic)
Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a
diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The
brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200
cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less
robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges
and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and
archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to
classify as one or the other. As this is the case then, we in 2017, should not even go there if we
dont know and therefore such red herrings and debate is useless as evidence for research!
Neanderthal man existed between 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. Not many people know that.
The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this
is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower
than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they
had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The mid facial area
also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to
cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual
being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis.
Neanderthals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of
modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men reached about 168 cm
(5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle
attachments.
Neanderthals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their
skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons
have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neanderthals are the first
people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000
years old. In other words they were able to think well outside the box
Neanderthals were found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European
Neanderthals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic
Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and
Shipman, 1992; Trinkaus and Howells, 1979)

Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)
Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 120,000 years ago. Modern humans have
an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very
small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About
40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming
markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler,
and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork,
in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines,
musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years.
(Leakey, 1994) Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards
smallermolars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of
Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper
Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the
modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they
are sometimes termed "primitive" by men and women of knowledge and one wonders what
they would think of humans of the today; uncouth, aggressive and war like, destroying the
planet fast and their God or higher power is greed and money. I like primitive!
Some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic
sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques
have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has
occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace, 1983).
Prominent Hominid Fossils
The list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic interest, or
because they are often mentioned by creationists. (God made the world type)
One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard
table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are
however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of a single bone or isolated teeth. Complete
skulls and skeletons are rare.The list is sorted by species, going from older to more recent
species. Within each species, finds are sorted by the order of their discovery. Each entry will
consist of a specimen number if known (or the site name, if many fossils were found in one
place), any nicknames in quotes, and a species name. The species name will be followed by a
'?' if suspect. I should point out there a lot of ? If the fossil was originally placed in a
different species, that name will also be given.

The following terminology is used. A skull refers to all the bones of the head. A cranium is a
skull minus the lower jaw. A brain case is the cranium minus the face and upper jaw. A
skullcap is the top portion of the brain case.
Abbreviations: KNM-ER, KNM-WT,Kenya National Museum, East Rudolf
Kenya National Museum, West Turkana,KP Kanapoi, Kenya
SK Swartkrans, South Africa, Sts Sterkfontein, South Africa TM Transvaal Museum
OH Olduvai Hominid, Tanzania,AL Afar Locality, Ethiopia ARA-VP "ARA-VP,
Aramis, Ethiopia
Sites
Ardipithecus ramidus
Discovered by a team led by Tim White, Bernard Asfaw and Gen Suwa (1994) in 1992 and
1993 at Aramis in Ethiopia. Estimated age is 4.4 million years. The find consist of fossils from
17 individuals. Most remains are teeth, but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a
partial cranium base, and arm bone.
ARA-VP-6/1 fragments consists of 10,teeth ,2 from individuals.
Single individual.
ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single individual, with a
mixture of hominid and ape features. But not human.
KP 271,
"Kanapoi Hominid",
Australopithecus anamensis
Discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Patterson and Howells, 1967).
This is a worn fragment of a lower left humerus which is about 4.0 million years old.
KP 29281,
Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a lower jaw with all its teeth
which is about 4.15 million years old.
KP 29285,
Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a tibia, missing the
middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.0 million years old. It is the oldest known
evidence for hominid bipedalism.
Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981;
Johanson and Taieb, 1976). Estimated age is about 3.4 million years. This find consisted of
portions of both legs, including a complete knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human
knee, but apparently belongs to an adult. NOTE Or a small species of ape!
AL288-1,
"Lucy",
Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey, 1981;
Johanson and Taieb, 1976). Estimated age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female
of about 25 years. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg
bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal. She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her
species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs.) in weight.31
AL 333 Site,
"The First Family",
But not human!
Australopithecus afarensis?
Discovered in 1975 by Donald Johanson's team at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey,
1981). Estimated age is 3.2 million years. This find consisted of remains of at least 13 hominid
individuals, of all ages. The size of these specimens varies considerably. Scientists debate
whether the specimens belong to one species, two or even three. Johanson believes they belong
to a single species in which males were considerably larger than females. Others believe that
the larger specimens belong to a primitive species of Homo. If this was the case then this so
called primitive species should also have turned up elsewhere and of course named. In this
case I am of the opinion that there is not enough evidence, yet, and this should be looked for
"Laetoli footprints",
Australopithecus afarensis?
Discovered in 1976 at Laetoli in Tanzania. Estimated age is 3.7 million years. The trail consists
of the fossilized footprints of two or three bipedal hominids. Their size and stride length
indicate that they were about 140 cm (4'8") and 120 cm (4'0") tall. Many scientists claim that
the footprints are effectively identical to those of modern humans (Tattersall, 1993; Feder and
Park, 1989), while others claim the big toes diverged slightly (like apes) and that the toe
lengths are longer than humans but shorter than in apes (Burenhult, 1993).
The prints are tentatively assigned to A. afarensis, because no other hominid species is known
from that time. I suggest that it may well not have been A. afarensis prints because we are still
in the dark of what else in the form of apes, were around in the same time line as suggested by
others and that the footprint time line is only guess work.
AL 444-2,
Discovered by Bill Kimbel and Yoel Rak in 1991 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Kimbel et al.1994).
Estimated age is 3 million years. This is a 70% complete skull of a large adult male, easily the
most complete afarensis skull known. According to its finders, it strengthens the case that all
the First Family fossils were members of the same species, because the differences between AL
444-2 and the smaller skulls in the collection are consistent with other sexually dimorphic
hominids.
"Taung baby",
Discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924 at Taung in South Africa (Dart, 1925). The find
consisted of a full face, teeth and jaws, and an endo-cranial cast of the brain. It is probably
between 2.5 and 3.0 million years old, but it and most other South African fossils are found in
cave deposits that are difficult to date. No surprise there then!
The teeth of this skull showed it to be from an infant about 5 or 6 years old (it is now believed
that australopithecines matured faster than humans, and that the Taung child was about 3).
The brain size was 410 cc, and would have been around 440 cc as an adult. The large rounded
brain, canine teeth which were small and not apelike, and the position of the foreman
magnum, convinced Dart that this was a bipedal human ancestor, which he named
Australopithecus africanus (African southern ape). The discovery became famous but had a
sting to it., Dart's interpretation was rejected by the scientific community until the mid-
1940's, following the discovery of other similar fossils. Anatomical digression: the foreman
magnum is the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes. In apes, it is towards the
back of the skull, because of their quadruped posture. In humans it is at the bottom of the
skull because our head is balanced on top of a vertical column.
TM 1512,33
(was Plesianthropus transvaalensis)
Discovered by Robert Broom in 1936 at Sterkfontein in South Africa (Broom, 1936). The
second australopithecine found, it consisted of parts of the face, upper jaw and brain case.
Sts 5,
"Mrs Ples",
Discovered by Robert Broom in 1947 at Sterkfontein in South Africa. It is a very well
preserved cranium of an adult. It has usually been thought to be female, but there have been
recent claims that it could be male. It is the best specimen of africanus. The brain size is about
485 cc.
Sts 14,
Discovered by Robert Broom and J.T. Robinson in 1947 at Sterkfontein. Estimated age is
about 2.5 million years. This find consisted of a nearly complete vertebral column, pelvis,
some rib fragments, and part of a femur of a very small adult female. The pelvis is far more
human than apelike, and is strong evidence that africanus was bipedal (Brace et al.1979),
although it may not have had the strong striding gait of modern humans (Burenhult, 1993).
KNM-WT
17000,
"The Black Skull",
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Discovered by Alan Walker in 1985 near West Turkana in Kenya. Estimated age is 2.5 million
years. This find is an intact, almost complete cranium. The brain size is very small for a
hominid, about 410 cc, and the skull has a puzzling mixture of primitive and advanced
features. (Leakey and Lewin, 1992)
TM 1517,
Australopithecus robustus
(was Paranthropus robustus)
Discovered by Robert Broom in 1938 at Kromdraai in South Africa (Broom,1938). It consisted
of skull fragments, including five teeth, and a few skeletal fragments. This was the first
specimen of robustus.
OH 5,
"Zinjanthropus",
"Nutcracker Man",
Australopithecus boisei
Discovered by Mary Leakey in 1959 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Leakey, 1959). Estimated
age is 1.8 million years. It is an almost complete cranium with a brain size is about 530 cc.
This was the first specimen of this species. Louis Leakey briefly considered this a human
ancestor, but the claim was dropped when Homo habilis was found soon afterwards.
KNM-ER 406,
Discovered by Richard Leakey in 1969 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. This find was a
complete, intact cranium lacking only the teeth (Lewin, 1987). Estimated age is about 1.7
million years. The brain size is about 510 cc. (see also ER 3733)
KNM-ER 732,
Discovered by Richard Leakey in 1970 near Lake Turkana in Kenya. The cranium is similar
to that of OH 5, but is smaller and has other differences such as the lack of a sagittal crest.
The estimated age is about 1.7 million years. The brain size is about 500 cc. Most experts
believe this is a case of sexual dimorphism, with the female being smaller than the male. Homo
Hablis. Discovered by the Leakeys in the early 1960's at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. A
number of fragmentary specimens were found (Leakey et al.1964).
OH 7
(Johnny's Child), found by Jonathon Leakey in 1960 (Leakey, 1961), consisted of a lower jaw
and two cranial fragments of a child, and a few hand bones. Estimated age is 1.9 million years,
and the brain size was about 680 cc.
OH 8,
found in 1960, consisted of a set of foot bones, complete except for the back of the heel and the
tips of the toes. Estimated age is about 1.8 million years. The foot bones had most of the
adaptations to bipedalism possessed by modern humans. There is a well-developed arch, and
the big toe is alongside the other toes instead of diverging, as is the case with apes and
monkeys.
OH 13
(Cindy), found in 1963, consisted of a lower jaw and teeth, bits of the upper jaw and a cranial
fragment. Estimated age is 1.7 million years, and the brain size was about 650 cc.
OH 16
(George), found in 1963, consisted of teeth and some very small skull fragments (George was
unfortunately trampled by a herd of Masai cattle before he could be excavated, and much of
his skull was lost). Estimated age is 1.7 million years, and the brain size was about 640 cc.
OH 24,
"Twiggy",
Homo habilis
Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1968 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It consisted of a badly
crushed skull and seven teeth. It is about 1.8 million years old and has a brain size of about
590 cc.
KNM-ER 1470,
Homo habilis
Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey,1973). Estimated age
is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc,
large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused
much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom
habilis had supposedly descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued (Lewin,
1987; Johanson and Edey, 1981; Lubenow, 1992). The skull is surprisingly modern in some
respects. The brain case is much larger and less robust than any australopithecine skull, and
is also without the large brow ridges typical of Homo erectus. It is however very robust in the
face. A number of leg bones were found within a couple of kilometers, and are thought to
probably belong to the same species. The most complete, KNM-ER 1481, consisted of a
complete left femur, both ends of a left tibia and the lower end of a left fibula (the smaller of
the two lower leg bones). These are quite similar to the bones of modern humans.
KNM-ER 1805,
"The Mystery Skull",
Homo habilis??
Discovered by Paul Abell in 1973 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1974). Estimated age is
1.85 million years. This find consisted of much of a heavily built cranium containing many
teeth. Its brain size is about 600 cc. Some features, such as the sagittal crest, are typical of A.
boisei, but the teeth are too small for that species. (Willis, 1989; Day, 1986) Various workers
have assigned it to almost every conceivable species, but it seems most similar to Homo habilis
(Wood, 1991). Of course before we got to this far-fetched guess work it was this, it was that, it
was an ape, it was human, it came from outer space and I am of the informed opinion that
they still dont know so give it a name as such?, and stuck in in a filing cabnet under H
which means in Dutch, hard cheese!
KNM-ER 1813,
Homo habilis??
Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1974).
This specimen is similar to 1470, but is much smaller, with a brain size of 510 cc.
Estimated age is 1.8-1.9 million years. Some scientists believe this a case of sexual
dimorphism, others believe that the brain architecture is different and that 1813 is another
species of Homo, and others believe it is an australopithecine. Like the previous skull, 1805,
this one is in the "Suspense Account". (Willis, 1989) NOTE; In other words they did not and
do not know. Thats useful!

OH 62,
"Dik-dik hominid",
Homo habilis
Discovered by Tim White in 1986 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Johanson and Shreeve, 1989;
Johanson et al.1987). Estimated age is 1.8 million years.
The find consisted of portions of skull, arm, leg bones and teeth. Almost all the features of the
skull closely resemble habilis fossils such as OH 24, ER37,1813 and ER 1470, rather than the
australopithecines. But the estimated height is very small, maybe about 105 cm (3'5"), and the
arms are very long in proportion to the legs. These are australopithecine traits, and in fact the
skeletal bones are very similar to those of Lucy. This find is significant because it is the only
fossil in which limb bones have been securely assigned to habilis. Because of the small size,
this was almost certainly a female. As with the australopithecines, males would have been
considerably larger. I suggest they should have checked the pelvic bones before saying it was
female
"Java Man",
"Pithecanthropus I" H.erectus
(was Pithecanthropus erectus)
Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893 near Trinil in Java. Its age is uncertain, but thought to
be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick skullcap, a few teeth (which
may belong to orang- utans), and a femur found about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989).
The brain size is about 940 cc. Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) state that most scientists now
believe the femur is that of a modern human, but few of the other references mention this.
"Heidelberg Man",
Homo erectus?
(was Homo heidelbergensis)
Discovered by gravel pit workers in 1907 near Heidelberg in Germany. Estimated age is
between 400,000 and 700,000 years. This find consisted of a lower jaw with a receding chin
and all its teeth. The jaw is extremely large and robust, like that of Homo erectus, but the
teeth are at the small end of the erectus range. It is therefore identified as erectus on the basis
of its age, but could be an archaic sapiens. It could be a dumped zoo ape, a dead pig or a bit of
a hoax!
"Peking Man Site",
Homo erectus
(was Sinanthropus pekinensis)
Between 1929 and 1937, 14 partial craniums, 11 lower jaws, many teeth, some skeletal bones
and large numbers of stone tools were discovered in the Lower Cave at Locality 1 of the
Peking Man site at Zhoukoudian, near Beijing, in China. Their age is estimated to be between
500,000 and 300,000 years old.
(A number of fossils of modern humans were also discovered in the Upper Cave in 1933.)
The most complete fossils, all of which were brain cases or skullcaps, are:
Skull III, discovered at Locus E in 1929 is an adolescent or juvenile with a brain size of 915
cc., Skull II, discovered at Locus D in 1929 but only recognized in 1930, is an adult or
adolescent with a brain size of 1030 cc, Skulls LI, LII and LIII were discovered at Locus L in
1936. They are thought to belong to an adult man, an adult woman and a young adult,with
brain sizes of 1225 cc, 1015 cc and 1030 cc respectively.
Skull 5: two cranial fragments were discovered in 1966 which fit with (casts of) two other
fragments found in 1934 and 1936 to form most of a skullcap. These pieces were found at a
higher level, and appear to be more modern than the other skullcaps. (Jia and Huang, 1990)
Most of the study on these fossils was done by Davidson Black until his death in 1934. Franz
Weidenreich replaced him and studied the fossils until leaving China in 1941. The original
fossils disappeared in 1941 while being shipped to the United States for safety during World
War II, but excellent casts and descriptions remain.
Since the war, other erectus fossils have been found at this site and others in China. I suggest
strongly that we need to be open and honest with China and ask them with respect to inform
the world of more finds and publish the papers on such. There is much more in China to be
discovered on such species.
OH 9,
"Chellean Man",
Homo erectus
Discovered by Louis Leakey in 1960 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania (Leakey,1961). Estimated
age is 1.2 million years. It consisted of a fairly complete brain case with a brain size of 1050 cc.
OH 12,
"Pinhead",
Homo erectus
Discovered by M. Cropper in 1962 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. It is similar to but less
complete than OH 9, and smaller, with an estimated brain size of only 750 cc. It is estimated to
be between 600,000 and 800,000 years old.
Sangiran 17,
"PithecanthropusVIII",
Homo erectus
Discovered by Sastrohamidjojo Sartono in 1969 at Sangiran on Java. This consists of an
almost complete cranium, with a brain size of about 1000 cc. It is the most complete erectus
find from Java. This skull is very robust, with a slightly projecting face and huge flaring
cheekbones. It has been thought to be about 800,000 years old, but a recent dating has given a
much older figure of nearly 1.7 million years. If the older date is correct, it means Homo
erectus migrated out of Africa much earlier than previously thought. Wow! At last someone
has got it right.
KNM-ER 3733,
Homo erectus
Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 at Koobi Fora in Kenya. Estimated age is 1.7 million
years. This superb find consisted of an almost complete cranium.
The brain size is about 850 cc, and the whole skull is similar to some of the Peking Man fossils.
The discovery of this fossil in the same stratum as ER 406 (A. boisei) delivered the coup de
grace to the single species hypothesis: the idea that there has never been more than one
hominid species at any point in history. (Leakey and Walker, 1976)
KNM-WT 15000,
"Turkana Boy",
Homo erectus
Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1984 at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya (Brown
et al.1985; Leakey and Lewin, 1992; Walker and Leakey, 1993).
This is an almost complete skeleton of an 11 or 12 year old boy, the only major omissions
being the hands and feet. (Some scientists believe erectus matured faster than modern
humans, and that he was really about 9 years old (Leakey and Lewin, 1992).) It is the most
complete known specimen of erectus, and also one of the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain
size was 880 cc, and it is estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood.
The boy was 160 cm (5'3") tall, and would have been about 185 cm (6'1") as an adult. This is
surprisingly tall, indicating that many erectus may have been as large as modern humans.
Except for the skull, the skeleton is very similar to that of modern boys, although there are a
number of small differences.
"Rhodesian Man",
(was Homo rhodesiensis)
Discovered by a laborer in 1921 at Broken Hill in Northern Rhodesia (now Kabwe in Zambia)
(Woodward, 1921). This was a complete cranium that was very robust, with large brow ridges
and a receding forehead. Estimated age is between 200,000 and 125,000 years.The brain size
was about 1280 cc.
Petralona 1,
Homo sapiens (archaic)
Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000
years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some
Neanderthal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens,
and the face is large with particularly wide jaws. (Day, 1986)
NOTE. "Neanderthal skeleton"
Discovered by Johann Fuhlrott in 1856 in the Neander valley in Germany. The find consisted
of a skullcap, thigh bones, part of a pelvis, some ribs, and some arm and shoulder bones. The
lower left arm had been broken in life, and as a result the bones of the left arm were smaller
than those of the right. Fuhlrott recognized it as a primitive human, but the German
establishment headed by Rudolf Virchow rejected this view, incorrectly claiming that it was a
pathological modern human. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992)
(There were actually two earlier Neanderthal finds. A partial cranium of a 2.5 year old child
found in 1829 in Belgium was not recognized until 1936. An adult cranium found on Gibraltar
in 1848 gathered dust in a museum until it was recognized as Neanderthal in 1864.)
"Spy 1 and 2",
Homo sapiens
Neanderthals
Discovered by Marcel de Puydt and Max Lohest in 1886 at Spy (Spee) d'Orneau in Belgium.
Estimated age is about 60,000 years. This find consisted of two almost complete skeletons.
The descriptions of the skeletons established that they were very old, and largely discredited
the idea that the Neanderthal physique was a pathological condition, but also erroneously
concluded that Neanderthal Man walked with bent knees. Sure I have always know that you
can take a man or woman out of a bog but never take the bog out of them!
Discovered by Dragutin Gorjanovic-Kramberger in 1899 near Krapina in Croatia. This site
yielded significant remains from two to three dozen individuals, and teeth and jaw fragments
from dozens more. When Gorjanovic published on his finds in 1906, it confirmed for once and
for all that Neandertals were not pathological modern humans. (Of course they were and they
could think, carry out ritual burials, and as far as I am concerned, the first known modern
humans.)
Discovered by Amedee and Jean Bouyssonie in 1908 near La-Chapelle-aux-Saints in France.
It is about 50,000 years old, with a brain size of 1620 cc. This nearly complete skeleton was
reconstructed by Marcellin Boule, who wrote a definitive and highly influential paper on it
which managed to be totally wrong in many of its conclusions. It exaggerated the apelike
characteristics of the fossil, popularizing the stereotype, which would last for decades, of a
stooping ape-man shuffling along on bent knees. This specimen was between about 30 and 40
when he died, but had a healed broken rib, severe arthritis of the hip, lower neck, back and
shoulders, and had lost most of his molar teeth. The fact that he survived as long as he did
indicates that Neandertals must have had a complex social structure.
Ralph Solecki discovered 9 Neanderthal skeletons between 1953 and 1960 at the Shanidar
cave in Iraq. They are thought to be between 70,000 and 40,000 years old. One of them,
Shanidar 4, had apparently been buried with offerings of flowers (although this interpretation
has recently been disputed). In 1971 Solecki wrote a book, "Shanidar, reversing the earlier
stereotypes of semi- human brutes. Another skeleton, Shanidar 1, was partially blind, one-
armed and crippled. His survival also is evidence of a complex social structure.
"Saint-Cesaire Neanderthal",
Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis
Discovered by Francois Leveque in 1979 near the village of Saint-Cesaire in France. It
consisted of a badly crushed skeleton. The skull was mostly complete, with only the back of
the cranium missing. It is dated at about 35,000 years old, and is the most recent Neanderthal
known. This find was of special interest because it was found with tools that had previously
only been associated with the Cro-Magnon culture, instead of the usual Neanderthal tool kit.
Discovered by workmen in 1868 at Cro-Magnon in France. Estimated age is 28,000 years. The
site yielded skeletons of about half a dozen individuals, along with stone tools, carved reindeer
antlers, ivory pendants, and shells. The Cro-Magnons it is said to have lived in Europe
between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago. I suggest that they were in Europe at least 45,000 years
if not longer. They are almost identical to modern man, being tall and muscular and slightly
more robust than most modern humans. They were skilled hunters, toolmakers and artists
famous for the cave art at places such as Lascaux.
Alternative Taxonomies
The above list has used a fairly conservative naming system. Recently a number of scientists
have suggested various changes in these names. Many people are now using the genus name
Paranthropus, originally given to robustus, to refer to the robust australopithecines (robustus,
boisei, and aethiopicus). This change makes sense if all these species form a clade (all of the
species descended from a common ancestor) but it is not yet known if this is the case here.
If something does not need changing why change it?
Homo habilis is, as mentioned above, controversial. There is much disagreement over which
specimens belong in habilis, and which do not. A number of scientists are now using the name
H. rudolfensis to refer to ER 1470 and some similar fossils.
The smaller habilis-like specimens such as ER 1813 and ER 1805 are variously assigned to
habilis, H. ergaster, or to another as yet unnamed species. The name H. micro-cranous has
recently been proposed for 1813. Whoever made that proposal has a small brain, micro size
and sadly wants his name in lights. There is more!
Some scientists have also proposed splitting Homo erectus. The Turkana Boy and 3733 fossils
would then become Homo ergaster (Tattersall, 1993). H. erectus would have a larger average
brain size than ergaster, and the brow ridges may have a different shape, flaring out to the
side more (Burenhult, 1993). It has also been proposed that the names Homo heidelbergensis
and Homo neanderthalensis should be restored as species names for archaic Homo sapiens
and the Neandertals. Suggest these people get a grip on reality and fast.
There are a number of other recent discoveries which may change current thinking when they
have had a chance to be analyzed: Some hominid fossils found recently in Spain, and dated at
over 780,000 years, would be the oldest European hominids, but it is not yet clear what species
they belong to. As this seems to be the case that they dont know, dont change it for the sake
of changing it. This adds to confusion and in fighting! New finds in Spain and Croatia suggest
that Neandertals may have survived longer than previously thought, perhaps as recently as
30,000 years ago+.
Four australopithecine foot bones dated at around 3.5 million years are the oldest hominid
fossils yet found in South Africa. They seem to be adapted to bipedalism, but have an
intriguing mixture of ape and human features. Suggestion. Try Apemen or upright Ape!
MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING
There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early
australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing
use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There
are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the
early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.
Because of this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is and that may well be that
there never was one? Not everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus,
robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants.
If H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still
a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.
The discoveries of A. ramidus and A. anamensis are so recent that it is hard to say what effect
they will have on current theories. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended
from Homo habilis, but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still
unclear. Neanderthal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern
sapiens. The problem with this I found that many researchers past over the Neanderthal era
too quickly and more in depth research is needed including DNA sampling from across
Europe and into Asia.

The usual creationist response to these fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each
one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that some of the "humans" have a brain
size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than
modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very
human-like teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There is some skulls
which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis, 1989)
This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand,
creationism was true, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. It
would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between
humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes
just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other
apes.
In 1950, Wilfred Le Gros Clark published a paper which definitively settled the question of
whether the australopithecines were apes or not. He performed a morphological study (based
on the shape and function) of teeth and jaws, since these formed most of the fossil evidence.
By studying human and modern ape fossils, Le Gros Clark came up with a list of eleven
consistent differences between humans and apes. Looking at A. africanus and robustus (the
only australopithecine species then known), he found that they were human-like rather than
ape like in every characteristic. Judged by the same criteria, A. afarensis falls somewhere
between humans and apes, and possibly closer to the apes (Johanson and Edey, 1981).
White et al. (1994) did not judge A. ramidus by these criteria, but it is clear that ramidus is
even more chimpanzee-like than afarensis. The ramidus arm bones also display a mixture of
hominid and ape characteristics.
Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that
the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 50's, and his position was
abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey, 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions
as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.
Maybe Zuckerman should have looked closely at cross breeding between humans and apes??
Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his
multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to
humans than modern apes are.
Howell etal.(1978) criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were
based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often
poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and
did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from
those which were not. As I see it, as much use as a spare groom at a wedding. Up to date
Forensic Anthropology is a wonderful tool!
Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30
scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques,
including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint
complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more
closely than the living apes.
Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to perform his
calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other scientists are equally
qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a]
computer doesn't have a bias". Ouch aye, sure we know that but you only get out of it what
you put in and if the data is wrong in the first place it will be wrong when it throws it back at
you.
True enough, but what that is written into a disc could be wrong or outdated? The results that
come out of a computer are only as good as the data and assumptions that go in. In this case,
the primary assumption would seem to be that Oxnard's methods are a useful method of
determining relationships but that is all. This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual
results of Oxnard's study (1987).
For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to humans, and Sivapithecus as
closely related to orange-utans, even though the two are so similar that they are now
considered to be the same species of Sivapithecus. Less controversially, Oxnard also claims
that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans.
Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard
proved that australopithecines did not walk upright, and then adding, as an afterthought (or
in Willis' (1987) case, not at all) "at least, not in the human manner".
Creationists are generally reluctant to accept that australopithecines, including Lucy, were
bipedal. A statement by Weaver (1985) that "Australopithecus afarensis ... demonstrates
virtually complete adaptation to upright walking" is dismissed by Willis (1987) as "a
preposterous claim". Willis adds: "Many competent anthropologists have carefully examined
these and other "Australopithecine" remains and concluded that Lucy could not walk
upright."
Willis' evidence for this consists of a statement by Solly Zuckerman made in 1970; a 1971
statement from Richard Leakey that australopithecines "may have been knuckle-walkers",
and a quote from Charles Oxnard about the relationship between humans, australopithecines
and the apes. In fact, none of these quotes refer to Lucy. Two of them were made before Lucy,
and A.afarensis, was even discovered (and the third was made very soon afterwards, before
Lucy had been studied). The problem here is it seems, that all the knuckle heads are all
trying to get on the band wagon and putting their views and mouths in gear before their
brains as is often the case today.
Even in 1970, Zuckerman's views had long since been discredited. In what is obviously a
fabrication, Willis says that Leakey "referred to Lucy as an ape who did not walk upright",
three years before Lucy was discovered. Great foresight was Zuckerman or maybe physic!
Leakey was merely making a suggestion (about robust australopithecines) which he soon
retracted, not stating a firm opinion, and he has since stated (1994) that Lucy "undoubtedly
was a biped". Oxnard (1975; 1987) has some unorthodox opinions about the
australopithecines, but the Oxnard quote supplied by Willis discusses neither bipedal nor A.
afarensis. Elsewhere in the same paper that Willis refers to, Oxnard (1975) repeatedly
mentions that australopithecines may have been bipedal, and he has since stated (1987) that
the australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal.
A U turn or what because this all sounds like something a UK PM cooked up just to hear the
sound of their own voice and own opinion and no one else could be right?
Gish (1985) has a long discussion of the debate about Lucy's locomotion. He quotes
extensively from Stern and Susman (1983), who list many apelike features of A. afarensis and
argue that it spent a significant amount of time in the trees. As Gish admits, none of the
scientists he mentions deny that Lucy was bipedal, but he goes on to suggest, with no evidence
or support, that A. afarensis may have been no more bipedal than living apes, which are well
adapted to quadrupedality and only walk on two legs for short distances. By contrast, the feet,
knees, legs and pelvises of australopithecines are strongly adapted to bipedality, while the
hands and wrists show no adaptations to any form of quadrupedalism (McHenry, 1986).
Gish's conclusion is strongly rejected by Stern and Susman, and, apparently, everyone else:
"That bipedality was a more fundamental part of australopithecine behavior than in any
other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute."

"...we must emphasize that in no way do we dispute the claim that
terrestrial bipedality was a far more significant component of the
behavior of A. afarensis than in any living nonhuman primate."
(Stern and Susman, 1983)
Gish writes as if showing that A. afarensis did not "walk upright in the human manner" is all
that is needed to disqualify it as a human ancestor. But there is no reason that bipedality,
when it first arose, had to be identical to human bipedality; that final step could have
occurred later. As Stern and Susman (1983) state:
"In our opinion A. afarensis is very close to what can be called a "missing link". It possesses a
combination of traits entirely appropriate for an animal that had traveled well down the road
toward full-time bipedality..."
Another creationist writes:
"From the neck down, certain clues suggested to Johanson that Lucy walked a little more
erect than today's chimps. This conclusion, based on his interpretation of the partial hip bone
and a knee bone, has been hotly contested by many palaeontologists." (Morris, 1994)
Almost everything in this quote looks like a distortion (Johanson's and Lucy's names are
about the only exceptions). "Certain clues suggested" doesn't mention that the whole find
screamed "bipedality" to every qualified scientist who looked at it. "a little more erect", when
everyone believes that Lucy was fully erect. "the partial hip bone and a knee bone", when
Lucy included almost a complete pelvis and leg (taking mirror imaging into account, and
excluding the foot). "has been hotly contested", when no reputable paleontologist denies that
Lucy was bipedal. The debates are about whether she was also arboreal, and about how
similar the bi-mechanics of her locomotion was to that of humans. Given that we have most of
Lucy's leg and pelvis, one has to wonder what sort of fossil evidence it would take to convince
creationists of australopithecine bipedality.
To support the idea that australopithecines are just apes, Parker says:
"In their critique of the Leakeys, Johanson and White (1980) noted: 'Modern chimpanzees,
by this definition [Richard Leakey's] would be classified as A. africanus.' Apes after all?"
(Morris and Parker, 1982)
When the paper by Johanson and White is examined, it is apparent that Parker has taken
their quote out of context in a way that almost reverses its meaning. Leakey did not call A.
africanus a chimp, nor did Johanson and White accuse him of doing so. They criticized
Leakey's definition because it was imprecise enough to also include chimps. Of course, such a
criticism only makes sense if A. africanus is not a chimp.
In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming that the skeleton
known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles)
apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species.
(This was in spite of the fact that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey, 1981) has photos of
both fossils: AL129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This was a
spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who had done the most
elementary research, but that didn't stop a number of other creationists from picking up the
claim and repeating it.
Creationists rarely address the issue of why australopithecines have a foramen magnum at the
bottom of the skull. Gish (1985) criticizes Dart's reasoning that the Taung baby walked
upright, based on the position of its foremen magnum. Gish correctly states that the position
of the foremen magnum is closer in juvenile apes and humans than it is in adults (in apes, it
moves backwards during growth), and concludes that Dart was unjustified in analyzing this
feature on a juvenile skull. This is the same criticism that Dart originally faced from scientists,
but Gish fails to mention that later evidence proved Dart's analysis correct and silenced his
critics. Well done Dart because those that offer negative criticism have never climbed the
mountain or have failed to look at the whole picture!
Creationists also rarely mention australopithecine teeth. Gish says that "[Dart] pointed out
the many ape-like features of the skull, but believed that some features of the skull, and
particularly of the teeth, were man-like". (Note the misleading implication that the apelike
features really exist, while the human like ones are a figment of Dart's imagination.) Gish
disputes this, pointing out that the molar teeth of africanus are extremely large. What Gish
does not tell readers is that this is one of the few differences between them and human teeth.
When the teeth of the Taung child could be properly examined, Dart's claim was strongly
confirmed, and is now universally accepted as it should be.
Despite its importance, Homo habilis is virtually ignored by creationists. The one exception is
ER 1470, which is too well-known to be totally ignored. Creationists disagree on whether 1470
is an ape or a human. The other habilis fossils are never analysed, but the few creationists who
do mention them are in agreement that they are all apes.
The skull ER1471 was discovered in 1972, and publicized as both amazingly human-like, and
extremely old, at nearly 3 million years. Creationists eagerly seized on the statement of
Richard Leakey, its discoverer, that 1470 "wipes out everything we have been taught about
human evolution, and I have nothing to offer in its place". Creationists did give the
impression that it is a modern human skull. But despite some modern traits, it has a number
of australopithecine features, and a brain size of about 750 cc. Gish (1979) points out as he
would, its small size, but states that its age and sex are unknown, presumably seeking to imply
that it might belong to a child. That is not probable, as can be seen from comparative photos
(Weaver, 1985). 1470's face is very robust, and as large as that of a modern Cro-Magnon skull,
despite a much smaller brain size, and the cranium has a markedly different shape. There is
also other suggested evidence that it was an adult. As a debating tactic to discredit other
hominid fossils, creationists often accept 1470 as human, even though many of them reject
larger-brained erectus specimens as apes. Such experts with God on their side , however, are
unlikely to find the idea of a human with a brain size of 510 cc very appealing.
Gish in 1979 tentatively accepted 1470 as fully human. By 1985, he seemed to have reversed
that opinion, and was suggesting that it should be placed in the genus Australopithecus (as
have some scientists). His reasoning for this is that another habilis fossil OH 8 a set of foot
bones) had been claimed by Oxnard and Lisowski to be not as human like as previously
thought. This is used to justify placing all habilis fossils, including 1470, into the
australopithecines.
OH 8, of course, does not belong to 1470, and may not even have belonged to a member of the
same species, so it is irrelevant to determining 1470's status. Gish implies that his earlier
evaluation of 1470 was based on preliminary information, but the photos and descriptions on
which Gish based his earlier opinion were published as early as 1973. Gish gives no new
information about 1470 that would justify reclassifying it from a human to an ape. So it does
seem from the evidence produced by Gish that he got it wrong and big time I suggest.
If 1470 was an ape, it would be a truly extraordinary one. The brain is far larger than that of
any ape, with the exception of a few very large male gorillas. The brain case is far more
rounded and gracile than that of any ape, and the brain has a human rather than an apelike
pattern. Cronin et al.(1981) list nine features of 1470 which are either shared with A.
africanus, or intermediate between africanus and other H. habilis specimens.
Gish lists some of these in support of his contention that 1470 is australopithecine, but, in a
fine example of selective quotation, failed to include another section from the same paragraph
listing other features of 1470 that are generally associated with the genus Homo.
Lubenow (1992), by contrast, considers 1470 fully human. So two of the foremost creationist
experts on anthropology are both certain that 1470 is not intermediate between human and
ape, yet one of them thinks it an ape,and the other thinks it is a human! There could be no
more convincing demonstration of its transitional status. Maybe they should have thought on
the possibility of cross breeding or a genetic mutant?
Although 1470 is usually placed in the genus Homo, it is definitely not a modern human.
There is ample evidence of this: "The endocrine capacity and the morphology of the brain
case are characters that suggest inclusion within the genus Homo, but the maxilla [upper jaw]
and facial region are unlike those of any known form of hominid." (Leakey, 1973)
"KNM-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many morphological
characteristicsin common with gracile australopithecines that are not shared with later
specimens of the genus Homo" (Cronin et al.1981)
"There is no evidence that this cranium particularly resembles H. sapiens or H. erectus
according to either phenetic or cladistic evidence. KNM-ER 1470 is closest to the remains
from Olduvai [considered apes by creationists] referred to H. habilis. (Wood, 1991)
Shortly after 1470 was discovered, anatomist A. Cave said in an interview that it was,
"as far as I can see, typically human". Creationists interpret this to mean that it was the skull
of a modern human. More likely is that Cave was merely saying that the skull belonged to,
and had features typical of, the genus Homo.
A fossil which Lubenow considers human is ER 1590, consisting of cranial fragments and
teeth of a child of about 6 years. It is not complete enough for the brain size to be directly
measured, but it seems to be very close in size to 1470. However this child had teeth which
were larger than those of Homo erectus, which are in turn larger than those of Homo
sapiens.? In addition, the sequence of tooth development has little resemblance to that of
Homo sapiens (Wood, 1991).
To support the claim that 1470 is human and other habilis fossils are apes, Lubenow quotes
from a paper by Falk, which states that the endocast of 1470 has a human pattern, while that
of 1805 is apelike (these were the only fossils discussed by Falk). However Tobias (1988) shows
that other habilis fossils such as OH 7, OH 13, OH 16 and OH 24 (which creationists consider
apes) all share many advanced features with ER 1470.
It is lightly built, with a rounded skull and no sagittal crest, modest eyebrow ridges, and a
small amount of nasal prominence (Day, 1986). This is combined with a jaw and teeth that
are similar to but larger than those of modern humans. Another transitional fossil! Because
its brain was far smaller than any human, creationists have no choice but to call this an ape,
despite the fact that 1470 looks more similar to 1813 than it does to a modern human skull.
Despite its larger brain size, Cronin et al.(1981) consider 1470 to be more primitive, with more
australopithecine features, than 1813. The teeth of 1470 (as inferred from the sockets) were
australopithecine-sized, while 1813 had smaller, Homo erectus-sized teeth (Klein, 1989).
Others (reviewed in Wood (1992)) consider 1470 to belong to the same species as either OH 7
or 1813. OH 62 also closely resembles 1470 (Johanson et al.1987). Sorting out the exact
relationships of these fossils is very difficult, but it is clear that all of them are similar, with a
mixture of Homo and Australopithecus features. There is no "significant gap" separating
1470 from the others. And I suggest here that many of the experts found it more difficult
sorting themselves out with all in infighting and back stabbing than they did the fossils!
The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse, 1983;Morris and
Parker, 1982; Taylor, 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man fossils. Most creationists
consider both apes, although Lubenow (1992) considers both human even though manybooks
stress their very close similarity. Some authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing.
Morris suggests (although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to) that they are
degenerate humans:
"It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and
culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris, 1974).
Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to Neanderthal
Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also considers the erectus
morphology to be caused by disease.
There is no explanation or I say evidence, of why these adverse conditions would cause H.
erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been of average
human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil).
It does not explain to me and others, why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are
erectus, and why, given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile
environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays.
One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish (1985) as human.
Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is almost completely modern.
Gish suggests that except for the brain size, all major aspects of the skeleton are within the
limits of Homo sapiens, and that were it not for the estimated age of 1.6 million years it would
be assigned to that species.
That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy skull is a typical erectus skull, differing from modern
humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is more similar to 1470 (H. habilis), or to
other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man skullcaps, than it is to modern humans. The
skeleton also has a number of minor differences from those of modern humans. Many
creationists have claimed that Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893, was "bad
science". I say here that it was bad evidence that was dismissed.
Gish (1985) says that Dubois found two human skulls at nearby Wadjak at the same level and
had kept them secret; that Dubois later decided Java Man was a giant gibbon; and that the
bones do not come from the same individual. Most people would find Gish's meaning of
"nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles of mountainous countryside
away from Java Man. For the comment by Gish "at the same level": the Wadjak skulls were
found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was found in river deposits in a flood
plain (Fezer, 1993).
Dubois had briefly reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications around 1890,
but, recognizing that they were modern, devoted all his attention to Java Man once it was
found. Based on his own theories about how brains had evolved and wishful thinking, Dubois
did claim that Java Man had the proportions of a giant gibbon, but never said that it was one,
and never stopped believing that he had found an ancestor of modern man (Theunissen, 1989;
Gould, 1993; Lubenow, 1992).
Creationists are right about one thing. Most modern scientists agree that the femur is more
recent than the skullcap, belonging to a modern human. Some of the teeth found nearby are
now thought to be from an orang-utan, rather than Homo erectus.
Listen to Gish (1993) on the apelike qualities of the skullcap:

"Now we see that the skullcap is very apelike; notice that it has no forehead, it's very flat, very
typical of the ape. Notice the massive eyebrow ridges, very typical of the ape". Despite this,
the skullcap definitely does not belong to any ape, and especially not to a gibbon. It is far too
large (940 cc, compared to 97 cc for a gibbon), and is similar to other Homo members that
have been found. One of these is Sangaien , also found on Java.
This skull, which is never mentioned by creationists, is an almost complete cranium and is
clearly human, albeit primitive If one is trying to pigeonhole Java Man as either an ape or a
human, calling it a human is easily the best choice if you need to guess, but Lubenow (1992)
seems to be the only creationist who has done so. However he attempts to disqualify Java Man
as a primitive human by using fauna evidence to show that it is the same age as the Wadjak
skulls. Of course like many then he had to say something about it
Lubenow gives the following quote from Hooijer (1951):
"Tapirus indicus, supposedly extinct in Java since the Middle Pleistocene, proved to be
represented in the Dubois collection from the Wadjak site, central Java, which is late - if not
post -Pleistocene in age."
Lubenow is then saying that since this species of tapir was found in both the Trinil [the site
where Java Man was found] and Wadjak faunas, these fossils may be of the same age. This
conclusion is reinforced by three other quotes from Hooijer, all of which describe difficulties
in using faunal methods to date Java fossils. I feel that Lubenow's argument was not well
thought out by him for a number of reasons.
Even if faunal methods were completely invalid, it would not constitute evidence that Wadjak
Man and Java Man were the same age. The most that could be claimed was that the ages of
both were unknown. And Hooijer never said that the faunal methods were useless, or that the
Wadjak and Trinil faunas were the same.
By far the simplest resolution of the tapir discrepancy is, as Hooijer stated,that Tapirus
indicus survived longer than previously thought on Java. Lubenow had the good grace to
admit this possibility. This is consistent with the rest of the evidence. The Wadjak fauna is
modern, and hence Wadjak Man is considered to be less than 50,000 years old, and more
probably about 10,000 years old. The Trinil fauna contains many more extinct species, and is
hence older. Basically, Lubenow argues that Wadjak Man and Java Man are the same age
because a single species of tapir is in both faunas, ignoring that there are many other species
not shared between the faunas, and that the extinct species are exclusively in the Trinil fauna.
Lubenow stated that Dubois concealed the Wadjak fossils because the discrepancy of the tapir
would have contradicted his claim that Java Man was far older than Wadjak. This seems
implausible because Dubois was one of the earliest collectors in Java, and detailed information
on the Javan faunas was not compiled until decades later (Hooijer, 1951).
The tapir was probably not singled out for mention by Hooijer because it is an anomaly, as
Lubenow seems to suspect. It was probably of interest because this species of tapir is still
living in South East Asia, and is not, as Lubenow states, extinct. Hooijer only stated that it was
extinct in Java, not elsewhere.
Parker (Morris and Parker, 1982) expresses puzzlement that Johanson (1981) and so do
I, puzzled that is, why Parker, considers Java Man to be a valid fossil. It is of course a valid
fossil because the skullcap had to belong to something, but Parker merely dismisses it as"bad
science". (He seems to be of the opinion that it was an ape, but does not say so explicitly.)
Peking Man is another favorite target. Creationists claim that the Peking Man fossils are the
remains of apes or monkeys eaten by real humans; that the original fossils may have been
disposed of to conceal the evidence of fraud; that only models of the fossils remain; and that
they are distorted to fit evolutionist preconceptions. Gish (1985) discusses Peking Man
extensively, drawing most of his material from Boule and Vallois (1957).
This book, which was almost 30 years old when Gish wrote, was a light revision by Vallois of a
book that had originally been written by Boule another 20 years or so previously (Boule died
in 1942).
Gish, citing the "fact" that the bases of the skulls had been bashed in so the brains could be
extracted, states that "All authorities agree that every one of the Sinanthropus [Peking Man]
individuals had been killed by hunters and eaten."
That may have been true in 1957 (although Boule and Vallois do not say so). Boule and Vallois
do discuss the claims of various evolutionists that Sinanthropus had been eaten by modern
man, or by Sinanthropus himself (i.e. cannibalism). Gish ignores the latter option and declares
that since humans were responsible, Sinanthropus could not have been our ancestor, and must
have been a giant ape. This is of course incorrect. Both can and did coexist. Almost all recent
authorities (Jia (1990) is an exception) reject as unsupported the idea that Sinanthropus was
hunted. The missing skull parts are the most fragile parts which are least likely to be
preserved.
It is most probable that the skulls were the prey of hyenas, the bones and faeces of which were
often found in the excavation. So Gish's argument fails on multiple grounds: there is no proof,
or even good evidence, that the Sinanthropus skulls were eaten by anyone, let alone modern
humans. Even if they were, it would still not disqualify Peking Man from being a primitive
human. That word primitive I feel suggests of someone who is trying to dig himself out of a
hole.
Gish's claim that the skullcaps are of apes is similarly far fetched. The largest skullcap, about
1225 cc, is twice as large as that of a large male gorilla. Any ape with a brain that size would
be enormous, but no such ape has been found at Zhoukoudian or anywhere else, and the jaws
of Peking Man are much smaller than those of a gorilla but larger than one of which is
attached to a body that even Gish recognizes as human (the Turkana Boy). It makes more
sense to assume that Peking Man belonged to the same species than to hypothesize giant apes.
Gish claims that "The features of the lower jaws described by Boule and Vallois were all
apelike except for the shape of the dental arcade...".
In fact, Boule and Vallois list 3 apelike characteristics, and 1 human like characteristic, but
state that there are more of both. They agree with the conclusion of Weidenreich, who said the
lower jaws present "a veritable intermingling of pithecoid [apelike] and human characters".
Gish similarly claims the teeth were apelike, "with very few exceptions". Boule and Vallois do
state that the teeth are apelike, though not as emphatically as Gish does. They list 6 features, 3
apelike, 1 human like, and two others whose significance is unclear. I say that this is a sad
reflection on what experts are and what they are supposed to know as fact. Gish does not
mention the few skeletal bones that were found, probably because Boule and Vallois'
discussion shows that they were all similar or identical to the same bones in modern humans,
although the limb bone fragments were very thick. Boule and Vallois suspected that they
might not belong to the same creatures as the skulls, but modern finds have confirmed that
Homo erectus does have a primitive skull combined with a robust but essentially modern
skeleton.
His conclusion that Sinanthropus was an ape is reached by emphasizing the apelike features of
the fossils, and downplaying the human features. This conclusion is not supported by Boule
and Vallois, any of the other authors quoted by them, or any modern authorities. The opinions
are divided as to whether Sinanthropus is advanced enough to be called human, but no one
considers it an ape. Boule and Vallois state that Peking Man has "physical characters
intermediate between the group of Anthropoid Apes and the group of Homo", and that many
characters of the skull "which, if they do not yet conform exactly to the human morphological
type, are singularly close to it".
Another claim is that only models of the fossils remain, which, because they were made by
committed evolutionists, may not be accurate copies. Gish appears to be confused about the
words "cast" and "model", once using them as if they were synonymous. A cast, made from a
mold of the fossil, is an almost exact duplicate. Excellent casts of the Peking Man fossils were
made, and are mentioned in many books, including that of the creationist author Lubenow
(1992).
The models of complete skulls Gish refers to may partly reflect the subjective views of their
maker since missing information will have had to be guessed at, but the primary evidence of
Peking Man's affinities remains the casts and extensive documentation of the original
material, not reconstructed skulls.
Gish's statement that "All we have available are the models fashioned by Weidenreich" is
totally untrue. He also states that a model of a Sinanthropus skull by Weidenreich, shown in
Boule and Vallois, differs glaringly from their earlier text descriptions, and from a model of
Java Man shown earlier in the book. Weidenreich's model (which does look more human like
than one might expect from Boule's description) was made using parts of at least 4 different
individuals. By that time all of the Peking Man material had been found, and almost all
portions of the skull were known, so Weidenreich's reconstruction is likely to be accurate.
The brain case, for example, was precisely known and is clearly far more similar to that of a
modern human than any ape. The Java Man reconstruction relied on fewer and less complete
fossils, so is not as reliable. Part of the difference is probably also due to the Java Man skulls
having a flatter, receding forehead compared to the more convex Peking Man skulls
(Burenhult, 1993) (and, in fact, a flatter forehead is the major difference between what Gish
says are "glaringly" different reconstructions).
If Boule was biased, as Gish claims, it was in making Sinanthropus appear more apelike than
it really was. Gish, in asserting that Peking Man was an ape, is adding to Boule's bias, rather
than correcting for it. Gish nowhere explains why the discrepancy between Boule's
description of a creature intermediate between ape and human and Weidenreich's more
human like reconstruction provides evidence that Peking Man was an ape. If Peking Man
were an ape, Weidenreich must have been unbelievably incompetent to produce such a human
like reconstruction. Come on! This man knew his stuff and he did a good job.
The descriptions of Weidenreich and his work often use words such as "meticulous,
"compulsively careful", "detailed", and the casts he made of the Peking Man fossils are
usually described as "excellent". In addition, Weidenreich produced hundreds of pages of
monographs on the fossils, with photos, measurements, drawings, and even X-rays. On saying
that I know that Weidenreich was no fool, knew his stuff and did not talk of the top of his
head.
The only way these fossils could be apes would be if Weidenreich systematically fabricated not
only the skull reconstruction, but his entire body of work. Even this would not be sufficient, as
some of the earlier fossils were photographed, described, and had casts made of them, before
Weidenreich ever saw them. Many other scientists also saw the original fossils. Unless there
was widespread conspiracy and a cover among all the people who found, worked on,
photographed and saw the fossils, they are genuine. Oh no, an Archaeology Watergate! As a
testimony to the accuracy of the casts, some skull parts found in 1966 fit perfectly with casts of
earlier portions to make most of a skullcap.
Gish changed his mind as he changed his underpants and says that if Weidenreich's model is
considered accurate, Boule and Vallois' claim that Peking Man is intermediate between ape
and man could hardly be rejected. Therefore, these fossils are, according to Gish's own logic,
indisputable transitional forms.
The other source used by Gish is "Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis" (1969) by
Rev. Patrick O'Connell, a Roman Catholic priest who was in China during the 1930's.
O'Connell claimed that Peking Man was a large scale fraud, which presumably would have
had to involve most of the people working with the fossils, and that the fossils may have been
deliberately destroyed to remove the evidence. O'Connell never visited Choukoutien I should
point out,never saw the fossils, apparently had no relevant expertise, and if he had any
evidence for his wild claims, Gish does not give it. Gish, while not endorsing these claims, is at
least sympathetic to them. O'Connell's work appears to not have enough substance to be
worth addressing.The priest of course was working for a higher power in Rome and above!
Gish also states "Boule had visited Peking and Choukoutien and had examined the originals."
C. Loring Brace, in a debate with Gish in 1982, called this "pure invention". Boule never
visited either place, and worked from photos and descriptions. Despite this correction, Gish
has repeated the assertion in 1985, and in debates as recently as 1992. (Fezer, 1993)
The effort Gish took in discrediting Peking Man seems totally wasted, and I would go as far to
sat, manic as it is all nullified by the more competent work of Lubenow (1992), another
creationist. Lubenow accepts Peking Man as Homo erectus as a matter of course, and,
although he must have been familiar with Gish's criticisms, apparently did not consider any of
them worth repeating. Of course my research shows that Gish had an Axe to grind and he
comes across strongly as a Right Man and everyone else is wrong and should have no say in
the matter.
No creationist who discusses the human fossil record avoids mentioning Piltdown Man or
Nebraska Man. Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) was discovered in England by an
amateur, Charles Dawson, between 1908 and 1912. It was made up of parts of a surprisingly
modern-looking skull associated with a apelike lower jaw. Later fragments found in 1913 and
1915 also seemed to have a mixture of ape and human characteristics, and damped down
suspicion that the original bones were from two unrelated creatures. In 1953 Piltdown was
discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orang-utan jaw. Well
before then, Piltdown had become a puzzling anomaly when compared to all other hominid
fossils, and the scientific community was relieved to be able to forget about it. The reason for
this I have no doubt was they had egg on their faces and their reputations were at stake as
they were so called experts in their field.
The community of experts were embarrassed by the uncovering the truth of Piltdown, and
those that were already dead must have done many turns in their graves. A number of these
scientists had made foolish statements about the skull, throwing in their five pence of
knowledge on its "unmistakably apelike characteristics." Ye Gods of wisdom spare me!
Piltdown's acceptance was probably helped by the fact that it conformed to prejudices about
what a primitive human skull would look like. In fact a number of scientists did believe that
the cranium and jaw were not from the same creature, but no-one had suspected forgery
because of their inflated Egos.
Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was named from two human like teeth found
in 1922. As creationists tell it, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of
primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations
revealed the tooth to belong to a pig. The true story is much more complex (Wolf and Mellett,
1984; Gould,1991).
The imaginative drawing was the work of an illustrator collaborating with an English
scientist, and was done for the Illustrated London News, not for a scientific publication.
Few other scientists claimed it was a human ancestor. Some, including the finders, identified it
only as an ape of some kind. Many others were skeptical even of that. It is an exaggeration to
claim that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as human, or even as an ape, by scientists.
Identifying the tooth as belonging to a higher primate was not as foolish as it sounds; pig
cheek teeth are extremely similar to those of humans, and the specimen was worn, making
identification even harder. Creationists did claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of
evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is a pie in the sky.
No scientific evidence was presented at the trial. (Some evidence was read into the trial
record, but even this did not refer to Nebraska Man.) Nebraska Man should not be considered
an embarrassment. The scientists involved were mistaken, but not incompetent or dishonest.
The whole episode was actually an excellent example of how the scientific process should
work. Given the identification process, scientists went out, found further data which falsified
their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them.
Creationists point out, correctly, that Neandertals were human, but they end to exaggerate
their similarity to modern humans: The creationists in those days [the 1860's] responded 'Now
wait a minute Neanderthals are just plain people, some of whom suffered bone disease.
Nowadays, evolutionists agree with creationists: Neanderthals were just plain people, no more
different from people living today than people than one living nation is different from
another" Parker in (Morris and Parker, 1982). "Nowadays, Neanderthal Man is classified as
Homo sapiens, completely human" (Huse, 1983).
Actually, Neandertals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of man, in
recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust
skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a
separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were
real differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right. Creationists claimed that
the differences were a result of various diseases, and they were wrong. For Parker to claim
that creationists won this debate is a rewriting of history.
A century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were
merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but
by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of these and other health problems.
But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or
any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many,
individuals.
Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of
Neanderthal features.
Last century the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first
Neanderthal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) pointed
out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how wrong this
diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are
slender and weakened.

The bones of the first Neanderthal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the
average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extremely athletic and muscular species.
Lubenow (1992), relying on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (1970), claims that
Neandertals (and H. erectus and the archaic sapiens) were caused by a post-Flood ice age:
heavy cloud cover, the need to shelter, and wear heavy clothes, and a lack of vitamin D
sources, would all have combined to cause rickets. This explanation fails for many reasons:
Rickets does not produce a Neanderthal, or Homo erectus morphology;
it is clear from many sources (Reader, 1981; Tattersall, 1995) that the original Neanderthal
skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a well-
known disease. Even Virchow did not, as Lubenow implies, accept rickets as a sole cause.
Virchow in 1872 decided that the Neanderthal Man had had rickets in childhood, head
injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people
strains credibility, to say the least.
Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering would have required
them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably a lot more time than most modern urban
humans). The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are mostly found
in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always tropical; the reverse of what would be
predicted by Lubenow's hypothesis.
Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down by the Flood. And yet
there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood" humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low
population and little fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not find
large numbers of fossilized per-Flood humans?
Creationists sometimes imply that a paper by Straus and Cave (1957) showed that
Neandertals were identical to modern humans. Straus and Cave overturned the stereotype,
created by Boule, that the Neanderthals were Ape Men with a shambling gait and a
divergent big toe, and showed instead that their posture was identical to ours. But they went
on to add: "This is not to deny that his limbs, as well as his skull, exhibit distinctive features -
features which collectively distinguish him from all groups of modern men." (Straus and
Cave, 1957)
The exhibit on Neandertals at the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) Museum says (or
used to say): "Many Neanderthal features are similar to those in elderly humans today. Since
humans lived to great ages in the initial generations after the flood and Babel, perhaps the
features are primarily due to advanced age...". In fact, none of the distinctive features of
Neandertals are similar to those of old people, least of all powerful bones and muscles. This
argument is far out because even Neanderthal children are distinctive. Who wrote this also
thinks that Neandertals are arthritic modern humans.
At least two evolutionary scientists have revived the idea that Neanderthal morphology may
be a result of congenital diseases such as rickets (Ivanhoe,1970) or syphilis (Wright, 1971).
According to Day (1986), neither of these cases was adequately supported or subsequently
justified. Both claims seem to have sunk without a trace, except among creationists. Gish goes
even further, dishonestly implying that even the scientific community accepts these claims:
"They have now concluded that these primitive features of Neanderthal people were not
genetic, they were pathological." (Gish, 1985)
Straus and Cave made a very striking comment about Neandertals:
"If he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway - provided that he were
bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothing - it is doubtful whether he would attract any
more attention than some of its other denizens". This may be a source of the creationist idea
that Neandertals are "just plain people" (Morris and Parker, 1982).
Note, though, that this is not what the quote says. Anyone who has traveled the Big Apple's
subway will probably agree that Neandertals could look quite odd and still meet Straus and
Cave's rather lax criterion.
Gish (1985) distorts this quote by claiming that a Neanderthal in a business suit could walk
down a city street and not attract more attention than any other individual, a statement that is
probably false.
Johanson and Edey (1981) extend the example by saying that if you put Homo erectus on a
subway, "people would probably take a suspicious look at him". Put Homo habilis on the
subway, and "people would probably move to the other end of the car".
Berra (1990) states that "if cleaned up, shaved and dressed in business suits, [Neandertals]
could probably pass for television evangelists." God forbid the thought even!
The following quote from Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) refutes claims that Neandertals differ
no more from modern humans than living races do from each other:
"Rare individuals among modern humans may share one, or even a few, of the anatomical
characteristics of Neandertals, but not one human - much less any population - can be found
that possesses the entire constellation of traits that define Neandertals" .

I found this to be true in my research in populations in Wales, Cornwall and SE Ireland and
people watching in cities worldwide. If you know what you are looking for then from a
genetic point of view some of the features stand out in both males and females.
A common creationist claim is that humans existed alongside or predated all of their
presumed ancestors in the fossil record. Taylor (1992) contains a long list of supposed
examples (with the disclaimer "Remains which some researchers have suggested as evidence
that the various "missing links" were contemporaneous, or that man and these creatures were
contemporaneous"). I suggest for the moment that the evidence is lacking on this but more
research is needed. Many of these cases are various hominid fossils which appear in the
correct position in the fossil record. Some of these have already been mentioned: the
Petralona specimen, 1470, the Turkana Boy, and the Krapina specimens.
Other examples are:
Laetoli footprints: creationists invariably mention the close resemblance between these and
modern human footprints, but often neglect to mention their extremely small size and the fact
they are similar to the feet of the australopithecines living at the same time (exactly how
similar is a matter of debate).
KP 271: Lubenow (1992) states that this is indistinguishable from a human bone, Parker and
Morris (1982) state that it is a human bone. Lubenow quotes a number of scientists who state
that KP 271 is very human like, but not Feldesman (1982), who found that KP 271, "far from
being more 'human- like' than Australopithecus,clearly associates with the hyper robust
Australopithecines from Lake Turkana".
KP 271 has usually been assigned to the australopithecines (and recently to A. anamensis)
because no other hominids are known from 4 million years ago. But not yet found? Although
Lubenow considers this conclusion "shocking", there are plausible reasons for it. The lower
humerus of chimps is quite similar to that of humans, and it is reasonable to suppose that
australopithecines would be even more similar, especially since the upper end of the humerus
in australopithecines is known to fall within the human range. Patterson and Howell (1967)
state that both KP 271 and the australopithecine upper humerus were, based on their
measurements, virtually identically to some modern humans, yet Lubenow is able to conclude
that KP 271 is "strikingly close" [his italics] to modern humans, while the upper humerus is
only "quite similar, based on visual assessment". Because the lower humerus is poorly known
in hominids, and is a poor diagnostic indicator, it is premature to claim that KP 271 cannot be
an australopithecine fossil.
I suggest that if you take the above as it is but will also add that if a duck, looks, swims and
flies like a duck it is a duck. The problem still arises for the unwary. What species of duck?
Swanscombe Man: two cranium fragments discovered in 1935 and 1936 by Alvan Marston in
England, and a third fragment, discovered in 1955, which fit with the earlier ones. The bones
are very thick, with a mixture of primitive and modern features, and an estimated brain size
of 1325 cc. They are probably from an archaic Homo sapiens, a view compatible with their
estimated age of 200,000 to 300,000 years. (Day, 1986)
Fontechevade Man: a skullcap fragment which is difficult to classify, and whose dating is
doubtful, it is probably also an archaic H. sapiens but I or others cannot produce evidence
beyond doubt that this is the case.
Vertesszollos Man: a few tooth fragments, and part of an adult cranium. The cranial fragment
is very thick and broad, with a mixture of modern and primitive features. This is also
considered to be probably an archaic sapiens. This would match its age, which has variously
been estimated to be from 160,000 to over 350,000 years. (Day, 1986)
Do we take this as fact or question the findings. I suggest it would be much better to suggest
not known.
Of the other "anomalous" hominid fossils, most are of fossil humans that have since been
discovered to be intrusions, i.e. they have been buried in deposits that are older than they are.
Examples are: Abbeville, or Moulin Quignon, Jaw: discovered by Jacques Boucher de Perthes
in 1863 at Abbeville in France. This was a modern-looking jaw that had come from very old
deposits. I suggest that because of strong evidence that it was a modern jaw that had
been"planted", probably by de Perthes' workmen, who were paid for good finds, few
scientists have ever accepted it as genuine. (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992) A bit of moonlight
grave robbery in those days would help things along in the bone department and the purse I
say.
Oldoway Man: a skull and skeleton found by Hans Reck at Olduvai Gorge in 1913. In 1932 it
was shown to be a modern Homo sapiens, buried 20,000 years ago in older deposits that had
been exposed by faulting (Johanson and Shreeve, 1989).
Taylor (1992) writes "Some have suggested this skeleton is an intrusive burial", when in fact
this explanation has been unanimously accepted (even by the notoriously stubborn Louis
Leakey).
Kanjera Man, Kanam Jaw: discovered by Louis Leakey in 1932, and claimed by him to be
very old. The dating however proved to be uncertain, and both are probably modern bones.
(Johanson and Shreeve, 1989; Lewin, 1987)
Castenedolo Man: Morris and Parker (1982) say "Fossils of ordinary people in Mid-Tertiary
rock [i.e. tens of millions of years old; the actual date is about 1.5 million years] were found in
Castenedolo, Italy back in the late 1800's...".
Wait for it! An official report on these skeletons in 1899 noted that all the fossils from the
deposit were impregnated with salt, except the human ones. This implies that they are from
relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon dating in 1969 confirmed
this. (Conrad, 1982)
Guadeloupe Man: W. Cooper claimed in 1983 that a modern skeleton found on Guadeloupe in
1812 had been dated at 25 million years old, in the Miocene period. The excellent condition of
the skeleton, and the fact that it had originally been found with other skeletons (all pointing in
the same direction) along with a dog and some implements, indicate that it was a recent
burial. In addition, it has never been claimed to be from Miocene deposits by anyone except
Cooper. (Howgate and Lewis, 1984)
Galley Hill Man: this was a modern-looking skeleton discovered in 1888 in old deposits. Even
last century, many thought it was a modern human, and this was confirmed in 1948 when it
was fluorine dated (Trinkaus and Shipman, 1992).
Henry Morris has claimed (1974) that since 10,000 year old Homo erectus skulls were found at
Kow Swamp in Australia, erectus cannot be the ancestor of modern man. The logic is faulty,
since there is no reason that a population of erectus could not have survived long after Homo
sapiens first appeared. Morris also has his facts wrong. Characteristics of the Kow Swamp
skulls led to suggestions that some Homo erectus features had survived in them, as the quote
Morris gives from Thorne and Macumber (1972) clearly states. Morris' claim that they are
erectus skulls or other remains is incorrect.
It is now thought that the most prominent such primitive feature, flattened foreheads, may
have been caused by the cultural practice of head-binding (Day, 1986; Gamble, 1993).
Lubenow (1992) makes a stronger case that the Kow skulls are H. erectus, claiming that the
pathological or cultural causes suggested for them could equally well be applied to much older
erectus skulls. Lubenow claims that the Kow skulls meet many criteria for H. erectus, but
gives no documentation for this, other than showing that they are more primitive than
modern skulls. It is possible that the Kow skulls are primitive by modern standards, without
reaching the degree of primitiveness of archaic sapiens, or erectus, skulls, but Lubenow gives
no evidence which would exclude this possibility. His claims are flatly contradicted by Gamble
(1993) "There is no doubt that all the people who have ever lived on the continent [Australia]
would qualify as anatomically modern humans", and Burenhult (1993) "Analysis of these
skeletons has shown conclusively that all are of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens". That
of course leaves New Zealand to now find the answer to the riddle in the swamp and help the
Aussies out here!
Thorne and Macumber (1972) mention that the frontal bones of the skull are particularly
archaic, being very similar to some of the Java erectus skulls. This means the rest of the skull
is not, particularly since it is also stated the skulls show preservation of early sapiens
characteristics. In addition, Kennedy (1984) shows that the femurs of the Kow skeletons are
identical to those of modern humans, and significantly distinct from those of those of Homo
erectus.
Some creationists point to Olduvai Gorge, where australopithecines are found
contemporaneously with Homo habilis and erectus, above another layer which contains the
remains of a circular stone habitation, apparently made by humans. How could
australopithecines be the ancestor of habilis, or habilis of erectus, if they are all found
together? And how could erectus be the ancestor of modern man, if traces of modern man are
found below it? There are a number of errors in this reasoning. First, the australopithecines in
question are robust, and are not considered as ancestors of Homo. Even if they were, there is
no reason why they could not coexist with a descendant species. (Example of this is the crow
family in the UK, jackdaws can live in the same area as Carrion or Hooded crows, Ravens
with jays and magpies, choughs with jackdaws and Ravens.)
Glory be! The claim that the stone circle is an artifact has been dropped. It is only a rough
arrangement, and could have just as easily have been formed by water or other activity at any
time in the past. Even if it was artificial, there is no reason to believe that habilis or erectus
would have been incapable of making it.
Well folks I know that Chimps and other small apes can and do build small walls as a wind
break and Baboons do this in areas where there is plenty of stones for the same use.
Brain sizes vary considerably within any species, and I should add to the same species, but
this variation is not usually related to intelligence. Instead, it correlates loosely with body size:
large people tend to have larger brains. As a result, women on average will have smaller
brains than men, and Pygmies will have smaller brains than Zulus, but the average
intelligence of all these groups is, as far as we can tell, the same. Dont go smiling, women or at
least most of them are well ahead of males when it comes down to multitasking on a daily
bases. Ask any women the question why in holy paintings do Adam and Eve have belly
buttons. They will give you two answers if not three and they will be right.
Note: For convenience, I use the term "brain size" instead of "cranial capacity".
Because the brain does not fill the cranial cavity, the brain size is smaller than the cranial
capacity, but the latter value is, obviously, the only one that can be determined from a skull.
Figures for the average brain size of modern humans tend to vary between sources, but a
typical value is 1350 or 1400 cc. I know this as I have removed many brains and weighed them
as part of my job in a Pathology Hospital in Dublin and Belfast. The following figures should
convey a feel for the normal range of variation in human skulls. Burenhult (1993) states that
the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040- 1595 cc, and that the extreme range is 900-2000 cc.
S.J. Gould, in "The Mis measurement of Man", reviewed a 19th century study by Morton of
600 skulls which ranged from 950 to 1870 cc (and 25% of this sample was of small-statured
Peruvians, so the figure of 950 cc is, if anything, lower than it might be for 600 randomly
selected humans). Morton also cataloged his skulls by race, with the lowest average for any
racial group being 1230 cc.
Various sources, some of them creationist, give lower limits for human brain size of 900 cc
(twice), 855 cc, and 830 cc. Normal humans are found with values smaller than this, but they
are very rare. Microcephalics, who are subnormal in intelligence, can be as low as 600 cc, but
this is a pathological condition and such skulls cannot be considered normal. But what is
normal?
Compare this range with that of the 5 measurable Java Man skulls. These average 930 cc (less
than the minimum of the 600 modern skulls cited above), with the smallest being 815 cc.
Moreover, unlike modern humans with low brain sizes, these skulls are very robust, with
flattened brain cases and large brow ridges. These figures also show how extraordinary the
Turkana Boy is. As an adult, he would have been over 183 cm (6'0") tall, large even by
modern standards.
Modern men of that stature could be expected to have a brain size of at least 1500 cc, but the
Turkana Boy's estimated adult brain size of 910 cc is smaller than all but a fraction of 1% of
modern humans of all sizes and both sexes. For comparison, 900 cc is a typical brain size for a
modern child of 3 or 4 years weighing 15 kg (33 lbs).
Lubenow (1992) states that the normal human range is 700-2200 cc. Part of the reason for this
wide range is that we have a huge sample size, compared to any extinct species. Obviously,
skulls at the extreme ends of that range will be very rare. It is clearly outdated for Lubenow to
claim that ER 1470, at 750 cc, is "well within the normal human range", when it is well below
what most people consider a minimum size for normal modern humans. One might equally
validly claim that 4'0" (122 cm) is a normal adult height on the grounds that some people are
only 3'6" (107 cm) tall. The probability of finding an adult human skull as small as ER 1470 is
very remote (probably less than 1/10,000). but they may well be there.
It is far more probable that 1470 was a fairly typical member of its population, rather than an
extreme case. This is what we find: other habilis fossils, very similar to 1470, are even smaller,
well below Lubenow's lower limit of 700 cc. Chimpanzees have a brain size between 300 and
500 cc, with an average of 400 cc. Gorillas have an average brain size of 500 cc, with large
individuals going up to 700 cc, or even 750 in one instance. Hominids are best compared with
the similar-sized chimpanzees than the much larger gorillas it is said but I feel human emotion
gets in the way of this data as Chimps have more human faces and therefore more likable
and would be easy excepted. That is if you can also except ugly human babies that look like
chimps or small apes, even pig faced and as long as it is not yours you can deal with it.
Lubenow states that "the crucial element is not brain size but brain organization. A large
gorilla brain is no closer to the human condition than is a small gorilla brain". That is true,
but many of the H. habilis fossils that Lubenow, and all other creationists, claim to be apes do
come close to the human condition: the insides of their skulls show that they had many
modern features (Tobias, 1988). Some of them also had brain sizes between 600 and 700 cc;
smaller than any human, but much larger than any chimpanzee, and a respectable size even
for a gorilla.
Between species, average brain size, when a corrective formula for body size is applied, is a
fair indicator of relative intelligence. The results are approximate, because they depend on
which formula is used, and also on brain and body size, both of which are difficult to estimate
for most fossil hominids. However it seems australopithecines were roughly as smart as, or
probably a bit smarter than, chimps.
Homo habilis and erectus were intermediate between chimps and modern humans. Walker
and Leakey (1993) and Tobias (1988) have good overviews of attempts to estimate the relative
intelligence of hominid species.
The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book "Bones of Contention" is that the various
species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in
time. I have used this book as part of my research and it is well used and getting past its sell
by date.
He argues that a species cannot survive once it has given rise to a new species. Unlike other
creationists, he does attempt to give some justification for this. Supposedly, the newer, fitter
descendant species, would, because of its superiority, drive its parent species to extinction. The
argument is incorrect because members of the parent species may live in a separate region
from the new species. If the species come into contact again, there may be no competition
because they have diverged enough to occupy different ecological niches. (Many scientists
would argue that even the requirement for a separate region is unnecessary.)
It is a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to claim that a new species is "superior", in
some absolute sense, to its parent species. Typically, both species will be "superior" at living in
their own niches. This argument is so broad that it would not only disprove human evolution
but all evolution; Lubenow is basically asserting that a species cannot split into two species.
This is not the view of specialization accepted by evolutionists, since it would follow that the
number of living species could never increase.
The argument is also contradicted by real world examples, such as that of the 13 species of
finch which live on the Galapagos Islands or members of the Finch family in the UK and
Ireland. There is such compelling evidence that these are descended from a common ancestor
that even most creationists accept them as evidence of evolution "within a created kind".
If Lubenow was correct, even such micro-evolution would be impossible. By his argument,
newly-evolved finch species should drive their ancestors to extinction. This does not happen,
of course, because they all live on different foods and habitats.
Two., Lubenow claims that, in some cases, a descendant species existed before the species it
supposedly descended from. This is I should point out, impossible under evolutionary theory.
For example, Lubenow claims that Homo erectus overlaps the entire time range in which
Homo habilis is found. The oldest dated habilis specimen he lists is about 1.9 million years old
(with a possibility that another was as much as 2.35 million years old).
As Lubenow criticizes Klein (1989) for showing a graph in which habilis is shown preceding
erectus in time, when none of the habilis fossils discussed by Klein are dated before 1.9 million
years ago. In this case, Lubenow has not read Klein carefully enough or if he did, then it went
over his head, or it was dismissed outright. Klein does mention the presence of habilis-like
fossils found at about 2.3 million years.
These are a few fragmentary teeth attributed to Homo, found at Omo in Ethiopia, and dated
to 2.3-2.4 million years (Howell et al.1987). They are it seems,relatively unimportant, and it is
not surprising that Klein would not give them any further discussion. But there is no reason to
believe that fossils have been found over the entire range of time for which habilis existed.
Almost all habilis fossils have been found in the rich deposits of Olduvai Gorge and Koobi
Fora (less than 2 million years old), while there is a scarcity of fossiliferous regions between 2
and 2.5 million years. One might expect further fossil finds to extend the time range in which
H. habilis is known, and that is what has happened. Hill et al.(1992) did carry out, analyses of
a skull bone, KNM-BC 1, found in Kenya in 1967. They identified it as belong to the genus
Homo (though not to erectus or sapiens), and have dated it at 2.4 million years.
And Schrenk et al.(1993) have announced the discovery in Malawi of a hominid lower jaw, UR
501, that they have attributed to Homo rudolfensis (a proposed habilis-like species). This fossil
has been fauna dated between 2.3 and 2.5 million years.
Lubenow claims that humans are found up to 4.5 million years ago, before any
australopithecines. Before 2 million years ago, the evidence for this consists of only two fossils,
the Laetoli footprints and the Kanapoi Hominid (since dated at 4.1 million years). This is
Lubenow's strongest argument, because both fossils are, arguably, from humans. The problem
is that there is not enough other evidence to exclude the possibility that both belong to
australopithecines. More diagnostic fossils such as skulls, or partial skeletons, could prove the
existence of humans, but so far, all such evidence points only to the existence of
australopithecines past 3 million years ago.
There are more fossils which Lubenow considers to be sapiens, but which are as old as the
earliest erectus fossils (about 2 million years). These consist of some undoubted habilis fossils
such as ER 1470, and some fossils usually assigned to erectus or habilis. The reason they were
assigned as such I feel is because they did not know their hip bone from their skull bones and
would not stick their necks out and say simply, we dont know.
These fossils are all of body parts which are difficult to classify, because other Homo species
are both poorly known, and not that different below the neck, as far as we know, from modern
humans. Lubenow admits the difficulty but assigns them to H. sapiens anyway.
Why?
Most of Lubenow's book is devoted to documenting the overlaps which he believes falsify
human evolution. Once it is realized that this argument is based on an elementary
misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, there is little left of his book that needs to be
refuted. Keep in mind that when one reads creationist literature about the human fossil
record, there is a definite pattern in the fossils that are selected for discussion.
When I say, selected that is what happened, because knowledge being what it was at the time,
the more profile examples were used and therefore much may have been missed in the left out
sampling of fossils of a lower order. Why or why do we let the blind lead the blind in matters
like this?
Huse (1983), in a summary of "some of the more significant so-called fossil ape-men",
discusses the insignificant Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the Neandertals, and the
original Java Man fossil, ignoring all other H. erectus fossils, H. habilis, and A. africanus.
Taylor (1992), ("Each of the most famous 'missing links' is discussed") devotes only two
sentences to H. habilis, mentioning no fossils by name and dismissing it as an ape. Taylor also
makes use of the past tense to imply that even evolutionists no longer accept habilis as a
transitional form -an implication which is totally incorrect. For H. erectus, only Peking Man
and the original Java Man fossil are mentioned in the main text.
Parker (Morris and Parker, 1982) claims that "all the candidates once proposed as our
evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list", and then proceeds to give the list,
which is inexplicably lacking H. erectus (it is lumped in with Java Man) and H. habilis, and
the gracile australopithecines.
(Parker then contradicts himself,it seems, by admitting that the gracile australopithecines are
still possible candidates). I say to those that say a Bee is just a bee, I say no, it is more, it is a
species of bee of which there are many world wide.
Gish (1985) discusses Java Man, Peking Man and ER 1470, but almost totally omits mention
of all other H. habilis and H. erectus fossils.
Lubenow (1992) alone appears to be aware of all the fossil material, and comes closest to
addressing the evidence, but he fails to discuss some of the more compelling intermediate
fossils such as OH 7, OH 24 and ER 1813 (because his book is about the human fossil record,
and he considers most habilis specimens to be apes). Lubenow, I feel is the only creationist to
claiming that the Java Man and Peking Man fossils are apes. Creationists appear to avoid
discussion of the fossils that are the best evidence for human evolution. These include fossils
such as OH 9, ER 3733 and Sangiran 17 (human but with primitive features), Sts 5 (apelike,
but with some modern features) and OH 7, OH 13, OH 24, and ER 1813 (that they are
difficult to classify).
With reference to the above, it is almost impossible to find a creationist work that does not
mention Nebraska Man (Lubenow is the one exception), despite the fact that it was at best
weak evidence for human evolution even during its brief heyday 70 years ago, the year of my
first birthday and Piltdown Man, despite the fact that the hoax was discovered over 40 years
ago.
Ramapithecus, which was often claimed to be a human ancestor in the 1960's and 70's, also
gets mentioned frequently. Some transitional fossils are often mentioned in creationist
literature, typically Java Man and Peking Man, and sometimes ER 1470. This is probably
because most creationists, knowing little about the fossils and copying their information from
another creationist source, are under the mistaken impression that these fossils have been
shown to be either ape or fully human.
When creationists do perform their own research, they show a surprising inability to agree on
which fossils are apes and which are humans: which is exactly what one would expect if
evolution had occurred. Even more surprisingly, creationists do almost no anatomical
comparisons, even of the fossils they do discuss. They will flatly assert that a fossil is a human
or an ape. Nor do they provide photographs, so that their readers could judge for themselves
whether the fossils are transitional or not. It could be that they do not know how to use a
camera and are in another swamp of their own making.
As most of them claim, Java Man is an ape, a comparative photo of an ape, Java Man and a
human would be an easy way to demonstrate it. If they are confident in their interpretation of
the data, why do they not show the evidence to their readers? The answer to this I feel and of
the informed opinion that creationist literature is its approach to scientific authority. What
little there is of it.
Creationists appear to make no attempt to weigh evidence; they often accept uncritically any
statement made by a scientist which can be used to advantage, while ignoring any contrary
opinions. Scientists used in this way include Oxnard, Zuckerman, and Ivanhoe. Their results
are often treated as if they were authoritative, when in reality they are very much minority
opinions in the scientific community.
Of course the creationist approach of allocating all fossils to either apes or humans is
dishonest, because it excludes intermediates by defining them away. No creationist ever
defines what would be acceptable as a valid transitional fossil, because examples could be
found to fit any reasonable definition. Instead, creationists are forced to take pot-shots at
irrelevant fossils, misrepresent a few carefully selected examples, and ignore the strongest
evidence for human evolution.
The pathology of early humans is of great interest to anyone looking at our past. Getting it
right of course is much more difficult not only that we tend to forget all too easy or dismiss it
out of hand the psychology and the paranormal side of such beings. Early man did have a
brain but I have to question when it became activated, dreams started, and the paranormal
aspect came into the picture. The brain of course would need a stimulus for such thinking and
dreaming but first let us look at the modern human from the present day backwards to when
the missing link was supposed to be. It all starts with the brain and within the brain of course
and its function, lies hidden fears of death and the spirit world even in early man. It is easy to
see that many of the above were carried or imprinted into the brains of many of our past
families along at times with some forms of mental illness as it is called today.
With very early man then they would have been concerned only with the dead, basic
astronomy, seasons, and rituals of a bloody nature, food, fire and shelter. There would have
also been forms of mental illnesses much as we have today as well as bone disease because of
the high intake of vitamin A from the livers of carnivores which they would have also killed
and eaten as food. Very early man had one thing in mind at all times and that was to survive
as long as he/she could before dying from disease, being killed by a wild animal,starvation,
accident or killed by its own kind for food. Death was an everyday event and it was kill or be
killed but whatever was killed was eaten.
From a psychology point of view and early mankind things are not as easy clear-cut.
Any mammal can learn new skills, taught that there is a reward at the end of it or in the case
where humans train them, to do many things, and the upright apes of the times were such that
they could put things to good use and pass it on by example. Apes to day can and do use tools,
like sticks, rocks and so on but I know of no Ape today that can light a fire and use it to cook
on or for heat at night. Observing apes in the wild and in zoos never five me hope that I
missed something when it came to their IQ even to the ones that were in captivity and been
trained to preform.
If we take a long hard look at the mind rather than the brain size in humans we can see that
we use it well but sadly researchers sadly in many cases fail to see the clutter in the mind, or I
should say pollution of a human mind in larger cities the world over. Mobile phones, Pads,
Laptops and other computers have changed our way of thinking, of looking at things as we
once did and working out very quickly what it was we seen or heard. Many adult males today
who live in the computer age have in fact a 50 %- sperm count loss in the last thirty years and
there is evidence that children with learning difficulties is due to sperm cell and ova damage
as well in many cases genetic change or damage-induced by many chemicals and radiation all
around, more so that fifty thousand years ago.

We are exposed to such in our own homes, at work, background radiation, lead pollution from
cars and aircraft, air and water pollution, what we eat even. If you live near and airport and
you have water dishes in your garden in summer you will note the red coloured water forming
but what you do not see is the same on plants we eat grown in fields and gardens and we tend
not to notice it. Sometimes we dont even bother to wash food before using. You may then
wonder why there is brain damage, mind damage, and it comes from our own environment
that that we choose to live in and of course, created. Many children and adults today have
what I call the one thousand meter stare, that blank look they get and seeing or hearing
nothing unless you draw their attention to it sharply. It is not depressions but a condition that
shows the subject is switched off and taking nothing in or for that matter, retaining it.
THE MIND.
CONSCIOUSNESS.
The question is of course is when early mankind to upright homo mammals developed a state
of consciousness and the aspects of change. I have no doubt that early man was aware of
external and internal stimuli of his/her environment from the bodys sensory systems but at
times unaware of the background stimuli unless there is a sudden change in it. We walk
through the woods today with someone and a group of children and we are aware of the talk
and the noise but most times unaware of birds singing unless we stop and listen or go out with
a purpose of seeing birds.
Early mans attention and ours was and is selective and all events that are important to our
own survival have a top priority. Take pain in a part of our body. If it becomes severe then we
block out all other awareness and lock in on the pain and all other consciousness is put on
hold until we deal with the pain. All that was going on around early man on daily and from his
storage and memories of past events, his attention would have been focus on only a few stimuli
at any given moment and like us, he would ignore, select and reject all the time so that
consciousness would be changing all of the time. In todays human, many of the memories as
well as past stimuli that are not part of your consciousness at a moment in time can be
brought to the here and now when needed or triggered off by a body stimuli.
These pre-consciousness memory banks is one of the reasons from a paranormal point of view,
that ghosts are seen and even possible that Alien Abduction has occurred and you have
missed time even though you were awake. It is not that all the people who claim alien
abduction or seeing and feeling ghosts are lying, though some do, but because of past stimuli
that your mind has stored of images, colours and sounds.

Someone is driving along a dark country road at night somewhere in the UK. Woods surround
the road and it is raining, the headlights on, the window wipers scraping across the glass of
the car and a hare runs out, stops for a moment caught in the headlights then dashes into
cover as you speed by. Your mind tells you that it was a small rodent or a hare but some of you
will confuse it with a rabbit. If it was a deer dashing across the road in the night rain you
would see a much larger mammals and if it was lacking antlers then when it had passed out of
sight you would question and wonder was it in fact a deer and not something else? After all,
where you passed there is no reports of deer in that area so why should a deer turn up and
maybe on thinking on it, the grey brown body, sleek with rain may have been
You start to question and reason as you drive on, look in the rear mirror now and then, grip
the wheel tighter and wait for something else to run across in front of you. Then your car
splutters to a halt. The lights stay on and you curse under your breath and try to restart the
engine. It turns over but nothing. You switch off the lights and now you are in darkness and
try again, this time it gives a cough but again fails to start. You dont like sitting there in the
darkness alone and with wet trees all around you. There are no lights to be seen, no other cars,
just darkness, rain and you alone at 9.34pm on a wet night in November in a wooded
countryside. You are now aware you are in the dark.
Your mind now starts to operate overtime, your heartbeat quickens, and your mobile phone is
still back at the house because you forgot to bring it with you. You look out at the woods in the
headlights. Something is in there watching you. Right now there are eyes on your lights from
deep within the wet woods. A nose twitches, the eyes alert and it moves forward a little then
stops. You can not see it but they are there. Not one but a few. All watching your headlights
and you. You fear the dark and what might be lurking there, what might harm or even kill
you and you try the engine again and this time it splutters into life and you roar off burning
rubber glad to be away from that place. Over the hill the lights of a village and you start to
relax while the mice in the wood watch your tail-lights fade away into the night.
Eyes can see many things but the mind does not always get it right at that moment in time.
Take a look at the examples below. Your modern mind will try and work it out and more than
likely come up with a number of answers until you get the correct one...that is for you! What
we see at first is real enough to us but if we look again we see the same picture but with a
different meaning in the here and the now. Come back to the pictures and again you have the
same problem. Which is real and which do we want to be real?
Is it possible that we humans live in two mind worlds, at times crossing over here and there? I
suggest this is more likely in vivid dreams than when we are awake but sometimes what we see
and hear during the day because our attention has been drawn to it suddenly is not always at
first as it seems, until that is the mind deciphers the information. Early man, that is human,
would I suggest have the same problem but they would be much better at working out, to be
eaten or to eat and what it was.
Shapes and sizes all take on different meanings to us humans but with early mankind it was
much the same except that it was in a much more limited form but was more true to form and
understanding than we have. At times it came down to flight or fight. When it comes down to
the unconscious mind some memories, impulses and desires are not accessible to the
consciousness and painful memories and fearful ones are diverted into the unconscious
storage place. These of course affect us indirect and in very disguised ways. This will happen
in dreams, irrational behavior, and mannerisms and such unconscious desires and impulses
are the cause of many of the mental illnesses of today as well as brain injury or disease. Brain
injury with trauma injury or disease is a common factor and much of it is not diagnosed or
when discovered, diagnosed wrongly and of course a medical label put on it and makes it ok.
Wrong.
If we are dealing with early upright man we are not talking about ape like creatures because it
is my view that the apes that walked upright and even the most primitive human like
creatures did in fact live side by side, one a vegetarian with broad flat and chewing teeth, the
ape-like ones, and the carnivore type with teeth of the cutting sort but absent of long canines
like a wolf or a dog. There had to be cross breeding of that I am sure and many thousands of
years down the line, the more human type of homo appeared because of gene mutation, the
new DNA makeup the result that the ape like creature was bred out and replaced by homo in
a more human form. With that human form that walked from the East came a larger brain
and advanced consciousness and the unconscious thought but also hints of mental illnesses
and vivid dreams. At least today, the trick cyclist would put it in the mental health box
Some of these vivid dreams were drug induced in some tribes, the dream time is a common
factor in some tribes of native Americans and tribes from Asia and Africa. Everyone dreams
even if they dont know it during their REM-sleep period and those who sleep soundly do not
always recall their dreams. Not everyone knows they are dreaming and it has been proved
beyond doubt that those people who have lucid dreams all events in that dream seem real and
normal.
When it comes to sleep walking it occurs only during the NREM periods of sleep and it
happen in the first third of sleep in the night. The eyes are open but unseeing, and many
teenage sleep walking in the 1600s/ 1700s seen at night walking in the garden or on a road at
night were looked on from local people as being possessed or witches and at times put to death
along with their family. A sleepwalker of course does not remember what they have done or
where they have been and some modern killers claim that the did so while unaware of it and
asleep but because an act of violence was carried out then contact had to be made, even a
struggle and the sleepwalker would have awakened with a shock and deep fear. Then they
had a choice.
If I look at PSI PHENOMENA then early man would have been better equipped to be in
touch with it than most of todays humans because of the uncluttered mind but from a
parapsychology point of view it concerns me that too many people are easy led up the garden
path when it comes to ESP, Telepathy, Precognition, Psycho kinesics and Clairvoyance.
The trouble is of course today is that most people who claim to be parapsychologists also
consider themselves to be scientists and applying the rules of scientific inquiry to very unusual
phenomena. The first rule of course is evidence that will stand up as acceptable. There has
also to be controls and safeguards and inadequacies plague all of the sciences in the natural
world we live in. Anyone today who claims to be a parapsychology expert needs first of all to
have studied to more than a basic limited psychology, biology, physics and geology.
With early man it was inbred in order to survive and by the time it was passed down through
the family genes to man in the moment much of the powers had been badly diluted or
discarded. A few people, a very few, do have some type of paranormal powers which has been
passed on through the genes and with that comes fragments of past knowledge, a bit like a roll
of 16 mm black and white film with a few frames along it exposed. When we talk of prehistory
memory being passed on this is what is needed.
[1] Some genetic link from A to Z, Z being a modern human in 2017.
[2] A gene memory bank with some encoded past information.
[3] A receptive uncluttered human mind. Hard these days with technology.
[4] Drug free brain and CNS tissue.
[5] A subject and control subject of the same age and sex, born on the same day at the same
time and unknown to one another.
[6] Subjects not over the age of 14 years of age and living in different countries from one
another.
Finding such subjects is not impossible but finding two subjects who have not been per-
exposed to todays media hype would almost be. I have been lucky. At present I am working
on this research project, with one subject in Canada and one in Africa.
If and it is a big IF I can link up the sent information over the next year with that of the
other person then it will be possible to explain, at least in part, some link in recovered memory
banks even though the two people involved will never meet or be in contact with one another.
With early mankind we always have assumed that the world as we know it was a joined mass
of land with two poles. We know the mass broke up, some of it sinking and some drifting as
todays continents. However what has not been looked at is the real possibility that a few
million years ago, the earth was knocked of its rotation by a meteor strike and reversing the
poles to where they are now? Early man movements before the earth tilted and a change in
the Earths magnetic force field. If this was the case and I do believe there was an Earth tilt
two million years ago because of some solar storm then it would help explain the lost bones of
bear, wolf, hippo, crocodile, elephant and jungle like plants found in mud and coal faces, soil
and rock and in sand dunes and chalk.
Homos dating back 2.2 mya and 1.3 million years ago have been found in ice well above the
known ice age movements and under it even as far south as the Alps on the ice fields there.
Todays climbers on ice know all too well the dangers of falling into a snow covered crevasse
and being lost for years but in the end the ice moves slowly downhill and gives up the dead.
The same thing happens when a climber falls from a height into deep snow and is killed. He/
she may not killed outright but die from hypothermia and found in the snow and ice many
years later sitting with their back to a rock or ice block.
The same can be said for very early man for not only did many die from cold and buried by
snow and ice but they also return to the surface many thousands of years later. Such bodies
though rare do and have turned up as like the ICE MAN below.
Though the above Iceman is Neolithic it does show that permafrost mummies can be well
preserved for many years and somewhere out there in an icy wasteland is the mummies of
very early man that is not ape-like in nature.
As the ice is melting fast at the North and South Pole and I feel it is now gone beyond Climate
change I will not be at all surprised that human remains of a past culture will be found as well
as mammals and bird bones that should be where Africa is now.
Artificial mummification came about in Egypt around 3,000 BC but that was with human
dead bodies and I suspect that the process was going on a long time before that with animals
like cats and dogs. They and others believed that the soul re-enters the body and therefore
important that the body be preserved. It was not only in Egypt that this process was carried
out but also much closer to home with sun drying the bodies of the gauchos of the Canary
Islands.
With burial in permafrost like the bodies of the Siberian burial mounds of Pazyryk in the
Altai Mountains and the bodies lay in ice filled wooden grave chambers. Even horses were
found entombed with the dead and this Scythian nomadic group who came there in 500 BC.
Bodies found in the ice in Greenland were also well preserved with no sign of grave wax
because of the cold. If I look at the ICEMAN and his culture above I find that he lived
sometime between 100 BC and 80 BC, used tools, cultivated plants, and kept cattle and sheep.
He was also armed with a bow and a small cutting knife, wore clothes of a type. The clothes
that he made or was made for him had a purpose and walked a lot on foot. The bow was made
of yew; the knife handle of ash and the shoots of the Wayfaring tree were the arrow shafts.
There is no doubt in my mind that he lived on the low lands of Europe where he was found
but what took him so high in the mountains where he died?
If he was hunting there then it could have been Red deer but only in summer above the tree
line, Elk but also in summer, Chamois and found in the mountains up to 3500 M, Alpine Ibex,
and the Mouflon, a type of goat. I doubt very much if he went that high in search of small
game like members of the grouse family or hares.
He was running from something to somewhere and may have been in flight survival mode
No matter what we tend to discover about the ICEMAN we know that he is modern man from
an archeology point of dating.
Nothing can change that or his features and he had a thinking culture.
Which brings us to what lay before him as a Homo and the missing link. Enter on stage Homo
neanderthalensis, NEANDERTHALS, with a large brain, massive brow ridge, receding chin
and of a heavy muscular build and how they were in time replaced by anatomically modern
Homo sapiens. Somewhere is old ice field there are remains to be discovered. In years we are
talking 150,000 to 30,000 years ago and sometime around 30,000 years ago or a few thousand
years before, Homo sapiens turned up but from where?
First let me make it clear that no Alien spacecraft arrived with modern Homo clones that
were left on Earth to breed with their own kind and also cross breed with the Neanderthals.
There is not the slightest bit of evidence anywhere in the world that this was indeed the case.
If modern man were an Alien then they would have been more advanced with their technology
and their culture than Homo sapiens of that time and today.
Remember we are talking only 30,000 to 35,000 years ago before the Neanderthals started to
die back as a race and even now there are anatomically features turning up in some of todays
modern humans through a flawed genetic link.
In my research I had to first of all look closely at the culture of the Neanderthals in order to
find some of the answers to many of the questions. First off I have to disregard the entire ape
like creatures that walked upright as human like or human thinking.
They were not human in any form though they did have some human traits like the use of
tools but even todays chimps and apes use tools in their everyday lives. Yet I have the
question of how and where did they learn the use of fire and tools?
Chimps can be taught to use tools and press buttons for a reward; they have family groups,
leaders of groups, aggression and in some cases, even murder of another member or baby of
that group. They also kill and eat small mammals as well as feeding on berries and fruit but
they dont do artwork in caves or on rocks, nor do they build homes to live in. They build
nests in the trees each evening in order to sleep off the ground but they do not or ever will
have a thinking culture. They are not human.
The link between them all is the size of the brain, the long bones and the height as well as
posture when standing upright. Mating for early man took place from the back, as is still the
case in some tribal areas of the Earth but this did not take place at random as is the case
today. The sex drive of males was driven on by stimuli, be it smell, body posture and of course
most times a bond between male and female.
Today we use the word Love or I should say misuse because the whole point of the exercise
is to produce children or off-spring but with bonding as a family unit. Todays humans also
enjoy sex if there is a bond but a good many take it as a God given right and sex only comes
top of their list Also humans have sex when and if they want it. It is a fun thing for most, a
power thing for males and females and is used at times as a form of control of the other
person. Oh control of another human being means having a slave and no respect!
In many cases there is no real life long bond to one partner and others are sought out for the
dual purpose of sex only. This today is showing up by 4097 million cases of AIDS reported and
also STDs, HIV/AIDS worse of the deadly disease spread by sexual contact with a carrier and
the percentage in Africa, the place where it is said the first upright Homo came from, though I
feel that is wrong or mistaken. Mankind with his uncontrolled sexual drive may in fact
destroy his race with a virus rather than by a war and by the year 4000 cease to exist as a
human being as we know today. It should be noted that HIV/AIDS like viruses have been
recorded in Chimps and other African primates but the question is who passed on to what and
when? For all we know, we should consider Africa as a medical lab testing site and you dont
have to cage people. Just treat them like a drug testing mammal and rake in the money.
Chimp.
Ape skull.98
With the family groups and possible tribes of Neanderthal Man roaming parts of the Earth
there had to be some forms of communication between groups. There was a developing
culture and it is here that we must look at what evidence there is that Neanderthal was stocky,
not an ape and had a brain that functioned as a thinking brain as well as a creative brain.
It was their main survival tool ever.
There were also the use of tools and it may well be that this first early man was more in tune
with nature and the afterlife than we care to give credit for.
The paranormal events were in the mind and in their everyday lives, the moon and sun also
played an important part of their culture and they believed that the dead, if a family member
went to that other world. That was the way it worked unless they were needed for food if
food was scarce and in mid-winter.
I write here of Neanderthal Man, a human type creature that roamed parts of Europe, Africa
and SE Asia. You will see why I know that this early man species was important to us and
may also have passed down the genetic line fragments, even if small of past memory events.
We tend to ignore the genetic mind funnel of our past because our minds are cluttered with
todays noise, stimuli and we block out any idea that we were once part of the Neanderthal
group of people.
If early man, and by Man I mean a Homo who looks, walks and thinks like a
man/ woman, then they migrated from Asia into Europe and North America and not the ape
like groups from Africa as is often put forward as our direct ancestor. It is more than likely
that there were two groups of Ape like creatures but the ones in Asia were more advanced
and progressed faster as a survival species and with a culture.
AL 129-1a/b
Australopithecus Species: afarensis

Age: 3.0-3.2 million years Date of 1976 Discovery:
Location: Hadar, Ethiopia Discovered by: Johanson and M. Taieb
A complete knee joint (AL 129-1), minus the knee cap (patella), from a single individual was
found at Hadar, which showed that the species Australopithecus afarensis made a habit of
walking bipedly.
AL 129-1 is a complete knee joint, consisting of the distal femur (lower end of the thigh bone, )
and proximal tibia ,upper end of the shin bone, from a single individual. This discovery was
conclusive proof of bipedal walking in early Ape mans as old as 3 million years ago.
(More recent finds push that benchmark of human evolution back to at least 4 million years
ago.)
The Hadar knee did show several characteristics that reflect adaptation to bipedal
locomotion. First, the end of the femur has an area of bone (called the lateral condyle, that is
elliptically shaped, as in humans, rather than spherical like a chimp's lateral condyle. This
shows that the movement of the femur on the tibia was like that of a bipedal human. Second,
the patellar groove, which is a depression in the femur that allows space for the kneecap
(patella), is deep and had a high lip on the outside. This is important because bipedal legs have
to lock straight when walking.
If we look at the angle of the femoral shaft, the part of the top bone that rises above the knee.
There is a definite angle, relative to the tibia. This oblique femoral shaft is an adaptation that
allowed early humans to walk upright by placing the foot under the center of the body when
walking. A chimpanzee knee shows both bones lining up in a straight line.
AL 200-1
Species: Australopithecus afarensis
Age: 3.0-3.2 million years
Date of 1975
Discovery:
Location: Hadar, Ethiopia
Discovered by: D. Johanson and M. Taieb
The Afar Depression of Ethiopia has provided the majority of fossils of the early human
species Australopithecus afarensis. These fossils include the famous "Lucy" skeleton, the most
complete A. afarensis known. Locality in the Afar provided the undistorted palate to the right,
with a complete dentition. This palate shows that the dentition of early humans was essentially
ape-like. It had broad "spatulate" incisors -- wide front teeth that are spatula-like in
appearance, visible in the frontal view at the top and the cheek teeth were arranged in sub-
parallel rows, giving the dental arcade a distinct "U-shape" .
You would also note the presence of a diastema, or gap, between the canine teeth and the
outside incisors, again similar to apes and not humans. In the lateral view (midd, we can see
the protruding premaxilla, the bone between the teeth and the nose. The protruding, or
prognathic, lower portion of the face, which sticks out beyond the nose and eyes, is a similarity
to the apes.
Cro-Magnon 1
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~30,000 years to 50,000 years
Date March 1868
Discovery:
Location: Les Eyzies, France
Discovered by: Louis Lartet Dordongne.
During construction for a rail road in 1868, a rock shelter in a limestone cliff was uncovered.
Near the back of the shelter, an occupation floor was recognized, and when excavated, it
revealed the remains of four adult skeletons, one infant, and some fragmentary bones.
The condition and placement of ornaments, including pieces of shell and animal tooth in what
appears to have been pendants or necklaces, led the researchers to think that the skeletons
were intentionally buried in a single grave in the shelter.
Cro-Magnon 1 preserved the skeleton of an adult male. The individual was probably middle-
aged (less than 50 years old) at his death on the basis of the pattern of closure of cranial
sutures. The bones in his face are noticeably pitted from a fungal infection. The skull was
complete except for the teeth, which are reconstructed in the cast.
While the Cro-Magnon remains are representative of the earliest anatomically modern human
beings to appear in western Europe, this population was not the earliest anatomically modern
humans to evolve. The skull of Cro-Magnon 1 does, however, show traits that are modern
humans, including the high rounded cranial vault with a near vertical forehead. The orbits
are no longer topped by a large brow ridge. I suggest we take this with caution for the
moment as it was a limestone cave but I am informed that There is no prominent prognathism
of the face.
Analysis of the pathology of the skeletons found at the Les Eyzies rock shelter indicates that
the humans of this time period led a physically tough and painful life if the pathology was
right
The infection of the face was not the only medical problem as, several of the humans found at
the shelter had fused vertebrae in their necks indicating traumatic injury, and the adult
female found at the shelter had survived for some time with a skull fracture. The survival of
the individuals with such ailments is indicative of community support of individuals, which
allowed them to convalesce. To me it feels more like a crime scene and as there were many
wolves in that area as well as other carnivores like foxes ,badgers I am surprised that no one
reported bone damage or scattering of bones by wild animals? Associated tools and
fragments of fossil animal bone date the site to the uppermost Pleistocene, probably between
32,000 and 30,000 years old.
BONES; A QUESTION OF MATHS
ARCHEOLOGY RESEARCH
The trouble with past archeology is that it was a closed field of study to many and very few
people were experts or claimed to be experts and that left the few that were to rule the roost
without question. Thankfully that now has changed and such people who have been blinkerd
are dragged into 2017. For their own survival, they either had to look at archeology in the new
light and work with forensic anthropology bods or live in the dark with fixed ideas of their
subject, or be left alone and alone with little or no progress.
In my own research I had to and still do embrace the subjects of archeology, biology, physics,
Grandmother = Scot = Celt x =? yes

Great Grandmother = French = Celt = x India =? yes
Great Great Grandmother = India x? Yes = Homo sapiens.
would all coexist at the same time since they are merely variation of the
created kind.117
Fossils of early humans would exist in very old strata. (No evidence of this)
Fossils of early man would appear abruptly in the geologic record.
What Does the Overall Fossil Record Reveal?
The fossils of early man when looked at as an overall category all support
special creation. They appear fully formed and fully human in the fossil record.
They appear in the earliest strata as would be expected if they were created.
The various fossil men all were contemporaries of each other for long periods
of time, sometimes the older fossil, from an evolutionary point of view,
appears in the fossil record at a younger time period.
Human fossils (KP 271) that are indistinguishable (McHenry 1975 & Patterson
1967) from those of modern skeletons have been found in stratum that is
more than 4.5 million years old.
(remember the author does not agree with these evolutionary dates).
This shows that true humans have a lineage that extends at least that far back
in the evolutionary timetable. There may be older fossils of H. sapiens that
have not yet been discovered. In other words, fossils that are the identical to
modern humans have been found that are older than the australopithecines.
Which indicates that the Australopithecus line could not be the evolutionary
ancestral line leading to modern man and never was.
Homo erectus fossils have been excavated that range in age from a very
recent 30,000 (Swisher 1996) years ago to more than 1.6 million years. The H.
erectus line has remained virtually unchanged for almost 1.6 million years. H.
erectus have not evolved into anything during this time period, they have
remained unchanged. If evolution were true then H. erectus should be in a118
state of evolutionary changethe fact that it has remained unchanged
supports the creation account.
Another concept that falsifies the evolutionary concept is that modern H.
sapiens, Neanderthals, and H. erectus have all lived together as
contemporaries at one point in time or another. None of them have evolved
from a more primitive type into a more modern type. In some cases H. erectus
fossils are younger than H. sapiens and Neanderthal fossils. This cannot be
correct if evolution is correct; because evolutionary theory states that H.
erectus gave rise to H. sapiens and/or Neanderthal. Since the creation
account is correct they are simply variations and they would all coexist at the
same time.
There are no fossils of the primitive primates at the correct time to give rise to
the human ancestral line. These primitive primates would include A. afarensis,
A. africanus, Kenyanthropus platyops (Leakey 2001) and others. The fossil
record indicates that when these primates existed that humans were already
on the scene. The Laetoli Footprints (Leakey 1979), said to be made by a
modern shaped human foot, and the Kanapoi humerus (KP 271), all predate
these fossils. Therefore these extinct primates could not have given rise to the
human line since humans were already in existence. Interestingly there exist
today primates that are very similar to the Australopithecus line. The pygmy
chimp (Pan paniscus), called Bonobo by the locals is found in the jungles of
Zaire, Africa. This is only a few hundred miles away from where many of the A.
afarensis and A. africanus fossils are being unearthed today. It has the same
body type and is the same size as the Australopithecines it also can walk
bipedally for short distances. In my opinion here, that does not mean that it is
human and never would be.
The overall fossil record reveals that even when we use the evolutionists119
dates (which are incorrect in my opinion (Carleton 2011) and arrange the
fossil according to these dates that no human evolution has taken place.
When it is said that humans appear in the fossil record more than 4 million
years ago, according to some evolutionary dates, they appear fully formed,
already human and they appear abruptly. This did not happen because in my
opinion being human and a thinking human at that came around 50,000 years
ago supports creation and not evolution. But created from what?
Bias in the Interpretation of the Fossil Record
The science of human anthropology is full of circular reasoning, and
philosophical bias. Anthropologists only focus on the fossils that seemingly
support their contention that man has evolved from apelike ancestors. When
evolutionists draw family trees of these relationships they do not include all
the pertinent data.
Past examples, and many others like it, supposedly shows A. afarensis giving
rise to H. erectus and then H. erectus giving rise to H. sapiens. The total fossil
picture is not shown in these types of "family trees." If the total fossil record is
used a drawing of a family tree is not possible because the fossil do not fit the
evolutionary scenario.
In reality the evolutionists only use the fossils that support their preconceived
bias. There are many human fossils that do not fit in with these biases. If all
the fossils are used in the interpretation of the early human record then the
answer is obvious, man was createdhe did not evolve. This is fully
supported by the correctly interpreted fossil record of early man.
RESEARCH DATA AND MENTION FOR THIS PART OF MY RESEARCH.
Carleton 2012
Johanson DC. Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind. Touchstone Pub. New
York. 1990.120
Leakey MG. Spoor F. Brown FH. Gathogo P. Kiarie C. Leakey LN. McDougall.
New hominine genus from
eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene
lineages. Nature. 410:433-440, 2001.
Leakey MD. Footprints in the ashes of time. National Geographic. April 1979.
McHenry H. Fossils and the mosaic nature of human evolution. Science
190:425-431. 1975.
Patterson B. Howells WW. Hominid humeral fragment from early Pleistocene
of North-western Kenya. Science. 156:64-66. 1967.
Swisher CC. Homo erectus of Java: potential contemporaneity with Homo
sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science. 274:1870-74. 1996.
Much of the research by the authors above needed to be mentioned because
of the complexity of dating early apes and early humans with spot on solid
evidence that would stand up to close scrutiny. As many will know there are in
some cases major gaps in such dating and because of this I needed to carry
out cross reference on such data. From the 1950s to 2011 much of such
dating is now in doubt and I suggest here that it needs to be revised.

There is also, in my opinion that inbreeding took place in some of the early
groups of early humans and cross breeding with Neanderthals as well.
Until we carry out DNA comparisons of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon human
bones then the data is still lacking and this needs to be treated as a major
research project by someone in the future and in depth. We do have part of
the jigsaw but many pieces are missing and they need to be found but without
guess work coming into play in the research.
Researchers into DNA profiling of the two human subjects that I mention
above, is subject to funding of course and this comes in the way of grants if it
ever happens in the future. Once evidence has been established that there
was cross breeding and interbreeding by the two groups we can then expand121
this DNA family tree which I have outlined below for my research.
Carleton 2012
DNA AND RNA CROSSOVERS.
EARLY MAN AND GENETICS.
AFRICA.
From an archaeology point of view we have been informed and except that
early mankind started in Africa then in time though a process of evolution
moved into Europe as first Neanderthal Man then Cro-Magnon today we are
said to be the end result. With each Species and generations comes of course
the genetic make-up which is passed on again and again through DNA and
RNA. I am of the opinion therefore that it is a mistake to classify the
Neanderthal as 'brutish' and was never human in thinking or deed. It would
also be a mistake to assume, as is now often the case, that all present day
humans came from away back in time, from Africa. Though there may well be
an African linkage ,as I believe there is for many humans today, there is also122
a vital link between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man due to crossbreeding
in the later stages of the worlds history and the genes of such a relationship
passed onto some modern humans today. From my own research and in
order to understand it and put forward the real possibilities of such a union I
have publish my research below for debate, if any, or rejection I'm sure by
many established archaeologists who may well have to bite the bullet in the
future, revise all their dating processes and look at the species list much
closer. As for the people who made such claims about early humans and
early ape data and are now dead there can be no redress by them but still
their data should be re-examined and addressed if the need should arise.
If we indeed believe that mankind or humankind started its' thinking 'life in
Africa then we also know that all human beings in Europe today have a very
close Genetic heritage to Africa and that DNA, RNA and Chromosome type
have all been passed on and will continue to do so. With the DNA information
also come chromosome information of genetic illnesses. Putting this data
together did take a long time but I feel the end results were well worth it then It
keeps it all in the Human Family so to speak.
I start with Neanderthal man and what set me off on this trail was a question
that bothered me for some time, left-handed humans of today. Being left
handed is not an illness but it is a genetic trait and is passed down through
families. 30% of left handed people go back many generations as in the Kerr
family in the UK, Ireland and the USA. As this is the case with many left
handed families throughout Europe I then thought that Neanderthal family

members as well as the Cro-Magnon family would also show this trait and
pass it on. As I stated early on, being left handed is not any form of illness but
all to do with chromosomes that was passed to generation to another. If we
could back track from one left handed family here in the UK and Europe, from123
2005 back to 50,000 years ago then it would be through the Cro-Magnon part
of that family unit and still back or running side by side, with the Neanderthal x
Cro-Magnon group. From here we could go back almost anywhere except to
the standing apes.
( Research of left hand use IN APES carried out in Borneo, India, Africa and
the zoos of the UK) Carleton 2000 to 2005 (c) )
Of course the tracking of around 50,000 to 100,000 genes is impossible but
genes do play a very complex part but if one parent possess a gene of being
left handed, colour blind or have a good musical ear there is a 50/50 chance
that some of their off spring will also. When it comes down to some inherent
diseases then there is a good chance that it will be passed onto any off-spring
of the parent or parents. Unless they breed outside their genetic circle of
course as many are doing today and which I will call outbreeding
We know that 30%of Europeans cannot taste the chemical PTC
(phenylthiocarbamide), the other 70% have an unpleasant taste in their
mouths. Bitter is not the word for it. In other words if the parents of children
cannot taste PTC then neither will any children. One parent can taste it then
half the children in that family will also be able to taste it too.
When genes' go wrong' or show damage then they show as inherited disease
and if you consider that there are around 4,000 known, some of them rare
conditions while others are common in families.( cystic fibrosis in 1 of 2,000

births in the west, muscular dystrophy which affects 1 in 5,000 male children.)
Haemophilia is another example in the Royal Families of England and Europe.
Rheumatoid arthritis, a very painful immune disorder affects 1 in 20 females in
the west by the time they are aged 65 to 70 years of age. The victims do have
a genetic makeup and can be revealed in a simple blood test . We know today
that all human type blood is not alike and can be classified into groups as124
listed below.
A, B,O BLOOD
CLUMPING
BSERUM O A B AB
ASERUM O A B AB
There are 3 groups which read like this; mixed together, O serum clumps A
and B blood cells but not O cells.
B serum clumps A cells but not B or O
A serum clumps B cells but A and O
O, B, and A serum clumps AB blood.
This clumping is caused by anti-bodies known as anti-body A and anti-body B.
As this research is dealing with the possible genetic make-up from early man
to the present day and the gene links carried forward, even mutant genes
then I had to look at any and all genetic interpretation from that past into the
present.
A = A and B Not A or O not A or O AB
B = A Not B or O
O A and B Not O
There are 3 versions of 1 gene, A-determining version, B-determining version

and O for neither. Simple in fact. Human mating by AB to OO would show up
in half the children who were A (AO) and one half children B (BO).
Samples taken in the south of the UK showed up like this,
Group O 44%
Group A 45%
Group B 8%125
Group AB 4%
These differ between different populations with type B three times more
common in Asian populations than with Europeans as an example. With type
A it increases from south to the north of England into Scotland.
X and Y CHROMOSOMES. 1 to 22
+ X = 23 female
1 to 22 + XY =23 male.
one sperm will carry x and a y chromosome.
Female will carry one copy of X chromosome.
X SPERM -FEMALE EGG X = XX = FEMALE CHILD BORN.
Y SPERM -FEMALE EGG X =XY = MALE CHILD BORN.
Males therefore determines the sex of offspring, not females.
It is chromosome9 that determines the ABO blood groups in Human Kind and
that started away back around1.2 million years ago. As each human mammal
has 2 chromosome 9, one from our father and one from the mother and if
someone gets a paternal chromosome 9 with an A blood group gene and his
maternal chromosome 9 with the B version this means they will be
themselves blood group AB. If it is a female who has the AB blood she will
produce eggs that will either have the gene responsible for A group or B blood.
The partner may have type O then he contributes via his sperm, chromosome
9 with the O gene. The children therefore will end up with a genetic A O and126
have type A blood or will have the genetic constitution BO = type B blood.
There is no relation between the sex of any child and its blood group because
the sex-determining X and Y chromosomes that are separate entities
determining chromosome9.This is not of course true for all chromosomes nor
is it true for two genes on the same chromosome, colour blindness and
haemophilia are good examples. They both are found on the X chromosome
but not inherited together.
Blood groups therefore track through generations so if a husband who is type
O and the wife is A and they ended up with an AB child then the wife has
been having sex with another man, not the husband. So far then it should be
possible to get DNA samples from bones and body material if any f rom the
early standing apes and early thinking humans giving us a starting point
where we ourselves came from.
If we came out of Africa as claimed by most working in archaeology then all
of us should be carrying a hint or suggestion of Sickle Cell Disease but this is
not the case except in many black people in the UK and the USA where in
Africa, the Gold Coast and Gambia, it was uncommon in the black population
there. In the north and south of Africa it is uncommon but the Sickle Cell gene
is found in middle west Africa and very common in the west of Africa. Those
that carry the gene rarely get Malaria because the parasite grows inside red
blood cells and anyone who has the Sickle cell gene does not offer this
parasite a good environment in which to live. Yet in present day white people
in Europe there is no records of sickle cell gene which is odd because it is

passed on through generations. To understand this better I have laid out a
chart below.
AS. AS.
MALE FEMALE.127
SPERM A SPERM S A S
AA AS AS SS
A carrier father has 2 genes, one for sickle Haemoglobin(S) and one for
normal Haemoglobin (A)
The carrier mother has the same layout. One child will be born without sickle
cell but all others will have it but have only one sickle cell gene each but will
be carriers and one who will have full blown sickle cell disease.
The survival of early humans in east Africa was in fact a hard road because
not only had they to survive the harshness of day to day living ,attacks by wild
animals but also a number of diseases, some that were passed on down
through a family unit. What should be noted is that such groups were small
and they would have little or no knowledge or taboo's about who mated with
who. In breeding would have been a common factor and the average life span
for any adult would have been30 years only. This is often overlooked in
archaeology as is in a few cases evidence of bone disease and height.
When it comes down to genetic features of the face of early man too few
studies have been carried out. Europeans have large noses and this was
passed down to us from Homo erectus and the deep brow ridge and stocky
body still found today in some humans across Europe suggest a pass on from
Neanderthal Man. Yet in my research I discovered that both features can be
found in today's humans, male and female and a few even show the almost
hidden features of a face that could well be mistaken for Neanderthal Man.
This face feature is not as uncommon as many think and across Europe into
the UK and Ireland.
This does not explain the very modern skulls found in Israel and South Africa
in 1980 in caves and datedat100,000 years old because if the dating is correct
then all the data on early humans listed is wrong as well as the dating of other128
early apes and humans. It also suggests that if a modern type human was
around100,000 years ago, living in caves then they must have been more
advanced than any other early humans, or ape like humans. This of course
creates a genetic nightmare for researchers because for the moment it is not
known where these humans came from. We are told, and wrongly in my view,
that modern humans as we are, only put in an appearance 40,000 years ago.
The 100,000 year old remains found dispute that finding and suggests that a
tribe or tribes of modern humans did function, though in small groups from
Israel and the north of Africa down to the tip of South Africa.
Blood grouping of course is the way forward in such research and gives clues
in some cases to where the human being of today had past family linkage.
The B blood group of true gypsies in Europe can be linked to India where it is
50% as with only 10% in northern Europe. The DNA from African chimps
show that the genomes differ from humans by only 1.6% yet chimps are not
human, though I do suggest that humans did and do have a close relationship
in Africa and elsewhere, that goes beyond the pale. Human male x female
chimp=?This could well explain in Africa two things. A genetic link to humans
and chimps in the past and a HIV type disease found in chimps in the present.
Who passed what genetic material as well as a virus type is for the moment
unclear but I suggest modern humans started it all off and are still doing so in
controlled conditions today in many parts of our world behind very closed
doors.129
CHIMP DNA DATA. REF RESEARCH ARCHAEOLOGY
Researcher Ronnie Carleton 2012
Chimp and Human DNA
FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY Scientists have decoded the chimp genome
and compared it with that of humans, a major step toward defining what
makes people human and developing a deep insight into the evolution of
human sexual behavior. The comparison pinpoints the genetic differences
that have arisen in WILDLIFE AFRICA the two species since they split from a
common ancestor some six million years ago.
The realization that chimpanzees hold a trove of information about human
evolution and nature comes at a time when they and other great apes are
under harsh pressures in their native habitat. Their populations are dwindling
fast as forests are cut down and people shoot them for meat. They may soon
disappear from the wild altogether, primatologists fear, except in the few
sanctuaries that have been established.
Chimpanzees and people possess almost identical sets of genes, so the
genes that have changed down the human lineage should hold the key to
what makes people human. Chimps are not human however.
Biologists suspect that only a handful of genes are responsible for the major
changes that reshaped the apelike ancestor of both species into a human and
that these genes should be identifiable by having evolved at a particularly
rapid rate.
The comparison of the human and chimp genomes, reported in an issue of
Nature, takes a first step in this direction but has not yet tracked down the130
critical handful of genes responsible for human evolution.
One problem is the vast number of differences -some 40 million in the
sequence of DNA units in the chimp and human genomes. Most are caused
by a random process known as genetic drift and have little effect. For now,
their large numbers make it difficult for scientists to find the changes caused
by natural selection if indeed there ever was such a process.
But another aspect of the comparison has yielded insights into a different
question, the evolution of the human Y chromosome. The new finding implies
that Apes have led sexually virtuous lives for the last six million years, at least
in comparison with the flamboyant promiscuity of chimpanzees.
Some 300 million years ago, the Y chromosome used to carry the same 1,000
or so genes as its partner, the X chromosome. But because the Y cannot
exchange DNA with the X and update its genes, in humans it has lost all but
16 of its X-related genes through mutation or failure to stay relevant to their
owner's survival. However, the Y has gained some genes from other
chromosomes because it is a safe haven for genes that benefit only men,
since it never enters a woman's body. These added genes, not surprisingly,
all have functions involved in making sperm.
The scientific world's leading student of the Y chromosome, David Page of
the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., has been seeking to understand
whether the Y will lose yet more genes and lapse into terminal decay, taking
men with it. The idea of the Y's extinction "was so delicious from the
perspective of gender politics," Dr. Page said. "But many of my colleagues

became confused with this blending of gender politics with scientific
predictions."
Six years ago, he discovered a surprising mechanism that protects the sperm-
making genes. Those genes exist in pairs, arranged so that when the DNA of131
the chromosome is folded back on itself, the two copies of the gene are
aligned. If one copy of the gene has been hit by a mutation, the cell can repair
it by correcting the mismatch in DNA units. That is all well and fine but when I
give this more thought (2011) it is possible that gene mutation may be the
reason why we are human.
The 16 X-related genes are present in only single copies. Dr. Page and his
colleagues thought the chimpanzee genome might show how they were
protected. To their surprise, they report in Nature, the protection was not there.
The chimp Y chromosome has lost the use of 5 of its 16 X-related genes.
The genes are there, but have been inactivated by mutation. The explanation,
in his view, lies in the chimpanzee's high-spirited sexual behaviour. Female
chimps mate with all males around, so as to make each refrain from killing a
child that might be his.
The alpha male nonetheless scores most of the paternities, according to DNA
tests. This must be because of sperm competition, primatologists believe -the
alpha male produces more and better sperm, which out compete those of rival
males. This mating system puts such intense pressure on the sperm-making
genes that any improved version will be favoured by natural selection. All the
other genes will be dragged along with it, Dr. Page believes, even if an X-
related gene has been inactivated.
If chimps have lost five of their X-related genes in the last six million years
because of sperm competition, and humans have lost none, humans
presumably had a much less promiscuous mating system.
But experts who study fossil human remains believe that the human mating
system of long-term bonds between a man and woman evolved only some 1.7
million years ago. I suggest that it was much later than this.
Males in the human lineage became much smaller at this time, a sign of132
reduced competition. The new result implies that even before that time, during
the first four million years after the chimp-human split, the human mating
system did not rely on sperm competition.
Dr. Page said his finding did not reach to the nature of the joint chimp-human
ancestor, but that "it's a reasonable inference" that the ancestor might have
been gorilla like rather than chimp like, as supposed by some primatologists.
The gorilla mating system has no sperm competition because the silverback
maintains exclusive access to his harem.
Frans B. M. de Waal of the Yerkes National Primate Research Centre in
Atlanta said he agreed with fossil experts that the human pair bonding system
probably evolved 1.7 million years ago but that the joint ancestor could have
resembled a chimp, a bonobo, a gorilla, or something else entirely. It is this
something else that throws the spanner in the works of ape/human evolution
and in my opinion humans like we see today are not the result of all or any of
the early upright apes cross breeding or gene manipulation by nature. In fact I
would go as far to say that humans today are the result of mutation where
apes and chimps never moved onto the next plane to become human and
never likely to do so.
The scientists who have compared the whole genomes of the two species say
they have found 35 million sites on the aligned genomes where there are
different DNA units, and another five million where units have been added or
deleted. Each genome is about three billion units in length. The chimp
genome was completed in draft form in December 2003 by the Broad Institute
in Cambridge and Washington University in St. Louis.
Statistical tests for accelerated evolution are not yet powerful enough to
identify the major genes that have shaped humans. "We knew that this was
only a beginning, but from a general standpoint we have captured the vast133
majority of the differences between human and chimps," said Robert H.
Waterston of the University of Washington, Seattle, the senior author of the
report. The genome of a third primate, the orang-utan, is now in progress and
will help identify the genes special to human evolution, he said.
Somehow I feel that such research has gone down the wrong biological road
and linking a rain forest ape with humans would put humans coming out of
Asia and not Africa if this is correct. That would in fact put the lid on all
ape/human past history that would have to be re-written again which in my
opinion it should be.
At the level of the whole animal, primatologists have uncovered copious
similarities between the social behaviour of chimpanzees, bonobos and
humans, some of which may eventually be linked to genes. But this rich vein
of discovery may be choked off if the great apes can no longer be studied in
the wild.
"The situation is very bad, and our feeling is that by 2040 most of the habitat
will be gone, except for those little regions we have set aside," Dr. de Waal
said.
Dr de Waal may well be right in the case of habitat but there are good
conservation projects in progress to address this problem and governments134
are aware of them, more so in 2012 than ever before.
There is little point in beating the breast and waving the hands in the air
because besides apes the human being today is hell bent on his/her own
destruction and that will come because of population numbers.
We are like voles and when vole numbers get too high then there is a crash
due to disease and this is fact. Natural disasters to humans are all part of the
cycle and for some reason, with the best of intentions, the human beings
elsewhere jump in with aid and money but little do they understand that they
are not doing human kind any favours when it comes down to world survival
for the rest. If five million people died next month from a disease, hunger and
drought this only makes a small hole in the human population and nature
takes them. Keeping human populations down this way is Natures way of
controlling the human mammal when it gets too high. Not allowing it will result
in a much massive problem in the near future, even into extinction because of
a major virus mutation happening and because of high human population
numbers, the deadly spread will be rapid across our planet.
Unlike the Neanderthals who died out because of invaders or small pockets of
disease their world population was not in any way large so they did not all die
out at the same time and were well scattered in family groups. Human nature
today as well as religious beliefs tend to border on the sentimental and
compassion levels and we jump in and want to fix it which if we were honest
we do not succeed in saving the world, or a tribe of people, only some of them.
Such natural disasters in a mammal species in normal events is sad but when
it is a major disaster there is only a certain amount we can do because of the
political involvement by the country concerned and their need to try and take
control of it all, including cash donations sent by well-meaning people.
Unless someone or a group of people look at this virus/disease problem much135
closer now the risk is great to the human mammal because of population
growths and immigration as well and major famines which I forecast due to
another round of the Earth climate changes still to come within the next twenty
years.
Climate change and species has been going on for millions of years and no
doubt will continue to do so in the future. We have already lost many species
due to natural causes but also due to human neglect and habitat destruction.
We the human mammal will in fact destroy human kind and we know that
chimpanzees cannot record that event in writing when it happens because
they are not that intelligent to do so.
THE NEANDERTHAL DAWN.
It has been stated, with some conviction that the Neanderthals evolved
from the late form of Homo erectus that had been in Europe during that
timeline or from a descendant of that species. The Neanderthal face, skull
bones and mandible had occurred by the end of the middle Pleistocene-
France 125,000 years ago.
Seven sets of bones found in Germany including one child have been dated
as even older, 230,000 years ago, on the prime site of Ehringsdorf and this I
feel was a split from the linkage of what I now term as modern humans.
A fragmentary specimen found at Pontnewydd, Wales and dated the same
age which suggests to me on the evidence that the Neanderthals were around
in the middle Pleistocene here. This is reflected in some of the skulls and skull
fragments we know about. These are of course the fossil records like
Swanscombe in England, Steinheim in Germany, Arago and Montmaurin in
France, Atapuerca in Spain and Petralona in Greece. My forensic research137
into these suggested a number of things and a few questions, and I have laid
this out below. One of course has to remember that fossils like these are
subjected to damage, either by nature and then their removal. Parts of the
skull bones may well be reshaped over many thousands of years, earth
movements, ice, water and soil chemistry all will have played a part. Not
everything that is seen can be used in evidence as fact or true shape.
Swanscombe skull.
It should be kept in mind that the skull above was found in three parts or at
least three parts of a skull were found on site and over the years they fitted
together. My concern here is that they almost fitted perfectly as others have
stated but given the time factor from finding part one and finding parts two and138
three it is possible that the fragments were not all from the same skull.
The dates for the above is 1935, 1936 and then a great jump to 1955.
STEINHEIM SKULL.
Found in a gravel pit near Stuttgart in 1933 and has a much smaller brain size
than Swanscombe skull and was 1100 ml where the skull from Swanscombe
was 1325 ml. This skull is much more round and thinner but narrower in the
forehead part which is low and narrow, a very strong brow ridge while the
upper jaw is flat with a present day cheek hollow though I suggest from a
forensics point of view due to the process of fossilization. The back of this
skull almost matches that of Swanscombe which I am of the opinion and the
evidence presented was a primitive early Neanderthal and may well be also
female. It is in my view much older than the Swanscombe skull and falls in
with the timelines data known or suggested of fossil hominids from Tautavel,
France which could be 400,500 years old. Here was found sixty two
specimens. A hip bone, two jaw bones and a front face with right side of a
skull but seem to me to point at H. erectus X Neanderthal. The primitive
showing in the French remains, Arago is distorted before it was reconstructed
which tended to blend in of the thinking of H. erectus when I feel that it is in
fact more Neanderthal.139
Arago skull 1200ml
THE PETRALONA CRANIUM.
GREECE.
The skull discovered in the cave is very large and strong looking and at first
tends to lean towards H.erectus but a closer look it is Neanderthal because
the brow ridges have a double arch shape above the orbits. The cheek bones
are inflated and the nose bones suggest also Neanderthal rather than erectus.
It is suggested by others that the brain case is 1,220 ml and the cast inside
the brain case is much smaller, less flattened at the front than that of erectus.
What I did discover in this skull and the data surrounding it is that it sends out
conflicting messages because the front is Neanderthal, the back looks erectus.
What we have so far in my research is that there is much confusion with past
data to archaeology timelines as the human fossils discovered in Ehringsdorf
in 1908 and onwards from that were dated as last interglacial age, around
120,000 years ago but they have to be twice as old or even 100,000 years
earlier than that. There is little doubt that the remains from this site show
Neanderthal characteristics and more so at the back of the skull and most of
all thick skull bones. Of course if we look at the data from the long cold period,140
stage 6 in fact these early Neanderthals were around 180,000 130,000
years ago which now includes the two Biache skull fragments which are made
up from a upper jaw and back of a female skull. It would seem from my
research that more females are discovered than males for reasons unknown
to me. The front of a possible male was also discovered but the French teams
disagree with the sex of the skull so anything they put forward has to be
veiwed as heresay rather than factual evidence.
70,000 years ago across Europe the land was in the grip of the last Ice Age
that is if people have done their maths right. Even with the ice and snow here
the area was inhabited by Neanderthals only and did so for the next 30,000
years. Cro-Magnon Man had not yet entered the archaeology stage of Europe.
There is little point in taking on board the
models presented by others on the Neanderthals and their thnking on
evolution because such data is more than obscure but has very conflicting
ideas which in the end becomes frustating.
We all know what a brush is, we know what a hand brush is and we are very
aware that there is many types of brushes but not always aware what their
use is. It could be said the same for the Neanderthals and that is where we
are today because this human species over many years came in shapes and
sizes, depending where they lived and we are still gathering data and I hope
that we are also interpeting the data correctly as it presents itself. There is of
course that some young bloods, wanting to make a name for themselves, and
juggle the data to suit their own needs rather than for the Archaeology141
Community on the whole.
With the Neanderthals what needs to be looked at much more closely is the
reason why they had such larger noses across Europe and what was the
linkage to others not in Europe? Nor does it explain why the native peoples of
South East Asia as far down as New Zealand then to show the same face
profile even today. The Neanderthal gene is in there somewhere and it could
be we missed the boat of an African / Europe link.
There is, sometimes un-noticed, great change in the fossil records from
around 120,000 years ago and it is only after this time the almost complete
skeltons were preserved for later discovery. Here I am dealing with the
Neanderthals and not yet so called modren humans and suggest that for the
first time some from of death ritual took place such as burial in the ground in
the form of a pit. Yet bodies not buried were left in caves such as in Spain.
Such cave disposal would have attracted the wolf, bear and big cats and it is
very likely if this was the case then full skeltons would not be found.
I should point out from my research world wide the samples of Neanderthal
remains is not large with around 20 skulls, almost complete, and bones of
men, women and children. In Kebara in a cave in Israel a trunk and upper
limb skeleton was discovered. If we put all the finds together we know what
these people would have looked like when alive, what diseases showed and
they were exposed to during their life, and from a forensic point of view,
possible cause of death.142
Of course natural deaths were also happening but it is unlikley that more
than 20% of such deaths were due to natural causes.
Jig-jaw bone fragments tell us little but the skull tells us a lot of these humans
who lived on Earth from 120,000 to 35,000 years ago and such skulls may be
long but flat on top but it is also worth noting that H.erectus also showed such
a flat skull as well as the bar of bone above the eye sockets which both
species have except that in the Nenderthals are two arches with large air
spaces called the frontal sinuses. Such eyebrows were strong also in the
females as in their children from ten years onwards. I would state that the
Nenderthal browridges were not as important to the them as they were to
early apes as reflected in the frontal sinuses. When and if you have a
Nenderthal skull in your hand you know what you are looking at and should
not be confused with any other species.
I have placed a number of skulls below and skull fragments for comparrsion.143
The mtDNA data is also below and should be considered also.
If the mtDNA data is correct then it should show in samples of skulls from
Europe and elsewhere and site conditions, diet as well as climate, should be a
consideration for future research. Like humans today, and we leave out fab
diets and religion, not all the groups of living Neanderthals had the same diet
due to site locations.144
Such Nenderthal sites are placed now into two main categories;
Caves and Rock shelters that had remains;
Open sites and Rock shelters that produce tools and evidence of use.
What should be noted is that the main areas where skeletons and stone tools
were found were in South West France and the Middle East. In the west at
major sites (Rock shelters) at La Ferrassie, La moustier and La Quina.
Combe Grenal in south west France also produced good data.
Other sites included in Europe are, Bockstein in Germany, Hungary, Russian

and Ukrainian plains but not as rich for finds as the others but if we are going
to link Nenderthals with the Mousterian culture then I have to include Iberian
peninsula, Italy,Croatia and Greece. Other clues on site are stone tools and
other artifacts some of which I have placed below as an example.
The Middle East caves of Mount Carmel outside Haifa, the Shanidar Cave in
Iraq produced much useful information.145
Without doubt such tools were made, as above, by humans and not upright
apes. To make and shape such tools required a thinking brain with purpose,
something todays apes or Chimps cannot do is make and use such tools as
above. The evidence therefore points to Neanderthals as fully human.
I have already covered the Neanderthal nose and the very possible links to
other tribes in SE Asia down to New Zealand.We also know a little about the
teeth which I have outlined below.
The front teeth were large and well worn which suggests as part of a cutting
or vice like tool that is not used as much by apes or early Homo species and it
is the large size of these front teeth, more so than the other teeth. Micoscope
examanation of such teeth tend to show scratch marks going outwards, in
other words something was gripped in the teeth, pulled away from the mouth
and cut with a stone or flint tool and the direction of the outward marks
suggested that the Neanderthals were mainly right handed when they held the
cutting tool. In time with much use the teeth became shovelled shaped and
the back teeth had extra cusps. Back teeth of the Neanderthals had bull roots
and the same has been found in some Inuit populations today. Any female
with an extra X chromosomes no matter who they are will also produce this
root condition.146
Nenderthal teeth are in a forward position but there is a few other features in
the mandible that I feel need to be mentioned such as the hole or foraman
which lies in the rear upright part of the ascending ramus. The nerve
concerned here runs to the front of the jaw and I found odd that the bony lip
is only found in two out of three jaws examined and rare in ape jaws and the
modren humans. I should point out that it was very rare in early upright apes
fossils. In a quarter of known Cro-Magnon jaws it is also present and I
suggest that the function of the bony lip may well be related to a strong pull on
the mandibular ligament which runs from the ear down to the mandibular
foraman. This may well have something to do with holding the jaw steady
when used as a tool but as time moved forwards there came in some of the
Nenderthals a slight chin development and more so in the much later
ones.There is no evidence of a simian shelf which apes have in the front
base of the jaw but there is evidence in that the chin on the outside, has a
bony ridge on the lower jaw that serves as reinforcement and gives that extra
strenght needed.
THE NEANDERTHAL BRAIN.
In the data I have researched it is said that the Neanderthals had a much
larger brain than Cro-Magnon = N 1400cc and CM 1370cc but I should point
out a larger brain is not always a smarter brain and I suggest not all the
Neanderthals had a brain at 1400cc if you look at the world population at the
time. There is conflict with the brain data and more so what seems to be
pushed time and again that the shape of the Neanderthal brain and that it had
some effect on their thinking and actions.
Evidence of course is lacking from many sources that this was in fact the case
and in my research I will show that the Neanderthal brain was fully active as
what is termed a modren man brain would be. They may well have had thick148
skull bone structure but this does not mean that they were thick in their
thinking. The brain case of course is directly related to the shape of the brain,
much the same as if hot jelly is poured into a mould and left to cool, and this
brain was long, low and somewhat flattened in comparison to a human brain
today.
Knowledge of brain functions sixty years ago was rather limited and as far as
the Neanderthal brain is concerned great errors of interpretation occurred and
tended to show today the ignorance of learned men of the time. The larger
brain with Neanderthals was not due to evolution as such but more to do with
climate, cold areas in which they lived, sometimes extreme cold. There is
evidence to show that even today human populations living in higher and
much colder conditions tend to show a large brain mass as well as a larger
body mass. Those people that live across Asia in hot climates show a lower
brain mass yet both climate brains function the same. No one living today
has yet to show the unknown significance between the Neanderthal and
Modern brains and that is the rub here. We need to find out if there was or is
one.
We must never forget that the Neanderthals and ourselves are mammals and
belong to the animal kingdom like all land mammals. Organs such as todays
humans have were the same but bone structure did differ in some ways. Diet
also must be taken into consideration because the diet of the Neanderthals
was based on hunter gatherers mode and rather limited to what was on offer
or found. If food become scarce in an area then a small group would have to
expand their area until they found enough food. This may mean that the
hunting group may be away for a few days while some of the women, children
and aged stayed at the base camp.
POSSIBLE DNA RESEARCH ACROSS EUROPE.
Most people with any education knows a little or more about what DNA is and
sometimes how it fits into forensics and linking humans to a match.
In case you are reading this or want to skip this part please dont because it is
not Rocket Science. I suggest therefore you read on as this part of my
research also deals with the possible projects that could be undertaken within
the confines of Neanderthal Man or women and their relations to modern
humans across Europe today.
In this brief but I hope informative outline of the chemical deoxyribonucleic
acid =DNA it will through some light on the research I would like to see
moving forwards and giving us more information on possible links to that early
first human, Neanderthal Man and some of us.
DNA is found within the nucleus of every cell and it twists and turns upwards
in spirals and very tightly when it does so which are in fact chromosomes.
This DNA is the major key to all life, a Master and complex structure that can
kick start the making of proteins which are needed in the development of an
animal, organs and structure.
What is more interesting is for this research on the Neanderthals ,it forms the
major basis for inheritance and passed down through all the generations with
some or many characteristics carried by genes which are made from DNA.
Proteins in part that are in the body make up the structure of skin as an
example. Messenger ribonucleic acid = mRNA assembles amino acids which150
are relayed by the DNA
Translation = ribosome which moves along the strand of mRNA three bases
at a time and this ribosome attaches amino acids in sequence in the mRNA
triplets.
Body cells in time divide continuously during their periods of growth and to
make up for any cell damage but before a new cell is made the DNA must be
copied or replicated which suggests that the DNA strands unzip along their
length. There are three stages to this.
Mitochondrial DNA is the energy production structures in cells, contain only a
small amount of DNA but the cell nucleus which is inherited from both parents
is DNA while Mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from the mother. Any
mistakes made in copying Mitochondrial DNA results, I should point out, in
genetic disorders.
Each human has his or her unique appearance but will have also inherited
some very obvious features such as eye colour, height, chin shape from one
or both parents. The Neanderthals also had this inherited factor which rules
put the archaeology myth of the past that they all looked the same. Once a full
set of Chromosomes with its genetic material intact is established, half from
the mother and half from the father and at once the new cell will start to copy
itself and replicate the genetic information.
Therefore, physical characteristics, many medical disorders and behaviour
are partly determined by genes that are passed from parents to children or
off-spring.
A quarter of each childs genes are inherited from each grandparent.

With this DNA information we at least have a people canvas to work with
when it comes to possible DNA research and Neanderthal blood and genetic151
lines across Europe, maybe parts of Russia and Asia and down to parts of
North Africa.
THE GENETIC TRAIL PROJECT.
OUTLINE FOR NEANDERTAL LINKS.
BONE RESEARCH AND SKULL FEATURES.
FACE AND BONE FEATURES MODERN HUMANS.
DNA SAMPLING FROM BONES OF NEANDERTHALS.
DNA SAMPLING FROM PICKED POPULATIONS IN EUROPE,
RUSSIA AND CANADA.
DNA DATABASE SET UP FOR PROJECT.
LENGTH OF STUDY. 5 YEARS.
GENETIC FEATURES AND LINKS.
FUNDING FOR PROJECT.
POSSIBLE GENETIC LINKS TO NEANDERTHALS.152
Yupik. 21,000 of a population. Locations; NW Canada, NE Siberia.
Not related to the Inuit tribes but related to the Yuit at Lawrence Island in the
Bering Sea. Possible link for research.
Inuit. Population in Canada, and Greenland; 100,000. Possible link.
Haida. Population now only 3,600 on the Gwaii Islands Canada. Possible link
but not strong.
Innu. Population in Labrador, Canada now 13,000. Weak link.
South America. No possible links.
USA No possible links.

Iceland. No possible links.
Sweden. Population 9. Million. Scattered possible links.
Norway. Population 5. Million. Scattered possible links. Weak.
Nordic Countries.
5 Million. Scattered possible links.
Ensonians in Baltic States. 1.4 million. Strong possible links.
Lapland. Population for the Sami. Strong possible links.
Latvians, Baltic States. Population 2.4 million weak possibility.153
Wales UK. Population 1.85 million. Evidence of throwback features.
Possibility of link
Bretons. Population 600,000. Possible links.
Catalans Spain. Andorra in France. Population 10 million. Possible links.
Portuguese. NW, possibility of links.
Dutch. Weak possibility.
Austrians. Possibility of weak links population 8.million
Swiss. Weak possibility.
Serbs. 60,000 of a population. No possible links.
Poles. 38 million of a population. Strong possible links.
Germans. 100 million. Strong possible links in N and NE
Italians. 58 Million. Weak links.
Roma. 12 million of a population. Very Strong links.
Slovacks. 4. Million. Strong possibilities.154
Slovenes. 2 million. Very strong possibilities.
Ukrainians 36 million of a population. Very Strong possibilities.
Ashkenazim 10 million. Some possible links.

Romanians. 20 million. Strong possibilities.
Bulgarians. Very strong possibilities.
Greeks. Some island possibilities.
Croats. 4.00 million. Possible links in NE
Serbs. 8 million. NE populations possible links.
Komi Russians.400,000. Urals, Russia. Possible links.
Udmurts.750,000. Udmurtia Russia. High possibility of links.
Mari 600,000 of a population. Isolated, Russian. Possible strong link.
Tartars. 6,000,000. Strong possibilities of links.
Kalmyks, Russian.177,000 population. Volga area. Possible links.
Avers. 600,000of a population. SW Russia. Possible strong links.155
Tribes of Borneo high possibility.
The tribes of the Motu, Dani, Abelam, Huli, Ni-Vanuatu of Melanesia are all
high possibilities.
Warlpira tribe of Australia high possibility.
Arrernte tribe of Australia high possibility.
From this list above I am confident that with the right team and
funding this proposed project would open up many doors into the gene spread
of the Neanderthals across Europe and parts of Asia.
At least one University would need to be involved, a teaching medical
University even better and I see no reason why the Neanderthal Gene Project
could not be up and running by 2013 if there was funding.
There are of course risks in the present data gathered to be taken as fact
when it comes to fossil dating of all Neanderthal artefacts so far discovered
and this must not happen to any new finds. Therefore I suggest that a new
fossil record database be set up as I have in my place of work on both
computers and all data entered checked and cross referenced. There is very
little point in having any database for the work and research that I envisage
with massive gaps in a timeline of early man or the wrong data put in the
wrong place. I have therefore now set up a database called Neanderthal156
Codex which will be maintained and added to. It is running on the
Ubuntu/Linux programmes and not Windows because I found that it is a good
platform for this type of research and holding data. Conversion is easy to do
from Open Office or Libre Office or covert to PDF however the data may not
show as it should.
SOME NEANDERTHAL PROBLEMS WITH INTERPRETATION OF FINDS
AND BONES.
Sadly this has been going on since I was a boy and for some reason is still
going on in the circles of academic intuitions and some Universities are the
worst offenders. By offenders I mean staff who work in the field and will not
listen to reason or advice because like most people with a degree or PhD in
the subject that my research is based on they have only three ways of
interpretation and follow it to the rule this being I observed; the right
interpretation, the wrong interpretation and their own interpretation which they
never give ground or even when deep down they know more investigative
work is needed. It is only after they are dead are their mistakes uncovered but
by then the damage is done by the data that they have submitted fast to be
published and beat the decaying body clock.
Such farcical episodes in Palaeoanthropology research is just as bad today as
it was fifty years ago I should point out the search is still going on for those
Missing Links that they seek here and there and everywhere, a little like the
UFO- brigade who still seek lights in the skies, aliens who carry out
abductions, and head-bangers who claim that an Alien Force came to Earth
2.5 million years ago and mated with apes, thus, we are the result of that
great union between Ape and Aliens.157
Not only that, the off-spring of such a Union then went on to build the Egyptian
pyramids and then shot over to South America and taught the local natives to
do the same. This of course in 2012 is what some people still think and what
Early Humans Researchers think when they talk about that Missing Link. The
Missing Link myth is running close second now to the hunt for the Holy Grail
and common sense does not enter into some academic minds that is so full of
chaff and self-importance that they fail to grasp the archaeology nettle.
The Palaeontologist, no matter who she or he is, is always faced with
such dilemmas when it comes to fossil human remains and ape fossils and I
should point out that there are many good ones out there in the field and in
our Universities but no four put together in a padded room will agree to what
the fossil is and what did it belong to man or ape?
Conclusive evidence, one way or the other on the real timelines of the
Neanderthals in Europe and parts of Asia is very hard to find and as an
example of what happens when you jump the gun and dont do your research
right, double check it and then check it again with someone else, you end up
with more than egg on your face.
This is what happened to the Swiss Naturalist, Johann Scheuchzer, 1672-
1733 found a long vertebral column with some other parts and all were in that
advanced fossil state. He of course claimed that it belonged to the remains of

a man before the Flood. He was so happy about his find and broadcast it to
many people only to find out later that it was a large Salamander and not
human in any form of his imagination.
But Scheuchzer was not alone in his fool thinking because later a skeleton
from Guadeloupe was found aboard a French Ship being searched by the
Royal Navy in the early 1900s and was said to be, the bones of a man in a158
fossil state. It proved later to be no more than 200 years old and not what
could be termed as a fossil as we know them.
A headache of course for anyone who makes claims first before checking out
dates and possible dates of remains found.
Real fossils, be they animals or humans have to go through a process of
fossilization and because after death remains are not broken down by now
known chemical components, such bones have been hidden away from the
many agents of decomposition then infiltrated by minerals and leaving us with
a stone like form of the human or animal shape when in life.
HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT IS A BONE FOSSIL AND WHAT IS MORE
RECENT.?
In the bad old days of hit and miss bone research the tongue test was used
and this was in the early to middle 19 th century. If a bone stuck to your tongue
then it was called a fossil because of the amount of collagen it contained.
Sadly once the use of hydrochloric acid came into use for testing bone fossils
it was discovered that tongue stick bone in fact contained large amounts of
collagen when in fact it should have been very little if it were a real bone fossil.
Sadly what went before the acid test and slipped through the archaeology net
of possibility was already labelled as fossil and today such items now lie
hidden away in shoe boxes in some dusty vault or have been tossed on a
rubbish pit, the collectors name removed from the find,
Today there is a simple field test. Was the fossil found above, below or in with
other bones of long extinct animals? Even then, the evidence of early man
was viewed with suspicion by many in case they were in fact much younger159
than the local geology on site suggested.
Such archaeology suspicion resulted in the very first fossil remains known to
have been found in the year 1700 at Cannstadt in the south of Germany being
rejected as human and a fossil at that. Through the find was a skull fragment
it lay in a small box for a 136 years afterwards in the Stuttgart Museum until it
was rediscovered in 1882 and turned out to be a real fossil but got very little
attention afterwards by people who claimed to be hot on the bones.
This was a sign of the times of course and when fossil human remains were
discovered by Baron von Schottheim in 1820 at Koestritz, upper Saxony they
were also treated with distain. No one who had any knowledge of bones and
fossils were going to stick their German necks out in public and claim human
fossil remains.
This is understandable because of the mistakes made in the past and
confidence took a hard knock in many establishments in places of learning
across Europe.
Paul Schmerling, 1791-1836 who was the founder of the first Palaeontology
study in Belgium had the same reaction from the public and Universities when
he discovered seven human skulls and other linked artefacts in caves at
Engis The skulls in question were mixed in with the remains of mammoth and
rhino bones which suggests strongly that they were in fact fossils. His claims,
which were in fact right, were rejected by the experts of the day. It was a hard
blow for him at the time but later it was Charles Lyell, an Englishman, who did
comment on their importance yet it was twenty five years before the experts
at the University of Liege passed the find at true and with evidence of such.
Evidence of such finds that were passed over by experts of the day did not
just happen in Europe but in England. Experts were not really interested and
if a few were they kept their mouths shut and their self-build reputations intact.160
Kents Cavern, near Torquay is a good example of English thinking at that
time and the evidence of flint working tools with the fossils of very extinct
animals in 1829 and was dismissed. A few years later, a skull discovered in
Gibraltar in 1846 was also dismissed by the archaeology community but I will
comment on this later.
Much of this could not care less attitude in the west may have had something
to do with Christian thinking at that time of debate on the thorny subject of
Evolution and I have no doubt at all that this was one reason why such finds
were dismissed, and even hide evidence of anything that looked human but
different. God you see, it is said, made Man in his image and the whole idea
that God had brow ridges, a larger un-shapely body and the remains looked
deformed was at this time a non-runner for upstanding Christians. What nailed
the whole thing was that the remains suggested strongly that this thing was
around before Adam and Eve ever came on the scene as humans, like us.
An example of such thinking I give here and it all started with a man
hunting rabbits with nets over the holes, went to get a rabbit out of the net
which had been carried deep into the hole by the fleeing animal.
This was on a hillside outside Aurignac, France and his hand touched
something that was not a rabbit but a large bone. He pulled out the bone,
followed by the rabbit in the net which he dispatched then dug deeper into the
hole. This suggests he had nets, ferrets and a small digging spade and he
used the spade to good effect because he found a cave that was littered with
human bones. As this happened in 1852 the local mayor, who it turns out was
also the local doctor for the area, Dr.Amiel no less, he confirmed that there
was the remains belonged to seventeen humans of both sexes and all ages.
Being a good Christian, the mayor and a doctor he had the power to order a161
quick Christian burial down in the parish churchyard and as far as he and
everyone else was concerned that was the end of the matter.
Alas that was not to be because eight years later in 1860 when a
palaeontologist; Edouard Lartet asked the Church Sexton about the burial of
the bones, the man shrugged and said he knew nothing of any such burial
and if it happened he would have known. I suggest that he did know and did
not want the matter brought up again or the bones in the mass grave.
In 1844 and in 1858 two books were published that in time tended to throw a
spanner in the works of Early Human Research, such as it was at this time.
The first book Vestiges had to be published anonymously to protect the
author; Robert Chambers 1802-1844 and its full working title was called;
Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, and the second and better known
book today was published fifteen years later by Charles Darwin; The Origin
Of Species and both caused uproar in many quarters across the reading
world.
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was almost beaten to the

post as an unpublished MMs by an Englishman by the name of Alfred Russel
Wallace, fourteen years younger than Darwin and a poor man at that, who
came up on the same track as Darwin. Wallace did write his book but made
the mistake of sending it to Darwin to read who was now living in Down House,
Down in Kent. The MMs from Wallace arrived with Darwin on the 26 th of June
1852. When Darwin opened and read the book he must have been shocked
because his own baby was still in stage five and both books, still unpublished
seemed to him to be almost replicas of one another. The rub for both men is
that their books had to be read and looked at closely by the committee of the
Linnean Society of London and read. The readings took place on the 1 st July
1858. It could well be that Darwin had friends on the committee where162
Wallace was not as well-known so it is possible that a nod and a wink was
given to Darwin and was told to prepare for publication and worked on stage
six as we today know it and the book, his book, was published on the 24 th
November 1859. Whatever happened to Wallaces book I dont know.
In all from my research there were in fact three such books, published or
unpublished all on the same trail of evolution and all in a hurry to get there
first in the public eye. Darwin of course read Vestiges then slagged it off and
as the author of Vestiges was taking all the public and professional doubts
about content this took the focus of Darwin though he did have his critics.
The relations between Darwin, the public, Church and the apes soured and
science looked like it was in fact opposing religion, the Bible looked like just a
book and read in quotes and even some of the learned people of the day also
condemned Darwin and his book. Darwin had kicked hard, a wasps nest of
objection and his views on Evolution of human kind which I should point out
still lingers today. Soon the debate raged for and against Darwins theory of
Evolution across the world and before anyone could say, Ape Man the
Neanderthals were dragged into the hot debate and for many, classified in the
science world as a gorilla from Africa. No one at that time could of course
explain how a gorilla entered Europe, a small part of Asia and lived in caves
with burning fires?163
Above are two skulls form an African gorilla and in comparison to any
Neanderthal skulls the difference could not be missed even by the small
number of so called experts in the 1800s
Above is the Neanderthal skull (left) and a modern skull (right) so how anyone
could get it wrong even in those far off days is beyond me, unless of course
they had their own agenda?
Any past finds and new ones of Neanderthal skulls should show in part or
whole the larger brain case and of course the brow ridges that cannot be
missed and there is nothing ape like with it.
The first official Neanderthal Man was discovered by limestone workers
clearing a deep cave and very narrow ravine in the Neander Valley and where
the Dussel River flows and just a short distance from the Rhine at Dusseldorf.
Though this cave was large getting into it was difficult because it was 20m up
a steep cliff-side with the entrance around a meter. All the bones discovered
where down almost two meters in mud and it was likely that the whole164
skeleton when found but because they were looked on as modern bones or
animal bones to the quarry men they were dumped with other rocks and mud
into the quarry below.
It was around seven weeks that a few of the bones were discovered by a
school teacher as well as a skull cap and no evidence of any fossil animals
found with the few shattered bones left. This would mean that the remains
could not be placed in a geology time-lines bracket so ID was done by sight
only.
Hermann Schaaffhausen, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Bonn who
could confirm the remains were human but very old and also he presented his
facts in Bonn on the 4 th February, 1857 and three years before Darwins book
was in fact published.
The professor was also able to establish that the limb bones were thick with
strong muscle attachments which suggested to him that whoever the man
was he was strong and used to heavy manual work and exercise. The strange
shape of the skull got more attention from him and he was able to say that it
was a normal shape but very different from modern day humans and not from
any race of skulls he had known.
His comments on the large brow ridges at first suggested large ape but he
knew that what he looked at was not an ape but from some primate human
from NW Europe that had even confronted the Romans when they invaded.
His dating of the timelines is wrong of course but what is important is that he
classified it as an ugly and strong human when living.165
So what we had then was the first Neanderthal uncovered and classified as
such but most of all, excepted as such.
From where had this early human come from and when?
New Genetic Phylogeny.
I can only suggest that DNA and RNA do give some of the answers
where we come from, but where the Neanderthals came from and where they
went is still in debate. Current animal and plant classification models are fairly
subjective in how they are set up and scientists had hoped that the newer
science of molecular biology would provide more objectivity to classification
systems. It was hoped that comparisons of the nucleotides of DNA or RNA
sequences or of amino acid sequences in proteins would yield more
consistent results that could be used to classify organisms with a high degree
of accuracy. However, according to an article in the January 1998 issue of
Science: hit this on the head and a bit of a blow to those that wanted it and
those that needed it to be true
Animal relationship derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different
from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences
is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present.
Growing evidence suggests that phylogenies of animal phyla constructed by the analysis of
rRNA sequences may not be as accurate as originally thought.
Inaccuracies may occur in molecular phylogenies for a variety of reasons.
Prior to analysis, the sequences of corresponding genes from each animal must be placed in
register (aligned) with each other so that homologous sites within each sequence can be
compared.
However, sequence divergences may be sufficiently large that unambiguous alignments cannot
be achieved, and different alignments may lead to different inferred relationships. The data is
often sufficiently noisy that there may be a lack of strong statistical support for important
groupings.
I therefore needed to discusses a figure detailed similarities and differences in rRNA
sequences which show that mollusks (scallops) are more closely related to sea urchins than
arthropods (brine shrimp). Of course, this is not too surprising. Intuitively, a scallop seems
more like a sea urchin than a shrimp but a Neanderthal seems more human than an ape,
even upright ones from Africa. So, the 82% correlation between the scallop and sea urchin is
not surprising or that past and modern apes still look like apes not human Here we have two
different arthropods, a shrimp and an scallop. How can a scallop be much more related to one
type of arthropod and much less related to the other type of arthropod? Such a troubling
thought led the authors of the Science article to remark:
Different representative species, in this case brine shrimp or tarantula for the arthropods,
yield wildly different inferred relationships among phyla. Both trees have strong bootstrap
support (percentage at node). . . The critical question is whether current models of r RNA
evolution are sufficiently accurate to successfully compensate for long branch attraction
between the animal phyla. Without knowing the correct tree ahead of time, this question will
be hard to answer. However, current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly .
Cytochrome C and other Proteins
There are many other interesting little problems concerning commonly used phytogenic
tracing genes and proteins. An example, mammalian and amphibian "luteinizing hormone
releasing hormone (LHRH) is identical.
However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH. If this were the case
are humans therefore more closely related to frogs than to birds? Not according to standard
evolutionary phylogeny trees. Again, the data does not match the classical theory in this
particular situation so what do we have left?
Calcitonin (lowers blood calcium levels in animals) is another protein commonly used to
determine phylogenies. Though humans differ from pigs by 18 of 32 amino acids, but by only
15 of 32 amino acids from the salmon. Are we therefore more closely related to fish than to
other mammals like the pig?
Cytochrome c is another famous phytogenic marker protein used to determine evolutionary
relationships. There is only a single amino acid difference between human and chimp
cytochrome c. and because of this, many assume that the evolutionary link is obvious.
It is not I say because if it was re-worked with many other animals, this link is not so obvious.
Cytochrome c protein of a turtle is closer to a bird than it is to a snake and a snake is closer to
a human (14 variations) than it is to a turtle (22 variations). Humans and horses, both being
placental mammals, are presumed to have shared a common ancestor with each other more
recently than they shared a common ancestor with a kangaroo (a marsupial). So the
evolutionist would expect the cytochrome c of a human to be more similar to that of a horse
than to that of a kangaroo.
Yet, the cytochrome c of the human varies in 12 places from that of a horse but only in 10
places from that of a kangaroo. 5 Such discrepancies between traditional phylogenies and
those based on cytochrome c are well known. If that has got you confused as it did me when I
read this data you are not alone.
Ayala commented that:
"The cytochrome c phylogeny disagrees with the traditional one in several instances,
including the following: the chicken appears to be related more closely to the penguin than to
ducks and pigeons; the turtle, a reptile, appears to be related more closely to birds than to the
rattlesnake, and man and monkeys diverge from the mammals before the marsupial kangaroo
separates from the placental mammals."
So, cytochrome c does seem to generally match the predictions of common decent. However,
there are some who think that the general cytochrome c data presents some puzzles from a
neo-Darwinian perspective. First, the cytochromes of all the higher organisms (yeasts, plants,
insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) exhibit an almost equal degree of
sequence divergence from the cytochrome of the bacteria Rhodospirillum. The degree of
divergence does not increase as one moves up the scale of evolution but remains essentially
uniform The following data chart that compares the % homogeny of cytochrome c among
various creatures:
Chi Neu Tetra S.
Hum mp- Hor Donk Mou Ca Lamp Mai ro-
Eugl -
pom
an
anze se
ey
se
rp rey
ze
spor
ena
hyme
be
e
a
88.
Human
--
100
78.
89.4 91.3
5
Chimpan
zee
66.
80.8
6
88.
100 --
5
66.
80.8
6
88.5 88.5 --
99.0 94.2
63.7 67.3 56.6 47.5

7
81.
Horse
63.7 67.3 56.6 47.5
7
78.
89.4 91.3
63.
84.6
6
na
65.7 71.2 58.6 46.5
7171
99.
Donkey
89.4 89.4
82.
--
95.2
0
5
94.
Mouse
91.3 91.3
64.
85.6
7
83.
95.2 --
2
66.
84.6
5
78.6 78.6
59.
82.5 83.5 --
81.6
6
81.
85.6 84.6
6
66.7 66.7
ora
57.
--
57.
68.3
70.8 --
11
58. 52. 51.

58.6 56.6
55.6
05
46. 44. 42.
46.5 48.5
48.5
0
54.5 48.5
57.6 54.5 --
6
5
70.8 57.6 45.5
1
2
47.5 47.5
mena
58.1 57.1 51.5 42.6
58.
64.
72.1 71.2
Euglena 56.6 56.6
Tetrahy
--
59.2
3
71.
67.3 67.3
pombe
59.2
65.7 65.7
7
S.
2
2
65.
63.7 63.7
59.2 68.3 55.6 48.5
59.
64.7 66.7
7
Neurosp
59.
--
6
63.
Maize
57.3 64.1 52.0 44.0
2
84.
Lamprey 80.8 80.8

65.7 71.2 56.6 48.5
7
81.
Carp
65.7 72.1 58.6 46.5
48.0
45.5 48.5 48.0 --
6
In reviewing this chart, pay particular attention to the
tetrahymena. Tetrahymena are unicellular ciliated protozoans.
According to the theory of common decent, all creatures living today are
equally separated in time from their first common ancestor
(i.e.: single celled bacteria).172
Even the bacteria that remain alive today have sustained mutations over
time as they maintained their similar morphology.
There is no reason not to suggest that the Neanderthals also had a
number of mutations thus producing something like Homo sapiens or to put a
finer point on it; modern humans of today because we should expect and not
be surprised when there is equal divergence between "simple" and
"complex".
If we think of it as spokes on a wheel with the central hub being the
common ancestor and the tips of each spoke representing a different
creature. The tip of each spoke is equally distant from the wheel hub as well
as many of the other spoke tips on the wheel. So obviously then, even if the
tip of one of the spokes was a single celled creature, like tetrahymena, this
creature would be expected to be equally distant from almost every other
creature on that wheel to include other single celled creatures as well as
multi-celled creatures like fish, corn, rabbits and humans.
Higher organisms, on the other hand, might be more similar to each other
due to a more recent separation from a common ancestor between them. For
example, humans and chimps are both equally different from bacteria, but
when compared with each other, their cytochrome c proteins are almost
identical but only one is human.
Thus, a more recent common ancestor seems quite logical as humans
and chimps simply share the same wheel spoke except that this spoke splits
at the very tip with humans and chimps sharing different tips.
Maximum Differences and Time173
The data put forward by others does seem to generally match the theory
even if specific anomalies may be encountered on relatively "rare" occasions
in such cases as cytochrome c phylogenies.
There are a few problems with this scenario supporting the theory of common
decent. The problem might arise when one considers that mutation rates are
calculated on a per generation average and if we consider that the average
mutation rate for a given gene in all creatures, is about 1 x 10 mutations per
gene per generation. That would mean that a given gene will mutate only
one time in one million generations on average. As that single celled
organisms have a much shorter generation time than multi-celled organisms
on average.
A fair example, the bacteria E. coli have a minimum generation time of 20
minutes compared to the generation time of humans of around 20 years. With

a gene being mutated every 1 to 10 million generations in
E. coli, one might think this would be a long time. Each and every gene in an
E. coli lineage will get mutated once every 40 to 80 years. So, in one million
years, each gene will have suffered at least 10,000 mutations. Therefore if
we work out the data for the Neanderthals from 100,000 years to 30,000
years as a single human example there has to be some evidence somewhere
that matches the other suggested data from elsewhere for or against?
Cytochrome c phylogenies are generally based on analysis of certain sub-
units of cytochrome c which range in number of amino acids up to a maximum
of about 600 or so. This would translate into a minimum of at least 1,800
nucleic acids in DNA coding for this sub-unit of cytochrome c protein (3bp per
codon). Note that in the table above, the tetrahymena species are about 50%
different from all other creatures on the table. It seems then that all the
creatures would have experienced at least a 25% change in their genetic174
codes from the time of common ancestor.
So how many generations would it take to achieve this 25% difference?
Taking 25% of 1,800 give us 450 mutations so let us say that the average
mutation rate is one mutation per 1,800 nucleic acids per one million
generations. For a steady state population of just one individual in each
generation it would take about 450 million generations to get a 25% difference
from the common ancestor. With a generation time of 20 minutes (i.e.: E. coli),
that works out to be about 342,000 years. So, for bacteria, the 25%
difference from the common ancestor cytochrome c, might have been
achieved relatively rapidly given the evolutionary time frame. Unless
something speeded up the mutations of the Neanderthals?

Functional Differences
The question is then, if bacteria can achieve such relatively rapid neutral
genetic drift, why are they not more wide ranging in their cytochrome c
sequences?
It seems that if these cytochrome c sequence differences were really
neutral differences, that various bacterial groups, colonies, and species,
would cover a rather large range of possible cytochrome c sequences -
potentially to include that of mammals.
Why are they then so uniformly separated from all other "higher" species
unless the cytochrome sequences are functionally based and therefore
statically different due to the various functional needs of creatures that inhabit
different environments? Questions on Questions if you try to work it out and175
the answers I discovered are not simple, some doubtful.
Bacteria are thought to share a common ancestor with creatures as diverse
as snails, sponges, and fishes and this split from the common ancestry of the
creatures is said to have happened over 3 billion years ago. About 600
million years ago there was the Cambrian explosion where all the major phyla
of living things are thought to have suddenly evolved but as far as I am
concerned the jury is still out on this one.
All of these creatures have all been around long enough and are diverse
enough to exhibit quite a range in cytochrome c variation. If this was the case
why then are their cytochrome c sequences so clustered and arranged in
such an orderly hierarchy and why don't bacteria, snails, fish, and sponges
cover a more random range of cytochrome c sequence variation if these
variation possibilities are in fact neutral?

I am going to suggest that the clustered differences that are seen in genes
and protein sequences, such cytochrome c, are the result of differences in
function that actually benefit the various organisms according to their different
individual needs.
If the differences were in fact neutral differences, there could be a vast
overlap by now with complete blurring of species' cytochrome c boundaries
and even between species as obviously different as humans and bacteria.
Sequence differences may not be so much the result of differences due to
random mutation over time as they are due to differences in the functional
needs of different creatures.
Much the same can be said of most if not all phylogenies that are based on
genotypic differences between all living things but evidence of such is lacking
as fact.
I have considered that if either humans or bacteria would be better served by176
a different sequence for a particular function this different sequence would be
rapidly evolved - especially in bacteria but if the human sequence for
cytochrome c would better serve E. coli bacteria than their current fairly
similar type of cytochrome c, how can an evolutionist say that E. coli would
have very much trouble at all evolving the human sequence?
Sequences remain consistently different over a significant real time line,
observation (over a million generations for bacteria at least) is very good
evidence that the differences in DNA character sequencing are based in
differences of functional need, not evolutionary heritage, unless something
happened to change this 30,000 years ago in Europe.
Nested Hierarchical Patterns and Common Descent

Then, there is also the argument that the nested hierarchical pattern, by
itself, supports the theory of common descent - even if it is known that
intelligent design had to have been involved. Regardless of the involvement
of intelligent design or not, the simple presence of the pattern is argument
enough to support the theory of common descent - or is it?
Parts of the Tree of Life
Another interesting question concerns the notion that a nested hierarchical
pattern is present throughout the tree of life. This doesn't seem to be the
case. It seems as though the roots of the tree do not show a nested
pattern. This means that the evolutionary theory has to be able to explain
both nested and non-nested patterns in the tree of life.177
In this line consider the fairly recent comments from Elizabeth Pennisi in a
1999 Science article entitled, "Is it Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?"
"A year ago, biologists looking over newly
sequenced genomes from more than a dozen
microorganisms thought these data might support
the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But
what they saw confounded them. Comparisons of
the genomes then available not only didn't clarify
the picture of how life's major groupings evolved,
they confused it. And now, with an additional eight
microbial sequences in hand, the situation has
gotten even more confusing . . . Many evolutionary
biologists had thought they could roughly see the
beginnings of life's three kingdoms . . . When full

DNA sequences opened the way to comparing
other kinds of genes, researchers expected that
they would simply add detail to this tree. But
"nothing could be further from the truth," says
Claire Fraser, head of The Institute for Genomic
Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland. Instead,
the comparisons have yielded many versions of
the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and
conflict with each other as well .
Such problems were not completely unexpected. Earlier, in 1993,178
Patterson, Williams, and Humphries, scientists with the British Museum,
reached the following conclusion in their review of the congruence between
molecular and morphologic phylogenies:
As morphologists with high hopes of molecular
systematics, we end this survey with our hopes
dampened. Congruence between molecular
phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and
as it is between molecules and morphology. Partly
because of morphologys long history, congruence
between morphological phylogenies is the exception
rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all
generated within the last couple of decades, the
situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence
between molecular phylogenies are documented
above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1%

of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published
structure or resolution tends to evaporate.
In 1998 biologist Carl Woese, who was an early pioneer in producing
rRNA-based phylogenetic trees, concluded:
"No consistent organismal
phylogeny has emerged from the
many individual protein phylogenies
so far produced.179
Phylogenetic incongruities can
be seen everywhere in the universal
tree, from its root to the major
branchings within and among the
various taxa to the makeup of the
primary groupings themselves. Yet
there is no consistent alternative to
the rRNA phylogeny, and that
phylogeny is supported by a number
of fundamental genes... For
example... different (related) aaRSs
root that tree differently...
Exceptions to the topology of the
rRNA tree such as these are
sufficiently frequent and statistically
solid that they can be neither
overlooked nor trivially dismissed on

methodological grounds. Collectively,
these conflicting gene histories are
so convoluted that lateral gene
transfer is their only reasonable
explanation.
In 1999, Michael Lynch noted in "The Age and Relationships of the Major
Animal Phyla" that:180
Clarification of the phylogenetic
relationships of the major animal
phyla has been an elusive problem,
with analyses based on different
genes and even different analyses
based on the same genes yielding a
diversity of phylogenetic trees.
In 1999 Philippe and Forterre wrote an article entitled, "The rooting of the
universal tree of life is not reliable" in which they made the following
comments:
"The addition of new sequences
to data sets has often turned
apparently reasonable phylogenies
into confused ones. . . In general, the
two prokaryotic domains were not
monophyletic with several aberrant
groupings at different levels of the
tree. Furthermore, the respective

phylogenies contradicted each others,
so that various ad hoc scenarios
(paralogy or lateral gene transfer)
must be proposed in order to obtain
the traditional Archaebacteria-181
Eukaryota sisterhood."
Another 1999 Science article by Stiller and Hall:
"A precipitous acceptance of
such widespread LGT places
evolutionary biologists in the
untenable position of adopting an
falsifiable hypothesis, at least in
terms of the techniques of
comparative sequence analyses that
currently dominate the field of
molecular evolution. Any
phylogenetic pattern inferred from
any given gene can be fit to some
suitable mix of conventional
interspecies gene transmission and
interorganismal genetic promiscuity.
Thus, unless more reliable evidence
is uncovered, the scientific method
requires that we invoke the idea of
ubiquitous LGT only as a last resort."

And another 1999 Science article by Doolittle:182
"Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not
hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced
relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea."
Just one more 1999 paper by Ann Miller, from the Yale Department of
Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, entitle, "The Evolution of
Phylogenetic Classification: From 16S rRNA to the Genomic Tree."
"The 16S rRNA tree is not an
organismal phylogenetic tree; it is a
gene tree. To move towards
organismal phylogeny, scientists
began creating trees based on other
proteins. In many cases, the other
phylogenies do confirm the rRNA
tree, but no one consistent
phylogeny has emerged."
More recently Kechris, wrote:
"Phylogenies constructed on
nitrogen fixation genes are not in
agreement with the tree-of-life based183
on 16S rRNA but do not conclusively
distinguish between gene loss and
LGT hypotheses. Using a series of
analyses on a set of complete
genomes, our results distinguish two

structurally distinct classes of MoFe
nitrogenises whose distribution cuts
across lines of vertical inheritance
and makes us believe that a
conclusive case for LGT has been
made."
There is even suggestion that lateral gene transfer (LGT) may be fairly
common between single-celled organisms and multicellular creatures. In a
2007 paper published in Science, Hotopp et. al., argue that there has been
"widespread lateral gene transfer" between endosymbiosis bacteria and
insects, and nematodes.
Consistent hierarchies, at least for the earliest branches of the supposed
"Tree of Life", are falling apart with additional evidence and I suggest almost
like a bad human post mortem being performed but unlike some researchers
still has a brain before removal. When a given organism has hundreds of
genes which none of its supposed nearest evolutionary relatives have,
evolutionists are left in a very perplexing position even though they have
some of the bones and hard guesses at dating a timeline.
In order to maintain their theory they must propose, in an ad hoc non-184
falsifiable manner, that these differences were not the result of evolution from
a common ancestor over time, but were in fact the result of lateral transfer of
pre-evolved sequences. This comment as far as I am concerned is bad
research without good cross reference with the notion of being a "science". It
is not science since it is not falsifiable.
It is nothing more than "just so" storytelling and those people, at least some
of them who work in genetics, tend to blind other researchers with their
advanced science jargon I have observed over the years. There is little
purpose to this when working with genetics and early humans because it does
not come across to me as people with knowledge of the subject but of people
who love quoting text book jargon to try and impress others. It fails badly of
course and even Neanderthals, if they were around today, would come to the
same conclusion that the writer of such data, from a biology point of view
knew little of his/her subject and a complete dip stick when it came down to
the study of the Neanderthal data. They quote what they have read and not
from what they should know.
So, evolutionary mechanisms are used to explain both hierarchical and
non-hierarchical patterns. No matter how high up the tree this lack of
hierarchy goes, the theory of evolution would still be used to explain the origin
of such patterns. But why?
For focal problems in the tree between branches at higher levels, a
change in mutation rate, or notions like convergence, divergence, or even
lateral gene transfer are used. This messes everything up. Evolutionists
would have a much stronger case if the sequences in question were actually
neutral with regard to phenotypic function, but they aren't. That is why the
notion of maybe was so popular for such a long time - until recently when185
pseudo genes were actually found to be functional.
Some argue that this doesn't happen because the different sequences are
equally beneficial or "optimal" if applied to the same organism. That is
basically arguing that the differences are not in fact functional different, but
are actually neutral with respect to a functional optimum. Again, that makes
no sense in light of the evidence that the differences, in addition to the
similarities, are maintained over time. If this neutral argument were correct,
then the distribution of sequences would be more randomly distributed. In
other words, it would not be so neatly nested or filed away as research data
that is truth.
The evidence of functional maintenance over time is very strong evidence
that the nested differences are not so much the result of common ancestry as
they are the result of various functional needs of different organisms in
different environments. And, this is very much what we find in real life.
Even modern humans, when occupying different environments, will evolve
different genetic sequences for various protein products that are actually
functionally maintained over time due to various advantages that the
differences provide in the different environments.
There are many examples of this. And yet, when placed in the same
environment, the differences quickly disappear in the offspring over time.
Why? Because, there are indeed different optimal sequences when different
overall phenotypes interact with different environments.
The significant majority of differences between the cytochrome c of bacteria
and humans are functional. They are not neutral. If the human sequence
were put in a bacterium, it might survive ok, but it would not do as well. Over
time, its offspring would rapidly evolve back the original more optimum
sequence.186
Hominid/Primate D-loop Sequence Analysis
A "few million years" might also be a problem for the
resolution of mitochondrial D-loop sequences. Consider that the

sequences used (two of them) to estimate the time of the most
recent common ancestor (MRCA) between modern humans,
Neandertals, and chimpanzees where each less than 400 base
pairs in length (333bp and 340bp respectively). The mutation
rate used by Krings et. al. was based on the a priori assumption
that modern humans split off from chimps some "4-5 million
years" ago. Based on this perhaps plausible, but indirect
assumption, a substitution rate of 0.94 x 10 -7 substitutions per
site per year per lineage, was determined. Using this rate, the
MRCA between humans and Neandertals was calculated to
have lived about 465,000 years ago. The MRCA of modern
humans was calculated to have lived around 163,000 years ago.
And, the MRCA of chimps and bonobos was calculated to have
lived around 2,844,000 years ago. 3, 11, 13
Krings' figures are all fine and good except if we happen to
come across a more direct measurement of mtDNA. The
following work by Thomas Parsons published in the journal
Nature Genetics:187
"The rate and pattern of
sequence substitutions in the
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control
region (CR) is of central importance
to studies of human evolution and to
forensic identity testing. Here, we
report a direct measurement of the

intergenerational substitution rate in
the human CR. We compared DNA
sequences of two CR hyper variable
segments from close maternal
relatives, from 134 independent
mtDNA lineages spanning 327
generational events. Ten
substitutions were observed,
resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33
generations, or 2.5/site/ Myr. This is
roughly twenty-fold higher than
estimates derived from phylogenetic
analyses. This disparity cannot be
accounted for simply by substitutions
at mutational hot spots, suggesting
additional factors that produce the
discrepancy between very near-term
and long-term apparent rates of
sequence divergence. The data also
indicate that extremely rapid188
segregation of CR sequence variants
between generations is common in
humans, with a very small mtDNA
bottleneck. These results have
implications for forensic applications

and studies of human evolution . . .
The observed substitution rate
reported here is very high compared
to rates inferred from evolutionary
studies. A wide range of CR
substitution rates have been derived
from phylogenetic studies, spanning
roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr,
including confidence intervals. A
study yielding one of the faster
estimates gave the substitution rate
of the CR hyper variable regions as
0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a
generation time of 20 years, this
corresponds to ~1/600 generations
and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of
133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of
the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is
roughly 20-fold higher than would be
predicted from phylogenetic analyses.
Using our empirical rate to calibrate189
the mtDNA molecular clock would
result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA
of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly
incompatible with the known age of

modern humans. Even
acknowledging that the MRCA of
mtDNA may be younger than the
MRCA of modern humans, it remains
implausible to explain the known
geographic distribution of mtDNA
sequence variation by human
migration that occurred only in the
last ~6,500 years."
Several other more real time studies dealing with historical
families have backed up Parson's findings.
So, it seems as though more direct real-time measurements of
mtDNA mutation rates show as much as a 20-fold higher
mutation rate than that which was used by Krings et al. Now
what does this mean - besides the obvious?
The sequences studied by Krings totaled 673 base pairs in
length. According to the rate determined by Parsons, every
single one of these base pairs would have changed more than
twice in one million years and at least once in 400,000 years.190
Half of the base pairs would have mutated at least once in
200,000 years. And yet, humans are separated by only about
95 or so substitution differences from chimps? What is wrong
with this picture? Each substitution difference (in a sequence
some 673 base pairs in length) takes an average of 600 years to
achieve. Taking into account that each lineage would build up

substitution differences separately, in 600 years there would be
around two substitution difference between two lineages. This
seems to indicate that the common ancestor of humans and
chimps lived some 30,000 years ago (not 4 to 8 million years
ago as Krings et al., suggest - based on indirect methods).
Modern humans, being separated from each other by an
average of only 10 substitutions (according to Krings), appear to
have a common ancestor living some 3,000 years ago. Modern
Humans and Neandertals are separated by an average of only
35 substitution which to me seems to indicate a common
ancestor living only some 10,000 years ago.!
Reasonable Explanation?
"It should be noted that molecular phylogenies are constructed on the
basis of certain evolutionary assumptions. The tree that is presented is
chosen from a forest of alternatives, typically on the assumption of maximum
parsimony. That is, the tree that is selected is the one that reflects the least
amount of presumed evolutionary change. But, if the assumption of maximum
parsimony fails to fit the data, it can be jettisoned in favour of another."191
In other words, any result can be accommodated by the theory by revising
one or more of the underlying assumptions but not proven.
Even if a morphological phylogeny was matched closely by multiple
molecular phylogenies, that would not prove that the groups in question
descended from a common ancestor.
The molecular differences could be linked to the morphological differences
for some other reason. For example, all of the living organisms on this planet
live in a relatively similar environment. All use the same water, breathe the
same air, and eat the same basic foods for building blocks and energy. Is it
not reasonable to assume that a similar environment requires at least some
similarities in the creatures that utilize it for survival?
Nothing lives to itself. All living things are dependent upon other living
things. If they were not molecularly and thus genetically compatible, nothing
would survive very long. The "cycle of life" is dependent upon this fact. There
would be no cycle if the basic building blocks of the creatures involved were
not interchangeable with each other. Considering this need, it seems
reasonable to assume that those creatures that share the most similar
environments, body plans, and physiology would also have the most similar
needs and thus the most similar genetic and molecular machineries.
Biologist Leonard Brand makes this point quite eloquently in the following
excerpt:
"Anatomy is not independent of
biochemistry. Creatures similar anatomically are likely to
be similar physiologically. Those similar in physiology
are, in general, likely to be similar in biochemistry,192
whether they evolved or were designed. An alternate,
interventionist hypothesis is that the cytochrome c
molecules in various groups of organisms are different
(and always have been different) for functional
reasons. Not enough mutations have occurred in these
molecules to blur the distinct grouping evident. If we do
not base our conclusions on the a priori assumption of

mega evolution, all the data really tell us is that the
organisms fall into nested groups without any indication
of intermediates or overlapping of groups, and without
indicating ancestor/descendant relationships."
So, classification models of living things that are based on molecular
similarities and differences are quite limited as far as their use as
evidence of common ancestry beyond very recent times. Many
differences that are maintained seem to be function based. Because of
this, certain differences in sequences cannot be used as a "molecular
clock" since natural selection fixes certain sequences based on
functional needs so that random drift is not allowed. Beyond this, very
different phylogenetic relationships can be hypothesized depending
upon which sequence is subjectively chosen for analysis. These
different trees are often outright incompatible with each other or, at
best, inconclusive and that means no matter how good the genetic
research has been when it comes down to the DNA of Neanderthal
Man and what is called modern humans today there is room for doubt193
because I am off the opinion that they are one in the same, only one
mutated big time.
It seems that in the case of Neanderthal Man there is differences of
opinion but before I go into that I want to go over what we know or think
we know about the Neanderthals in Europe.
- Sima de los Huesos, near Atapuerca, Spain
A cave full of bones, including at least 24 near-humans and this was a deep
crack, not a comfortable shelter which does not appear to be an animal den,
or the bodies may have been put there intentionally.
These first group of bones dated about 0.3 mya (300,000 ya) with a mixture of
features of (1) H. heidelbergensis.
(2) and of Neanderthals.
The bones were very variable from individual to individual with different
features mixed in different individuals and at first suggest that the
Neanderthals evolved from H. heidelbergensis rather than being a distinctly
different population.194
However I should point out similarly intermediate, hard-to-classify individuals
have been found elsewhere around Europe during this general period
By about 127,000, these early humans with a fairly consistent suite of
physical traits lived all over Europe but in small groups and numbers. For
the benefit of this research I call them, Neanderthals after the German name
of the Neander valley, where the first one was found so enter Homo
neanderthalensis.
Neanderthals are found only in Europe and my research does show that
H. heidelbergensis continued in Africa and Asia without developing the
Neanderthal features thus again suggesting that the Neanderthals came from
another source and place.
It has been suggested by others over the years through some recent genetic
work indicates that there are few or no Neanderthal genes in modern
Europeans ,instead, all modern humans apparently descend from a fairly
small population of H. heidelbergensis in Africa.
I have to disagree strongly with the view and believe the evidence points at
Neanderthals being the first modern human followed by Cro-Magnon Man

but l will get to this later during the first early Cro-Magnon timeline.
The European Neanderthals, the Asian H. erectus, and probably the Asian H.
heidelbergensis all eventually went extinct only about 30,000 years ago dead
branches on our family tree but it was Homo Neanderthals that lived longer in
Europe that eithers H.erectus or Heidelbergensis.
Thankfully we happen to know a something about the Neanderthals because
they lived relatively recently and in Europe, where lots of
paleoanthropologists have been working since the field work began.195
Some features of Neanderthals - cranial features, large brains, larger on
average than modern humans .1245 to 1740 cc, averaging 1520 cc
H. heidelbergensis at 1200-1300 cc and modern H. sapiens at 1000 to 2000
cc, averaging 1400 cc
Some researchers think maybe Neanderthals' larger brains simply reflect
greater overall body mass than modern humans?
Yes there was a rounded, more inflated braincase but shape is still longer
and lower than modern H. sapiens. Occipital bun, rather than occipital torus -
unlike the occipital torus, the occipital bun is not a thickening of the bone,
instead, it is just a part of the braincase that bulges out - gives a rounder
shape to the lower back of the cranium, compared to the more sharply angled
shape of H. heidelbergensis
Low forehead of course thin cranial bones, unlike H. heidelbergensis.
Facial features
Large, heavily-built face - Face is pulled forward relative to braincase this
and the massive face itself leave space for larger sinuses separating the brain
a bit from the path of cold air entering the nose thought to be an adaptation to
cold climate in Europe yet so far the evidence is weak.
The massive brow ridges but hollow, containing sinuses, rather than solid
bone matter and again, may be an adaptation to lose less heat from the brain.
Huge, beaky nose wide nasal opening nasal bones approach horizontal,
indicating a high, projecting curve at the top of the nose again one other
research claims that it may be an adaptation to cold, with more tissue to
warm incoming air before it blows by the brain and into the lungs196
Receding chin.
Dental formula features.
Small back teeth, especially the molars - molars (upper parts of the roots are
merged together into one big, tubular root) - Retro molar gap
probably just reflects the more forward position of the teeth relative to the
hinge of the jaw due to pulling the whole face forward
- Relatively large incisors with usually with very heavy, angled wear from
working hides by pulling or scraping with the front teeth.
There is often evidence of diagonal scratches on the front of the incisors from
cutting off meat or hide held in the front teeth but such
scratches are mostly from the individuals own upper left to lower right - just
as expected if a right-handed person were cutting something held in their front
teeth, cutting close to the teeth.
Body features;
Stocky, robust, very muscular bodies with leg bone shafts are thicker-walled
than modern H. sapiens and knee and hip joints larger than modern H.
sapiens.
This may have been to spread weight, shocks, wear over a larger area
should withstand heavy use better with more muscular scapulae (shoulder
joints) than H. sapiens and strong arms.
Barrel-chested:
deep, round torso - typical of modern populations that are adapted to cold197
climates and/or high elevations - increases lung capacity, thus oxygen intake,
thus ability to support lots of muscle and
heavy activity and conserves heat by reducing surface area relative to volume
of tissue in the torso.
Short extremities in particular, low index length of tibia divided by length of
femur that is, lower leg is short relative to upper leg.
In modern humans, lower crural indices are strongly correlated to populations
that have long lived in cold climates - stumpy limbs conserve more heat; long
limbs radiate more heat - Neanderthals crural indices are like the most
extreme known for modern humans: Laps, who live in the arctic Overall,
many Neanderthal features seem to reflect selection pressures from very cold
environments and this thinking is not surprising, given that Neanderthals
appeared as the Pleistocene ice ages were beginning and persisted almost
until they ended
The timeline during which Neanderthals evolved averaged much colder than
today, with drastic swings in global climate - by, say, 110,000 years ago,
Europe and North America were partially covered by glaciers and exposed
land would have been frigid, nearly Arctic grassland which supporting herds of
large animals from reindeer to woolly mammoths.
Climate change is nothing new to us or in fact to the first early humans
and our current climate in the last 10,000 years or so has been both unusually
warm and unusually stable.
At one time there were wild global temperature swings that went from high to
low in a matter of centuries - from relatively brief periods that were
substantially warmer than today - to longer periods that averaged much colder
than today and European data now suggest that some shifts from temperate
to subarctic climates occurred within as little as 25 years!198
Neanderthal culture;
Again debate of what is culture and I do not believe as others do and
broadcast it off the top of their heads that that the Neanderthals ever had a
working culture.
One must not forget that H. ergaster and early H. heidelbergensis made
mode 2 Acheulean style of stone tools - 1.6 0.3 mya - This is referred to as
the Old Stone Age in Africa, or the Lower Paleolithic period in
Europe but you could not call it a culture as such. A timeline or period yes,
culture no.
Late H. heidelbergensis in both Africa and Europe, as well as the
Neanderthals in Europe, made better stone tools than before - starting around
0.3 mya - emphasizing flake tools, typically with the shape of the flake
controlled by preparing the core, as in the Levalloisian technique
This is referred to as the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa, or the Middle
Paleolithic period in Europe the European style of mode 3 tools that
Neanderthals made is called Mousterian
Features of Mousterian stone technology
It is based on carefully made flakes, rather than the cores from which the
flakes were removed with the classic technique of the Mousterian style is the
"Levalloisian technique" ,the shape of the flake is predetermined and
controlled by carefully preparing the core and the flake is then used as it is, or
slightly modified to make a projectile point, scraper, knife, drill, or other tool.
Some cores were then reshaped and another flake tool is struck off199
unlike the repetitive Acheulean style, in which just a couple of main forms
were made, the Mousterian style includes a wide variety of identifiably
different forms - this presumably means that some more complex thinking was
involved in making and using them.
Some Mousterian tools were apparently hafted (mounted in handles or on
shafts, probably of wood) - this is based on studies of wear on the stone parts
and it goes along with the finding that many of the tools have edges that
show wear typical of cutting wood ,later used that would be for making
handles, shafts, clubs, digging sticks, etc.
Stone use only would up to a few kilometres from its source, maybe an
afternoon's walk at most .
Other aspects of Neanderthal culture;
In almost all Neanderthal sites - no bone tools ,no decoration on tools
no beads, pendants, figurines, cave art, etc.
There is one known exception, a cave at Arcy-sur-Cure, France
lower levels contained one fragment of a cranium that has been identified as
Neanderthal dated very late for Neanderthals: about 33,000 ya the artefacts
included bone awls which included one that broke while it was being made
and was never finished.
This suggests that the Neanderthal residents of the cave made these tools,
rather than getting them from possible modern humans nearby - also bone
beads and pendants, with similar evidence of being made in the cave shows
that Neanderthals were biologically capable of this human-like behaviour that
is, working bone and most of all, the symbolic thinking involved in making and
using personal ornaments.200
Most groups of Neanderthals very rarely did it and this raises the question,
why not?
Of course the late date means that there could have been modern humans
sharing the region with these Neanderthals , small groups of Cro-Magnons
and some sort of commutations in force as well as sharing goods, food and
skins.
I suggest that some evidence does point at the Arcy-sur-Cure Neanderthals
coming into contact with more modern humans and picked up some of their
customs.
Neanderthals probably hunted large and small game - at least up to antelope
size with some regularity ,probably sometimes larger animals, including bison,
wild ox, etc.201
The evidence scant as it is at Neanderthal sites, was that there is a high
proportion of just one or a few large animal species - scavenging or
opportunistically killing old or weak animals would give a mix of
species more like the mix of live animals in the environment and
in many sites, there are many bones of mature animals
There would also have been scavenging or opportunistic killing would produce
more emphasis on young and old animals, which are more likely to have been
carnivore prey or to have died of other causes
and several sites with Mousterian tools seem to be places where herds of
large animals (including mammoths) were driven off cliffs and then butchered.
Other sites have unusually high proportions of meaty limb bones suggesting
that the Neanderthals hunted the animals cut off the best, most portable parts,
and brought only those back to a camp.
Even so they still did not apparently build shelters - many sites are inside
caves - but this is probably just because cave sites happen to be better
preserved and are easier to find than open-air sites that would feel safe and
much easier to defend.
Search the data as you will but I have found no evidence of postholes from
huts, hearths, or other constructed features, so if they didnt build huts or
hearths in the mouths of caves, maybe they didnt build them outside of caves.
From the known bone data Neanderthals tended to die young, often after
having survived multiple injuries in their lifetime, the oldest Neanderthal
skeletons were 40-45 years old at death yet they often show serious arthritis,
loss of teeth, etc., one from Shanidar (Iraq) had had the side of his face
crushed by a serious blow that healed, but probably left him blind in one eye
and paralyzed on one side (the arm and leg bones were atrophied) and there202
are many other Neanderthals with healed fractures, bone infections probably
caused by bad wounds, etc.
- It has often suggested that all these healed injuries and decrepit old people
indicate that Neanderthals cared for their old and sick. Boyd and Silk suggest
point out that non-human primates often survive serious injuries without help
from others but still, this does not explain why so many injuries?
One study suggests that the mix of injuries is similar to that found in rodeo
competitors but I doubt it so Neanderthals may have frequently had hostile

encounters with cow and horse-sized animals in herds while involved in a
major hunt. They would if they hunted the sorts of animals found at many of
their sites and used weapons that required them to get close, like spears.
Neanderthals sometimes buried their dead evidence is scanty to say the least
but in contrast to any previous homos, we suddenly have numerous finds of
whole bodies - not just scattered parts or very rare whole individuals and I find
that the only reasonable explanation for such a improvement in preservation
is that they began burying their dead.
The data on such bodies suggest they have been cared for post death and
found flexed, on their side not in random positions or as left by predators or
scavengers
When the archaeology community dont know the answer they always
suggest possible ritual treatments? This is some seem to have been buried
with stone tools and in one case (Shanidar, Iraq), pollen in the soil of the
burial suggested that the body was buried with flowers but this could suggest
that the smell of a decaying body was the reason for the flowers.
In another case, a set of mountain goat horns were found over the head but
these cases are all debatable because the said objects might have already
been in the soil - or maybe they got into the burial accidentally at the time. We203
just dont know in this case.
In Africa the fossil record for this period is not nearly as good as it is for
Europe because in Europe: by 100,000 ya, some populations of H.
heidelbergensis were developing Neanderthal traits - by 90,000 ya,
Neanderthals were a clearly distinctive variety (maybe species) in Europe by
contrast, in Africa.
- from about 300,000 to 200,000 ya, there were still populations similar to
Homo heidelbergensis
- none developed the distinctive Neanderthal-like traits - this makes sense if
the Neanderthal traits were adaptations to the extreme cold of Pleistocene
Europe
- from about 200,000 to 100,000 ya, African populations began looking more
like modern humans: Homo sapiens - higher, more rounded cranium in side
view - reduced browridges - more on this next time
- About 50,000 ya, anatomically modern Homo sapiens, with modern, human-
like culture, began spreading out of Africa - again, more on this next time -
they may have shared parts of Europe and the Middle East with the latest
Neanderthals - from about 40,000 to 30,000 ya - remaining physically distinct
- and mostly culturally distinct
- Arcy-sur-Cure around 33,000 ya may be a rare exception
- with Neanderthals maybe in contact with modern Homo sapiens
- and maybe adopting some of their cultural practices
- by 30,000 ya, the Neanderthals were gone
- What happened to the Neanderthals? - genetic studies indicate that they204
made little or no contribution to modern human populations - they probably
co-existed with distinctly different modern humans for a while in the Middle
East and Europe - but apparently did not interbreed with them much or at all
- so Homo sapiens apparently simply replaced them in Europe
- out-competed them?
- drove them to extinction?
- something similar happened in Asia

- H. heidelbergensis (or the Asian equivalent) disappeared - also apparently
making little or no genetic contribution to modern Homo sapiens in Asia - H.
erectus in Asia disappeared around the same time - coincidence?
- so, by about 30,000 ya, the only hominin left standing in Africa, Europe, or
Asia was Homo sapiens
- Next time we will look at the origins of these Homo sapiens in Africa, and
their spread over the rest of the world.
When I researched Huxleys work I was again taken by surprise because he
presented in detail his own research and most of it I tend to agree with. In
honour of the man I have included it below.
Huxleys research is worthwhile and not in any way is it a that far out
from what I am trying to do a cross reference on. The two skulls images
I have inserted and are in colour.
FOSSIL REMAINS OF MAN205
Thomas Huxley
I HAVE endeavored to show, in the preceding Essay, that the ANTHROPINI,
or Man Family, form a very well defined group of the Primates, between which
and the immediately following Family, the CATARHINI, there is, in the existing
world, the same entire absence of any transitional form or connecting link, as
between the CATARHINI and PLATYRHINI.
It is a commonly received doctrine, however, that the structural intervals
between the various existing modifications of organic beings may be
diminished, or even obliterated, if we take into account the long and varied
succession of animals and plants which have preceded those now living and
which are known to us only by their fossilized remains. How far this doctrine is
well based, how far, on the other hand, as our knowledge at present stands, it
is an overstatement of the real facts of the case, and an exaggeration of the
conclusions fairly deducible from them, are points of grave importance, but
into the discussion of which I do not, at present, propose to enter. It is enough
that such a view of the relations of extinct to living beings has been
propounded, to lead us to inquire, with anxiety, how far the recent discoveries
of human remains in a fossil state bear out, or oppose, that view.
I shall confine myself, in discussing this question, to those fragmentary
Human skulls from the caves of Engis in the valley of the Meuse, in Belgium,
and of the Neanderthal near Dusseldorf, the geological relations of which
have been examined with so much care by Sir Charles Lyell; upon whose
high authority I shall take it for granted, that the Engis skull belonged to a
contemporary of the Mammoth ('Elephas primigenius') and of the woolly
Rhinoceros ('Rhinoceros tichorhinus'), with the bones of which it was found206
associated; and that the Neanderthal skull is of great, though uncertain,
antiquity. Whatever be the geological age of the latter skull, I conceive it is
quite safe (on the ordinary principles of paleontological reasoning) to assume
that the former takes us to, at least, the further side of the vague biological
limit, which separates the present geological epoch from that which
immediately preceded it. And there can be no doubt that the physical
geography of Europe has changed wonderfully, since the bones of Men and
Mammoths, Hyenas and Rhinoceroses were washed pell-mell into the cave of
Engis.
The skull from the cave of Engis was originally discovered by Professor
Schmerling, and was described by him, together with other human remains
disinterred at the same time, in his valuable work, 'Recherches sur les
ossemens fossiles decouverts dans les cavernes de la Province de Liege',
published in 1833 (p. 59, 'et seq.'), from which the following paragraphs are
extracted, the precise expressions of the author being, as far as possible,
preserved.
"In the first place, I must remark that these human remains, which are in my
possession, are characterized like thousands of bones which I have lately
been disinterring, by the extent of the decomposition which they have
undergone, which is precisely the same as that of the extinct species: all, with
a few exceptions, are broken; some few are rounded, as is frequently found to
be the case in fossil remains of other species. The fractures are vertical or
oblique; none of them are eroded; their colour does not differ from that of
other fossil bones, and varies from whitish yellow to blackish. All are lighter
than recent bones, with the exception of those which have a calcareous
incrustation, and the cavities of which are filled with such matter.207
"The cranium which I have caused to be figured, Plate I., Figs. 1, 2, is that of
an old person. The sutures are beginning to be effaced: all the facial bones
are wanting, and of the temporal bones only a fragment of that of the right
side is preserved.
"The face and the base of the cranium had been detached before the skull
was deposited in the cave, for we were unable to find those parts, though the
whole cavern was regularly searched. The cranium was met with at a depth of
a metre and a half [five feet nearly], hidden under an osseous breccia,
composed of the remains of small animals, and containing one rhinoceros

tusk, with several teeth of horses and of ruminants. This breccia, which has
been spoken of above (p. 30), was a metre [3 1/4 feet about] wide, and rose
to the height of a metre and a half above the floor of the cavern, to the walls of
which it adhered strongly.
"The earth which contained this human skull exhibited no trace of disturbance:
teeth of rhinoceros, horse, hyaena, and bear, surrounded it on all sides.
"The famous Blumenbach 1 has directed attention to the differences
presented by the form and the dimensions of human crania of different races.
This important work would have assisted us greatly, if the face, a part
essential for the determination of race, with more or less accuracy, had not
been wanting in our fossil cranium.
"We are convinced that even if the skull had been complete, it would not have
been possible to pronounce, with certainty, upon a single specimen; for
individual variations are so numerous in the crania of one and the same race,208
that one cannot, without laying oneself open to large chances of error, draw
any inference from a single fragment of a cranium to the general form of the
head to which it belonged.
"Nevertheless, in order to neglect no point respecting the form of this fossil
skull, we may observe that, from the first, the elongated and narrow form of
the forehead attracted our attention.
"In fact, the slight elevation of the frontal, its narrowness, and the form of the
orbit, approximate it more nearly to the cranium of an Ethiopian than to that of
an European: the elongated form and the produced occiput are also
characters which we believe to be observable in our fossil cranium; but to
remove all doubt upon that subject I have caused the contours of the cranium
of an European and of an Ethiopian to be drawn and the foreheads
represented. Plate II., Figs. 1 and 2, and, in the same plate, Figs. 3 and 4, will
render the differences easily distinguishable; and a single glance at the
figures will be more instructive than a long and wearisome description.
"At whatever conclusion we may arrive as to the origin of the man from
whence this fossil skull proceeded, we may express an opinion without
exposing ourselves to a fruitless controversy. Each may adopt the hypothesis
which seems to him most probable: for my own part, I hold it to be
demonstrated that this cranium has belonged to a person of limited intellectual
faculties, and we conclude thence that it belonged to a man of a low degree of
civilization: a deduction which is borne out by contrasting the capacity of the
frontal with that of the occipital region.
"Another cranium of a young individual was discovered in the floor of the
cavern beside the tooth of an elephant; the skull was entire when found, but209
the moment it was lifted it fell into pieces, which I have not, as yet, been able
to put together again. But I have represented the bones of the upper jaw,
Plate I., Fig. 5. The state of the alveoli and the teeth, shows that the molars
had not yet pierced the gum. Detached milk molars and some fragments of a
human skull proceed from this same place. The Figure 3 represents a human
superior incisor tooth, the size of which is truly remarkable. 2
"Figure 4 is a fragment of a superior maxillary bone, the molar teeth of which
are worn down to the roots.
"I possess two vertebrae, a first and last dorsal.
"A clavicle of the left side (see Plate III., Fig. 1); although it belonged to a
young individual, this bone shows that he must have been of great stature. 3
"Two fragments of the radius, badly preserved, do not indicate that the height
of the man, to whom they belonged, exceeded five feet and a half.
"As to the remains of the upper extremities, those which are in my possession
consist merely of a fragment of an ulna and of a radius (Plate III., Figs. 5 and
6).
"Figure 2, Plate IV., represents a metacarpal bone, contained in the breccia,
of which we have spoken; it was found in the lower part above the cranium:
add to this some metacarpal bones, found at very different distances, half-a-
dozen metatarsals, three phalanges of the hand, and one of the foot.
"This is a brief enumeration of the remains of human bones collected in the
cavern of Engis, which has preserved for us the remains of three individuals,210
surrounded by those of the Elephant, of the Rhinoceros, and of Carnivora of
species unknown in the present creation."
From the cave of Engihoul, opposite that of Engis, on the right bank of the
Meuse, Schmerling obtained the remains of three other individuals of Man,
among which were only two fragments of parietal bones, but many bones of
the extremities. In one case a broken fragment of an ulna was soldered to a
like fragment of a radius by stalagmite, a condition frequently observed
among the bones of the Cave Bear ('Ursus spelaeus'), found in the Belgian
caverns.
It was in the cavern of Engis that Professor Schmerling found, incrusted with
stalagmite and joined to a stone, the pointed bone implement, which he has
figured in Fig. 7 of his Plate XXXVI., and worked flints were found by him in all
those Belgian caves, which contained an abundance of fossil bones.
A short letter from M. Geoffrey St. Hilaire, published in the 'Comptes Rendus'
of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, for July 2nd, 1838, speaks of a visit (and
apparently a very hasty one) paid to the collection of Professor 'Schmidt'
(which is presumably a misprint for Schmerling) at Liege. The writer briefly
criticizes the drawings which illustrate Schmerling's work, and affirms that the
"human cranium is a little longer than it is represented" in Schmerling's figure.
The only other remark worth quoting is this:"The aspect of the human bones
differs little from that of the cave bones, with which we are familiar, and of
which there is a considerable collection in the same place. With respect to
their special forms, compared with those of the varieties of recent human
crania, few 'certain' conclusions can be put forward; for much greater
differences exist between the different specimens of well-characterized211
varieties, than between the fossil cranium of Liege and that of one of those
varieties selected as a term of comparison."
Geoffrey St. Hilaire's remarks are, it will be observed, little but an echo of the
philosophic doubts of the describer and discoverer of the remains. As to the
critique upon Schmerling's figures, I find that the side view given by the latter
is really about 3/10ths of an inch shorter than the original, and that the front
view is diminished to about the same extent. Otherwise the representation is
not, in any way, inaccurate, but corresponds very well with the cast which is in
my possession.
A piece of the occipital bone, which Schmerling seems to have missed, has
since been fitted on to the rest of the cranium by an accomplished anatomist,
Dr. Spring, of Liege, under whose direction an excellent plaster cast was
made for Sir Charles Lyell. It is upon and from a duplicate of that cast that my
own observations and the accompanying figures, the outlines of which are
copied from very accurate Camera lucida drawings, by my friend Mr. Busk,
reduced to one-half of the natural size, are made.
As Professor Schmerling observes, the base of the skull is destroyed, and the
facial bones are entirely absent; but the roof of the cranium, consisting of the
frontal, parietal, and the greater part of the occipital bones, as far as the
middle of the occipital foramen, is entire or nearly so. The left temporal bone
is wanting. Of the right temporal, the parts in the immediate neighbourhood of
the auditory foramen, the mastoid process, and a considerable portion of the
squamous element of the temporal are well preserved (Fig. 23).
The lines of fracture which remain between the coadjusted pieces of the skull,
and are faithfully displayed in Schmerling's figure, are readily traceable in the212
cast. The sutures are also discernible, but the complex disposition of their
serrations, shown in the figure, is not obvious in the cast. Though the ridges
which give attachment to muscles are not excessively prominent, they are
well marked, and taken together with the apparently well developed frontal
sinuses, and the condition of the sutures, leave no doubt on my mind that the
skull is that of an adult, if not middle-aged man.
The extreme length of the skull is 7.7 inches. Its extreme breadth, which
corresponds very nearly with the interval between the parietal protuberances,
is not more than 5.4 inches. The proportion of the length to the breadth is
therefore very nearly as 100 to 70. If a line be drawn from the point at which
the brow curves in towards the root of the nose, and which is called the
'glabella' ('a') (Fig. 23), to the occipital protuberance ('b'), and the distance to
the highest point of the arch of the skull be measured perpendicularly from
this line, it will be found to be 4.75 inches. Viewed from above, A, the
forehead presents an evenly rounded curve, and passes into the contour of
the sides and back of the skull, which describes a tolerably regular elliptical
curve.
The front view shows that the roof of the skull was very regularly and
elegantly arched in the transverse direction, and that the transverse diameter
was a little less below the parietal protuberances, than above them. The
forehead cannot be called narrow in relation to the rest of the skull, nor can it
be called a retreating forehead; on the contrary, the anterior-posterior contour
of the skull is well arched, so that the distance along that contour, from the
nasal depression to the occipital protuberance, measures about 13.75 inches.
The transverse arc of the skull, measured from one auditory foramen to the213
other, across the middle of the sagittal suture, is about 13 inches. The sagittal
suture itself is 5.5 inches long.
The supraciliary prominences or brow-ridges (on each side of 'a', Fig. 23) are
well, but not excessively, developed, and are separated by a median
depression. Their principal elevation is disposed so obliquely that I judge them
to be due to large frontal sinuses.
If a line joining the glabella and the occipital protuberance ('a', 'b', Fig. 23) be
made horizontal, no part of the occipital region projects more than 1/10th of
an inch behind the posterior extremity of that line, and the upper edge of the
auditory foramen ('c') is almost in contact with a line drawn parallel with this
upon the outer surface of the skull.
A transverse line drawn from one auditory foramen to the other traverses, as
usual, the forepart of the occipital foramen. The capacity of the interior of this
fragmentary skull has not been ascertained.

The history of the Human remains from the cavern in the Neanderthal may
best be given in the words of their original describer, Dr Schaaffhausen 4, as
translated by Mr. Busk.
"In the early part of the year 1857, a human skeleton was discovered in a
limestone cave in the Neanderthal, near Hochdal, between Dusseldorf and
Elberfeld. Of this, however, I was unable to procure more than a plaster cast
of the cranium, taken at Elberfeld, from which I drew up an account of its
remarkable conformation, which was, in the first instance, read on the 4th of
February, 1857, at the meeting of the Lower Rhine Medical and Natural
History Society, at Bonn.214
Subsequently Dr. Fuhlrott, to whom science is indebted for the preservation of
these bones, which were not at first regarded as human, and into whose
possession they afterwards came, brought the cranium from Elberfeld to
Bonn, and entrusted it to me for more accurate anatomical examination. At
the General Meeting of the Natural History Society of Prussian Rhineland and
Westphalia, at Bonn, on the 2nd of June, 1857, Dr. Fuhlrott himself gave a
full account of the locality, and of the circumstances under which the
discovery was made.
He was of opinion that the bones might be regarded as fossil; and in coming
to this conclusion, he laid especial stress upon the existence of dendritic
deposits, with which their surface was covered, and which were first noticed
upon them by Professor Meyer. To this communication I appended a brief
report on the results of my anatomical examination of the bones. The
conclusions at which I arrived were:1st. That the extraordinary form of the
skull was due to a natural conformation hitherto not known to exist, even in
the most barbarous races. 2nd. That these remarkable human remains
belonged to a period antecedent to the time of the Celts and Germans, and
were in all probability derived from one of the wild races of North-western
Europe, spoken of by Latin writers; and which were encountered as
autochthones by the German immigrants. And 3rdly. That it was beyond doubt
that these human relics were traceable to a period at which the latest animals
of the diluvium still existed; but that no proof of this assumption, nor
consequently of their so-termed 'fossil' condition, was afforded by the
circumstances under which the bones were discovered.
"As Dr. Fuhlrott has not yet published his description of these circumstances, I
borrow the following account of them from one of his letters. 'A small cave or215
grotto, high enough to admit a man, and about 15 feet deep from the
entrance, which is 7 or 8 feet wide, exists in the southern wall of the gorge of
the Neanderthal, as it is termed, at a distance of about 100 feet from the
Dussel, and about 60 feet above the bottom of the valley. In its earlier and
uninjured condition, this cavern opened upon a narrow plateau lying in front of
it, and from which the rocky wall descended almost perpendicularly into the
river. It could be reached, though with difficulty, from above. The uneven floor
was covered to a thickness of 4 or 5 feet with a deposit of mud, sparingly
intermixed with rounded fragments of chert. In the removing of this deposit,
the bones were discovered. The skull was first noticed, placed nearest to the
entrance of the cavern; and further in, the other bones, lying in the same
horizontal plane. Of this I was assured, in the most positive terms, by two
laborers who were employed to clear out the grotto, and who were
questioned by me on the spot. At first no idea was entertained of the bones

being human; and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that they
were recognized as such by me, and placed in security. But, as the
importance of the discovery was not at the time perceived, the labourers were
very careless in the collecting, and secured chiefly only the larger bones; and
to this circumstance it may be attributed that fragments merely of the probably
perfect skeleton came into my possession.'
"My anatomical examination of these bones afforded the following results:
"The cranium is of unusual size, and of a long elliptical form. A most
remarkable peculiarity is at once obvious in the extraordinary development of
the frontal sinuses, owing to which the supraciliary ridges, which coalesce
completely in the middle, are rendered so prominent, that the frontal bone
exhibits a considerable hollow or depression above, or rather behind them,216
whilst a deep depression is also formed in the situation of the root of the nose.
The forehead is narrow and low, though the middle and hinder portions of the
cranial arch are well developed. Unfortunately, the fragment of the skull that
has been preserved consists only of the portion situated above the roof of the
orbits and the superior occipital ridges, which are greatly developed, and
almost conjoined so as to form a horizontal eminence. It includes almost the
whole of the frontal bone, both parietals, a small part of the squamous and the
upper-third of the occipital. The recently fractured surfaces show that the skull
was broken at the time of its disinterment. The cavity holds 16,876 grains of
water, whence its cubical contents may be estimated at 57.64 inches, or
1033.24 cubic centimeters. In making this estimation, the water is supposed
to stand on a level with the orbital plate of the frontal, with the deepest notch
in the squamous margin of the parietal, and with the superior semicircular
ridges of the occipital. Estimated in dried millet-seed, the contents equaled 31
ounces, Prussian Apothecaries' weight. The semicircular line indicating the
upper boundary of the attachment of the temporal muscle, though not very
strongly marked, ascends nevertheless to more than half the height of the
parietal bone. On the right supraciliary ridge is observable an oblique furrow
or depression, indicative of an injury received during life. 7
mm. 8
The length of the skull from the nasal
process of the frontal over the vertex
to the superior semicircular lines of the
occipital
12.0".
measures.............................303
(300)
=217
Circumference over the orbital ridges and
the superior semicircular lines of the
occipital......................................590 (590) = 23.37" or
23".
Width of the frontal from the middle of
the temporal line on one side to the
same point on the opposite.....................104 (114) =
4.1"4.5".
Length of the frontal from the nasal.
process to the coronal suture..................133 (125) =

5.25"5".
Extreme width of the frontal sinuses...........25 (23) =
1.0"0.9".
Vertical height above a line joining the
deepest notches in the squamous border
of the parietals...............................70
= 2.75".
Width of hinder part of skull from one
parietal protuberance to the other.............138 (150) =
5.4"5.9"
Distance from the upper angle of the
occipital to the superior semicircular
lines..........................................51 (60) = 1.9"2.4".
Thickness of the bone at the parietal
protuberance...................................8.
at the angle of the occipital................9.
at the superior semicircular line of
the occipital..................................10
= 0.3"218
"Besides the cranium, the following bones have been secured:
"1. Both thigh-bones, perfect. These, like the skull, and all the other bones,
are characterized by their unusual thickness, and the great development of all
the elevations and depressions for the attachment of muscles. In the
Anatomical Museum at Bonn, under the designation of 'Giant's-bones,' are
some recent thigh-bones, with which in thickness the foregoing pretty nearly
correspond, although they are shorter.
Giant's bones.
Fossil
bones.
mm.
mm.
Length.....................................542 = 21.4"......438 =
17.4"
Diameter of head of femur.................. 54 = 2.14".....
53 = 2.0"
"
of lower articular end, from
one condyle to the other................ 89 = 3.5"....... 87
= 3.4"
Diameter of femur in the middle............ 33 = 1.2".......
30 = 1.1"
"2. A perfect right humerus, whose size shows that it
belongs to the
thigh-bones.
mm.
Length.....................................312 = 12.3"
Thickness in the middle.................... 26 = 1.0"
Diameter of head........................... 49 = 1.9"219
"Also a perfect right radius of corresponding dimensions, and the upper-third
of a right ulna corresponding to the humerus and radius.

"3. A left humerus of which the upper-third is wanting, and which is so much
slenderer than the right as apparently to belong to a distinct individual; a left
'ulna', which, though complete, is pathologically deformed, the coronoid
process being so much enlarged by bony growth, that flexure of the elbow
beyond a right angle must have been impossible; the anterior fossa of the
humerus for the reception of the coronoid process being also filled up with a
similar bony growth. At the same time, the olecranon is curved strongly
downwards. As the bone presents no sign of rachitic degeneration, it may be
supposed that an injury sustained during life was the cause of the anchylosis.
When the left ulna is compared with the right radius, it might at first sight be
concluded that the bones respectively belonged to different individuals, the
ulna being more than half an inch too short for articulation with a
corresponding radius. But it is clear that this shortening, as well as the
attenuation of the left humerus, are both consequent upon the pathological
condition above described.
"4. A left 'ilium', almost perfect, and belonging to the femur: a fragment of the
right 'scapula'; the anterior extremity of a rib of the right side; and the same
part of a rib of the left side; the hinder part of a rib of the right side; and lastly,
two hinder portions and one middle portion of ribs, which from their unusually
rounded shape, and abrupt curvature, more resemble the ribs of a
carnivorous animal than those of a man. Dr. H. v. Meyer, however, to whose
judgment I defer, will not venture to declare them to be ribs of any animal; and
it only remains to suppose that this abnormal condition has arisen from an
unusually powerful development of the thoracic muscles.220
"The bones adhere strongly to the tongue, although, as proved by the use of
hydrochloric acid, the greater part of the cartilage is still retained in them,
which appears, however, to have undergone that transformation into gelatin
which has been observed by v. Bibra in fossil bones. The surface of all the
bones is in many spots covered with minute black specks, which, more
especially under a lens, are seen to be formed of very delicate 'dendrites'.
These deposits, which were first observed on the bones by Dr. Meyer, are
most distinct on the inner surface of the cranial bones. They consist of a
ferruginous compound, and, from their black colour, may be supposed to
contain manganese. Similar dendritic formations also occur, not infrequently,
on laminated rocks, and are usually found in minute fissures and cracks. At
the meeting of the Lower Rhine Society at Bonn, on the 1st April, 1857, Prof.
Meyer stated that he had noticed in the museum of Poppelsdorf similar
dendritic crystallizations on several fossil bones of animals, and particularly on
those of 'Ursus spelaeus', but still more abundantly and beautifully displayed
on the fossil bones and teeth of 'Equus adamiticus', 'Elephas primigenius',
etc., from the caves of Bolve and Sundwig. Faint indications of similar
'dendrites' were visible in a Roman skull from Siegburg; whilst other ancient
skulls, which had lain for centuries in the earth, presented no trace of them. 9
"The incipient formation of dendritic deposits, which were formerly regarded
as a sign of a truly fossil condition, is interesting. It has even been supposed
that in diluvial deposits the presence of 'dendrites' might be regarded as
affording a certain mark of distinction between bones mixed with the diluvium
at a somewhat later period and the true diluvial relics, to which alone it was
supposed that these deposits were confined. But I have long been convinced
that neither can the absence of 'dendrites' be regarded as indicative of recent221

age, nor their presence as sufficient to establish the great antiquity of the
objects upon which they occur. I have myself noticed upon paper, which could
scarcely be more than a year old, dendritic deposits, which could not be
distinguished from those on fossil bones. Thus I possess a dog's skull from
the Roman colony of the neighboring Heddersheim, 'Castrum Hadrianum',
which is in no way distinguishable from the fossil bones from the Frankish
caves; it presents the same colour, and adheres to the tongue just as they do;
so that this character also, which, at a former meeting of German naturalists
at Bonn, gave rise to amusing scenes between Buckland and Schmerling, is
no longer of any value. In disputed cases, therefore, the condition of the bone
can scarcely afford the means for determining with certainty whether it be
fossil, that is to say, whether it belong to geological antiquity or to the
historical period.'
"As we cannot now look upon the primitive world as representing a wholly
different condition of things, from which no transition exists to the organic life
of the present time, the designation of 'fossil', as applied to 'a bone', has no
longer the sense it conveyed in the time of Cuvier. Sufficient grounds exist for
the assumption that man coexisted with the animals found in the 'diluvium';
and many a barbarous race may, before all historical time, have disappeared,
together with the animals of the ancient world, whilst the races whose
organization is improved have continued the genus. The bones which form
the subject of this paper present characters which, although not decisive as
regards a geological epoch, are, nevertheless, such as indicate a very high
antiquity. It may also be remarked that, common as is the occurrence of
diluvial animal bones in the muddy deposits of caverns, such remains have
not hitherto been met with in the caves of the Neanderthal; and that the222
bones, which were covered by a deposit of mud not more than four or five feet
thick, and without any protective covering of stalagmite, have retained the
greatest part of their organic substance.
"These circumstances might be adduced against the probability of a
geological antiquity. Nor should we be justified in regarding the cranial
conformation as perhaps representing the most savage primitive type of the
human race, since crania exist among living savages, which, though not
exhibiting, such a remarkable conformation of the forehead, which gives the
skull somewhat the aspect of that of the large apes, still in other respects, as
for instance in the greater depth of the temporal fossae, the crest-like,
prominent temporal ridges, and a generally less capacious cranial cavity,
exhibit an equally low stage of development. There is no reason for supposing
that the deep frontal hollow is due to any artificial flattening, such as is
practiced in various modes by barbarous nations in the Old and New World.
The skull is quite symmetrical, and shows no indication of counter-pressure at
the occiput, whilst, according to Morton, in the Flat-heads of the Columbia, the
frontal and parietal bones are always unsymmetrical. Its conformation exhibits
the sparing development of the anterior part of the head which has been so
often observed in very ancient crania, and affords one of the most striking
proofs of the influence of culture and civilization on the form of the human
skull."
In a subsequent passage, Dr. Schaaffhausen remarks:
"There is no reason whatever for regarding the unusual development of the
frontal sinuses in the remarkable skull from the Neanderthal as an individual

or pathological deformity; it is unquestionably a typical race-character, and is223
physiologically connected with the uncommon thickness of the other bones of
the skeleton, which exceeds by about one-half the usual proportions. This
expansion of the frontal sinuses, which are appendages of the air-passages,
also indicates an unusual force and power of endurance in the movements of
the body, as may be concluded from the size of all the ridges and processes
for the attachment of the muscles or bones. That this conclusion may be
drawn from the existence of large frontal sinuses, and a prominence of the
lower frontal region, is confirmed in many ways by other observations. By the
same characters, according to Pallas, the wild horse is distinguished from the
domesticated, and, according to Cuvier, the fossil cave-bear from every
recent species of bear, whilst, according to Roulin, the pig, which has become
wild in America, and regained a resemblance to the wild boar, is thus
distinguished from the same animal in the domesticated state, as is the
chamois from the goat; and, lastly, the bull-dog, which is characterized by its
large bones and strongly-developed muscles from every other kind of dog.
The estimation of the facial angle, the determination of which, according to
Professor Owen, is also difficult in the great apes, owing to the very prominent
supra-orbital ridges, in the present case is rendered still more difficult from the
absence both of the auditory opening and of the nasal spine. But if the proper
horizontal position of the skull be taken from the remaining portions of the
orbital plates, and the ascending line made to touch the surface of the frontal
bone behind the prominent supra-orbital ridges, the facial angle is not found to
exceed 56 degrees. Unfortunately, no portions of the facial bones, whose
conformation is so decisive as regards the form and expression of the head,

have been preserved. The cranial capacity, compared with the uncommon
strength of the corporeal frame, would seem to indicate a small cerebral
development. The skull, as it is, holds about 31 ounces of millet-seed; and as,224
from the proportionate size of the wanting bones, the whole cranial cavity
should have about 6 ounces more added, the contents, were it perfect, may
be taken at 37 ounces. Tiedemann assigns, as the cranial contents in the
Negro, 40, 38, and 35 ounces. The cranium holds rather more than 36 ounces
of water, which corresponds to a capacity of 1033.24 cubic centimeters.
Huschke estimates the cranial contents of a Negress at 1127 cubic
centimeters; of an old Negro at 1146 cubic centimeters. The capacity of the
Malay skulls, estimated by water, equaled 36, 33 ounces, whilst in the
diminutive Hindus it falls to as little as 27 ounces."
After comparing the Neanderthal cranium with many others, ancient and
modern, Professor Schaaffhausen concludes thus:
"But the human bones and cranium from the Neanderthal exceed all the rest
in those peculiarities of conformation which lead to the conclusion of their
belonging to a barbarous and savage race. Whether the cavern in which they
were found, unaccompanied with any trace of human art, were the place of
their interment, or whether, like the bones of extinct animals elsewhere, they
had been washed into it, they may still be regarded as the most ancient
memorial of the early inhabitants of Europe."
Mr. Busk, the translator of Dr. Schaaffhausen's paper, has enabled us to form
a very vivid conception of the degraded character of the Neanderthal skull, by
placing side by side with its outline, that of the skull of a Chimpanzee, drawn
to the same absolute size.

Sometime after the publication of the translation of Professor Schaaffhausen's
Memoir, I was led to study the cast of the Neanderthal cranium with more
attention than I had previously bestowed upon it, in consequence of wishing to225
supply Sir Charles Lyell with a diagram, exhibiting the special peculiarities of
this skull, as compared with other human skulls. In order to do this it was
necessary to identify, with precision, those points in the skulls compared
which corresponded anatomically. Of these points, the glabella was obvious
enough; but when I had distinguished another, defined by the occipital
protuberance and superior semicircular line, and had placed the outline of the
Neanderthal skull against that of the Engis skull, in such a position that the
glabella and occipital protuberance of both were intersected by the same
straight line, the difference was so vast and the flattening of the Neanderthal
skull so prodigious that I at first imagined I must have fallen into some error.
And I was the more inclined to suspect this, as, in ordinary human skulls, the
occipital protuberance and superior semicircular curved line on the exterior of
the occiput correspond pretty closely with the 'lateral sinuses' and the line of
attachment of the tentorium internally. But on the tentorium rests, as I have
said in the preceding Essay, the posterior lobe of the brain; and hence, the
occipital
protuberance,
and
the
curved
line
in
question,
indicate,
approximately, the lower limits of that lobe. Was it possible for a human being
to have the brain thus flattened and depressed; or, on the other hand, had the
muscular ridges shifted their position? In order to solve these doubts, and to
decide the question whether the great supraciliary projections did, or did not,
arise from the development of the frontal sinuses, I requested Sir Charles
Lyell to be so good as to obtain for me from Dr. Fuhlrott, the possessor of the
skull, answers to certain queries, and if possible a cast, or at any rate
drawings, or photographs, of the interior of the skull.226
Carleton 2012
Dr. Fuhlrott replied with a courtesy and readiness for which I am infinitely
indebted to him, to my inquiries, and furthermore sent three excellent
photographs. One of these gives a side view of the skull, and from it Fig. 25,
A. has been shaded. The second (Fig. 26, A.) exhibits the wide openings of
the frontal sinuses upon the inferior surface of the frontal part of the skull, into
which, Dr. Fuhlrott writes, "a probe may be introduced to the depth of an
inch," and demonstrates the great extension of the thickened supraciliary
ridges beyond the cerebral cavity. The third, lastly (Fig. 26, B.) exhibits the
edge and the interior of the posterior, or occipital, part of the skull, and shows
very clearly the two depressions for the lateral sinuses, sweeping inwards
towards the middle line of the roof of the skull, to form the longitudinal sinus. It
was clear, therefore, that I had not erred in my interpretation, and that the
posterior lobe of the brain of the Neanderthal man must have been as much
flattened as I suspected it to be.

In truth, the Neanderthal cranium has most extraordinary characters. It has an
extreme length of 8 inches, while its breadth is only 5.75 inches, or, in other
words, its length is to its breadth as 100:72. It is exceedingly depressed,
measuring only about 3.4 inches from the glabella-occipital line to the vertex.227
The longitudinal arc, measured in the same way as in the Engis skull, is 12
inches; the transverse arc cannot be exactly ascertained, in consequence of
the absence of the temporal bones, but was probably about the same, and
certainly exceeded 10 1/4 inches. The horizontal circumference is 23 inches.
But this great circumference arises largely from the vast development of the
supraciliary ridges, though the perimeter of the brain case itself is not small.
The large supraciliary ridges give the forehead a far more retreating
appearance than its internal contour would bear out.
To an anatomical eye the posterior part of the skull is even more striking than
the anterior. The occipital protuberance occupies the extreme posterior end of
the skull, when the glabella-occipital line is made horizontal, and so far from
any part of the occipital region extending beyond it, this region of the skull
slopes obliquely upward and forward, so that the lambdoidal suture is situated
well upon the upper surface of the cranium. At the same time, notwithstanding
the great length of the skull, the sagittal suture is remarkably short (4 1/2
inches), and the squamosal suture is very straight.
In reply to my questions Dr. Fuhlrott writes that the occipital bone "is in a state
of perfect preservation as far as the upper semicircular line, which is a very
strong ridge, linear at its extremities, but enlarging towards the middle, where
it forms two ridges (bourrelets), united by a linear continuation, which is
slightly depressed in the middle."

"Below the left ridge the bone exhibits an obliquely inclined surface, six lines
(French) long, and twelve lines wide."228
This last must be the surface, the contour of which is shown in Fig. 25, A.,
below 'b'. It is particularly interesting, as it suggests that, notwithstanding the
flattened condition of the occiput, the posterior cerebral lobes must have
projected considerably beyond the cerebellum, and as it constitutes one
among several points of similarity between the Neanderthal cranium and
certain Australian skulls.
Such are the two best known forms of human cranium, which have been
found in what may be fairly termed a fossil state. Can either be shown to fill up
or diminish, to any appreciable extent, the structural interval which exists
between Man and the man-like apes? Or, on the other hand, does neither
depart more widely from the average structure of the human cranium, than
normally formed skulls of men are known to do at the present day?
It is impossible to form any opinion on these questions, without some
preliminary acquaintance with the range of variation exhibited by human
structure in generala subject which has been but imperfectly studied, while
even of what is known, my limits will necessarily allow me to give only a very
imperfect sketch.
The student of anatomy is perfectly well aware that there is not a single organ
of the human body the structure of which does not vary, to a greater or less
extent, in different individuals. The skeleton varies in the proportions, and
even to a certain extent in the connexions, of its constituent bones. The
muscles which move the bones vary largely in their attachments. The varieties
in the mode of distribution of the arteries are carefully classified, on account of

the practical importance of a knowledge of their shifting to the surgeon. The
characters of the brain vary immensely, nothing being less constant than the229
form and size of the cerebral hemispheres, and the richness of the
convolutions upon their surface, while the most changeable structures of all in
the human brain, are exactly those on which the unwise attempt has been
made to base the distinctive characters of humanity, viz. the posterior cornu of
the lateral ventricle, the hippocampus minor, and the degree of projection of
the posterior lobe beyond the cerebellum. Finally, as all the world knows, the
hair and skin of human beings may present the most extraordinary diversities
in colour and in texture.
So far as our present knowledge goes, the majority of the structural varieties
to which allusion is here made, are individual. The ape-like arrangement of
certain muscles which is occasionally met with in the white races of mankind,
is not known to be more common among Negroes or Australians: nor because
the brain of the Hottentot Venus was found to be smoother, to have its
convolutions more symmetrically disposed, and to be, so far, more ape-like
than that of ordinary Europeans, are we justified in concluding a like condition
of the brain to prevail universally among the lower races of mankind, however
probable that conclusion may be.
We are, in fact, sadly wanting in information respecting the disposition of the
soft and destructible organs of every Race of Mankind but our own; and even
of the skeleton, our Museums are lamentably deficient in every part but the
cranium. Skulls enough there are, and since the time when Blumenbach and
Camper first called attention to the marked and singular differences which
they exhibit, skull collecting and skull measuring has been a zealously
pursued branch of Natural History, and the results obtained have been
arranged and classified by various writers, among whom the late active and
able Retzius must always be the first named.230
Human skulls have been found to differ from one another, not merely in their
absolute size and in the absolute capacity of the brain case, but in the
proportions which the diameters of the latter bear to one another; in the
relative size of the bones of the face (and more particularly of the jaws and
teeth) as compared with those of the skull; in the degree to which the upper
jaw (which is of course followed by the lower) is thrown backwards and
downwards under the fore-part of the brain case, or forwards and upward in
front of and beyond it. They differ further in the relations of the transverse
diameter of the face, taken through the cheek bones, to the transverse
diameter of the skull; in the more rounded or more gable-like form of the roof
of the skull, and in the degree to which the hinder part of the skull is flattened
or projects beyond the ridge, into and below which, the muscles of the neck
are inserted.
In some skulls the brain case may be said to be 'round,' the extreme length
not exceeding the extreme breadth by a greater proportion than 100 to 80,
while the difference may be much less. Men possessing such skulls were
termed by Retzius 'brachycephalic,' and the skull of a Calmuck, of which a
front and side view are depicted by Von Baer in his excellent, "Crania
selecta," affords a very admirable example of that kind of skull. Other skulls,
such as that of a Negro copied in Fig. 28 from Mr. Busk's 'Crania typical,' have
a very different, greatly elongated form, and may be termed 'oblong.' In this
skull the extreme length is to the extreme breadth as 100 to not more than 67,
and the transverse diameter of the human skull may fall below even this
proportion.
People
'dolichocephalic.'
having
such
skulls
were
called
by
Retzius231
The most cursory glance at the side views of these two skulls will suffice to
prove that they differ, in another respect, to a very striking extent. The profile
of the face of the Calmuck is almost vertical, the facial bones being thrown
downwards and under the forepart of the skull. The profile of the face of the
Negro, on the other hand, is singularly inclined, the front part of the jaws
projecting far forward beyond the level of the fore part of the skull. In the
former case the skull is said to be 'orthognathous' or straight-jawed; in the
latter, it is called 'prognathous,' a term which has been rendered, with more
force than elegance, by the Saxon equivalent,'snouty.'
Various methods have been devised in order to express with some accuracy
the degree of prognathism or orthognathous of any given skull; most of these
methods being essentially modifications of that devised by Peter Camper, in
order to attain what he called the 'facial angle.'
But a little consideration will show that any 'facial angle' that has been
devised, can be competent to express the structural modifications involved in
prognathism and orthognathous, only in a rough and general sort of way. For
the lines, the intersection of which forms the facial angle, are drawn through
points of the skull, the position of each of which is modified by a number of
circumstances, so that the angle obtained is a complex resultant of all these
circumstances, and is not the expression of any one definite organic relation
of the parts of the skull.
I have arrived at the conviction that no comparison of crania is worth very
much, that is not founded upon the establishment of a relatively fixed base
line, to which the measurements, in all cases, must be referred. Nor do I think
it is a very difficult matter to decide what that base line should be. The parts of232
the skull, like those of the rest of the animal framework, are developed in
succession the base of the skull is formed before its sides and roof; it is
converted into cartilage earlier and more completely than the sides and roof:
and the cartilaginous base ossifies, and becomes soldered into one piece
long before the roof. I conceive then that the base of the skull may be
demonstrated developmentally to be its relatively fixed part, the roof and sides
being relatively moveable.
The same truth is exemplified by the study of the modifications which the skull
undergoes in ascending from the lower animals up to man.
In such a mammal as a Beaver a line ('a b'.) drawn through the bones, termed
basioccipital, basisphenoid, and presphenoid, is very long in proportion to the
extreme length of the cavity which contains the cerebral hemispheres ('g h'.).
The plane of the occipital foramen ('b c'.) forms a slightly acute angle with this
'basicranial axis,' while the plane of the tentorium ('i T'.) is inclined at rather
more than 90 degrees to the 'basicranial axis'; and so is the plane of the
perforated plate ('a d'.), by which the filaments of the olfactory nerve leave the
skull. Again, a line drawn through the axis of the face, between the bones
called ethmoid and vomerthe "bifacial axis" ('f e'.) forms an exceedingly
obtuse angle, where, when produced, it cuts the 'basicranial axis.'
If the angle made by the line 'b c'. with 'a b'., be called the 'occipital angle,'
and the angle made by the line 'a d'. with 'a b'. be termed the 'olfactory angle,'
and that made by 'i T'. with 'a b'. the 'tentoria angle,' then all these, in the
mammal in question, are nearly right angles, varying between 80 degrees and
110 degrees. the angle 'e f b'., or that made by the cranial with the facial axis,233
and which may be termed the 'cranium-facial angle,' is extremely obtuse,
amounting, in the case of the Beaver, to at least 150 degrees.
But if a series of sections of mammalian skulls, intermediate between a
Rodent and a Man (Fig. 29), be examined, it will be found that in the higher
crania the basicranial axis becomes shorter relatively to the cerebral length;
that the 'olfactory angle' and 'occipital angle' become more obtuse; and that
the 'cranium-facial angle' becomes more acute by the bending down, as it
were, of the facial axis upon the cranial axis. At the same time, the roof of the
cranium becomes more and more arched, to allow of the increasing height of
the cerebral hemispheres, which is eminently characteristic of man, as well as
of that backward extension, beyond the cerebellum, which reaches its
maximum in the South America Monkeys. So that, at last, in the human skull
(Fig. 30), the cerebral length is between twice and thrice as great as the
length of the basicranial axis; the olfactory plane is 20 degrees or 30 degrees
on the 'under' side of that axis; the occipital angle, instead of being less than
90 degrees, is as much as 150 degrees or 160 degrees; the cranio-facial
angle may be 90 degrees or less, and the vertical height of the skull may have
a large proportion to its length.
It will be obvious, from an inspection of the diagrams, that the basicranial axis
is, in the ascending series of Mammalia, a relatively fixed line, on which the
bones of the sides and roof of the cranial cavity, and of the face, may be said
to revolve downwards and forwards or backwards, according to their position.
The arc described by any one bone or plane, however, is not by any means
always in proportion to the arc described by another.234
Now comes the important question, can we discern, between the lowest and
the highest forms of the human cranium anything answering, in however slight
a degree, to this revolution of the side and roof bones of the skull upon the
basicranial axis observed upon so great a scale in the mammalian series?
Numerous observations lead me to believe that we must answer this question
in the affirmative.
The diagrams in Figure 30 are reduced from very carefully made diagrams of
sections of four skulls, two round and orthognathous, two long and
prognathous, taken longitudinally and vertically, through the middle. The
sectional diagrams have then been superimposed, in such a manner, that the
basal axes of the skulls coincide by their anterior ends, and in their direction.
The deviations of the rest of the contours (which represent the interior of the
skulls only) show the differences of the skulls from one another, when these
axes are regarded as relatively fixed lines.
The dark contours are those of an Australian and of a Negro skull: the light
contours are those of a Tartar skull, in the Museum of the Royal College of
Surgeons; and of a well-developed round skull from a cemetery in
Constantinople, of uncertain race, in my own possession.
It appears, at once, from these views, that the prognathous skulls, so far as
their jaws are concerned, do really differ from the orthognathous in much the
same way as, though to a far less degree than, the skulls of the lower
mammals differ from those of Man. Furthermore, the plane of the occipital
foramen ('b c') forms a somewhat smaller angle with the axis in these
particular prognathous skulls than in the orthognathous; and the like may be
slightly true of the perforated plate of the ethmoidthough this point is not so235
clear. But it is singular to remark that, in another respect, the prognathous
skulls are less ape-like than the orthognathous, the cerebral cavity projecting
decidedly more beyond the anterior end of the axis in the prognathous, than in
the orthognathous, skulls.
It will be observed that these diagrams reveal an immense range of variation
in the capacity and relative proportion to the cranial axis, of the different
regions of the cavity which contains the brain, in the different skulls. Nor is the
difference in the extent to which the cerebral overlaps the cerebellar cavity
less singular. A round skull (Fig. 30, 'Const'.) may have a greater posterior
cerebral projection than a long one (Fig. 30, 'Negro').
Until human crania have been largely worked out in a manner similar to that
here suggesteduntil it shall be an opprobrium to an ethnological collection
to possess a single skull which is not bisected longitudinallyuntil the angles
and measurements here mentioned, together with a number of others of
which I cannot speak in this place, are determined, and tabulated with
reference to the basicranial axis as unity, for large numbers of skulls of the
different races of Mankind, I do not think we shall have any very safe basis for
that ethnological craniology which aspires to give the anatomical characters of
the crania of the different Races of Mankind.
At present, I believe that the general outlines of what may be safely said upon
that subject may be summed up in a very few words. Draw a line on a globe
from the Gold Coast in Western Africa to the steppes of Tartary. At the
southern and western end of that line there live the most dolichocephalic,
prognathous, curly-haired, dark-skinned of menthe true Negroes. At the
northern and eastern end of the same line there live the most brachycephalic,236
orthognathous, straight-haired, yellow-skinned of menthe Tartars and
Calmucks. The two ends of this imaginary line are indeed, so to speak,
ethnological antipodes. A line drawn at right angles, or nearly so, to this polar
line through Europe and Southern Asia to Hindustan, would give us a sort of
equator, around which round-headed, oval-headed, and oblong-headed,
prognathous and orthognathous, fair and dark racesbut none possessing
the excessively marked characters of Calmuck or Negrogroup themselves.
It is worthy of notice that the regions of the antipodal races are antipodal in
climate, the greatest contrast the world affords, perhaps, being that between
the damp, hot, steaming, alluvial coast plains of the West Coast of Africa and
the arid, elevated steppes and plateau of Central Asia, bitterly cold in winter,
and as far from the sea as any part of the world can be.
From Central Asia eastward to the Pacific Islands and subcontinents on the
one hand, and to America on the other, brachycephalic and orthognathism
gradually diminish, and are replaced by dolichocephalism and prognathism,
less, however, on the American Continent (throughout the whole length of

which a rounded type of skull prevails largely, but not exclusively) 13 than in
the Pacific region, where, at length, on the Australian Continent and in the
adjacent islands, the oblong skull, the projecting jaws, and the dark skin
reappear; with so much departure, in other respects, from the Negro type, that
ethnologists assign to these people the special title of 'Negritoes.'
The Australian skull is remarkable for its narrowness and for the thickness of
its walls, especially in the region of the supraciliary ridge, which is frequently,
though not by any means invariably, solid throughout, the frontal sinuses
remaining undeveloped. The nasal depression, again, is extremely sudden, so
that the brows overhang and give the countenance a particularly lowering,237
threatening expression. The occipital region of the skull, also, not unfrequently
becomes less prominent; so that it not only fails to project beyond a line
drawn perpendicular to the hinder extremity of the glabello-occipital line, but
even, in some cases, begins to shelve away from it, forwards, almost
immediately. In consequence of this circumstance, the parts of the occipital
bone which lie above and below the tuberosity make a much more acute
angle with one another than is usual, whereby the hinder part of the base of
the skull appears obliquely truncated. Many Australian skulls have a
considerable height, quite equal to that of the average of any other race, but
there are others in which the cranial roof becomes remarkably depressed, the
skull, at the same time, elongating so much that, probably, its capacity is not
diminished. The majority of skulls possessing these characters, which I have
seen, are from the neighborhood of Port Adelaide in South Australia, and
have been used by the natives as water vessels; to which end the face has
been knocked away, and a string passed through the vacuity and the occipital
foramen, so that the skull was suspended by the greater part of its basis.
The contour of a skull of this kind from Western Port, with the jaw attached,
and of the Neanderthal skull, both reduced to one-third of the size of nature. A
small additional amount of flattening and lengthening, with a corresponding
increase of the supraciliary ridge, would convert the Australian brain case into
a form identical with that of the aberrant fossil.
And now, to return to the fossil skulls, and to the rank which they occupy
among, or beyond, these existing varieties of cranial conformation. In the first
place, I must remark, that, as Professor Schmerling well observed ('supra', p.
300) in commenting upon the Engis skull, the formation of a safe judgment
upon the question is greatly hindered by the absence of the jaws from both238
the crania, so that there is no means of deciding with certainty, whether they
were more or less prognathous than the lower existing races of mankind. And
yet, as we have seen, it is more in this respect than any other, that human
skulls vary, towards and from, the brutal typethe brain case of an average
dolichocephalic European differing far less from that of a Negro, for example,
than his jaws do. In the absence of the jaws, then, any judgment on the
relations of the fossil skulls to recent Races must be accepted with a certain
reservation.
But taking the evidence as it stands, and turning first to the Engis skull, I
confess I can find no character in the remains of that cranium which, if it were
a recent skull, would give any trustworthy clue as to the Race to which it might
appertain. Its contours and measurements agree very well with those of some
Australian skulls which I have examinedand especially has it a tendency
towards that occipital flattening, to the great extent of which, in some

Australian skulls, I have alluded. But all Australian skulls do not present this
flattening, and the supraciliary ridge of the Engis skull is quite unlike that of
the typical Australians.
On the other hand, its measurements agree equally well with those of some
European skulls. And assuredly, there is no mark of degradation about any
part of its structure. It is, in fact, a fair average human skull, which might have
belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of
a savage.239
The case of the Neanderthal skull is very different. Under whatever aspect we
view this cranium, whether we regard its vertical depression, the enormous
thickness of its supraciliary ridges, its sloped occiput, or its long and straight
squamosal suture, we meet with ape-like characters, stamping it as the most
pithecoid of human crania yet discovered. But Professor Schaaffhausen
states ('supra', p. 308), that the cranium, in its present condition, holds
1033.24 cubic centimeters of water, or about 63 cubic inches, and as the
entire skull could hardly have held less than an additional 12 cubic inches, its
capacity may be estimated at about 75 cubic inches, which is the average
capacity given by Morton for Polynesian and Hottentot skulls.
So large a mass of brain as this, would alone suggest that the pithecoid
tendencies, indicated by this skull, did not extend deep into the organization;
and this conclusion is borne out by the dimensions of the other bones of the
skeleton given by Professor Schaaffhausen, which show that the absolute
height and relative proportions of the limbs were quite those of an European
of middle stature. The bones are indeed stouter, but this and the great
development of the muscular ridges noted by Dr. Schaaffhausen, are240

characters to be expected in savages. The Patagonians, exposed without
shelter or protection to a climate possibly not very dissimilar from that of
Europe at the time during which the Neanderthal man lived, are remarkable
for the stoutness of their limb bones.
In no sense, then, can the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of
a human being intermediate between Men and Apes. At most, they
demonstrate the existence of a man whose skull may be said to revert
somewhat towards the pithecoid typejust as a Carrier, or a Pouter, or a
Tumbler, may sometimes put on the plumage of its primitive stock, the
'Columba livia'. And indeed, though truly the most pithecoid of known human
skulls, the Neanderthal cranium is by no means so isolated as it appears to be
at first, but forms, in reality, the extreme term of a series leading gradually
from it to the highest and best developed of human crania. On the one hand, it
is closely approached by the flattened Australian skulls, of which I have
spoken, from which other Australian forms lead us gradually up to skulls
having very much the type of the Engis cranium. And, on the other hand, it is
even more closely affined to the skulls of certain ancient people who inhabited
Denmark
during
the
'stone
period,'
and
were
probably
either
contemporaneous with, or later than, the makers of the 'refuse heaps,' or
'Kjokken moddings' of that country.
The correspondence between the longitudinal contour of the Neanderthal
skull and that of some of those skulls from the tumuli at Borreby, very
accurate drawings of which have been made by Mr. Busk, is very close. The
occiput is quite as retreating, the supraciliary ridges are nearly as prominent,
and the skull is as low. Furthermore, the Borreby skull resembles the
Neanderthal form more closely than any of the Australian skulls do, by the241
much more rapid retrocession of the forehead. On the other hand, the Borreby
skulls are all somewhat broader, in proportion to their length, than the
Neanderthal skull, while some attain that proportion of breadth to length
(80:100) which constitutes brachycephalic.
In conclusion, I may say, that the fossil remains of Man hitherto discovered do
not seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid form, by
the modification of which he has, probably, become what he is. And
considering what is now known of the most ancient races of men; seeing that
they fashioned flint axes and flint knives and bone-skewers, of much the same
pattern as those fabricated by the lowest savages at the present day, and that
we have every reason to believe the habits and modes of living of such
people to have remained the same from the time of the Mammoth and the
tichorhine Rhinoceros till now, I do not know that this result is other than might
be expected.
Where, then, must we look for primeval Man? Was the oldest 'Homo sapiens'
Pliocene or Miocene, or yet more ancient? In still older strata do the fossilized
bones of an Ape more anthropoid, or a Man more pithecoid, than any yet
known await the researches of some unborn paleontologist?
Time will show. But, in the meanwhile, if any form of the doctrine of
progressive development is correct, we must extend by long epochs the most
liberal estimate that has yet been made of the antiquity of Man.
Thomas Huxley was no ones fool but he did not suffer fools gladly and was
well known as a major champion of the evolutionists and was prone to attack
people if they got it wrong, as some did no doubt. He totally dismissed242
Mayers conclusions as a research work, laden with numerous jocosities of
small size, but great ponderosity, directed at Charles Darwin and his
doctrine.
Thomas Huxley also picked up on forensics very quickly when Professor
Mayer failed to explain how a dying man had managed to climb twenty meters
high, bury himself nude, after removing all his clothes and any equipment and
head for the spirit world if known? But he also made mistakes and for a while
linked the Neanderthal remains with the lower apes, a mistake that cost him
dearly in years to come. His saving grace was of course was the Neanderthal
skull and though he commented as ape like he was quick to add, it showed
some reversion from a modern human skull towards an ape like ancestor.
Huxley 1864.
This may be all well and good in those far off days but Thomas Huxley would
not fare well in todays Archaeology circles of learned men and women and
without doubt would have been taken to task by them.
A NEW LOOK AND AN OLD PROBLEM.

I again looked at the data on early apes and the two human species,
Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man and of course the old problem of
dating the early apes and humans.243
I have outlined the data below that so far has been put forward by
others.
The data presented by some other researchers, now seems in doubt when it
comes down to the timeline of the Neanderthals. Granted, there may be large
gaps in some timelines of early apes and of course the Neanderthals. In order
to look at this data I had to research a number of sources and in the end I was
more than a little surprised at the amount of guesswork and maybes that
came up with reference to the Neanderthals appearance on the Archaeology
canvas. Though expected by me, I was not prepared for gaps in their life
timeline, sometimes as much as a few thousand years.
Some data suggested that the Neanderthal features appeared as far back as
100,000 years ago during the warm interglacial period that is said to have
lasted from 130,000 70,000 years ago. Something was wrong with this first
part of the data so again research from many areas give me at least a blank
canvas to work on and dealing with the Neanderthals and their lifetime on our
planet as we know it today.244
The data that suggested the interglacial period is what is termed as a warm
climate episode between Glacial episodes and all ice ages recorded or
suggested and 40,000 years ago the UK and Ireland as well as parts of
Europe were not ice free. Which suggests that the Neanderthals of Europe did
have a very cold environment to contend with both for living in and hunting
food. As I am dealing here with the Neanderthals of Europe then the data on
M-isotope stages and climate stratigraphy suggest strongly that the last
Glaciation was in fact between 50 -30 thousand years in Europe when
Chatelperronian and H. Neanderthals were still around. Before that and in the
last suggested last interglacial period on the M-isotope new evidence,
120,000 60,000 years, = Mousterian and H. Neanderthal, the timeline data
therefore should be the start of the Neanderthals ( very early) at 90,000 to
35,000 years in Europe while the suggested timeline for Western Asia at
70,000 40,000 years.
This would suggest strongly that some of the Neanderthals did live in an area
of an Ice Age or at least part of it and other groups lived in ice free zones
when we consider the scanty remains discovered from western Europe,
through the Near East and into Western Asia. What we dont know yet, is if
any of the migrations during the interglacial period 120,000-60,000 years,
went north into Russia and as far north as they could go in small groups?
On the evidence I would suggest that the only humans in Europe between
100,000 40,000 years ago were Neanderthals only.
Again I had to take another hard look at Climate change across Europe but go
much further back in time, through and just past the Neanderthal timelines.245
Oxygen isotopes in deep sea cores show that in the first 1.8 million years of
the Pleistocene suggested glacial inter-glacial cycles of every 41,000 years
and during the last 700.000 years the most dominant cycle is about 100,000
years which includes I should point out, interglacial timeline lasting about
10,000 and 15,000 years.
If we take this as far as we know then I have to place the last Ice Age at
around 115,000 years ago and ended 10,000 years ago and we are now in
the very present interglacial period. This I should point out does not match my
own research data above as such but close. The big thaw that came did so
around 15,000 years ago and the seas around Europe rose to a high point,
flooding land bridges. 11,000 years ago there was a setback in Europe and
some parts of North America which brought back the ice and known now as
the Younger Dryas Period. This did last 500 years and the North Atlantic polar
front migrated down from Iceland to the Bay of Biscay with summer
temperatures dropping as much as 10 degrees C and any ice sheets that had
started to melt began to form again and advance. Animals and plants as well
as some of the Neanderthal groups in Europe. The event ended 10,000 years
ago.
The idea that Homo Erectus had its part to play, but only as a control factor
and possible comparison in passing. It would be, I suggest, that the features
of early Neanderthals was to do with a cold and bitter climate but only in part
and it would be a mistake to say that this was the main reason for face and
body features. Something else caused the genetic change and to date no one
has yet found it or even suggested it. All they have in the bag is Cold Climate
at the moment and that I fear is not enough because something changed the
DNA makeup of the Neanderthals and it was not God.246
Cro-Magnon Man did not come onto the archaeology canvas till around
40,000 years ago in Europe at the Les Eyzies site in the Dordogne. Given the
location as the data excepted what is not explained is how did they get there
and from where? The only possible theory is that they crossed from North
Africa into Spain as this was the only narrow crossing or they came in small
migrations from Asia? I will come back to this data later for a comparisons of
evidence, such as it is.
NEANDERTHAL TOOLS.
The devil is in the detail they say in my home in Ireland, and the detail and
data on tool making and tools linked to the Neanderthals has to be part of any
research.
To do this I had to look hard at the Mousterian timeline.
and
This was a new form of stone tool technology and very closely linked with the
Neaderthals, known as the Mousterian name after a cave in the Dordogne
(Le Moustier). The design of these tools found there was a massive
improvement from that of the Acheulean period. In the case of the links
between the tools and the Neanderthals it in fact produced sixty items from
points,knives, scrapers, and all made and trimmed for a purpose. These tools247
were much more previous known cultures for want of a better word. This
suggests from the workmanship and refined Levallois flaked technique
developed to a very high degree was not the work of an ape or anything
close to such.The control of the tool makers hands, and a good eye and
working brain suggests good evidence that the Neaderthals were advanced
thinkers.
Bone tools were also made and such bone again needs very careful handling
by the tool maker.
There was however evidence of different styles in the Mousterian cultures and
I suggest here that from the reserch evidence I have looked at, four very
different cultures but realted in Europe. These were the Typical, Denticulate
Mousterian, Acheulean type, and Charentian. That could well mean that in
Europe and West Asia there were four different tribes of Neanderthal Man and
at times living close to one another.
Then if the Typical tools were from and linked to Combe-Grenal in the
Dordogne and ten to twenty kilometers away from them who were from the
Denticulate culture then at times much have met, mixed and at time bred
with one another. We do know that reindeer was the prey or main prey of the
Dordogne group and horses the main prey of the Denticilate group.
I have no doubt at all that some geographical tribal drift took place over a
number of generations and that it is possible of course that one tribe may well
have taken over a much older site of another and thus causing confusion in
the tool finds.
With such development in tools other factors in time came into play such as
burial.
NEANDERTHAL BURIALS248
As I stated early on in my research I mentioned that what was taken as early
neanderthal rutual burial was nothing more than getting rid of a body and any
flowers thrown on it rather than placed were more than likely to kill the smell.
From a forensic point of view, flowers are found in spring and summer so if a
Neanderthal was to die it had to be during this time and it would have been
less than 24 hours before blue and green blowflies would have laid their eggs
on the decaying flesh, in forty eight hours if the body was above ground it
would be moving with maggots due to the high temperatures if it was a warm
phase and the smell would have attracted all sorts of animals that were a risk
to man. So if flowers and herbs were discovered with remains then the victim
died during a warm phase and not during a cold phase therefore giving us a
dating tool from a seasonal point of view. This therefore could not be classed
as a ritual burial as such.
Ritual burial guidelines I suggest should be;
Body placed in a pit on its side.
Flints under the head.
Stone axe or other tool close to the hands.
Bones of food animals also buried.
Flowers or shells placed on the body.
I have given some examples of this here.
At Le Moustier, a young teenage boy was placed in a pit on his right side, his
head placed on his forarms and below the arms and head a pile of flints,
stone axe near the hand and the bones of wild cattle around him,
Central Asia at a place called Teshik Tash in Uzbekistan, the bones of a child
lies beside the bones of Ibex arranged around the remains, the bones having249
the cut marks of tools on them that suggests two things, one the flesh was
stripped away but I suggest does not suggest a ritual but a need for meat and
eaten by the living at that time. However the ritual part comes from six pairs of
ibex horns around the head forming a rough ring.
La Ferrassle rock shelter very near the town of le Bugue in the Dordogne the
headless remains of a young child was found lying in a flexed position at the
bottom of a shallow pit. A few feet up in the pit the discovery of a jawless skull
of a child lying on a limestone slab and evidence of red ochre on the
underside of the slab as well as small pit markings on the top of it.
A cave in Shandidar in the Zagros Mountains of Iraq has produced a number
of Neanderthal remains and one dated as far back as 60,000 years known
now as Shanider IV and many flower pollen grains discovered around the
bones. The victim must therefore have died sometime in June or July, the
flowers and herbs, some of them medical herbs known today was used also
as a bed that the body had been placed.
I have listed the flowers and plants that the pollen came from for reference.
Oak, pine,juniper,ash, yarrow,cornflower,St Barnabys thistle,ragwort, grape
hyacinth,hollyhock,woody horsetail.
To carry out such a ritual suggests strongly that this Neanderthal group at
Shanider did show emotion and even an understanding of the underworld,
could be called spiritual because the soul or spirit as we know it would not
have been named as such 60,000 years ago.
There was no religion as we know it but the evidence does suggest the
understanding of life and death however we may never know what the
Neanderthal thinking was on such matters then. Religion is a mind process,
nothing more and nothing less and could mean nothing to research or mean
everything in the long term.250
THE PREY ANIMALS OF THE NEANDERTHALS IN EUROPE.
If we take the end of the last Ice Age and during it, the prey animals that the
Neanderthals hunted for food and were hunted by as well, is a long list which I
have outlined below. Middle Europe to the Urals had formed a large Tundra
and known as the mammoth steppe. It was the land that time forgot and
mostly bog and grasses. I have not put in the scientific name of any of the
species just the common names.
Wooly mammoth.. Survived in Europe till the end of the last Glacial but in
North Asia at least 1000 years more.

Cave Bear. It took survived in Europe at the beginning of the last Glacial but
near its end the Cave bear vanished also.
Wild Horse. A small horse species and was hunted hard by the Neanderthal
groups for food and skins.
The Wolf. Still survives in the wilder part of Europe and Asia. Was at times a
risk factor to the Neanderthal groups in winter.
Cave lion. Much larger than the present day African and Asian lions. Vanished
from Europe at the end of the last Glacial.
Wolverine. Hunted for its skin and a smaller species now lives in north Europe
and Asia.251
The Steppe Bison. Hunted for meat and skins by the Neanderthal groups and
may have a genetic link to the modren bison in Europe today.
Musk ox. Vanished from Europe at the end of the last Glacial and found now
only in Canada and parts of Greenland. Hunted for food and skins.
Woolly Rhino. Vanished from Europe 12,000 years ago. Had two large horns.
Cave hyena. A large hyena and vanished almost at the end of the last
Glacial.
Giant Deer or Irish Elk. Hunted for food and skins and died out last Glacial.
Suslik. Possible food and still lives in South Europe.
Saiga Antelope. Hunted for food and skins. Now lives in South Russia.
Ibex. Hunted for food and horns.
BIRDS. All species including ducks and willow grouse for food.
Fish. All species for food.252
FOSSIL EVIDENCE SO FAR OF NEANDERTHALS .
SPECIES.
TIME LINE
SITE.
NOTES.
Early Pre Neanderthals .
More than 300,000 years.
Sima de Los Huesos Spain.
Arago,Tautavel, France.
Petralona, Greece.
Late Pre Neanderthals.
300,000 -150,000 years.253
Bilzingsleben, Steinheim, Masur, Germany.
Swanscombe,UK.
La Chaise, Biache-Saint-Vaast,France.
Early Neanderthals.
150,000-70,000 years.
Ehringsdorf,Germany.
Saccopastore,Italy.
Krapina,Croatia.
La Chaise,France.
Classic Neanderthals.
70,000-30,000 years.
Saint-Cesaire, La Ferrassie,
La Chapell aux-Saints, France.
Important fossil sites of Neanderthals in Europe.
PLACE YEARS AGO. FOSSILS.

Engis Belgium Not known. Child, Skull fragments and teeth.
Spy, Belgium. Not known. Adult bones of upper body.
Adult part of a skeleton.
Child,two teeth, right tibia.
Krapina, Croatia. 120,000 years.
Remains of 13 bodies.
Vindija,Croatia. 40,000-28,000 years. Part remains of bodies.
Grotte du Renne,
Arcy-sur-Cure, France, 34,000 years.
Cranial fragment (Temporal)254
La-Chapelle-aux-Saints, France.60,000-50,000 years.
Part of a skeleton.
La Ferrassie France. 70,000 years.
Adult,skeletons 2
Child, upper skeleton.
Foetus humerus and femur.
Neonate, part of a skeleton.
Foetus, part of a skeleton.
Child, part of a skeleton.
LHortus,France.
70,000 years. 38 sets of human remains.
La Moustier,France. 40,000 years. Young adult and one child
Part of skeletons.
La Quina,France. 50,000 years. Fragments of skulls 11.
Marillac,France. 45,000 years. 1 adult mandible, skull fragments.

Regourdou, France. Not known. Adult part of a skeleton.
Roc de Marsal,France. 70,000 years. Child part of a skeleton.
Saint-Cesaire, France. 34,000 years. Adult part of a skeleton.
Ehringsdor, (Weimar) Germany. 100,000 years.
1 Adult skull fragments.
Feldhoffer Cave, Nenaderthal,Germany. 40,000 years. 1 adult part of
Skeleton.
Adult right humerus.
DISTRIBUTION of Neanderthal sites in Eurasia.
France,Germany,Spain,Italy,Greece,Black Sea area,North Africa, Turkey,
Shandidar, Teshik Tash.255
A FULL SUMMERY OF MY RESEARCH, NEANDERTHAL DAWN.
This research study on the Neanderthals of Europe came about because of
my doubts on the dating of bones from an archaeology point of view and also
what part this Homo had to play in modren Human advancment.
When I first started my research I was more than a little surprised in this day
and age of how much has been left out in other data, great gaps of no
knowledge and then some of the data mentioned somehow got their timelines
wrong.
It was easy to be critical of other researchers mistakes and even more so of
my own but in time I turned that around to constructive critical comment,
something that we all need so that we are aware of our failings as a human
mammal.
I of course had to focus on the Neanderthals but in doing so I could not ignore
the good work carried out of many years by others researchers on the very
early Homo species because I also had to take a closer look at them for
comparrison. For a while it become confusing because of all the many views
on the first early Homo species people had and published on. At times the
Neanderthal research had to be put to oneside as I waded through the data
on any links from early Homo and found out very quickly when it came down
to the archaeology wire I had to either except or reject data for one reason or
another.
Before I proceeded with this research, I double checked, I pondered on the
many problems and questions that arise and I have done my best to solve
most of them. Then I write up what I know and what I have gained from
research of this kind and trust it is as honest and focused as I wanted it to be.
In this part of the research I want to thank everyone who has been of help.257
The Author, bone hunting in Borneo.
THE MISSING LINK FROM AFRICA.
One of the problems that I encountered is why the Neanderthals have not
been found in many parts of Africa? The second problem I came across was
the DNA data on the Neanderthals and any links with modren humans across
Europe. In my research on the DNA I came across many conflicts of ongoing
research as well as published data. Some of this I have had to include here
for possible debate and improve it possible.
THE DNA CONFLICT
All the DNA samples it seems came from recovered material from
Neanderthal bones and the samples examined in a number of DNA sampling
labs. However I have to question how the samples were taken and how much
cross contamanation happened during the processes.258
I have no doubt at all that in some cases, slap happy sampling did take place
and that modern DNA from living humans was mixed in with that of the
Neanderthals DNA.
In contrast to previous efforts to obtain ancient sequences by direct analysis
of Sequencing and Analysis of extracts met genomic libraries allow the
immortalization of DNA isolated from precious ancient samples, obviating the
need for repeated Neanderthal Genomic DNA. The Researchers for this data I
have named below;
James P. Noonan,1,2 Graham Coop,3 Sridhar Kudaravalli,3 Doug Smith,1 Johannes
Krause,4 Joe Alessi,1 Feng Chen,1 Darren Platt,1 Svante Pbo,4 Jonathan K.
Pritchard,3 Edward M. Rubin1,2*
Our knowledge of Neanderthals is based on a limited number of remains and
artefacts from which we must make inferences about their biology, behaviour,
and relationship to ourselves. Here, we describe the characterization of these
extinct hominids from a new perspective, based on the development of a
Neanderthal metagenomic library and its high-throughput sequencing and
analysis.
Several lines of evidence indicate that the 65,250 base pairs of hominid
sequence so far identified in the library are of Neanderthal origin, the
strongest being the ascertainment of sequence identities between
Neanderthal and chimpanzee at sites where the human genomic
sequence is different.
These results enabled us to calculate the human-Neanderthal divergence
time based on multiple randomly distributed autosomal loci. Our analyses

suggest that on average the Neanderthal genomic sequence we obtained and
the reference human genome sequence share a most recent common259
ancestor ~706,000 years ago, and that the human and Neanderthal
ancestral populations split ~370,000 years ago, before the emergence of
anatomically modern humans. Our finding that the Neanderthal and human
genomes are at least 99.5% identical led us to develop and successfully
implement a targeted method for recovering specific ancient DNA sequences
from metagenomic libraries. This initial analysis of the Neanderthal genome
advances our understanding of the evolutionary relationship of Homo sapiens
and Homo neanderthalensis and signifies the dawn of Neanderthal genomics
.(The dates and the comment seem wrong but needs checking. Carleton 2012)
Neanderthals are the closest hominid rela-tives of modern humans (1). As late
as 30,000 years ago, humans and Neander-thals coexisted in Europe and
western Asia
(2). Since that time, our species has spread across Earth, far surpassing any
previous hominid or primate species in numbers, technological development,
and environmental impact, while Neanderthals have vanished. Molecular
studies of Neanderthals have been exclusively constrained to the comparison
of human and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplified Neanderthal
mitochondrial sequences, which suggest that the most recent common
ancestor of humans and Neanderthals existed. ~500,000 years ago, well
before the emergence of modern humans.
Further analyses of mito-chondrial data, including the comparison of
mito-chondrial sequences obtained from several Neanderthals and early
modern humans, suggest little or no admixture between Neanderthal and

modern human populations in Europe. However, a major limitation of all prior
molecular studies of Neanderthals is that mitochondrial sequences reflect only
maternal inheritance of a single locus.260
Accordingly, in the absence of Neanderthal autosomal and Y-chromosome
sequences, the assessment of human-Neanderthal admixture remains
incomplete.
Mitochondrial data also pro-vide no access to the gene and gene regulatory
sequence differences between humans and Nean-derthals that would help to
reveal biological features unique to each. These insights await the recovery of
Neanderthal genomic sequences.
The introduction of high-throughput sequencing technologies and recent
advances in metagenomic analysis of complex DNA mixtures now provide a
strategy to recover genomic sequences from ancient destructive extractions.
In addition, once an ancient DNA fragment is cloned into a metagenomic
library, it can be distinguished from contamination that might be introduced
during subsequent PCR amplification or sequencing by the vector sequences
linked to each library-derived insert.
Recovery of Neanderthal nuclear DNA sequences using a metagenomic
approach.
In this study, we applied an amplification-independent direct cloning method
to construct a Neanderthal metagenomic library, designated NE1, using DNA
extracted from a 38,000-year-old specimen from Vindija, Croatia.
We have recovered 65,250 base pairs ( BP) of Neanderthal genome
sequence from this library through a combination of Sanger sequencing and
massively parallel pyro sequencing. We have also used the metagenomic

library as a substrate to isolate specific Neanderthal sequences by direct
genomic selection.
Several lines of evidence indicated that the hominid sequences in this library
were largely Neanderthal, rather than modern human contamination
. Mitochondrial PCR analysis of the extract used to build the library, using an261
amplicon of similar size as the average hominid sequence identified in the
library, revealed that only ~2% of the products were from contaminating
modern human DNA, whereas the remaining 98% were Neanderthal
. Signatures of damage in the hominid sequences that are characteristic of
ancient DNA also suggested that they were ancient.
Finally and most importantly, comparison of hominid sequences from the
library to orthologous human and chimpanzee genomic sequences identified
human-specific substitutions at sites where the hominid sequence was
identical to that of the chimpanzees, enabling us to make estimates of the
human-Neanderthal divergence time.
We initially assessed the Neanderthal genomic sequence content of library
NE1 by Sanger se-quencing of individual clones, which allowed individual
library inserts to be completely sequenced and thus provided a direct
measure of hominid insert size that could not be obtained from the ~100-bp
pyro sequencing reads. We identified hominid sequences in the library by
BLAST comparison to the reference human genome sequence.
In many cases, the human BLAST hit covered only part of the insert, because
the direct cloning method we employed produces chimeric inserts consisting
of smaller fragments ligated into larger concatemers.
The small average size of these putatively ancient Neanderthal fragments (bp)
is similar to results we previously obtained from two Pleistocene cave bear
libraries, in which the average library insert size was between 100 and 200 bp,
whereas BLAST hits to reference carnivore genome sequences were on
average 69 bp. The small BLAST hit sizes and insert sizes in both cave bear
and Neanderthal metage-nomic libraries are consistent with the degradation
of ancient genomic DNA into small fragments over tens of thousands of years,
illustrating the general condition of nuclear DNA in ancient remains.262
Sanger sequencing of individual clones from library NE1 suggested that it
contained sufficient amounts of Neanderthal sequence to conduct a random
sequence survey of the Neanderthal genome. However, the small percentage
of clones we identified as containing hominid sequences indicated that we
would have to sequence a very large number of clones to obtain enough
Neanderthal genome sequence for this analysis. We therefore carried out
deep sequencing of pooled inserts from library NE1 using massively parallel
pyro sequencing.
To obtain pooled inserts, we amplified transformed NE1 library DNA in liquid
batch culture and recovered library inserts from purified plasmid DNA by PCR
We generated 1.47 million pyrosequencing reads, compared each to the
human genome sequence with MEGABLAST, and obtained 7880 hits.
Assembly of these reads and re-analysis of the resulting scaffolds by BLASTN
produced 1126 unique Neanderthal loci, yielding 54,302 bp of Neanderthal
genomic sequence.
Assessment of pyrosequencing data qual-ity by comparison to Sanger
sequence data. The pyrosequencing approach generates significant amounts
of sequence but does so with a higher error rate than Sanger sequencing.
To assess the quality of Neanderthal pyrosequencing data, we generated
consensus sequences from pyrosequencing reads overlapping the same
Neanderthal genomic locus and filtered out low-quality positions in the
resulting contigs (quality score < 15).
To determine whether these contigs contained additional errors not detectable
by quality-score filtering, we also used Sanger sequencing to analyse, 19,200
clones from the same batch culture used to generate the pyrosequencing data.
This sequencing yielded 130 loci (6.2 kb) that were also represented in the
pyrosequencing data.263
Sanger sequencing and pyro-sequencing results for these 130 Neanderthal
loci agreed at 99.89% of un-gapped positions. In addition, Sanger sequencing
and pyrosequencing yielded Neanderthal sequences that were nearly equally
divergent from the human reference sequence (pyrosequencing = 0.47%
divergence, Sanger sequencing = 0.49%).
These results indicate that the frequency of single-base errors is probably no
greater in Neanderthal genomic sequence obtained from assembled quality-
filtered pyrosequencing data than in sequence obtained from Sanger
sequencing.
The low complexity of library NE1 made these analyses possible, because it
resulted in a limited number of clones in the library that were amplified by
batch culture and PCR and then sequenced in depth.
We estimated that the coverage obtained in library NE1 (~0.002%) is
significantly lower than that previously obtained in cave bear metagenomic
libraries prepared from samples of similar age as the Neanderthal sample
used here. The low coverage in library NE1 is more likely due to the quality of
this particular library rather than being a general feature of ancient DNA.
Nevertheless, we were able to obtain substantial amounts of authentic
Neanderthal genomic sequence from the library by deep sequencing.
Comparison of orthologous Neanderthal, human, and chimpanzee genomic
sequences.
To ascertain whether the library NE1 hominid sequence we obtained was a
representative sampling of the Neanderthal genome, we identified each NE1
library sequence for which the bit score of the best BLASTN hit in the human
genome was higher than the bit scores of all other hits for that sequence.
We then determined the distribution of all such best BLASTN hits across
human chromosomes [43,946 bp in 1,039 loci.264
The amount of Neanderthal sequence aligned to each human chromosome
was highly correlated with sequenced chromosome length, indicating that the
Neanderthal sequences we obtained were randomly drawn from all
chromosomes (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.904, ).
The hominid hits included Y-chromosome sequences, demonstrating that our
sample was derived from a Neanderthal male. We annotated each
Neanderthal locus according to the annotations (known genes, conserved
noncoding sequences, and repeats) associated with the aligned human
sequence. Neanderthal sequences obtained by both Sanger sequencing and
pyro-sequencing showed a distribution of sequence features consistent with
the known distribution of these features in the human genome.
These sequences are therefore likely to represent a random sampling of the
Neanderthal genome.
Comparison of authentic Neanderthal sequence with orthologous

human and chimpanzee genomic sequences will reveal sites at which
Neanderthal is identical to chimpanzee but at which the human sequence has
undergone a mutation since the human-Neanderthal divergence. Determining
the number of human-specific mutations is critical to dating the human-
Neanderthal split.
To identify these events, we constructed alignments of orthologous human,
Neanderthal, and chimpanzee sequences and identified mutations specific to
each lineage by parsimony. We identified 34 human-specific substitutions in
37,636 human, Neanderthal, and chimpanzee aligned positions, including
substitutions on chromosomes X and Y that were not considered in
subsequent analyses.
We also identified 171 sites with Neanderthal-specific substitutions relative to
human and chim-panzee.265
It has been shown that nucleotides in genuine ancient DNA are occasionally
chemically damaged, most frequently because of the deamination of cytosine
to uracil, resulting in the incorpora-tion of incorrect bases during PCR and
sequencing. This results in an apparent excess of C-to-T and G-to-A
mismatches (which are equivalent events) between the ancient sequence and
the modern genomic reference sequence. We observe a significant excess of
C-to-T and G-to-A mismatches (relative to T-to-C and A-to-G mismatches)
between human and NE1 hominid sequences obtained by both Sanger
sequencing and pyrosequencing [P << 0.0005, Fisher).
This accounts for the large number of Neanderthal-specific substitutions we
observe and further supports the supposition that the hominid sequences are
Neanderthal in origin. Despite the bias toward C- to-T and G-to-A events in
Neanderthal genomic sequence, the overall frequency of these events is
low (~0.37% of all sites), indicating that the vast majority of human-
Neanderthal-chimpanzee aligned positions are not likely to be significantly
affected by mis-incorporation errors.
The length distribution of ancient DNA fragments, when combined with the
sequence signatures of ancient DNA described above, offers another metric
for assessing the degree of modern human contamination in our library.
Based on the assumption that modern contaminating DNA fragments would
be longer than authentic ancient DNAs, which is supported by the observation
that contaminating modern human DNA fragments in the cave bear libraries
were on average much longer than the cave bear sequences (116 versus 69
bp), we examined the distribution of human-Neanderthal mismatches in our
data set as a function of alignment length.266
If a substantial fraction of the hominid sequence recovered from the
Neanderthal sample were actually modern human DNA, we would expect to
see a lower human-Neanderthal sequence divergence in the longer BLASTN
alignments than we observe in the entire data set, because the longer
hominid sequences would be enriched in modern human contaminants.
The excess of damage-induced Neanderthal-specific mismatches described
above would also be expected to decrease as alignment length increases,
because individual bases in the longer modern human fragments would show
relatively few chemical modifications. However, we did not observe these
trends in our Neanderthal sequence. The human-Neanderthal sequence
divergence in all autosomal alignments greater than 52 bp was similar to the
divergence obtained from the whole data set (0.59% versus 0.52%). The
excess of C-to-T and G-to-A mismatches was also maintained in the longer
alignments. These results further support the supposition that the hominid
sequence we obtained is predominantly Neanderthal in origin.
Coalescence time of human and Neander-thal genomic sequences.
This data allowed us to examine for the first time the genetic relationship
between humans and Neanderthals using nuclear genomic sequences. We
first considered the average coalescence time for the autosomes between the
Neanderthal genomic sequence that we obtained and the reference human
genome sequence. We observed 502 human-chimpanzee autosomal
differences in the human-Neanderthal-chimpanzee sequence alignments we
constructed. Based on comparison to the Neanderthal sequence, 27 of these
differences were human-specific and therefore postdate the most recent
common ancestor (MRCA) of the human and Neanderthal sequences.267
Using this information, our maximum likelihood estimate of the average time
to the MRCA of these sequences is 706,000 years, with a 95% confidence
interval (CI) of 468,000 to 1,015,000 years.
Amount of unique Neanderthal sequence obtained from library NE1 by
Sanger sequencing of individual clones, as well as Sanger sequencing and
pyrosequencing of clones in batch culture. (N A.,)
Individual clones Batch culture Sequencing chemistry Sanger
Pyrosequencing Reads 9984 19,200 1,474,910
Average insert 134 bp 196 bp (N A )
Average BLAST hit 52 bp 52 bp 48 bp
Unique loci 131 69 1126
Total unique hominid 6845 bp 4103 bp 54,302 bp sequence

This calculation does not make use of Neanderthal specific changes, because
many of those events are due to DNA damage as described above.
In addition, we restricted our analysis to autosomal data, because these
represent 97% of our total data set and population genetic parameters are
likely to differ between the autosomes and sex chromosomes.
Our estimate uses a mutation rate obtained by setting the average
coalescence time for human and chimpan-zee autosomes to 6.5 million years
ago, a value that falls within the range suggested by recent studies
Inaccuracies in the human-chimpanzee divergence time would shift all the
time estimates and CIs presented here in proportion to the error.
Split time of ancestral human and Neanderthal populations.
Our estimate of the average common ancestor time reflects the average time
at which the Neanderthal and human reference sequences began to diverge268
in the common ancestral population, not the actual split time of the ancestral
populations that gave rise to Neanderthals and modern humans. To estimate
the actual split time of the ancestral human and Neanderthal populations, we
developed a method that incorporated data from the human and Neanderthal
reference sequences, as well as genotypes from 210 individuals with
genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data collected by the
International Hap Map Consortium .
We included the HapMap data because they indicate what proportion of sites
in the Neanderthal sequence fall within the spectrum of modern human
variation. For example, if the ancestral human and Neanderthal populations
split long ago, before the rise of most modern human genetic diversity
captured by the HapMap data, then Neanderthal sequence would almost

never carry the derived allele, relative to the orthologous chimpanzee
sequence, for a human SNP. Conversely, a more recent population split
would result in Neanderthal sequence frequently carrying the derived allele for
human SNPs.
To formalize this idea, we considered an explicit population model for the
relationship between Nean-derthals and each HapMap population (East
Asians, (A) Representation of each Neanderthal chromosome in 43.9 kb
amount of Neanderthal sequence aligned to each. Chromosomes X and Y of
NE1 hominid sequences displaying a statistically unambiguous best are
shown at half their total length to correct for their haploid state in BLAST hit to
the human genome, relative to the total sequenced length of males relative to
the autosomes.
(B) Representation of sequence features each human chromosome minus
gaps. Chromosomes are ranked by the in the NE1 hominid sequence shown
in (A). (Europeans, and Yoruba) separately.269
We assumed that Neanderthals and modern humans evolved from a single
ancestral population of 10,000 individuals and that the Neanderthal population
split away from the human ancestral population instan-taneously at a time in
the past, with no subsequent gene flow.
In order to model the demographic histories of the HapMap populations, we
made use of models and parameters estimated by Voight et al. based on re
sequencing data from 50 unlinked, noncoding regions.
Frequency distribution of 171 Neanderthal-specific substitutions observed in
37,636 bp of aligned human, Neanderthal, and chimpanzee genomic
sequence. Complementary substitutions (such as C to T and G to A) are

considered equivalent events.
. (A) Log-likelihood curve of the time to the MRCA of the Neanderthal and
human reference sequences.
(B) Smoothed relative log-likelihood estimates of the split times between
different human pop-ulations and the Nean-derthal population.
(C) Impact of changes in the ancient population size on split time estimates
for five models that are consistent with modern polymorphism data.
KY, thousand years.
Each curve is the smoothed log likelihood relative to the maximum over all
five models. For each model, the text on the plot indicates the degree of
expan-sion or contraction and the time before the present at which the size
change occurred. The expansion models are less likely as compared to either
constant population size or the contraction modest bottlenecks for East
Asians and Europeans and modest exponential growth for Yoruba.
We then constructed a simulation-based composite likelihood framework to
estimate the time of the human-Neanderthal population split.270
At each site in the human-Neanderthal-chimpanzee alignments we
constructed, we recorded the Neanderthal and human reference alleles
relative to chimpanzee. We also determined, separately for each population,
whether each site was a HapMap SNP in that population and if so, the allele
frequency.
We used simulations to estimate the probability of each possible data
configuration at a single site as a function of the human-Neanderthal split time.
The simulations used the estimated population demography for each HapMap
population and a probabilistic model of SNP ascertainment to match the

overall density and frequency spectrum of HapMap Phase II SNPs.
Likelihood curves for the split time were computed by multiplying likelihoods
across sites as though they were independent. In practice, this is an excellent
approximation for our data because the Neanderthal sequence reads are very
short and just 1 out of 905 aligned fragments contains more than one human-
specific allele or SNP. Bootstrap simulations confirmed that our composite
likelihood method yields appropriate CIs for the split time.
Using this approach, the maximum likelihood estimates for the split time of the
ancestral human and Neanderthal populations are 440,000 years (95% CI of
170,000 to 620,000 years) based on the European data, 390,000 years
(170,000 to 670,000 years) for East Asians, and 290,000 years (120,000 to
570,000 years) for Yoruba.
(These values predate the earliest known appearance of anatomically
modern humans in Africa ~195,000 years ago ). Because these split times are
before the migration of modern humans out of Africa, the three population-
specific estimates should all be estimates of the same actual split time.
The average of these estimates, ~370,000 years, is thus a sensible point
estimate for the split time.271
Substantial contamination with modern human DNA would cause these
estimates to be artificially low, but 2% contamination, the rate suggested by
mitochondrial PCR analysis of the primary extract used to construct the library,
would have essentially no impact .
Our estimates of the human-Neanderthal split time might depend heavily on
the assumption that the ancestral effective population size of humans was
10,000 individuals. To address this, we explored a set of models in which the

ancestral human population expanded or contracted at least 200,000 years
ago. We found that much of the parameter space, though not the original
model, could be excluded on the basis of modern human polymorphism data
from Voight et al.. We repeated our likelihood analysis of the Neanderthal
data using models incorporating ancient expansion or contraction that are
consistent with modern data and found that these did not substantially change
our population split time estimates.
Our data include three sites at which Neanderthal carries the derived allele for
a polymorphic HapMap SNP. These sites are unlikely to represent modern
contamination because for two of the SNPs, the derived allele is found only in
Yoruba; also, one of the SNPs lies on a fragment that contains a C-to-T
transition in Neanderthals that is characteristic of chemical damage to DNA.
These observations indicate that the Neanderthal sequence may often
coalesce within the human ancestral tree. Based on simulations of our best-fit
model for Yoruba, we estimate that Neanderthal is a true out
group for approximately 14% (assuming a split time of 290,000 years, the
Yoruba estimate) to 26% (assuming a split time of 440,000 years, the
European estimate) of the autosomal genome of modern humans, although
more data will be required to achieve a precise estimate.272
Lack of evidence for admixture between humans and Neanderthals.
Because Neanderthals coexisted with modern humans in Europe, there has
long been interest in whether Neanderthals might have contributed to the
European gene pool.
Previous studies comparing human and Neanderthal mitochondrial
sequences did not find evidence of a Neanderthal genetic contribution to

modern humans. However, the utility of mitochondrial data in addressing this
question is limited in that it is restricted to a single locus and, due to the
maternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, is informative only about
admixture between Neanderthal females and modern human males .
Moreover, it has been argued that some aspects of modern human autosomal
data may be the result of modest levels of Neanderthal admixture.
If Neanderthal admixture did indeed occur, then this could manifest in our
data as an abundance of low-frequency derived alleles in Europeans where
the derived allele matches Neanderthal.
No site in the data set appears to be of this type. In order to formally evaluate
this hypothesis, we extended our composite likelihood simulations to include a
single admixture event 40,000 years ago in which a fraction part of the
European gene pool was derived from Neanderthals. We fixed the human-
Neanderthal split at 440,000 years ago (the split time estimate for Europeans).
With these assumptions, the maximum likelihood estimate for the Neanderthal
contribution to modern genetic diversity is zero.
However, the 95% CI for this estimate ranges from 0 to 20%, so a definitive
answer to the admixture question will require additional Neanderthal
sequence data.273
Targeted recovery of specific Neanderthal sequences by direct genomic
Selection
. Although we have recovered significant amounts of Neanderthal genome
sequence using a metagenomic approach, hundreds of gigabases of
sequence would be required to achieve reasonable coverage of a single
Neanderthal genome by this method. Moreover, our results indicate that at

least 99.5% of the Neanderthal sequence that would be obtained would be
identical to the modern human sequence. The human-Neanderthal sequence
differences that would yield great insight into human biology and evolution are
thus rare events in an overwhelming background of uninformative sequence.
We therefore explored the potential of metagenomic libraries to serve as
substrates to recover specific Neanderthal sequences of interest by targeted
methods. To this end, we developed a direct genomic selection approach to
recover known and unknown sequences from metagenomic ancient DNA
libraries. We first attempted to recover specific sequences from a Pleistocene
cave bear metagenomic library we previously constructed and designed PCR
probes corresponding to 96 sequences highly conserved among mammals
but not previously shown to be present in the cave bear library.
We amplified these sequences from the human genome and hybridized the
resulting probes to PCR-amplified cave bear library inserts produced as
described above. Recovered library DNAs were amplified by PCR and
sequenced. We successfully recovered five targets consisting of a known
enhancer of Sox9 and conserved sequences near Tbx3, Shh, Msx2,and Gdf6.
In principle, these sequences could be derived from contaminating DNA
rather than the cave bear library. Critically, the captured cave bear sequences
were flanked by library vector sequence, directly demonstrating that these274
sequences were derived from a cloned library insert and not from
contaminating DNA introduced during direct selection.
Based on these results, we attempted to recover specific Neanderthal
sequences from library NE1. We focused on recovering sequences that we
had previously identified by shotgun sequencing because of the low

complexity of library NE1, and were able to recover 29 of 35 sequences we
targeted. The authenticity of these sequences was confirmed by the presence
of library vector sequences in the reads.
Our success in recovering both previously unknown cave bear and known
Neanderthal genomic sequences using direct genomic selection indicates that
this is a feasible strategy for purifying specific cloned Neanderthal sequences
out of a high background of Neanderthal and contaminating microbial DNA.
This raises the possibility that, should multiple Neanderthal metagenomic
libraries be constructed from independent samples, direct selection could be
used to recover Neander-thal sequences from several individuals to obtain
and confirm important human-specific and Neanderthal specific substitutions.
Conclusions.
The current state of our knowledge concerning Neanderthals and their
relationship to modern humans is largely inference and speculation based on
archaeological data and a limited number of hominid remains. In this study,
we have demonstrated that Neanderthal genomic sequences can be
recovered using a metagenomic library-based approach and that specific
Neanderthal sequences can be obtained from such libraries by direct
selection. Our study thus provides a framework for the rapid recovery of
Neanderthal sequences of interest from multiple independent specimens,
without the need for whole-genome re sequencing.275
Such a collection of targeted Neanderthal sequences would be of immense
value for understanding human and Neanderthal biology and evolution.
Future Neanderthal genomic studies, including targeted and whole-genome
shotgun sequencing, will provide insight into the profound phenotypic

divergence of humans both from the great apes and from our extinct hominid
relatives, and will allow us to explore aspects of Neanderthal biology not
evident from artefacts and fossils.
As you can see from the above research all the data provided tends to
point to some confusion in its interpretation and this is high risk if taken on
board as fact when more research may well be needed, in fact I will go as far
to state that it should be on-going and the results published.
On saying that I have placed another DNA research project here below.
Such research in important but only when it relates directly to the
Neanderthals and this Research on the Neanderthals.
Neandertals and Moderns Mixed, and It Matters
JOA O ZILHA O
Twenty-.ve years ago, the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe
could be represented as a straightforward process subsuming both the
emergence of symbolic behaviour and the replacement of Neandertals by
modern humans.
The Aurignacian was a proxy for the latter, during which enhanced cognitive
capabilities explained ornaments and art. The few instances of Neanderthal
symbolism were deemed too long postdate contact and dismissed as
imitation without understanding, if not geological contamination.276
Such views were strengthened by the recent finding that, in southern Africa,
several features of the European Upper Paleolithic, including bone tools,
ornaments, and microliths, emerged much earlier.
Coupled with genetic suggestions of a recent African origin for extant humans,
fossil discoveries bridging the transition between archaic and moderns in

the realm of anatomy seemingly closed the case.
Over the last decade, however, taphonomic critiques of the archaeology of the
transition have made it clear that, in Europe, fully symbolic sapiens behaviour
predates both the Aurignacian and moderns. And, in line with evidence from
the nuclear genome rejecting strict replacement models based on mtDNA
alone, the small number of early modern specimens that passed the test of
direct dating present archaic features unknown in the African lineage,
suggesting admixture at the time of contact.
In the realm of culture, the archaeological evidence also supports a
Neanderthal contribution to Europes earliest modern human societies, which
feature personal ornaments completely unknown before immigration and are
characteristic of such Neanderthal-associated archaeological entities as the
Cha telperronian and the Uluzzian.
The chronometric data suggest that, north of the Ebro divide, the entire
interaction process may have been resolved within the millennium centred
around 42,000 calendar years ago. Such a rapid absorption of the
Neandertals is consistent with the size imbalance between the two gene
reservoirs and further supports signi.cant levels of admixture.
This review uses a calibrated time production rendered calibration im-
scale. Suggestions that spikes in 14C possible in the period of the Middle-to-
Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe1,2 are now superseded, and the
different calibration tools available.277
The notion that the patterns of variability in extant humans mtDNA indi-Key
words: Neandertals, modern humans, orna-cate a recent African ancestry has
Cha telperronian, Aurignacian been central to complete replacement models

of modern human origins however, does not represent the full history of a
population, much less that of an entire species and, when the nuclear genome
is considered, the picture changes.
For instance, a unique pattern of nucleotide polymor-phism is now known that
roots in East Asia and has an estimated time of co-alescence of ca. 2 Myr.11
If such ancient, non-African parts of the human genome are still extant, the
implica-tion is that the early Upper Pleisto-cene expansion of modern humans
in-volved some level of admixture with contemporary archaic groups.
Based on a standard phylogeo-graphic technique, the multilocus nested-clade
analysis, the most recent review of the evidence from 25 non-recombining
parts of the human genome9,10 concludes that ever since the Out-of-Africa
event ca. at 1.5 Myr ago, human evolution has been characterized by a gene .
with isolation by distance, and that the complete re-placement model is
rejected with a P-value of <10-17. This study, however, does not exclude the
possibility that total replacement occurred in restricted areas; conceivably, the
Neandertals, in particular, could well have become extinct without descent
even if, at a global scale, the general pattern was one of admixture or
hybridization. The fact that the mtDNA ex-tracted from many Neanderthal
fossils over the last decade has revealed polymorphisms unknown among
todays humans and undetected in early modern European1214 has been
used to support precisely such notions of the Neandertals fundamental
separate-ness from the human tree.
However, because of several unresolved technical and methodological
problems, such DNA studies must be taken with great caution.278
For instance, DNA degrades with time, a process that can generate
mutational artefacts. The production of such artefacts in the extraction chain
has also been observed in controlled experi-ments; some loci in particular
seem to be repeatedly, non-randomly affected, and among them are those
where Neanderthal divergence has been ob-served.15,16 Contamination is
another unresolved issue, particularly where the a DNA of early moderns is
concerned.
As Pa a bo pointed out, Cro-Magnon DNA is so similar to modern human
DNA that there is no way to say whether what has been seen is real.
Thus, failure to identify Neanderthal mtDNA in a given early modern hu-man
fossil may simply result from the fact that the extracted DNA is entirely
modern contamination, not from the fact that no Neanderthal mtDNA originally
existed in that specimen. When such a failure occurs with material that, on
paleontological grounds, is clearly Neanderthal, current criteria of
authentication dictate rejection of the results, not the conclusion that the
material belonged to a genetically modern Neanderthal.
The logical implications are, .first, that early modern DNA data cannot at
present be considered and, second, that current perceptions of Neanderthal
aDNA variability may well be constrained. Given these problems, it is clear
that the current framework of aDNA research is inherently biased against
admixture, which makes it all the more signi.cant that the combined fossil and
extant genetic evidence is consis-tent with levels of Neanderthal contribution
to Europes earliest modern humans as high as 73.8%.14,2023 A re-cent
simulation study suggests that such levels must have been negligible if not nil
(at most, 0.1%),24 but this conclusion is already contained in the
anthropologically premises of the tested admixture model.25

Genetics, therefore, does not reject Neanderthal-modern admixture.279
But is there any positive evidence that it oc-curred? Arguably, that is exactly
what the most recent developments in the field of human palaeontology
suggest. Over the last few years, direct dating of the remains has
demonstrated that the large majority of Europes purported early modern
human data were instead of Holocene age. Their marked morphological
modernity and contrast with even such late Neandertals as Saint-Ce saire
supported suggestions of major physical anthropological discontinuity and
hence, complete population replacement at the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic
transition. The illusory nature of such a contrast is now apparent.
Moreover, the data forecast shows that it sufficiently complete to be
taxonomically diagnostic and, in the process of that determination were shown
to date to within a few millennia of the time of contact, feature a diverse array
of anatomically archaic, often specially Neanderthal traits unknown in the
Middle and early Upper Pleistocene of Africa. These fossils .nds are Oase
(Roma-nia), Mladec. (Czech Republic) and Lagar Velho (Portugal), the latter
being of relevance here despite its significantly later chronology, because
Neandertals survived in Iberia for much longer than elsewhere in Europe.
Where the Mladec. crania are concerned, the existence of traits such as
prominent occipital buns, broad inter-orbital breadths, and juxtamastoid
eminences is well known. In the Lagar Velho child skeleton the list includes,
among others, a low crural index and arctic body proportions, a retreating
symphyseal prole, and the presence of a suprainiac fossa.
In the Oase fossils, the list includes lingual bridging of the mandibular
foramen, a parietal/frontal curvature fully in the Neanderthal range, and third

molars that display a complex cusp morphology, are larger than the second
molars, and more than two standard deviations above the average for the
Middle Pleistocene.280
Since these features relate to aspects of skeletal morphology that are not
susceptible to change during the ontogenetic cycle, they must resect
inheritance, the persistence in these overall modern individuals of genes
transmitted by archaic ancestorsin Europe, the Neandertals. Although this
proposition initially faced a certain level of inevitable scepticism, the body of
data and arguments subsequently brought to support it remain unchallenged.
In sum, nothing in the genetic and fossil evidence reviewed here suggests the
existence of fundamental biological barriers preventing fruitful interaction
between Neandertals and moderns at the time of contact.
At least, most now agree that the issue should be approached with no
pre-conceptions, and that it is up to the empirical record to decide whether
such admixture actually occurred.
How can archaeology contribute to this debate?
Because the transmission of cultural traits follows different rules (it depends
on human volition, not natural selection), detecting a biological contribution
from the Neandertals to later populations does not necessarily entail that an
equivalent signature must exist in the realm of culture. However, if such a
signature is found to exist, then the case for admixture is strengthened.
Throughout the 1990s, any assessment of this issue was bound to be
controversial because there was no consensus on the chronology of the
archaeological entities providing a cultural background for the relevant human
fossils.
CULTURES
The Oase fossils are of particular importance in this context because, at ca.
40.5 kyr calBP, they are Europes oldest modern human remains and likely
represent the first such people to enter the continent.281
Under a model of admixture, the notion that the Oase people are very close
to the time of contact is consistent with their ar-chaic traits, and .nds additional
support in the patterns of spatio-temporal distribution of the latest Neanderthal
remains. In fact, nowhere north of the Ebro divide, from El Sidro n, Spain, in
the west to Lakonis, Greece, in the east, do Neandertal remains or cultural
manifestations that can be securely associated with them, such as the
Chatelperronian of France, the Uluzzian of Italy, or the Micoquian of
Germany, postdate the 42nd millennium calBP.
The two putative exceptions are no more. That the ca. 29-28 kyr 14Cbp
results for the Neanderthal material in level G1 of Vindija could only be
minimum ages has now been vindicated by reanalysis of the samples.
This gives further credence to the notion that the ca. 29 kyr 14Cbp result for
the Mezmaiskaya cave infant must also be a vast underestimation of its true
age; this burial, in fact, was covered by intact Mousterian deposits with
multiple reliable dates in excess of 36 kyr 14Cbp.
The notion that the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian survived for many
millennia after moderns are first recorded in Europe was based, in turn, on the
radiocarbon dating of bone samples having a geological context and chemical
characteristics that indicated incomplete decontamination.
The impact of such factors on the chronology of samples from this period is
now widely accepted.

Radiocarbon results for the Klisoura 1 cave in Greece place the Uluz-zian at
ca. 44 kyr calBP.
Because the transmission of cultural traits follows different rules (it depends
on human volition, not natural selection), detecting a biological contribution
from the Neandertals to later populations does not necessarily entail that an
equivalent signature must exist in the realm of culture.282
However, if such a signature is found to exist, then the case for admixture is
strengthened. cave sites the Uluzzian stratigraphic ally underlies a region-
wide chronos-tratigraphic marker, the Campanian Ignimbrite, consistently
dated by 39A/ 40A to ca. 39 kyr calBP, and is further separated from that
marker by Aurignacian levels or by levels with a mix of Uluzzian and
Aurignacian material. Where the Chatelperronian is concerned, all
accelerator mass spectrometry results recently obtained for the sites of
Brassempouy, Caune de Belvis, Grotte XVI, La Quina, Roc-de-Combe and
Chatelperron, place it before ca. 42 kyr calBP.
In the light of these results, it is clear that the key site of the Grotte du Renne
can be no exception . Moreover, the notion that a very late Chatelperronian
would be demonstrated by the pat-terns of interstrati.cation observed at El
Pendo, Roc-de-Combe, Le Piage, and Chatelperron is now all but
abandoned.
Careful geological and taphonomic analysis of these sites, coupled with some
re-excavation, showed that the El Pendo sequence is entirely re-deposited;
that the putative Chatelperronian lens sandwiched between Aurignacian
deposits at Le Piage is in fact a mixed deposit in secondary position; and that
excavation error and faulty intra site correlations lay behind the Roc-de-
Combe pattern. At Chatelperron itself, the study of the museum collections
and associated documentation shows that the Chatelperronian levels
putatively situated above a lens of Aurignacian material are no more than
back dirt from the nineteenth-century excavations.
In western Europe, the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian are followed by the
Aurignacian, associated with diag-nostic modern human remains at La Quina
and Les Rois.283
The features of the lithic and bone assemblages and the radiocarbon dates
obtained for the La Quina sequence indicate that these remains can be no
older than ca. 38 kyr calBP.
The dental material from the Aurignacian of Brassem-pouy, dated to ca. 37
kyr calBP, is also of modern human, although the issue remains controversial.
On the basis of cultural continuity, it is in any case reasonable to assume that
the same people who manufactured the Aurignacian ca. 38-37 kyr calBP were
also responsible for earlier manifestations of the techno complex.
This inference is certainly consistent with the fact that the Oase .nds place
people of overall modern anatomy in Europe during the earlier part of the
Aurignacian, and with the traditional view of the latter as a long-lasting
archaeological entity united by strong elements of cultural continuity.
New excavations and in-depth technological studies have now vindicated this
view and the validity of the tripar-tite Aurignacian I, II, and IIIIV succession.
Among the sites that yielded Chatelperronian ornaments, the Grotte du
Renne stands out. Following recognition that the human remains from the
corresponding levels were of Neandertals, it was suggested that the
ornaments re-ected trade with or scavenging from abandoned sites of

contemporary Aurignacian modern humans, if not simply intrusion from an
overlying Aurignacian level.
Because most ornaments come from basal level X, not from level VIII, which
is in direct contact with the Aurignacian, these interpretations are inconsistent
with the stratigraphic distribution of the .nds and with the manufacture by
products indicative of the in-situ production of ornaments, bone tools, and
decorated bird bone tubes. Moreover, the often-quoted ca. 32-33 kyr 14Cbp
dates are clearly rejuvenated.284
As indicated by the discrepancy between results for outside and inside
areas of the same levels at Fumane (Italy) and Sesselfels (Germany), the
cause is bone digenesis after occupation, when collapse of the roof
transformed the Rennes inhabited cave porch into an open air site.
The ca. 43 kyr calBP result for level Xb is consistent with the chronology of
the Cha telperronian elsewhere in France and provides the most reliable
indicator of its age here.
Recent developments have strength-ened the view that we are not dealing
with an epigonical Aurignacian-impacted phenomenon restricted to a
peripheral region inhabited by residual Neanderthal survivors.
The notion that incomplete decontamination systematically rejuvenates bone
samples from this time range, especially in the examples given, is now
accepted even by those who most vocally opposed it.
Study of the human teeth confirmed their Neanderthal affinities.
Publication of the lithic assem-blages yielded quantitative data that greatly
strengthen the inconsistency of the hypothesis that the ornaments are
intrusive.
The conclusion that these pierced and grooved teeth, bones, and fossils stand
for the emergence of symbolic behaviour among Neandertals before modern
human immigration is further supported by similar .nds from Quinc ay,where
contamination from later occupations can be completely excluded because
none exists.
Vertical Distribution of the Archaeological Finds in the Grotte du Renne.
Neanderthal. Level Culture Lithics % Ornaments % Bone Awls %
Teeth % VII VIII IX X Aurignacian Chatelperronian 11,901 8763 11,856
62,684 12.50 9.20 12.45 65.84 7 4 4 25 17.50 10.00 10.00 62.50 8 4 5 36
15.09 7.55 9.43 67.92 1 3 25 3.45 10.34 86.21 thus giving a Total of285
95,204 40 53 29
This work has also made it clear that the so-called Proto Aurignacian,
characterized by large numbers of Font-Yves points and Dufour blade-lets of
the long, slender Dufour sub-type, both made on blanks extracted from
unidirectional prismatic cores in the framework of a single, continuous
reduction sequence , previ-ously considered to be a Mediterranean variant of
the classical Aurignacian, is instead a chronological phase.
The recent re-excavation of the key cave site of Isturitz and the revision of
the stratigraphy of Le Pi-age show that, in France, as in Italy or Spain, this
Proto Aurignacian stratigraphic ally precedes the Aurignacian I with split-
based bone points and carinated scrapers.
These developments, combined with detailed critiques of the available corpus
of radiocarbon results, eliminated the apparent discrepancy between
stratigraphic and chronometric patterns: At ca. 42-41 kyr calBP , the
Proto-Aurignacian postdates the Chatelperronian and the Uluzzian.

The Aurig-nacian I is nowhere earlier than ca. 40.5 kyr calBP.
Suggestions that at least some Aurignacian occurrences could actually
predate the Neanderthal-associated early Upper Paleolithic cultures of Europe
are based on four sites only.
At Chatelperron, the claim is that spit B4 of Delportes 1950s excavations
places the Aurignacian beyond 43 kyr calBP. However, that level contained
both Chatelperronian and Aurignacian material and yielded two dates, ca. 41
and ca. 44 kyr calBP. The only reasonable interpretation of this evidence is
that the earlier relates to the Chatelperronian component and the later to the
Aurignacian one. At Willendorf II, Austria, the evidence comes from level 3,
which yielded a small assemblage of artefacts in secondary position sitting on
an eroded surface that yielded selected charcoal dated to ca. 43 kyr calBP.286
However, as recently acknowledged by the sites researchers, dating small
charcoal fragments dispersed in soli.ucted layers must be avoided because
of the lateral supply of older charcoal fragments.
Such a supply clearly explains the anomalous results, which simply provide a
terminus post quem for the Lithics, the af.nities of which lie with the
Aurignacian I.
A related situation exists at Keilberg-Kirche, Germany, where most .nds
come from surface collections and displaced deposits.
The mixed lithic assemblage contains Middle Paleolithic and early Upper
Paleolithic items (blattspitzen). The charcoal dated to ca. 43 kyr calBP likely
relates to one of these components, as further indicated by the fact that the
Aurignacian diagnostics are carinated burins characteristic of the Evolved
Aurignacian (II-IV), every-where else dated to <ca. 37.5 kyr calBP.

Where the Geissenklo sterle is concerned, the controversies2,40 surrounding
the denition and age of its lower Aurignacian level are now settled, with all
parties involved agreeing that the level dates to ca. 40.5 kyr calBP, in good
accord with the Au-rignacian I af.nities of the Lithics.
A recent proposition is that the pre-Aurignacian Upper Paleolithic entities of
central and eastern Europe, such as the Bachokirian of Bulgaria or the
Bohunician of Moravia and Poland, which are dated to the ca. 44-42 kyr calBP
interval, represent a precocious extension of the modern human range into
the Danubian basin.
This scenario is based on perceived similarities with a Levantine entity, the
Emirian or Initial Upper Paleo-lithic (IUP), assumed to be a product of modern
human culture. The assumption is reasonable, but the link with the Danube is
extremely weak. It rests on the observation that Levallois blade production is
unknown in Moravia before the Bohunician, and that the latters reduction287
strategy of aiming at the extraction of morpho-logically Levallois points via
non-Le-vallois prismatic methods is akin to that in the basal levels of Boker
Tachtit, Israel.
These arguments assume that the technological transition observed at Boker
Tachtit is a unique event, but the independent emergence and disappearance
of prismatic blade technologies is recorded at different moments in time and
space over the last 200,000 years. Moreover, the diffusion of technologies
can occur with no migration being involved. In fact, the apparently intrusive
nature of the Bohunician in Moravia simply rejects the large time gap currently
separating it from the local Micoquian.
In nearby southern Poland, the sites of Piekary IIa and Ksie cia Jo zefa
document the in-situ development of volumetric Upper Paleolithic methods of
blade debitage out of Levallois .
. The latest evidence of Neandertals north of the Ebro divide and the IUP
Bohunician hypothesis of a Danubian wedge of modern human settlement ca.
45 ka calBP.
The cultural continuity between the Bohunician and the regional Middle
Paleolithic contradicts the hypothesis, but the issue remains open due to the
lack of associated human remains.
Parsimony dictates that there is no need to look into the Middle East for the
source of the Bohunician if a better local alternative is available.
Given the lack of associated human remains, the authorship of the Bohunician
must remain an open issue, but the evidence for cultural continuity with the
regional Middle Paleolithic suggests that it relates to Neandertals288
. The same reasoning pertains to the Bachokirian of Bulgaria.
Although aspects of size, shape, and crown morphology align the dental
material from the type-site with modern humans, this conclusion only applies
to the Aurignacian levels, the single human remain from the Bachokirian ones
being a taxonomically un-diagnostic left mandibular fragment with deciduous
1.rst molar. Moreover, the recent review of the relevant collections fully
confirmed previous reservations concerning the diagnosis of the relevant
assemblages from Bacho Kiro and Temnata as Aurignacian or pre-
Aurignacian.
In fact, technologically, these are Middle Paleolithic assemblages where, in
contrast with the IUP and the Bohunician, blade production is fully within the
Levallois concept.
This evidence indicates that Europe remained entirely a Neanderthal
continent until ca. 43 kyr calBP and that, south western Iberia excluded
contact was established and subsequent interaction was resolved within the
one or two millennia centred around 42 kyr cal B .,broadly coinciding with the
onset of Greenland Interstadial (GIS).
In terms of archaeological entities, these conclusions have two corollaries of
crucial importance:
1. Any manifestations of human behaviour predating the 43rd millennium BP
must be attributed to Neandertals, who were therefore the authors of the
Chatelperronian, the Uluzzian, the Bohunician, and equivalent early Upper
Paleolithic cultures of Europe dis-playing features of regional continuity with
the preceding Middle Paleolithic.289
2. Any manifestations of human behaviour postdating the 41st millennium BP
must be attributed to modern humans, who were therefore the authors of the
Aurignacian I and the Aurigna-cian II, including at Vindija, where level G1 is a
palimpsest covering an extended interval of time. The Neanderthal remains
are in all likelihood associated with that levels Szeletian material, not with the
split-based point also found there.
INTERACTION
Given the preceding, ambiguity is now restricted to the particular
archaeological entity that available dates place in the exact interval during
which, by whatever mechanism, Ne-andertals were replaced by modern
humans, the Proto Aurignacian. In fact, depending on potentially regionally
variable patterns of interbreeding (extensive, negligible, or non-existent),

manifestations of human behaviour from the time of contact may relate to
modern humans, Neandertals, or variously mixed populations.
That the dispersal of modern humans into Europe is clearly involved in the
emergence of the ProtoAurignacian, is suggested by several lines of evidence:
1.
Technologically and typologi-cally, the ProtoAurignacian is virtually
indistinguishable from the Early Ah-marian of the Levant. Its Font-Yves points,
for instance, are exactly the same thing as the latters El-Wad points.
2.
Chronologically, the two entities are broadly contemporary. At Ksar Akil, in
Lebanon, the Early Ahmarian is undated but lies between the Aurignacian and
the IUP; U c ag.izli, in southern Turkey, provides a solid chronological
framework for the IUP66 and thus, indirectly, a terminus post quem of ca. 43-
41 kyr calBP for the Early Ahmarian that is consistent with the single reliable
date for Kebara (ca. 40.5 kyr calBP, on hearth charcoal).290
3.
The now lost juvenile skeleton from the Early Ahmarian of Ksar Akil (Egbert)
is modern and, given the preceding, of the same age as the Oase fossils.
4.
In marked contrast with the geographical fragmentation of the immediately
preceding Neandertal-associated techno complexes, the ProtoAurignacian
extends uniformly across Europe, from Romania (Trinova) and Austria
(Krems-Hundsteig) in the east to Cantabrian Spain (Morin) in the west.
A further point of cultural similarity resides in the fact that the two entities
feature marine shell beads as orna-ments.

One species in particular, Nassarius ( Arcularia) gibbosula, represents 40%
of all beads in the Early Ahmarian of Ksar Akil and is also well represented
among ProtoAurignacian marine shell ornaments; the latters range of taxa is
broader, but all are of pretty much the same size and shape.
Nassarius beads are also about 90% of the several hundred ornaments now
known from the IUP of U c ag.izli, suggesting cultural continuity between the
two.
In fact, the earliest African ornaments, those from the ca. 75,000-year-old Still
Bay levels of Blombos, are marine shell beads.
Since the single species used, Nassarius kraussianus, is very similar to
Nassarius gibbosula, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the IUP, the
Early Ahmarian, and the ProtoAurignacian are lithic technological expressions
of a single deeply rooted cultural tradition extending all the way back into the
Middle Stone Age of southern Africa and, therefore, modern human-related.
Such speculations are in any case fully consistent with the evidence of the
long-term stability of traditions of personal ornamentation, which, throughout291
the Upper Paleolithic, often remain unchanged for tens of millennia.70
Both the ProtoAurignacian and the subsequent Aurignacian I however, also
have other types of personal ornaments, ones that are as completely
unknown in the Early Ahmarian and the IUP of the Levant as in the Middle
Stone Age of Africa, which, besides the perforated Nassarius, only contains
ostrich eggshell beads. The novelties are Dentalium tubes, pierced and
grooved animal teeth, and beads made of bone, ivory, soft stone, or fossils.
Their absence from any modern human cultural complex of preceding times
obviously cannot be attributed to raw-material availability, and can only relate

to cultural preference.
It is thus of great significance that those ProtoAurignacian novelties
correspond precisely to the only kinds of personal ornaments recorded in the
Bachokirian, the Uluzzian, and the Chatelperronian; that is, to the kinds of
personal ornaments in use among the Neanderthal societies that immigrating
modern humans encountered in Europe.
The conclusion that the ProtoAurignacian represents the blending of two
separate traditions of personal ornamentation thus seems inescapable.
In any other archaeological or anthropological context, few would question it.
Clearly, the alternative view that, after 30,000 years of total and absolute
conservatism, moderns would have suddenly decided to adopt such kinds of
ornaments at precisely the time of contact with the Neandertals, but
in-dependently of any influence from them, amounts to a virtually impossible
coincidence.
COGNITION
A corollary of the chronological patterns I have reviewed is that fully symbolic
sapiens behaviour, as measured by exactly the same standards currently
used to assess the African evidence, emerged in Europe when the continent292
was still exclusively inhabited by Neandertals.
Many have attempted to suggest specially modern human behaviour as
opposed to a specially Neanderthal behaviour, and all have met with a
similar result: No such evidence exists that does not end up with data that
some modern humans as behaviourally Neanderthal and some Neanderthal
groups as behaviourally modern.
In the realm of subsistence, for in-stance, early OIS-3 Neandertals were

logistically organized hunters at Sal-zgitter-Lebenstedt, in northern Ger-many,
where they exploited reindeer in exactly the same manner as the
Ahrensbourgians who recolonized the area 40,000 years later.
In the Le-vant, however, they had a broad-spectrum economy, including
signi.cant .
Many have attempted to de.ne a specially modern human behaviour as
opposed to a specially Neanderthal behaviour, and all have met with a
similar result: No such de.nition exists that does not end up de.ning some
modern humans as behaviourally Neanderthal and some Neanderthal groups
as behaviourally modern.
Exploitation of small mammals and plant foods, as revealed by recent studies
of phytoliths and macro plant remains from Kebara, Amud, and Tor Faraj.
In areas of the Iberian Peninsula where the present-day coastline is
sufficiently close to theirs, such as the Bay of Malaga, late OIS-3 Neanderthal
groups left sites featuring shell-midden accumulations that differ from those of
the Late Upper Paleo-lithic and Mesolithic only in that their lithic component is
Mousterian. In sum, Neanderthal adaptations ranged through the entire gamut
of ethno-graphically documented settlement-subsistence strategies.
There is no such thing as Neanderthal behaviour.293
It has been argued that modern cognition depended on the acquisition of
enhanced working memory (EWM), a cognitive feature associated with the
emergence of language and related to the ability to hold in mind
representations currently not held in view.
This feature is apparent in paleotechnic systems reacting remote action and
contingency planning, such as the production of artificial raw materials

requiring procurement in disparate sources and careful control of chemical
variables throughout a complex chain of technical operations.
Although the proponents of this view claim that such evidence does not
ap-pear in the archaeological record until about 5,000 years ago, the birch-
bark pitch found in the Micoquian site of Ko nigsaue, in Germany, fully
matches their requirements for EWM in the archaeological record: It was
produced through a several-hour smouldering process that required a strict
manufacture protocol under exclusion of oxygen and at a tightly controlled
temperature between 340C and 400C.80.
One can hardly imagine how such Pleistocene high-tech could have been
developed, transmitted, and maintained in the absence of symbolic thinking
and language as we know them.
In a nutshell, when only technological systems are considered, the hallmark
of cognitive modernity is documented among Neandertals 40,000 years
before comparable examples are offered by modern human societies.
In this regard, one must also note that the widespread notion that the first
modern humans in Europe were in fact astonishingly precocious artists
mis-represents the facts.
After 150 years of intensive archaeological research, evidence to that effect is
actually non-existent. Where both mobiliary and parietal art are concerned,
the earliest anywhere in the world are the .gurines of the German294
Aurigna-cian82 and the Chauvet cave paint-ings.
In good agreement with the nature of the associated lithics, the range of
dates falls, in both cases, entirely within the Aurignacian II and thus postdates
by some 5,000 years the arrival of moderns in Europe.

This art, therefore, holds the same relevance for the explanation of patterns
of cultural interaction at the time of Neanderthal-modern human contact as do
PowerPoint presentations for the explanation of the rise of Sumerian
civilization.
DEMOGRAPHY
Even if a certain level of long-distance stimulus generated by contacts along
the frontier with contemporary, presumably modern human societies of the
Levant was involved in these processes, the conclusion is obvious:
Neandertals and moderns featured similar levels of cognitive development
and behavioural modernity.
Such issues can thus be effectively re-moved from any further consideration
as potential barriers to admixture. But if the eventual disappearance of
anatomically archaic but behaviourally modern Neandertals was not due to a
putative biologically based competitive disadvantage, how do we then explain
it?
That no Neanderthal mtDNA survives today simply indicates that a particular
maternal lineage that existed 50,000 years ago is no more, but tells us little
about when and why it disappeared.
In fact, given that founder analysis places the actual immigration of the most
ancient European groups of today only after 30 kyr calBP,84 accepting the
premises and conclusions of extant mtDNA studies carries the implication that
the lineages to which the earliest European moderns belonged are as extinct
as the Neandertals.295
That this may well be the case should come as no surprise. Although much
attention has been paid to the environmental impact of the frequent and
dramatic climatic oscillations recorded in the climate proxies of Oxygen
Isotope Stage 3 (OIS-3), their demographic corollaries are often overlooked.
Most assessments of mt DNA histories through the critical period before and
after the time of contact only consider two population scenarios, stability and
expansion. It is clear, however, that contractions must also have occurred,
producing bottlenecks that must go a long way toward explaining patterns of
lineage loss and survival.
A case in point with major implications for the issues at stake here is the
environmental crisis associated with the emergence of the Aurignacian I in the
archaeological record, soon after moderns are .first documented in Europe
. At this timeHeinrich Event 4, ca. 40-39 kyr calBPextremely cold
conditions prevailed, imposing on human populations the highest level of
climatic stress recorded in the entire Upper Pleistocene.
Its effects must have been compounded by the catastrophic explosion, ca. kyr
calBP, of the Phlegraean Fields caldera. As a result, the area available for
human settlement in Europe must have contracted by as much as 30%,
implying a major population crash.
No modelling of the genetic history of OIS-3 Europe and of the role that
Neandertals played in it can be considered realistic if it does not account for a
demographic crisis of such significance.
The population crash, however, does not explain why it was those particular
lineages that went extinct, whereas others that existed at the same time in
Africa and western Asia are still extant; nor does it explain why the biological
contribution of Neandertals, still visible in skeletal traits of people dated to
within 5,000 years of contact, seemingly all but vanished by ca. 30 kyr calBP.296
Selection and contingency may well have played a role in the process, but the
most parsimo-nious explanation is demography, which suffices to propose a
broad his-torical reconstruction of the process.
Europe is one-third of Africas size, and during glacial times only a narrow belt
of the continent south of 53 N was available for settlement, the loss to
mountain glaciation compensated for by the exposure of extended areas of
the present-day continental platform. Moreover, as in todays subarctic areas,
European territories would have had lower carrying capacities than the
subtropical savannahs of Africa, with attendant implications for human
population density.
In sum, because modern humans were African and Neandertals European,
the modern human gene reservoir must have been many times larger than the
Neanderthal one. As long as the two reservoirs remained largely isolated,
Neanderthalensis could be and was maintained. But once populations
expanded in the two continents as a result of technological im-provements
that led to major gains in the inefficiency of resource exploitation, signi.cant
contact and interaction would have begun along what previously had been a
largely impermeable frontier.
At that time, the two reservoirs effectively merged. In such a situation, even a
minor edge of moderns in demographic parameters other than simple
numbers, such as fertility, would, in less than one millennium, suffice to bring
about the demise of the Neandertals, especially if inter-breeding was common.
One millennium is the empirically observed interval during which the
interaction game was resolved.
As different authors have discussed the technic innovations is best explained

by population growth requiring increased levels of inter-group and intragroup
social interaction eventually resulting in the emergence of systems of personal297
and ethnic identification. The ornaments from Blombos show the mechanism
in action in southern Africa ca. 75 kyr ago. The lack of evidence for the next
30,000 years suggests that the system may have subsequently collapsed, but
by 45,000 calBP we see it again in eastern Africa as well as, for the first time,
in the Near East and Europe. The marked differences in the choice of
emblems and the biological evidence of reduced contact between Europe and
Africa provided by the very fact of Neanderthalensis suggest that the
European process was largely independent, and there is no reason to
suppose that it was not dictated by similar underlying causes.
In fact, vast areas deserted during OIS-4 times, including southern England,
Belgium, Germany, and Poland, feature a relatively dense network of OIS-3
sites that, in central Europe, are clearly related to each other by a shared,
very particular technology, the Micoquian.
This simultaneous emergence or re-emergence of personal ornamentation
can thus be taken as a proxy for levels of population increase leading to the
crossing of a demographic threshold and precipitating contact, followed by
admixture and, eventually, absorption of the smaller population by the larger
one.
CONCLUSION
When modern humans entered Europe, they encountered people with the
same cognitive capabilities and featuring identical levels of cultural
achievement. In such a situation, the entire gamut of interaction situations,
from contact to mutual avoidance and full admixture, must have ensued at the
local and regional level. But the overall result in the long-term continental
perspective was that of biological and cultural blending, the imbalance in the
size of the gene reservoirs involved explaining the eventual loss of
Neanderthal mtDNA lineages among later and extant humans.298
It could be argued that such losses are of little or no consequence to the heart
of the matter, in that they do not change the basic conclusions derived from
genetic studies that a contribution of Neandertals to present Europeans is
currently undetectable and, therefore, must be negligible, and that patterns of
extant humans ancestry are essentially related to the recent Out-of-Africa
dispersal of anatomically modern people.
The European evidence, however, does have a major implication for studies
of modern human origins where issues of symbolism, language, and cognition
are concerned. The Blombos cave .nds effectively refuted the notion that the
appearance of ornaments and art could be explained by cognitive
developments precipitated by a genetic mutation occurring ca. 50 kyr calBP.
By the same token, if Neanderthal-associated archaeological cultures
featuring all elements of behavioural modernity existed in Europe many
millennia before the arrival of modern humans, and if contact entailed
significant levels of interaction and admixture, then the acquisition of fully
sapiens behaviour cannot be construed as the outcome of an genetic bio
cultural process restricted to the African Homo heidelbergensis lineage.
The ultimate implication of the European evidence, thus, is that the hardware
requirements for symbolic thinking must have been in place before the Middle
Pleistocene divergence of the Neanderthal lineage. This conclusion has three
corollaries: .first, that the much later appearance of personal ornaments and
art represents a qualitative leap in culture, the operation of demographic and
social factors triggered by technological improvements and adaptive success;
second, that it is highly unlikely that the Neanderthal-sapiens split involved
differentiation at the bio-species level; and third, that the search for the
genetic and cognitive processes underly-ing the emergence of language and
symbolism in the human lineage needs to be refocused on aspects of the299
Lower Pleistocene emergence and evolution of Homo erectus people.
It is easy to see that the above research is more in depth than the first
example and as far as I am concerned accurate and presents the evidence
well. Below I have placed some of the mentioned artefacts for reference
linked to the second part of the example research above.300
Note the small shells used for decoration.301
I am not concerned that I have not been able to include all the photographic
material connected to the Neanderthals of Europe because not only would it
take up many page spaces but there is always the risk that some of the
photographic data may be wrong. I have therefore included only a small
selection that I feel is more related to this research of mine.
Skull from France
Tools from France302
A TABLE FOR GUIDENCE NEANDERTHAL MAN.
THE KNOWN BONES OF THE NEANDERTHALS.
This of course includes skulls and at times locations but as an end to my
research I needed to include many of the graphics for comparison and
reference.
Where possible I have left a comment on a graphic that I feel is important and
interesting for the reader to follow up on as desired. My thanks here for all the
people who helped with the research and also made constructive comments.303
BONES AND MORE BONES.
Fossil Hominids from Kenya dating 1 and 2 million years ago
H. habilis, H.erectus (Early) and robust Paranthropus.
The above is from Africa and is shown just for reference to the shapes of
skulls and bones from there. It is not possible that what we see above and
what we know of the Neanderthals in Europe that Neanderthals were ever in
Africa as such, the close locations would be Turkey and Iraq then north into
Europe.304
Found in the Arago cave in France and dated at 400,000 years old.
The fragments are made up of front of a skull, two lower jaws and a left hip
bone.
This skull is from Steinheim in Germany and shows a very prominent brow
ridge. However I need to point out that this skull is small if I compare it with
other Neanderthal skulls. The sunken cheek is I am sure of, is due to
distortion and not a natural feature but damage during the fossilization
process.305
The Saccopastore skull from Italy. Petralona skull Greece 300,000 years.
120,000 years old. Small brain. Looks like a Neanderthal.
The skull at the back however H.erectus.
The Saint-Cesaire skeleton in a rock shelter. France.306
From the French sites of La Chapelle-aux Saints.
Gibraltar
Croatia
Two female Neanderthal skulls is from Krapina in Croatia and on left is the
Gibraltar skull. The data is in the research file above.307
St. Cesaire French skull.
36,0000 years
Modern human pelvis
Neanderthal hand
Neanderthal pelvis308
As many of the remains of the Neanderthals are found in caves, sometimes at
a depth of a metre or more, the bones may be just a heap all thrown together
or in some cases laid out as in a ritual form though may not in fact be this.
What is also needed is consideration of bones being brought to a cave by wild
animals of the time, carnivores of all types, and a skull or bone found on its
own points directly to this possibility.
Damage to Neanderthal remains may be post mortem and therefore care
needs to be taken in interpretation of damage to bones or skull. Mistakes are
and can be made when bones are recovered and show damage and this
includes missing bones. All bones found should be examined closely before
and after cleaning otherwise good evidence can be lost. Any soil or mud
around and on the remains should also be checked for pollen grains and
insect casings as well.
The person who examines the bones and skulls must be confident in his or
her identification of Neanderthal bones because this would beyond the scope309
of a student or archaeology field worker unless they have had training in such.
Skull major points modern human.310311312
The above is a guide what you should be looking

for either in part or a full Skeleton. A little or fragments of bones is much
better than none at all.
Bone disease must also be looked for and this is more than likely in the case
of the Neanderthals but again I should stress needs to come under the scope
of someone with good Osteology knowledge and practice.
Fractures may also be present and if before death and the victim lived then
there should be evidence of bone hardening at where the fracture took place
and more so with the long bones. Such fractures therefore could be the result
of falls and tumbles onto a hard surface, a large animal attack like a bear or
other large carnivore, fights between groups, or a type of brittle bone disease.
All the evidence gathered from bones can then be logged and filed for later
reference.313
To finish of this research I have placed here suggested timelines by others .314315316317318
THE READING LIST AND RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THIS
RESEARCH. 2012
In Search Of The Neanderthals; Stringer and Gamble.
Collins Archaeology Dictionary.
Archaeology; Renfrew and Bahn.
Origins Reconsidered; Leakey and Lewin.
The Human Past, Thames and Hudson publishers.
Open University Library.
Study of Man; J.Z Young.
Mismeasurement Of Man; Gold.
Wisdom Of Bones; Walker and Shipman.
OTHER READING RESEARCH SOURCES.

Biblical Archaeology.
K.Kris Hirst, Archaeology on line.
World Atlas Of Archaeology.
MY THANKS TO;
Mangala, Mandala Yoga Ashram Wales. For Guidance.
Swami Krishnalpremananda, For putting up with me.
Swami Shiva Priya, for being a good listener, her library and researcher.
Swami G, for his kindness, the room to work and his cheese.
The people involved in the Gnome Neanderthal Project and data.
Staff at the University of England Library for their kindness.
Open University Library Staff for directions to data.
PDF data from Queens University of Belfast, Galway University, Co Galway
Ireland, Ulster University Belfast, Lampeter University, Wales and many
others who kept me on my toes over the years.
Ronnie Carlton 2017
SHADOW OF THE GRAIL.
SHADOW OF THE GRAIL.
The Author Ronnie Carleton.
Over 2500 years of history men and women have recorded parts of their
Lives and of others in one form or another and more so a history linked
to the Hebrews, Jesus and hidden texts which are claimed to be a true
account of events at that time.
If today we depended on history accounts of the past without linking
archaeology evidence to it, if any, then we risk many wrong interpretations

of it.
History can of course put us on the right track for future research should
we choose to do so but a research subject on a history does not mean
finding text and treating it as truth but also looking at facts of the time and
sometimes removed from the topic to be researched in order to gain some
idea of what the canvas was like in the beginning before all artists, some
good, some bad and many fraudsters to the causes because they had an
axe to grind.
In religion and more so for this research, the Christian Religion had and3
does have an axe to grind about well hidden facts about Jesus and his
friends and anyone OR anything in the past linked to them.
They also have a very basis view of events around the time of Jesus and
and Rome may well have all the text documents locked away with many
lacking understanding of what they contain as truth and fact.
I am of the opinion that you need one full lifetime to learn skills that
may be useful and another to put those skills into practice but sadly
we being mammals, our lifespan is limited as we get much older the brain,
unless it is used daily, tends to be like an old computer and runs slowly,
losing information in the process.
My research therefore is the myth and truth about the history of the Holy
Grail said to be from the time of Jesus though I am of the opinion that
the so called Grail was around before the birth of Jesus and may well be
one of four objects. Text, art, artifices and human remains.
I need to place a note here that the man Jesus as known, was a leader of
a cult, a human being with all types of feelings like we all have or had
therefore he was not a God.
My second point in this opening of the my book is that though the 'Grail'
may well have a religious link it does not mean that in any way it is linked
directly to Christians.4
ARCHAEOLOGY DATING.
No matter what branch of Archaeology you deal with the main question that
needs to be answered is WHEN? That is the most important part of dating
a find not just what it is. The trouble with those working in the archaeology
and history fields, more than often, their dating is well out.
Once you have some idea of a date then you will be able to work out when
and what rate changes took place on that site. This may be 100 years > or <
With radiocarbon dating it is possible to obtain a time scale in prehistory
though such dating is expensive for most.
Relative dating can also be done by Stratigraphy and Typology.
It should always be kept in mind that stratigraphy may not in fact have
a relationship if there has been a lot of disturbance of an area because
of under layers being exposed to the surface layer.
With typology you first need artefacts that have been lumped into similar
Groups or types that have meaning to the trained observer.
The use of typology is very useful when it comes to pottery and shards
that look similar and linked to a culture.
Fabrics will depend on the degree in which clay has been worked before
Pottery was formed and what temper was used. Conditions and firing of
the shaped clay are also important.
By now, the bits and shards will be grouped into hand made or wheel
turned pottery, fine or rough wares, shell and clay wares, straw and grog5
wares. Note will be taken of good and bad firing wares.
This all needs to be sorted before you can get down to the nitty gritty
of all the artefacts now being subdivided according to shape and into jars,
bowl, cups, and vases.
Intuition about shapes and dating will of course lead to conflict and
disagreement in some camps so the best way I feel now to approach the
subject is by mathematical terms though this is not always possible in the
field.
The overall shape of the artefact can be added to as time goes on such as
the base of the rim, spout or handle, body and neck shape, and size.
Pottery shards and the pots themselves can be linked and dated to a
group of humans who lived on the site area or at least close by but trading
with other groups far a field cannot and should not be ruled out.
DEEP SEA CORE AND ICE CORE DATA.
If we are looking for climatic change evidence then it can be done by
obtaining sample cores from ice or deep sea beds.
In the sea core sample there will be microscopic marine organisms known
as FORNMINIFERA and are shell like structures, which have been laid
down over many millions of years.
This sedimentation will show variations in the ratio of 2 oxygen isotopes
in the calcium carbonate showing the temperature indicator of what it was
when the organisms were alive.
We can now date back as far as 2.5 million years, which reflects all climate6
change across the earth.

Cold periods will reflect to ice advancement and the warm periods to ice
retreat.
ICE CORES.
These cores are extracted from polar ice on land and will reflect climate
Oscillations and compacted ice for the last 3000 years and dating for that
takes place almost to the year.
Deeper core samples for the moment are not certain as a real date but may
still prove to be used in data evidence.
Ice Core samples in the south pole area were taken at a depth of 2200m
with a time range listed at 160,000 years though I am of the opinion that the
real dates will be later than this, or at least a warm period in between.
POLLEN DATING.
Very useful in dating past vegetation and the climate when the trees and
plants were growing close to ancient sites under investigation and are
important in relative dating.
The best examples I can give are during the Holocene post-glacial period
in northern Europe in zone sites.
Pollen dating would also be useful for dating past plants in the Near East
and more so on semi-desert areas to be found today.
ACID SOILS
Bog bodies and artefacts found close by could be matched with any pollen
found on such and dated. The lower boundary is around 10,000 BP.7
Such pollen zones are not uniform across many large areas of land.
Pollen dating therefore can show evidence of what the environmental zone
was as far back as 3 mya in sites in East Africa so there is no reason I see
that such could not be used for the dating of the Crusades and past battle
fields across Europe and in the UK and Ireland.
HISTORICAL DATING.
This is a mine-field for careless research or poor interpretation of data.
If the information for a country is based on good firm evidence then
historical dating is useful and in some cases the ancient chronology of a
country must be known before any such dating takes place.
Only in the more literate societies who recorded their own history and
events is this possible.
Examples I have listed below for reference.
EARLY HEBREW HISTORY AND TRIBES.
EGYPTIAN HISTORY.
FIRST GREEK OLYMPIC GAMES 776 BC.
GREEK HISTORY.
CONQUEST OF EGYPT BY ALEXANDER THE GREAT 332 BC.
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGIES.
ROMAN HISTORY CELTIC HISTORY.
It is easy to use a historical chronology when there are plenty of artefacts
found that are related to it.8
At times some of the artefacts themselves will give good dating and more
so on Maya ceramics that have hieroglyphic inscriptions, coins in Roman
times, though a coin will only give the date it was made, the head of the
ruler on it as a guide. Date after, which means the coin is not earlier than
the deposit but could in fact be later than the date.
When it comes down to the Holy Land and Egypt you get a mixed bag of
dates, some of which I discovered were not complete or accurate.
LAKE SEDIMENTS AND VARVES.
Deposits of clay are in some old lakes layers or varves, are found around
the edge of water where there has been a history of glaciers and the
annual melting of ice sheets which have been retreating since the last Ice
Age.
They vary in thickness from year to year with a thick layer showing a warm
layer, a thin one a cold year.
By measuring the yearly thickness it is possible to link them together
to form a sequence.
Many such clay deposits can represent thousands of years stretching from
the present back to the very beginning of ice sheet with-drawl shows a
date of the end of the ice age in an area.
In Japan laminated sediments from Lake Suigestsu can now be dated back
to 45,000 years ago and for the first time the calibration of a radiocarbon
calendar can now be used.9
TREE RING DATING.
Most trees when alive produce a yearly or seasonal tree ring and can be
seen as an example in the fresh cross cut of a tree.
It will be seen from any example that the rings are not uniform in thickness
and become narrow as the tree reaches the end of its natural life span.
The amount of tree growth rings each year is also affected by climate and
in areas where there is high rainfall and the soil is arid in type, and
then the rings will show thick when in Europe a sharp cold spell in spring
could produce a very narrow growth ring.

With a tree planted or grown from seed naturally in 1940 in Europe or the
UK then a cross section taken in 2005 will show the last outer ring of
the cut as 2004, the first ring, the centre 1941.
Count from centre outwards, each ring for a year until you reach 1947.
Note the change in the ring.
Count onwards to 1962/63 and again note the ring change if any.
Now this is all very well and good on timber that you see in your lifetime
but look at a cross cut of timber found in 2005 but in a bog for almost
1,000 years and the wood beside the remains of a human being.
We know the date of the depth of the cut out bog where the old oak was
found and let us place it at 1500 years from the surface to the bog oak.
The human artefacts were a little above the bog oak so dating of the
human artefacts would seem easy, say 1,200 to 1,000 years old.
Not so always as I discovered in a bog body found in Donegal in the 1990s.10
Everyone was excited by the find, everyone had a paper to write on it and
everyone involved made the mistake that the body remains was that of a
pre-history human being.
What they failed to do was look at the teeth of the skull on day one and
if they had done so, as I later advised, they would have found three molar
fillings!
Because the areas was a deep turf cutting area and turf taken as fuel for
40 years the depth of the trench was a good two metres deep, the bog oak
close to the water filled hole near the bottom and the first bones in the
water and buried in peat soil which had stained the bones.
A track for tractors was above three M away from the digging.
The fillings in the teeth sorted the men and women out from the boys very
quickly and a number of people trained in archaeology were left with egg
on their faces, while a forensic team moved in and them out.
Never ever take anything for granted when dealing with human artefacts.
RADIO-CARBON DATING.
A very useful method of dating but has its limitations in accuracy, and time
range.
Many archaeologists cause major errors in careless interpretation of data
because they need a result quickly.
What you are dealing with is radiocarbon decay which has 3 isotopes = 12
C , 13C and 14C. and in any sample of carbon 98% is of the 13C type.
This unit of carbon has been bombarded by cosmic rays and N 14 in the11
upper atmosphere therefore contains an excess of neutrons, which makes
it unstable.
It decays by the emission of weak beta radiation back to its precursor
Isotope of 14N and this decay will take place at a constant rate independent
of all the environmental conditions.
The process is therefore can be classified as half-life, two half lives
and so on.
With C14 the half-life is around 5,730 years and for 238 U it is listed
at 4500 million years.
The use of AMS in the lab is getting more common now and requires
smaller
samples, as little as 5-10 mg and makes the direct dating of pollen easy.
ARGON-ARGON DATING.
Potassium argon dating (K-Ar) is used to date rock samples up to many
million years old but also very useful in dating very early human type sites
in Africa and Asia that can be as much as 5 to 6 million years old but
restricted to volcanic rock no more than 100,000 years old.
The process is much the same as radiocarbon dating and decay with very
slow decay of potassium 40 to the inert gas argon 40 in volcanic rock
samples.
Its half life is 1.3 million years but there has to be in place an error
estimate of 2% of the total age = 30,000 years.12
URANIUM SERIES DATING.
Based on the decay of radioactive decay of isotopes of uranium it is useful
for the period of 500,000 to 50,000 years ago, which is outside the range
of radiocarbon dating and used on rocks that are not volcanic at past
human settlements and sites.
Used to date rocks with a high calcium carbonate found around lime rich
springs or in limestone caves.
I note with some awareness that the Tomb of Jesus discovered was not
dated this way for some unknown reason and that we have no real date
recorded. Maybe that is because what was found in the holy land was not
the Jesus Tomb at all and someone stopped the project which was a
building site?
HUMAN REMAINS DATING.
A minefield of doubt and wrong dating at times using K-Ar and data results
as in the case of skull 1470 found in Kenya in 1972 when it was dated at
2.6 mya but was later dated at 1.8 mya which was confirmed and later tests
put the bone at 1.88+ 0.02 my.
Human remains play games with time and age and when dealing with any13
remains, the first thing that needs to be known is sex, age at death, build,
appearance and relationship with the surrounding environment. Then if
possible and very useful, the cause of death.
There is a number of factors to consider in research like this about any
human remains said to be linked to the grail or grails and that is of course,
is to make sure that all the forensics are right.
Truth and evidence dont always run true to form of course and more so
when it comes to some myths, keeping in mind that in every myth there
may well be a little bit of truth or clues in all myths.
History as we know has a way of repeating itself and one has only to look
at the number of world conflicts from the time of Jesus to now to see
except for the main human actors nothing has changed.
The history of the Grail, now known as the Holy Grail, is no exception but
there are more 'players' on stage, a good few noted for being 'ham actors'
and of little account when it comes down to evidence and facts.
There are also 'protectors' of the Grail, protectors of knowledge and of
Faiths through history and many such people have left many red herrings
for the unwary researcher, be it in archaeology or history to follow that
go nowhere. A little like chasing wood smoke. Such I add were not
protectors of truth.
It would be a grave mistake to link the grail to the death of Jesus on the
cross only, if at all, and also what the grail was or is.
If it was a single object like a cup or bowl as suggested by many then14

we need to look at what material such an item was made from and also
dating it.
For some, the 'Holy Grail' tends to be linked to Christianity only and this
too could take a researcher up the wrong path if he or she did not look
at many other possibilities.
My researched data also points at the old Hebrew tribes, early Arab
nations, the Knight's Templars, The Vatican, Rome and the
Romans, the Celtic Tribes of Europe and all related text and artworks.
The main problem with the Grail is what it was/is and dating.
Historical events had to be looked at closely for evidence or direct clues
and this at the time felt like taking a rowing boat up the Amazon, exploring
every stream that feeds that great river, finding dead ends that meant
retracing my tracks and doing a massive amount of text and document
research.
Below I have tried to set out the data as I researched it and in doing so
have suggested many possibilities but ruling out 'Alien Contact', UFO's
and all such rubbish that has been suggested by others in the past.
The main problem with researching other myths and mythology that
surround the grail is that at times one ventures into the underworld of the
paranormal and by doing so tend to get way laid with the research that is
needed.
Most if not all religions in the past and now has a strong paranormal link
and that is how the human mind works and has been programmed to suit a15
belief and then use it as 'truth' and law.
The good, bad and pure evil is within many religions even today and God
or the Higher Power could well be pondering on where he or she went
wrong with a human race of mammal because they seem set on a course of
self penalisation .
We all need to believe in something 'paranormal' and have done so for a
very long time in history and no matter where you go in the world today,
such belief is there. Organised' paranormal belief therefore is what we now
call religion and even with tribal people in deep jungle habitats it is there
and there is no getting away from it.
Nature of course plays a major part in many religious beliefs and where
I might go cold when faced with 'Holy Religious belief' I do not feel that way
when it is linked to nature.
The idea of the grail I suggest did come from the Holy Land but well before
organised Christianity and may well have had another name, in another
language in fact and passed on at first in the oral traditions and later added
to with artwork on an object or objects that included scrolls, cups, bowls,
text work on a scroll with art work.
There was also a grail link to Europe and the British Isles.
This early work could be laid at the feet of old Hebrew tribes and or the
Egyptians which rules out the Romans but not the Greeks.
What must be kept in mind is when a written understood language took
place and where.16
This form of communication had to be important and well advanced as
was the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the first ever Bible text.
Oral communications about the past before the written word came into
play, left room for adding details or not mentioning them at all ,left a lot
of problems in future interpretation then written down.
Added to this was Middle and Near East tribal or culture spoken and
written words which some people even if linked to a tribal group could not
grasp or understand.
As an example I put before you the Irish language.
People in the west of Ireland from Co. Donegal down to Co. Cork are at a
loss to what Irish speakers are saying in Dublin and the east coast of
Ireland and vice versa though the written word in Irish for the most is
understood though not all of the words at times.
If two people, one from the west of Ireland and one from the East were
asked to write a report in Irish on the subject of the Famine and allowed
3000 words only after listening to a tape recording in English of the
subject, it is very doubtful that the finished report would be the same.
Words would be dropped or added, some letters left out or put in with the
result being close but not close enough.
There is no doubt in my mind that the very first attempt at connected
writing in the Middle and Near East would have been poor or crude with
only the basics and all because of mind development at this time, around
2500 BC.17
From here on though religious poems and epics were written down and
later the first of the text in the Old Testament recorded 1750> BC
It was now all a question of thoughts turned to words and recorded as
such, known now as 'etymology' and seeks the 'true' meaning of a word but
first you need to find the root.
Even at this new understanding today, the interpretation of old spelling

leaves much to be desired and care is needed when researching old text
Documents no matter what part of the world they came from.
The scribe who wrote the old text knew from his mind pictures what he was
saying and why while today's reader of the same script can only grasp
picture fragments of what the scribe had and wanted others to understand.
The old oral traditions of language from the past do not always convert
well to the old written words of scribes, sometimes as many as 10 scribes
working on the same documents on the same subject and with a wish it
will be understood and taken as 'truth'.
It is easy to see that the two modern day scribes got lost in the translation
of the same Old Hebrew text but it would be hard to work out which one is18
fact and which has been added to.
The translation could well have been made to suit the needs of a
community, a work of fiction and half truths in fact to bring people into the
fold.
When it comes down to it, the same confusion surrounds the grail and its
linked history from the past because of poor interpretation of facts, of
history dates and of course events.
Therefore in my research I had to place archaeology, history, biology,
forensic pathology in the same bed because the rest could not function
with one of the above missing.
What did come to light with seven years of research before I could get
around to writing anything about the grail was the amount of historical and
archaeology events that had to match or come close to matching otherwise
the work would be more fiction than fact.

That had been done before and no doubt will be done again by others but
I knew that I had to take a road less travelled, even if it meant that I had to
set aside good research material to get as close to the evidence
that would stand up to close scrutiny. That is what I have therefore done.
Much of what I have had, needed to be set aside because it was of little or
no use. The same data at times came up in very different forms and much
of the dating of events was wrong or not even close. Some of the research
on a subject or event became repetitive to the point of frustration.
I haunted University Liberties in Birmingham over the years, wrote many19
emails to universities in the Near and Far East for information and
thankfully in the long haul I ended up with a number
of things that pointed towards the Grail and more to the point 'Grails'
which took me from the Near and Middle East, across Europe into the UK
and even Ireland.
In the end I was pleased with the results of the final researched material
and then started to write.
Organised religions over the last two thousand years has brought nothing
but confusion, anger and hate to the world, power struggles of the inner
mind of the human mammal .
Religions of course had to have a place in my researched material, all
with many views on what the grail was, what it should be, and what they
wanted it to be.
Alas the end result is not what they wanted to be.
What it is can only be described as is 'Real' but not always could be
regarded as fact from some of the many sources.

Mythology is the study of whatever religious or heroic legends but today,
is so foreign to a students experience that he or she cannot believe them to
be true, even if they wanted them to be.
Many views and writings have placed what The Grail is and what in fact it
could be linked to from the far past with such suggestions put forward like
a cup from the Last Supper, a bowl that caught the blood of Jesus when he
was on the cross, parts of the cross itself, nails from the cross, bone20
fragments of Jesus the Man, the Shroud Jesus was wrapped in, hand print
of Jesus, and much more.
Christianity cannot lay direct claim to what is known as The Grail because
there are a number of other players on stage such as the Old Hebrews and
the Ark Of Covenant, the Prophets of YHWH (God), Islam and the birth of
Muhammad (570 AD)- (632 AD), India and the Epics, Puranas, Upanishads,
(1000 BC-700 AD), The Indian Vedic Period and Dharma.
The name 'Christ' was added to the name Jesus after and not before his
death. It is an old Hebrew word meaning Messiah.
I state this because what we know of the Old Hebrew tribes is fragmented
and passed down first in the oral traditions then later in writing.
Very few people have wondered or indeed questioned where in fact where
these tribes first came from but most of all, why?
My research into the tribes of Hebrews came up with a good number of
clues but not all easy to find and I had to look East for some of the possible
answers though not compass East as we know it today, but solar East.
I am of the opinion that 5000+ > < years ago, the Earth for some reason
tilted slightly but enough to change the tribal locations in the far past.
Take the Flood in the Bible as a good example below.
We are told of the flood in the Bible but we are not told of the floods.21
THE FLOOD IN THE BIBLE.
NOAH'S ARK INVESTIGATION
In order to get any idea of why an Ark was built we need to first glance
at the records and claims made in the bible. In doing so I also needed to
be careful not to take such records at face value and not as a true
statement of fact.
That meant more research into weather patterns caused by volcanic
eruptions world wide and there was a few of those.
(1) Did a deluge really take place in fact at this time in history?
(2) If Noah got a warning of such a pending flood was it a natural one or
something more?
(3) How long did it take to build such an Ark.?
(4) What were its measurements from bow to stern?
(5) How high was it?
(6) From a Genetic point of view were all the people on board from the
same family group?
There is no doubt in my opinion that many animals would have been taken
on board but as a source of future food and breeding when afloat and
later. There would not be time or room to load up all the animals mentioned
in the Bible and other sources. So in this case, the old Testaments details
listed about all the animals two by two being brought onto the Ark is not22
fact or true.
Any animals that were brought on board were a food source and nothing
more. A few that were useful, would have been kept for breeding if dry land
was every reached.
On top of that food would be needed as well as water for animals and
humans alike while afloat. Again that would take up space on any boat, no
matter what size it was and from a natural history point of view, wild
animals and birds would have been impractical.
The flood is mentioned in the Bible Genesis VI.VIII, I X, and X but give
me no real clues where it took place but states that this flood was between
2448 BC and 2348BC = 100 years in old time which does not help much
when it comes down to Archaeology and facts with evidence.
Such factual evidence I should point out was hard to come by over many
years of research. There are of course possibilities and
that what was known as The Ark settled somewhere between Turkey and
Iran when the water levels dropped.
Doing a little maths from the first date and warning of a pending flood
(2448 BC+) and Noah had three sons from that date, SHEM, HAM, and
JAPHETH = 9 Natural months x 3 = 2450 and 3 months BC, providing each
child came one after the other, which seems unlikely but even if you allow
a year between the children by the time the third son was aged one that
would put the starting date of children born at 2452 BC or there about.
If we consider that his sons and wife were to help him build the ark then23
it would be 16 years + before the work started, using 'GOPHER' wood and
tar pitch.
That would put the starting of building of Noah's Ark around the year
2436 BC. We now need to look at the Ark itself before the flood came.
Again from a maths point of view as well as a boat building view, it leaves
much to be desired as evidence.
No doubt Noah and his wife planned the work early and more than likely
carried out some of it in between childbirth and the rest.
The real work would have started with fit adults, more than
Noah and his wife and if the Bible is right then it came down to Noah
and the three sons when the youngest reached 16 years, the oldest at 18
years + with his wife doing her share. Then it is very possible that Noah
had more than one wife, even more than two and all producing children
over the years. I am not talking about a small boat here.
Forget the animals 2 by 2 because that did not happen but there would
have had to be enough room for many domestic animals, a source of food
during the flood, their food supply, Noah's family needs in food and space,
clean water storage and tools.
The Ark built was said to be 300 cubits long ,50 cubits wide in the middle
and 30 cubits high = 1 cubic of old being 18 to 22 inches.
Even if we take 22 inches as 1 cubic, the Ark as laid out by the Bible would
have measurements that read thus;
LENGTH. 300 CUBITS = 6600 INCHES = 550 FEET.24
MIDDLE ACROSS. 50 CUBITS = 1100 INCHES = 91 FEET.
HEIGHT. 30 CUBITS = 660 INCHES = 55 FEET.
If I use the 1 cubit =18 inch measurements, it reads like this;
300 CUBITS @ 18 INCHES = 5400 INCHES = 450 FEET.
50 CUBITS ACROSS @ 18 INCHES =900 INCHES = 75 FEET.
30 CUBITS HIGH @ 18 INCHES = 540 INCHES = 45 FEET.

I therefore will use the 2nd as the right measurement of the Ark at 18
inches which is 450x75x45 = 570 feet in all.
It is very doubtful if Noah had any experience in building a boat of any size
so this suggests he did have help and knowledge of some Sea People
who did. The materials used in the building the ark needs also to be looked
at closely as this could give a good indication of where it was built before
the flood and how far it would have travelled till the water height dropped.
The first job would be to dig a deep and long pit, around 500 feet + long,
the banks at least on each side to hold the materials and weight from
slipping.
Reed bundles would be made to fit together to form a pontoon and by the
time it reached to what would be the middle section it would have been
around 357 feet long which in time would be added to.
Reeds therefore suggest a fresh water or brackish lagoon close by and
that to me suggests the Nile Delta area and that wet area could well have
been a large marsh area or around a freshwater lake.
All the reeds would have to be cut well down and for length. Plenty of25
them. Having cut reeds myself in the past I can inform you that it is hard
and dirty work using a sharpened hook or scythe for the cutting.
They are stacked and tied in bundles, then in the case of our ark, moved
to dry land near or at the point of construction.
Later the bundles would need to be shaped, and roped together as well
as some form of waterproofing placed on them.
If the Common Reed was used ( P. communis) this is a very robust
bamboo like plant found in marshes and at the edges of lakes and ponds
and can reach 3 M in length. The dried stems are used for thatching and
mat making.
The Giant Reed (A.donax) is around 4 to 5 M high and is also a wetland
species as is the Reed Mace found in many places.
If we look at the Bulrush which can be 3 M tall and is very strong when
dried this too could be found in wetland habitats.
It is my opinion therefore that the area where the ark was to be built was
close to a large marshland which would provide the raw materials.
All main species of rush or reed would have been used and dried well
before hand. Most of the cutting would have been carried out in the 'winter'
months.
Once the 'bottom' pontoon is laid and in place and the work of laying a
frame-work would begin using the wood of an area, such as cedar and the
poles were set to form a Skeleton of sides and three decks.
The bottom deck would have housed domestic animals like cattle, sheep26
and goats, the middle deck fowl and animal food supplies and the upper-
deck for humans with their food and grain supplies as well as sleeping
quarters.
The frame work would have been of reeds, wood and sealed with a raisin or
type of pitch inside and out and roofing would have been arched but
supported and slightly over-lapping.
Once finished the who ark would be heavy and even more so when loaded
with animals, humans and their supplies.
What was at the start 45 feet tall on dry land would lose some of that
height from a waters surface because of weight, at least 10 to 15 feet

leaving 30 feet just above the water surface, if that.
There is little doubt that whoever overseen the building of the ark was a
master boat builder and knew his maths at this time but it was not Noah.
Now we are laid to believe that Noah, his 3 sons and his wife did all this
work on their own? This I feel is not right, for besides if Noah had good
skills, his children would not have them all, the wife a very few so to build
an ark this size and shape, sea or flood worthily then there had to be other
adults with boat building skills on hand.
If we except that, then I must also except that they too had families or
more and must have went with Noah when the flood came.
The ark was therefore a small community effort for all who took part
mainly for survival.
But which flood?27
As to the flood itself it has to be remembered that it was not the whole
world that flooded but only a large area in the Middle East as far as this
research goes.
There were other floods before and after this main event in many parts of
the world including parts of Europe and Asia.
Today such flooding and storms are still going on across the globe with
loss of life of animals and humans, homes destroyed and cities and towns
left in ruins. Such events today are well recorded by the worlds media and
there are most of the time some natural warnings over the years.
There is one in place now about major Global Warming and a good deal of
evidence that more floods and sea levels will rise due to ice caps melting.
Yet many refuse to believe that such disasters will happen across the
earth but they will. No one, with all the knowledge of technology and
computer help have thought or designed an ark.
For Noah and others to build such and Ark there had to be a reason, that
reason could well have been natural warnings over the years, much the
same as we are getting now yet for the most, fail to heed most of the time.
Whatever the reason matters little what does matter is what type of flood
was it, that would rise water over a time and flood the lands close by and
beyond, taking the ark with it?
It is stated that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights so we need to look
at the possible areas that it happened.
There are 4 sea areas around the target areas, Lake Van which is in the
middle with Armenia and the Caspian Sea to the NE, Turkey and the Black
Sea to the NW, Syria and the Mediterranean Sea to the SW and Iraq and
Persian Gulf to the SE.
We are informed by the Bible that the Ark came to rest after the flood
somewhere in the remoteness of the Ararat Mountains mainly Agri Dagh
though many think that it was Judi Dagh close to the border of Iraq.
I needed to look at distances from each sea to locations A =Ararat and B
= Agri Dagh.
THE MEDITERRANEAN TO ARARAT IS 632 MILES NE.
TO JUDI DAGH 475 MILES NE.
FROM THE CASPIAN SEA TO ARARAT IS 316 MILES DUE SW,
TO JUDI DAGH IS 474 MILES DUE SW.
FROM THE BLACK SEA AREA TO ARARAT DUE SE IT IS 474 MILES.
TO JUDI DAGH IT IS 316 MILES SE.

FROM THE PERSIAN GULF TO ARARAT NNW IT IS 790 MILES.
TO JUDI DAGH NW IT IS 632 MILES.
On top of that there is the Tigris River which floods and is South of Judi
Dagh. This is also marsh area with large beds of reeds as is the case close
to lake Van.
THE NAVIGATION OF THE ARK.
A type of steering oar or oars would have been used though there were no
Sails and much of the navigation would have been the stars, sun and
moon when they were showing.29
The problem here is if it had been raining day and night for 40days + then
there could not have been any navigation using the sky due to cloud cover
and Noah would have been steering 'blind'. The sea, wind and clouds as
well as currents would have placed the Ark at the mercy of nature and little
could have been done to steer or navigate the boat.
It is stated by others that a raven was used to help in the navigation but
there are no ravens in this area just common crows and even then if they
would have sensed land they would have flown directly to it and not
returned. There is also a mention of doves being used and bringing back
some twigs with leaves on it but even if they were homing doves there is
no evidence of any sort I found that would support this.
As for the dove being released and bringing back a twig of green I will
put this down as a myth because doves will not carry any twigs unless for
nesting and only a short distance at that.
As the ark was being pushed by wind, sea and of course, currents
Seamanship of any kind did not occur.

Noah would not be able to see around him very far, no more than 4 miles
because of the weather conditions and big seas.
Considering the journey started on the 17th of February to the 17th or 18th
of July that was 5 months at sea or on flood waters with no land in sight.
Other sources state that the ark was afloat for a year but I do not except
this as fact. In that case we should consider allowing for wind and currents
that the Ark travelled around 2000 miles though not in a straight line.30
By 2000 miles I mean of course sea or Nautical miles (13.4x150 days) =
2010, a nautical mile being 6,082.66 feet = 1,853m.
As far as Noah and his ark are concerned I had to consider the distance
from both sites outwards to give a possible starting location.
If I took it that the ark moved by sea, wind and drifting in a straight
line then my research shows that this was not possible because 2010
miles from any of the sites where the ark is supposed to have landed show
outwards that any 'starting' areas are just too far away for that time in
history.
See below.
COMPASS POINTS AND POSSIBLE LOCATIONS FOR THE ARK
STARTING IF SAILED IN A STRAIGHT LINE ONLY.
2000 MILES.
KRUSK IN RUSSIA. not possible.
ARUL SEA NE. Possible if winds were right.
GREECE. W of both sites. Very possible.
EGYPT. SSW of both sites. Very possible. SW winds
PERSIAN GULF AREA'S Iran. Possible.

RED SEA AREA. very possible.
That is if only the wind, tide and currents took the Ark in a straight line
from A to B and the two main areas that I would suggest as a main starting
point was Greece or Egypt.
The old records in the Bible and other texts say that Noah started his31
journey in February and it ended in July so we are talking about winter
through spring and into late summer.
I feel that we can now rule out that the Ark came to rest in a valley of
the snow close to Mount Ararat. (16,854 feet today).
There is no good evidence to support the idea that the Ark was in fact on
the mountain or mountains though it has been wrongly suggested that this
was the case.
The Caspian Sea area close to Iran gets around 2000mm of rain each year,
that being a good 80 inches and in middle Turkey, the Feb temperatures
can be as low as 0'C (32F) and 73'F in July.
The area site where the Ark is supposed to have landed already had the
first civilizations that started around 3,000BC in the valley of the Nile and
also in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
As this was the case then by the time of the Flood mentioned in the Bible
took place, 2,448BC + there were already people in the area for the 500
years before that flood and the ark moving into their area.
The people before Noah landed were not primitive because they farmed,
had irrigation and flood defences built.
Writing systems in hieroglyphs as well as alphabets were known and this
Mesopotamia culture were also part of what is now known as IRAQ.

Egyptian civilization began around 3000 BC again before the Major Flood
mentioned in the Bible.
So the evidence does point to a flood and it was on record but that record32
must have been oral at first and much later, recorded by scribes.
I am of the opinion from my research that the Flood as it was known was
to do with Volcanic activity and it was a major event.
I will even go as far to state that that this event changed Empires and
Civilisations and not as always thought , wars.
Let me put forward the theory that such an event took place around the
Greek mainland, Crete, Asia Minor but affected the shores of what is today
the Holy Land.
It was therefore not rain but sea mixed with volcanic ash, and a great tidal
wave, and may have been as high as 100m spread out from a volcano that
collapsed within its self, the sea rushed in to the empty space, many miles
deep then came back out with great force and spread out across the
Mediterranean areas.
There would have to be more than one great wave of course during that
time because the floods that came, took away cities and towns and
dumped massive rocks and coral onto the shores, some blocks around 100
tons were pushed many miles inland.
2448 BC is the date that the major flood took place as stated by the bible
and some other people but my data and research puts that date well before
the Iron Age for the area, the Bronze Age and broken down in the Crete
area as Pre-Palace Period 3000- 2000 BC, First Palace Period 2000- 1700
BC, New Palace Period 1700-1450 BC, Post-Palace Period 1450- 1050 BC.
I found that this give me a framework of known dates to work with and if33
the data recorded about the flood and experts place at around 2448 BC
then it had to fit into the Pre Palace Period 3000-2000 BC and late Bronze
Age for this area. With cross referencing my research there is no getting
away that these time-lines are fact.
There was a major eruption in the target areas.
The broken rings of Thera have formed small islands due to a massive
eruption around 1500 BC that caused great damage and also floods from
waves but this date is in the New Palace Period 1700-1450 BC.
In Greek Mythology it is known as Deucalion's Flood, they place of where
Atlantis is said to have vanished.
If this was one of the 'Floods' and I believe it was, then the coasts of
South Greece (Mycenae),Crete, Libya, Egypt, Canaan, Cyprus and Turkey
would all have been hit by one or more Tsunami's.
And some flooding would have occurred, with evidence of such today.
The wave height would not have been 100m as suggested by some, but
more than likely 4.2m. The ash cloud moved SE towards Cyprus.
Earthquakes as a result would have been weak and close to the surface.
There is I discovered, much confusion about the dating when eruption
happened and I have listed them below.
1645 BC, 1628 BC, 1600-1480 BC, 1540-1480 BC and 1500 BC
I would suggest from the evidence that it is more than likely that the major
eruption took place around 1645 BC and ash fall-out seemed to be limited.
The other major point in my research is language from the past and that34
the possible 10 lost tribes had and understood where today only a few
words remain or not understood.35
Even art work from the past was a form of language and for the people at
this time they were more aware of it as a message than we are today.
That is I suggest, is because we see the picture but not the message.36
LANGUAGE OF THE GODS.
This could be one of the reasons why the early Hebrew writings left out
many words from their own past because they were not understood or
ignored.
When the first field archaeology field workers discovered the writings of
Ancient civilizations you could say that they were excited and it meant
that a door or doors were open into cultures suggesting all types of things
from hidden treasures, Grails codes that should lead to better
understanding of where and what a grail was is.
The real problem was they could not understand what they were looking at.
They had the raw material thousands of years old and a text that was a
complete mystery to them and in some cases, words still are.37
Such unfamiliar writing on mud tablets, on the walls of temples and tombs,
inside old forts and on coffins for a very long time baffled the 'experts'
and in many cases of discovery some of the writings were set aside or if
damaged thrown on a spoil heap.
Those that were kept were placed in boxes and stored away, sometimes
for years.
Even today language experts have problems sorting out the past
discoveries of writings and fragments of such and these code breakers, for
want of a better word, struggle in the hope that someday they will crack it.
The clues that were discovered were many and varied and good
interpretation was needed because questions had to be answered if the
letters or languages resemble any other already known languages of the
distant past?
Old Hebrew and old English is a very good example of this because
someone faced with such text today may well give up unless they were
experts in that field.
They may well skip some words while reading such text because they
could not understand the word or even part of a word or what it meant.
It could be that such a 'missed' word was an important clue or a letter
suggesting part of an alphabet and this being a key in fact, once
understood could be used to read text if ever discovered.38
There is also a problem with old text if Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Egyptian
words have been inserted.
As far as a Grail is concerned there is a lot of suggestions of what it
may be but so far little text to point at clues.
Something as so called importance as the suggested 'Holy Grail' should
have some text that was written at the time it came into being.
This may show a number of very different symbols, letters and words but
it does not mean that such text was written at the place of origin and
such a codex may just contain a number of letters which could suggest it
being alphabetic rather than a full text which ten places it in the syllabic
category. It is possible that any mention of the Grail may be a mixture of
picture writing and letters.
If the grail is real then the clues will be there but it is finding such
and what if there are 'grails' rather than a single one or even worse,
bits of an artefact scattered from the Middle East and Near East westwards39
as far as the British Isles and Ireland and Eastwards to Italy and even
Greece?
I note that even today the human mind and computers have failed to find
many of the answers like the writings and symbols of the Indus
Civilizations which were around South Asia 2300-1700 BC and for the most,
always remained a mystery.
What we do know in part is the ancient writings and language from Egypt,
Near East, Homeric Greece and the Maya civilizations of South America.
As far as the cuneiform scripts are concerned from my research, I have
laid out below tables starting with the old Alkadian with my suggested
family tree ties or links as well as the development of the mixed Indo-
Iranian languages.
In time the second table may be added to or parts removed but I am of the
opinion that the links for both with researched evidence is correct and as
close as I can get.
What I did discover with the Near East writings is that at times they
seemed to have 'crossed over' because there is many similarities with
some of them that no matter how hard you try cannot be explained away.
Therefore somewhere out there and yet to be discovered is still more
unknown language forms. They may well be dead languages but they are
out there to be discovered and even hidden in known ancient texts.40
3000BC
OLD AKKADIAN
HURRIAN
2500BC
OLD BABYLONIAN
SUMERIANS CUNEIFORM SCRIPT
OLD ASSYRIAN
2000BC
MIDDLE ELAMITE
1500 BC
MIDDLE BABYLONIAN
MIDDLE ASSYRIAN
HITTITE
1000 BC
NEW BABYLONIAN
NEW ASSYRIAN
500BC
ACHAEMENID ELAMITE
LATE BABYLONIAN
BELOW IS THE INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
OLD IRANIAN
SANSKRIT AND PRAKRITS
MIDDLE IRANIAN41
HINDUSTANI
MARATHI / KURDISH
BENGALI
ROMANY / PERSIAN
OSSETIC
The study therefore of archaeology languages is complex and to be even
good at it you need to start early and devote your life to it and anything
new discovered then the decipherment will have to be a manual one and
long term.
Computers are useful to add data to and keep records and broken down
codex data but it is the human mind, with knowledge that will solve many
of the problems.
The language of the Persian Kings and Empire has been well documented
by the Greeks, mainly Herodotus who did report on the main Persian Wars
a good 250 years before Alexander The Great so by this information that
has been recorded gives us a time-line for such an event.
The Rosetta Stone has 3 languages as you will see below.
The Rosetta Stone was discovered by people working for Napoleon when
he invaded Egypt around 1799 and written on it was a decree that had been
set out by King Ptolemy V in 196 BC.42
The decree was in three scripts, two in old Egyptian and one in Greek
which helped somewhat in the knowledge gained from some of the
scholars did have some Greek which did in fact help in the translating in
part of the Egyptian text and hieroglyphs picture format and the other
cursive which was used for faster writing
The man who was able to start sorting out the Rosetta scripts was Jean
Francois Champollion but the date data here I found confused because it
was said to be discovered in 1799 and later Champollion was able to kick
start the first process.

From 1809 he had studied Egyptian manuscripts and many of the
inscriptions and had a good knowledge of Coptic which is linked to a very
ancient language. He was then able to build up a readable alphabet and
found that it formed part of the main text outside the cartouches of the
Rosetta Stone.
Coptic died out as a spoken language around 1000 AD but is still the
language in the Coptic Church.
A British Army Officer and archaeologist, Sir Henry Rawlinson carried out
the main decipherment of three long inscriptions of the three ancient
languages that had been written on a rock face in Western Iran.
At that time it was known as Behistun and it seems the scripts dated from
Darius 1st, Ruler of Persia from 521-486 BC.
What I found of interest here is that the three noted languages were;43
OLD PERSIAN, BABYLONIAN, AND ELAMITE.
This places the dating time-lines from 2500 BC to 500 BC and all three
scripts had been written in cuneiform which was typical of the ancient
Near East.
I should point out that the Old Persian script does come very close to the
Avestan language that was used for the Holy Text of the Zoroastrian
religion. I point this out again because history and events were being
recorded for a very long time and in a number of formats and languages of
the written sort.
That being the case, with the evidence of old text and languages being
used and with progress over time-lines then it is not possible that
something like the Grail would have been overlooked and not recorded in
some form of text as well as major tidal waves causing floods.
If people assume that the Grail started its life somewhere in the Holy-land
or Near East then somewhere there has to be evidence in a written form
that it was and is real, even parts of it spread across Europe.
I suggest here that the 'Grail or Holy Grail' was given that name once it
reached Europe, starting in France and spreading outwards, a virus of
myth and truth combined but contaminated with religion and political
Codexs.
Rawlinson discovered that the Old Persian script was in cuneiform
symbols that showed alphabetic in nature he went on to decipher it and
became the first person to do a translation of the first script on the rock44
face. Once he had cracked the first codex he then went on to do the same
with the Babylonian script which was syllabic and with many more
symbols. When he got to the Elamite script however he had to stop as it
was an unknown language.
I suggest also that it may well have been the Sumerian language and was
spoken and used as text in the past.
That saying; 'It's all Greek to me' means that you don't understand what
is being said or written but the Linear B script, a forerunner to the Greek
language and found on tablets in Greece is even worse.
For a long time it did confuse and frustrate many people and more so that
the Egyptian and Babylonian languages because it was an 'unknown'
language to everyone.
There was no history of a similar language or even clues to what the
writing on the tablets that had been discovered on Knossos and Crete
contained.
There was no mention of the eruption or the tidal waves and this I found
strange because such an event would have been recorded.
It was a woman by the name of Alice Kober (1907-1950) who worked out
the language on the tablets was infected with word ending variations with
nouns, tense, or verbs.
Within a short time she also worked out a number of words that looked the
same at first except for the endings.
She then came up that she would suggest grammatical endings for the45
words, and on the right path.
After her death her work was then taken on by Michael Ventris (1922-1956
and in turn he began to get a more complete picture of the symbols which
did have a relationship with one another.
His hard work paid of because what he did discover in the end was that the
Linear B script was giving the names of Greek towns and therefore Linear
B was a form of ancient Greek.
Whatever the Grail or Holy grail was and possibly is it had to come about
at the time of 'Literate Societies' that used a form of writing linked to
civilizations such as the Near and Middle East, which would include Egypt,
Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel ,Turkey, Greece, Palestine, possibly the West of Asia
and Italy (Rome) .
Any of the historical records of the above and more so any form of text
helps with finding answers to the culture or tribe.
Without some form of text from the past you have nothing to work with or
point you in the right direction.

If there is text then in time it may well be possible to link comparisons with
other culture writings or words.
A word of warning here.
Because 'Family Tree' scripts are different and even related it does not
suggest that the languages used in every day life are related to one
another.
It was the Greeks who did develop the alphabet from the tribe and culture46
of the Phoneticians who used a language that did not belong to the known
Indo-European groups but linked more to the Semitic group as well as
Hebrew, Babylonian, and Assyrian.
The 'dead' languages known as Indo-European are Ancient Greek, Latin,
Old Celtic, Vedic Sanskrit of Rig-Veda and the old Persian of the Avestan
and were no longer the 'spoken' word of the people.
I am of the opinion that these 'dead' languages though not in every day
use as a spoken language must have been recorded as a written language
in some form so therefore are not lost as many think.
I tried for a long time to learn Sanskrit for the main purpose of trying
to understand the Indian classical writings but failed to grasp it fully and
had great difficulty with it.
Word order in some cases makes little or no difference and is therefore
a less crucial role than in English.47
The same could be said for many other people when they started to study
Hittite and the Anatolian languages.
A study therefore of Hittite language is the study of a very hidden tribe
in pre-history and though now and then mentioned in the Bible and
suggests that they came from within North Syria.
Assyrian culture and people started in Mesopotamia around 2000-1000BC
with their major empire building 1813-1781BC.
This was followed by the Middle Assyrian and the Neo-Assyrian Kings,
Assurnasirp al II ruled from 883-859BC and it was him that extended his
empire westwards towards the Mediterranean.
Later his son, Shamanester III 858-824BC took on himself, before his father
died, to expand the empire in all directions, which he did.
The centre of Assyrian was set up on a hill overlooking the Tigris River
in NE of today's Iraq and much of the structures here was rebuilt by
Shamshi-Adas Ist BC This area is not far as the crow flies where the
remains of the Ark possibly lie hidden.
It was in the 19th century that a number of carved relief's and inscriptions
started to turn up; the inscriptions were at that time an unknown
hieroglyphic script in north Syria but also in Anatolia (Turkey).
Here I found at least one connection with some clues.
Such clues from the past I discovered, are all well and fine but if they
lead you nowhere that you had hoped for and want to go then confusion
for the researcher arises.48
By that I mean we want to sometimes fit those clues into our idea
of what our interpretations rather than what the real interpretation is.
This, believe it or not, is a common occurrence with many students and
some archaeology field workers because they grasp the 'answer' like a
drowning man grasping a straw, that fits their own personal interpretation
and latter proved to be wrong.

Some Christian archaeologists with an axe to grind are a very good
example of this as are historians who are defenders of the faith.
The myth and paranormal events around Jesus is of course disputed.
If death is not the end and the energy leaves the body fast then is this what
Christians believe to be as the soul or holy spirit? There is no evidence
whatsoever that Christians are the only ones with a soul but there is a vast
amount of evidence world wide that before Christianity came about there
was and still is a believe in an afterlife and reincarnation.
The Church may well frown on this idea of an after life if you are not a
Christian but just because it is said that Jesus rose from the dead does not
mean that he did in any form. The body remains should have still been in
the tomb and just the spirit or soul leave and as we all know today the49
mortal remains of Jesus vanished. Gone and no trace!
THE ARCHAEOLOGY MYSTERY OF JESUS.
My research tended to lead me to this topic of Jesus because if one was
seeking a grail or grails then at least one should turn up here, either as an
object or in text that would stand up to very close scrutiny by scholars
world wide.
There is little doubt that Jesus the man was a real person, a person that
is surrounded by mystery, tall stories and of course the many hidden
agendas.
No one person or even a whole archaeology department anywhere in the
world has in any way got to the truth, whatever that is, on the life and death
of the man known as Jesus.
The Church of Rome does have in its archives, hidden information that for
one reason or another and best known to themselves stays hidden.
It is very unlikely in my lifetime that the Vatican will ever be transparent
to the public about all hidden scrolls and text documents that deal with the
archaeology and known history of the Holy-land and beyond.50
That suggests fear and doubts with in the Vatican archives about what is
real and what was real but should never be revealed to the Christian
masses because if it was it would send shock waves around the world that
I would term as a Religious nine eleven waiting to happen.
There are always good reasons for this as far as the Church of Rome is
concerned, at least in their eyes but with-holding archaeology data and
evidence is not one of them.
Their problem is blinkered thinking and 99% political because they work
on a right to know or for your eyes only policy.
It all comes down to fear of course and they were once very good at
installing fear in the followers of the Roman Catholic faith, including their
own priest and bishops, now the past is coming back to haunt them.
The poor in the Christian world and who have the faith need God and
Rome because it gives them hope.
The Church of course needs the poor and obedience from them otherwise
it will not survive past the year 2999.
It started in the past, a half truth.
That past starts with the man known as Jesus, not Christ and what was
known then as the Jesus Movement, a Jewish religious groups in fact, not
Christian. It was after the death of Jesus that political as well as a new
formed religion took over and called itself the Christ movement.51
I had to research the birth of Jesus and found only in a hidden gospel as
I referred to above, one of many of course but for this part of my research
does show that what we read in the bible about the birth of Jesus and
Jesus as a child differs from the hidden text evidence.
Mary, the mother of Jesus is a good place to start and I will deal with that
other Mary later.
THE LOST GOSPEL OF THE BIRTH OF MARY.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was from a royal race and family of David and
she was born in the city of Nazareth then later educated in Jerusalem in
the Temple so from my research such a place of learning was not for 'men
only.'
Her father was Joachim and her mother was Anna, the father's family were
from Galilee and also the city of Nazareth. Anna, the mother, was from
Bethlehem.
Anything they had in the way of food, animals or money they divided in
their community into three parts; one third to the Temple and the officers
who ran it, one third to the poor and the last third to themselves.
It is more than likely that Mary was a child bride and very young teenager
where she went into an 'arranged marriage' that had been set up by the
Hebrew priests of the temple.
They were together for twenty years before they had children.
Having no children after such a long time was frowned on by some of the
Priests of the temple, mainly Issachar who was High Priest of Jerusalem52
and made a point of informing Joachim told him that everyone not having
a male child in Israel was cursed.

This is similar to what priests told young married couples in Ireland up
to the 1970's but in their case they wanted more converts for Rome, even if
the parents already had children and found it hard to cope with feeding and
clothing them as was so often the case.
The reason why the Church of Rome frowned on birth control is that the
possibility of losing six hundred million converts world wide each year was
too much for them.
Of course if such a comment had been made to Joachim when he was on
his own it would have been bad enough but it was done when the temple
was packed and a good few of his friends and neighbours were there at the
time.
I have known of Catholic priests in Ireland telling their congregation to
rule out birth control as it was a sin and that too many young married
couples were married too long and childless .
Joachim was confused or seemed to be but he would also have felt great
embarrassment.
That night he did not go home but stayed with some shepherds outside of
the town and when he slept he had a dream that his wife would produce a
daughter and should be named Mary and should be brought to the temple
when she was eleven years old and married when she was twelve.
For some reason Joachim remembered the old story of Sarah and how53
after many years give birth to Isaac.
Then there was Rachel who was married to Jacob and was also barren
until she give birth to Joseph who later became the governor of Egypt.
Samson and Samuel were also born of 'barren' mothers.

Mary was born and when she was three, brought to the temple with
offerings and the fifteenth Psalms of degrees (120th-134th) had 15 stairs to
climb because the temple I discovered was built on a hill or small
mountain.
It would seem by this gospel that Mary, aged three took the stairs to the
top with ease.
Little did Mary know but according to Jewish Law, she was to be left there
with other children of her own age while her parents went home.
It would seem from my research that she did not see her parents again for
a long time and had been 'farmed out' to the temple officials.
When she reached the age of fourteen years she did have the chance to
return home but refused and while other children left she stayed on.
The officials at the Temple were more than a little put out that she refused
leave because she was, by Jewish Law, at the age where she should be
getting married.
It seems it was all sorted out by rods brought by unmarried men who came
to the temple and a young Joseph was one of them.
Mary and Joseph the carpenter were then married and in time a number of
children were born to them, one being Jesus. The Virgin birth was and is a54
myth. Of Jesus the child and as a teenager little is known and after his
death it was Paul in fact who started it off and in a short time he had no
choice but to include the dead Jesus and some of his words and
background into this movement and that is how Christianity began.
The new Christ Movement was anti Jewish to a fault and continued to be
so for many years.

I am concerned only with the archaeology evidence in this research and
religion links because to get involved with the long standing religious
debate makes things more unclear than they already are. More like the bed
of a stream or river. You can see things on the bottom as long as you don't
stir up the mud.
Religions in passing from an archaeology point of view do play a part
in the research as well as many of the past social groups in the Holy Land.
No matter who you are, researching Jesus the man, is rife with
contradictions because of poor past and present day interpretation of the
evidence, not to mention those people who are more then basis and push
the Christian Faith beyond the pale be it truth or fiction.
That of course is their belief but it does little to enhance the facts as
I have discovered.
One of the problems many people of how a Jew and from the Royal
household family at that time could form a group that were later named
Christians. It was a small group and if it was around today, may well be
classified by some as a terrorist group, more so by Israel and others in the55
Middle East that surround what is known as the Holy Land.
Jesus however was a Jew, a Hebrew and that is the course he followed as
did most of his followers until his death around 30 AD.
There is some doubt in my mind from the research I carried out if in fact he
was in the royal bloodline of David and I suggest that this was not the case
from a genetic point of view.
The evidence that he remained a Jew is still there and his name, King of
the Jews was given to him by the Jewish Priests and Rome as this was
their way of demeaning him and the Jesus Movement. Jesus died a Jew
and not for Christian dogma as is so often stated even today.
Getting involved with such research many years ago was not as straight
forward as I had though because looking at the archaeology evidence as
well as the social evidence there was also the paranormal and psychology56
influence that had to be considered. Much could also be said about the
Grail and Grail seekers world wide today.
The paranormal, psychology, religion and archeology history all go hand
in hand as a suggested formula. To leave such out took away pointers to
Holy Land events of that time.
In parts of this research there is also natural history research which is only
included when and where it is needed to emphasize a point or present as
evidence of an event. Natural history and geology do play a very important
part in field archeology and reading a landscape as it was then rather than
what it is now is a gift, but only with training and hands on archaeology.
NOTES ON THE HOLY LAND.
In order to get some idea of what the Holy Land was and is I have
researched specific aspects and customs of the peoples here and
surrounding areas in pre-biblical, biblical and post biblical history.
Without such background information on Agriculture, baths as well as
bathing, burial, embalming, cult objects, forts, houses, inscriptions, metals,
monastery set up, seals, roads, synagogues, writing and trade there would
be little point in the archaeology research into Jesus.
Also time-lines for the span of Jesus birth and death is very important
as well.
There were many civilizations involved in and around the Holy Land some
of them in place by 7000 BC. Up to 1500 AD
Many came later as invaders or to trade and all left some evidence as well57
as parts of their cult culture.
It was the Mesopotamia that produced the very first civilization city and
state in 3100 BC on the banks and delta of the Nile.
In the two horns of what is known as the Fertile Crescent, progress within
was important with Syria-Palestine at its centre.
Both these did benefit from such progress but also became victims of
invasion and wars.
The Assyrians and Babylonians came from the east and headed south,
Egyptians came from the south east and going north but the most
important group were the Semites who came from the south end of the
Arabian Desert where they mingled or displaced the local Neolithic peoples
of Palestine.
BC
The Neolithic people give these first invaders names such as; The Howling
People, The Ghosts, The Horrors, and The Long necked men.
When the second invasive wave of Semites came it was the Amorites then
later followed by the Armenians which brought the very early Hebrew
tribes.
It must be kept in mind at all times that Christianity is a young religion,
2010 years only and overshadowed by some of the much older ones as
well as cultures and societies of peoples. Therefore the history of the Holy
Land is complex and not pure but had been and still is multi cultural that
went wrong because it never worked or never will. Much can be said today58
about many of the cities of Europe and the UK where such multi cultural
ideas abound, even forced on people to except without question or protest
and in my view and informed opinion prone for disaster and future
violence. What in fact happens is not only the people are imported or
invade but they bright with them many other things, religions being the
curse of all nations when it is tested to the full.
With such cultures and societies came parts or whole characters and
alphabets which can be viewed below.
In many cases such alphabets were later taken and parts used in
other writings therefore giving clues to social culture contact over the
years BC. It is of course the interpretation of such that leads to difficulty for
the archaeologist or other scholars of history.
Archaeology and forensic archaeology still needs to continue the work into
Pre-Semitic history and more so with a close look at Palestine though at
the moment that is still impossible due to wars and conflict.
It is a coastal strip of which invaders marched, a mountain spine, the deep
Cleft of the Jordan valley Dead Sea rift, with all three areas running north
to south. In the east beyond the rift is now nothing but desert.
The strip ends well south of the modern city of Haifa where the ridge of
mountains meets the sea. Here, coastal route does turn inland at a pass
where the fortress of Megiddo or Armageddon crosses the Plain of Jezreel
and then fords the River Jordan on the road to Damascus.
Jerusalem on the spinal centre is 2,500 feet above sea level and 35 miles59
from the coast in the west and 20 miles from the bottom of the rift in the
east where the land is recorded at 1,290 feet below sea level.
This was the main crossroads lie and was used by many in the past.
It was at these crossroads that the tribes of history passed and sometimes
re-passed but always leaving some evidence behind them that they had
indeed been there.
Signs and symbols were a good part of artefact evidence some of which I
have place on the following pages. Note the similar symbols throughout
the ages and in different tribes above.
From to so called symbols at the found tomb of Jesus to the Dead Sea
Scrolls all have a part to play in Holy Land Archaeology.
First there needs to be an understanding of what in fact sign and symbols
were and are. I deal here with Middle East signs and symbols.
Symbol means sign, mark token, recognition and from the Greek to throw
all together Early on it was one half symbol and the other part when found
and joined would in fact give a meaning or word.60
Such a method also ensured that the authenticity of the person and
meaning was true.
In other words if we look at today's symbols they mean one of two
things, something that represents or denotes something else. The symbol
of an owl may look like the bird but could mean also wisdom as in Wise
Owl.
From an archaeology point of view when interpretation is needed for such
past signs and symbols it is not the modern mind that must interpret what
he or she thinks it is, but what it means in prehistory.61

For some reason today's academic archaeology minds miss this simple
point without using common sense and thinking not what it is but what it
was. Much has been lost as evidence with such thinking and a good lot of
artefacts with signs and symbols should be re-examined again if they have
not been bastardised by academics who worked in bad archaeology.
The main function of all signs and symbols is Communication.
The first was very primitive cave drawings and paintings staring around
25,000 years ago but it was not until 5500 BC it was then language started
to appear with the very first scripts being pictorial.
Then came sign and symbol evolution which I suggest was like this.
5500 BC.
PICTORIAL.
IDEOGRAMS.
LOGOGRAMS.
2000 BC.
PHONOGRAMS.62
The first true writing was invented by the Sumerian's who at that time
lived in the Euphrates valley, Mesopotamia, (modern South Iraq) and very
likely the Marsh Tribes could have strong genetic links with the Sumerian's
of pre-history. The earliest written records from this area was found at
Nippur and only because clay tablets were discovered.
They were dated at around c.3400 BC.
Most cuneiform signs were logo grams which stood for words but there
was150+signs that were also used to represent syllables or was so often
the case and still missed by many of today's archaeologists, stand for
another word that sounded similar but with a very different meaning.
An example of this is the Sumerian word fish Ha, but could also mean may
and the same signs were used for both words.
At least 25 logo grams were used as determinative and placed before other
signs but not pronounced indicated the class of object or being to which
the spoken signs belonged.
Although cuneiform looks complicated it was highly successful at the time
and was used by the Akkadians, Babylonians, and much later by the
Assyrians who simplified them and made them more square.
Baked clay for the most is imperishable therefore many good examples of
cuneiforms survived and found but I suggest many more will be found.
Early pictogram.
Late pictogram s.63
Cuneiform.
Babylonian.
Assyrian.
2500 BC 1800 BC 700 BC
Such cuneiforms and symbols were recorded, added to, removed and
replaced by many invaders over time.
The phonogram of a mounted cross is not the sign of the cross as many
Christians believe in but an old sign well before Jesus which reads thus;
n+f+r and pronounced 'nefr meaning good or beautiful.
From 539 BC the use of the cuneiform in Mesopotamia was beginning to
decline in use but was kept alive and in use by priests and many scholars
and the last known records are 75 AD.

It is this last group of cuneiform writing that suggests that there may
well be others and some have been hidden away which may well give us
more insight if not to Jesus the Man, then the history of his time and
beyond for 75 years.
If we take a fact that Jesus was a man, was crucified and is said to have
died when he was 30 years of age then there has to be some written
records in cuneiform or text that should well point to evidence that he died
on the day stated or, more important did not die, was removed and hidden64
away and lived into old age with his wife and children.
Where better than in Egypt or Rome, maybe both? The New Testament
version somehow does not give the full story of what really happened and I
have included part of it here for reference.
The New Testament data.
The depiction of Jesus suggests that he was largely a law-abiding and
highly nationalistic Jew, and a man with strong ethical concerns.
Like many of Judaism's great rabbis though Jesus was never a rabbi, he
saw love of a neighbor as religion's central demand.
Though many Christians are under the impression that he opposed
Judaism's emphasis on law, in actuality he criticized anyone who
advocated dropping it.
"Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law [the Torah] or the
Prophets," he declared to his early disciples in the Jesus Movement.
I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not
one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is
achieved."
The laws purpose," of course, is the universal recognition of God, a goal
which neither Christianity nor Judaism believes was realized in Jesus'
time, or since. It is now very unlikely it ever will be before the human
mammal becomes extinct as a species and the apes and monkeys will still
look up at the stars and moon and night in wonder, yet puzzlement no
doubt.65
Jesus concluded his message with a severe warning: "Therefore, the man
who infringes even the least of these commandments and teaches others
to do the same will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven"
(Matthew 5:17-19
On at least one specific legal issue, Jesus identified with the stricter rather
than the more lenient rabbis.
The prevailing School of Hillel taught that divorce was permitted for any
reason, while the School of Shammai permitted it in cases of sexual
misconduct the position later attributed to Jesus in the New Testament
(Matthew 5:31-32
The subsequent Catholic ban on all divorce seems to represent an even
stricter legal standard than the one Jesus established.
Today the European Courts for Human Rights is in a real dilemma of how
to resolve this issue where religions are involved world wide, but more so
with Catholics.
A perennially interesting, though probably unanswerable, question is how
Jesus regarded himself.
Did he see himself as the Messiah? I am of the option that Jesus the man
and a Jew would not even have considered this nor for the sake of ego
would himself pushed the idea onto others.
Gandhi likewise never considered himself a Messiah though he was looked
on by many as a great man.
It was the followers of both probably, that thought this although one must66
remember that in the first centuries of the Common Era the word "Messiah"
had a different meaning than it has today as did the word 'Christ' because
the word 'Christ' did mean Messiah.
Contemporary believers usually think of the Messiah as a wholly spiritual
figure.
Then, it meant a military leader who would free the Jews from foreign (i.e.,
Roman rule,) bring them back from the four corners of the earth, and usher
in an age of universal peace. It would seem from this that the Jews were
seeking their own Grail.
A century after Jesus, many Jews accepted the military general, Bar
Kokhba as the Messiah, although even his greatest supporter, Rabbi Akiva
made no claims regarding his spiritual greatness.
Indeed, it was precisely because of the military association with the word
"Messiah" that the occupying Roman authorities must have seen Jesus as
dangerous and decided to crucify him.
That the Romans hung over Jesus' body a sign proclaiming his crime,
KING OF THE JEWS, again underscores the apparently militant and
political direction of his activities. Parts of this sign and the cross were to
be named as the Grail.
Jesus' nationalism, which occasionally spilled over into an unpleasant
chauvinism, is illustrated by a story in Matthew:

"Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. Then out came a
Canaanite woman from that district and started shouting, 'Sir, Son of David,67
take pity on me. My daughter is tormented by a devil.' But he answered her
not a word.
And his disciples went and pleaded with him.
'Give her what she wants,' they said, 'because she is shouting after us.'
He said in reply, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.'
But the woman had come up and was kneeling at his feet.
'Lord,' she said, 'help me.'
He replied, 'it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the
house-dogs.' Such a statement is like an Irish man saying, There is many
a slippy stone to a gentlemans house, or me saying to a group of Yoga
students, When a sparrow dies a natural death only God will see it.
It means nothing to most but something of wisdom to a few.
The woman in question of course knew the wisdom of it.
She retorted, 'Ah, yes, sir; but even house-dogs can eat the scraps that
fall from their master's table.' Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, you
have great faith. Let your wish be granted"' (Matthew15:21-28 )
Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable
body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the
New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled
Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was
replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that
keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions.68
The gentle, kind hearted Pilate of the New Testament who in his "heart of
hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional.
Like most fictions, the story was created with a purpose in mind.
When the New Testament was written, Christianity was banned by Roman
law. The Romans, were well aware that they had executed the founder of
the Jesus Movement. Indeed the reference to Jesus' crucifixion by the
Roman historian Tacitus is among the earliest allusions to him outside the
New Testament had no reason to rescind their anti-Christian legislation.
Christianitys only hope for gaining legitimacy was to "prove" to Rome that
Its crucifixion of Jesus had been a terrible error, and had only come about
because the Jews forced Pilate to do it.
Thus, the New Testament depicts Pilate as wishing to spare Jesus from
punishment, only to be stymied by a large Jewish mob yelling, "Crucify
him." The account ignores one simple fact.
Pilate's power in Judea was absolute. Had he wanted to absolve Jesus, he
would have done so: He certainly would not have allowed a mob of Jews,
whom he detested, to force him into killing someone whom he admired.
Crucifixion itself, a Roman form of execution, was forbidden by Jewish law
because it was torture, something of a fact that many Christians today fail
to take on board.
Some 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in
the first century.
How ironic, therefore, that Jews have historically been associated with
the cross as the ones who brought about Jesus' crucifixion.?
Is there a Jewish consensus on how Jews are to regard Jesus? Perhaps
not, but in recent decades many Jewish scholars have tended to view him
as one of several first- and second-century Jews who claimed to be the
Messiah, and who attempted to rid Judea of its Roman oppressors.
However, almost no Jewish scholars believe that Jesus intended to start
a new religion.
Were Jesus to return today, most Jews believe, he undoubtedly would feel
more at home in a synagogue than a church. I tend to agree with this.
An increasing number of Jewish scholars believe that Christianity real
founder was another first-century Jew, Paul.
With the evidence in my research I am of the opinion that this in fact was
the case. Most statements attributed to Jesus in the New Testament
conform to Jewish teachings. This is, of course, not surprising, since
Jesus generally practised Pharisaic (rabbinic) Judaism. However, at least
three innovative teachings ascribed to Jesus diametrically oppose Jewish
teachings.
1.Jesus forgives all sins: "The Son of man has the authority on earth to
forgive sins" (Matthew 9:6
Judaism believes that God Himself only forgives those sins committed
against Him.70
As the Mishna teaches: "Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, atones for
sins against God, not for sins against man, unless the injured party has
been appeased" (Yoma 8:9).
The belief that Jesus can forgive all sins is fraught with moral peril.
Some fifteen hundred years after he lived, Protestant reformer Martin
Luther writing in the spirit of Jesus' statement, taught: "Be a sinner and sin
vigorously; but even more vigorously believe and delight in Christ who is
victor over sin, death and the world....
It is sufficient that we recognize through the wealth of God's glory the
lamb who bears the sins of the world; from this sin does not sever us,
even if thousands, thousands of times in one day we should fornicate or
murder" (letter to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521).
2.
Jesus' attitude toward evil people: "Offer the wicked man no resistance.
On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other
as well" (Matthew 5:38-39 and "Love your enemies and pray for your
persecutors" (Matthew 5:44 )
The Torah commands that one offer the wicked man powerful resistance:
"You shall burn the evil out from your midst" (Deuteronomy 17:7 )
Elsewhere, the Torah approvingly records Moses' killing of a brutal
Egyptian overseer who was beating a Jewish slave.71
3.
Jesus' claim that people can come to God only through him: "No one
knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to
reveal Him" (Matthew 11:27 )
The implication of this statement and the continuing belief of many
fundamental Protestants is that only one who believes in Jesus can come
to God. Judaism holds that anyone can come to God; as the Psalmist
teaches: "God is near to all who call unto Him" (Psalms 145:18)
My own research has looked at the Old and New Testament and it suggests
that the crime that Jesus was supposed to have committed was to be
known as 'King of the Jews' and leader of a new Jewish Movement not in
anyway a Christian one because there were no Christians at the time of
Jesus and his crucifixion. It was in fact the Romans who arrested him, not
the Jews though I suspect a few high ranking Jewish priests were pleased
with the result.
Punished and sentenced to death by crucifixion by the Romans but backed
by some well heeled and powerful Jewish Priests but carried out by the
Romans, the body of Jesus would still have been under strict Jewish laws
as well as his family and followers in removing and washing the body
before sunset.72
As it was getting into the weekend, there would have been haste on all
sides to perform these last rites before the start of Sabbath at sunset on
the Friday because Saturday was a day of rest for all Jews.
There would have been sense of panic from family members and others in
that community. In those times there was and still is 39 forbidden activities.
This would mean that the Friday Jesus died on the cross at around 3.00pm
and in April of that year there would have been less than four hours of
daylight left to carry out the removal of the body, the washing of the body
and the placing in the tomb or grave. I should point out here that you
needed to be well heeled and have connections to have a tomb.
This tomb must have been a family tomb but well outside the city walls.
If that was the case then it was into the soft stone in a rocky hill side
and had two chambers.73
The outer chamber would have been where the body would have been
washed carefully, dried, then anointed with herbs and spices mixed with
oil, more than likely palm oil.

Once this ritual was carried out the body would be wrapped in a shroud
and placed on its back in the outer chamber and the entrance sealed with a
large stone pushed into place by a number of people.
In most cases of Jewish burials like this, a full year would pass before
the bones were cleaned and moved into the second chamber but with no
hint of any flesh or tissue on the bones.
Such ossuaries were used by family generations over the years and most
times the name of the last body in would be placed on the outside of the
tomb, engraved into the soft stone.
The tomb in question was said to be on loan by Joseph of Arimathea.
I have a problem with this tomb loan suggestion and that is why a normal
burial did not take place at least till the Sabbath was finished then the
body moved to a more permanent location.
Many archaeologists living in the west somehow fail to take on board the
many types of burial that did take place in the Holy Land and even into the
time of Jesus. Ritual burial in the Holy Land took many forms of which I
feel and of the opinion needs to be addressed.74
TYPES OF BURIAL.
Like all groups in the Middle East, the belief in an after-life was real
and not new. It is as old as the first human being who could think and
reason. From this observation then as far as the Holy Land burials were
concerned from 1000BC to 33AD attention was always given to how the
body would be placed in the grave or tomb and where that would be.
The earliest burials recorded were from the Middle Palaeolithic Period in
Palestine.
The Mousterian culture buried their dead in pits and sometimes but not
always, coving the body with stones. Such was found at Mount Carmel with
the body placed in a contracted position, knees drawn up and the hands
place near the breast. A few funerary objects were placed close to the
remains .Many hundreds of burials of the Natufian Mesolithic culture have
been discovered and during this period the internments were of 2 types.
(1) The body was placed in the grave in the contracted position but on its
side. This could well be collective or single internment.
(2) The skull alone was interned.
The women and sometimes men, wore pendants, necklaces, anklets which
were made from shell or bone. Some skeletons were painted red.
Once the Neolithic period advanced, new burial customs also came into
play, with skulls buried in the floor parts of houses as found in Jericho but
Megalithic monuments were also erected which in fact was the dolmen or
table grave. The tomb itself was covered with small stones and soil.75
Those found in Palestine were all in the semi-arid wilderness as in the
Jordan Valley hills. The date put on them at the moment was 4000 BC.
In the tombs linked to them single and double burials were found to have
taken place.
During the Chalcolithic Period, (Copper Age) 4000-3000 BC, on the coastal
plains the first clay ossuarys were used and most no longer than 2 feet in
length but all contained human bones. All the bones were detached.
Such ossuarys were found stored in artificial caves in the soft sandstone.
90% of those discovered were built in the shape of small houses with
gabled roofs. The opening was large enough to insert a skull and some
bones then a door was closed over.
Some ossuarys were in the shape of animals and at times, a much smaller
one and was placed inside the larger one.
Cyst (Pits) graves were also common during this time.
EARLY BRONZE AGE.
Funeral rites and culture moved forwards with graves in the Holy Land
being built more carefully than human dwellings.
The burials were single or collective and shaft graves were now common.
Such a shaft would lead deep underground to a burial chamber.
Each such tomb would have pottery vessels and many were tea pot jugs,
plates bowls and cups.76
The remains of food in such were also discovered in the tombs.
At Babe dh-Dhra there is at least 20,000 such tombs as well as shaft
graves. Some of the tombs here were stone lined and stone roofed and one
shaft did lead to a number of burial chambers.
Pots in such chambers were placed around the walls while in the centre
of the floor the bones were piled.
A charnel house was also found here in this area and was mud brick 35 x
17 feet. There were many skulls at the door way and inside mixed layers of
pottery and bones.
In the same area at a later date cairn burials were now taking place which
was no more than a shallow pit in which a body was placed with some
goods and pottery and then filled in with stones but showed slightly above
the ground surface. There may well be a link here to design and use to
those cairn burial sites in the UK and Ireland.77

Middle Bronze Age brought various types of burial practice and in some
place the dead were buried within the confines of a town and close to
houses with the tombs built of stone and reopened when needed again.
Collective burial was now also practised on a much larger scale but the
numbers were < 40 bodies for each tomb with pottery and food also placed
inside.
The body would be placed on its back with the knees raised and with each
new burial the bones of the last were moved to one side. Cumuli were also
scattered over the hills but very few have been excavated.
A stone cyst on a bed of flat stone was found, 3x 5 feet x 3 feet, the body
had been laid on flat stones with a jar and some grinding stones near by.
The Tumulus was made up of stones and earth and was raised over the
grave to a height of 15 feet. The diameter was 14 feet.
By the time Hyksos ruled Palestine a new type of burial was now in place.
This was dead warriors and their horses were interned together.Weapons
and pottery were also placed in the burial area.
LATE BRONZE AGE BURIALS.
Tombs now were made up of a shaft and sloping towards the grave which
led to a well rounded or square burial chamber and over 200 pottery shards
have been recovered from one tomb.
IRON AGE BURIALS
Oval pit with a ledge and a stone cover and also a shaft that was in the78
sandstone and the body placed here then blocked with a large stone.
Then came the multi-chamber tomb with an open court from which steps
led into an underground anti-chamber where on the walls were high ledges
for placing the body. Forty four such burial places were found in one area.
ROMAN PERIOD.
Mainly burial caves but not many and range from small family tombs to
large catacombs for the rich or Royalty. In time fancy tombs were built
inside of caves but also as a stand alone tomb with underground passages
and chambers.
Large Jewish necropolis was also built at this time along side the less
formal burials.Some of the shafts could run as deep as 20 feet into a burial
chamber and both were lined with dressed stone.
In such, there would always be a wooden coffin.
THE BURIAL PLACE OF JESUS.
As I have suggested by my research above then the burial place, if he was
buried, would be linked to one of the above burial practices of the time.
There would be no getting away from this evidence but one thing I do know
from the evidence research data is that a special or personal tomb was not
designed for the body of Jesus in the Holy Land.
CHAPTER 10.
HOLY LAND ARCHAEOLOGY.
THE FAMILY TOMB LINKS.
It was in 1980 that bulldozers working there uncovered a tomb at79
Talpiot, Jerusalem and Jewish archaeologists were brought in to map the
tomb and remove a number of ossuarys to a warehouse.
The outside of the tomb had a round ring symbol on it with an upside-
down chevron surrounding the ring. Inside under the slit were 3 skulls that
had been placed there, almost at the entrances of the 3 burial niches.
There is evidence that before the discovery and many years before, the
tomb had been broken into by tomb robbers who removed artefacts such
as the normal oil lamps of the time, glass bottles that may have held
perfume and clay tea pot like jugs.
I would suggest that some bones were also removed for the moment the
reasons unknown. The real possibility that bones or skulls had been added
at a later date cannot be dismissed.
If one or more of these bones were taken there is no good forensic
evidence that supports that they could be linked to Jesus or other
members of his family though whoever took them may indeed thought that
were one of the 'grails' much looked for.
Four of the ossuarys show no type of inscriptions but the other 6 do
which makes ten in all that was removed in a legal way but there may well80
have been two broken into or removed by tomb robbers be they Crusaders
or Templars. For the moment the ossuarys are claimed to be identified as;
A very plain almost unmarked and the plainest of all the ossuarys said
to be that of Jesus, son of Joseph.
Another one ID as that of Yosa or Joseph but not known if this Joseph was
the father of Jesus or Joseph of Arimathea.
If the bone box contained any remains of Joseph of Arimathea then he was
placed here after the death of Jesus many years later and this tomb may
well have been his family tomb as suggested by others.
The 3rd one is ID as that of Maria = Mary and in Hebrew letters but the
Latin version of the Hebrew name (Roman) but is it the wife of Joseph or
that of Mara, Mary Magdalene who must therefore have become part of this
family through marriage.
Marianne was Mary Magdalene real name but may also have been known
as Maraas the Greek inscription suggests.
Another bone box had the name Matia on it which suggests Matthew but
not known if it is Matthew the Gospel writer.
The main box that throws a spanner in the works is the one marked Judah,
son of Jesus, and this being a very small ossuary which does suggest
made for a child.
I would suggest that the Joseph mentioned is not the father of Jesus
because it is more than likely he died and was buried in Nazareth and not
Jerusalem, and not ending up in the Talpiot tomb. Unless of course the81
bones were removed from Nazareth and placed in the tomb at Talpiot as a
secondary burial?
One has to keep in mind that like today first names like John, Mary,
Joseph, Matthew, Simon and so on were also common in the Holy Land
and thought were recorded in Hebrew or Greek, Jesus may not be the
Jesus of the Bible. There is not any evidence to support this was in fact the
tomb of Jesus of the bible.
From a forensic point of view the finding of the tomb due to building
construction and of course surrounding destruction scattered or lost
forensic evidence including bones and bone fragments.
The IAA, (Israel Antiquities Authority) were more than slow to move on the
discovery on March 28th 1980, a Friday and as it was getting close to the
Sabbath with sunset a few hours away no one was sent till the Sunday.
In the meantime, the tomb entrance was open for anyone who wanted to
enter could and children nearby discovered skulls and bits of bone and
were in fact throwing them around.
The area was in fact little more now than an open cast mine or new
building site with materials being used for roads.
All that was left of the skulls was brow ridges and bone fragments with a
few teeth. Two of the skulls were smashed into many fragments.82
In time the site was named and numbered as IAA 80/500-509.
What now is known about the tomb area outline is that there had been an
outer courtyard in the very front of the Tomb faade that was carved into
limestone and some chalk, not sandstone, though it had remained un-
discovered under red mud and weeds for many years.
The courtyard was placed at 15 feet wide and to the north of this; a wall
had been wrecked by the work crew a few days before.
The entrance to the anti-chamber was carved into the north wall, the seal
pointing the way down to a much larger chamber.
Skull fragments were mixed together here with disturbed soil and rubble,
a forensic and archaeology nightmare in fact. The skulls found however in
the anti-chamber had not been buried according to Jewish practice of the
times. I found this to be odd and well out of normal Jewish practices
around 30 to 80 AD. Somehow, something is not right here be it the skulls
or the type of burial.
The IAA did not move onto the site until dawn on the Sunday and though
work had been stopped much outer damage had been done.83
Now all that could be done outside was salvage archaeology a hit and
more miss ,exercise than one thinks. Pressure was of course on the IAA
because all work had been stopped and time lost to the construction
workers was also money lost. Instead of having months, even weeks the
evidence gathering to a few days at the most.
The inside of the tomb to be mapped and photographed as well as the sign
above the door V and possible Y with a circle in the middle.
It should be noted that the inside of the tomb was damp and mouldy as
well as a possible health risk to those in the archaeology field working in
there.
The floor was covered in deep red mud. (terra rossa) The evidence in this
research suggests that the mud on the floor had taken hundreds of years
to accumulate there and that all bone fragments outside of the seal stone
had been the result of past tomb robbery.
As for the mud, I suggest that most of this was bat droppings over many
years, mainly from the larger Horse-shoe bats and that it was a summer
roost.(See above)
Jews in 1AD to 100 AD did not leave the remains of family members
outside a tomb to rot away and be picked over by black kites or dogs.
Inside the ossuary niches were now discovered under the red mud as well
as two arched burial shelves. There is without doubt that such were the
primary sites. They were cut into the stone on the north and west walls of
the tomb.84
Whoever had ordered the burial shelves had money and power because
they were carved out of solid rock.
It should be kept in mind that only 20% of all ossuarys discovered in
Jerusalem have had inscriptions on them and 80% none.

A few that were removed on site were inscribed in Aramaic linked to
Hebrew, Hebrew, but linked to Latin and one in Greek.
A skull was also discovered inside the tomb but somehow seemed out of
place where it was found for it was not on any shelf or part of an ossuary.
Where the first skull was discovered two more were found also making the
number of 3 of skulls in a place they should not have been.
The circle above the door suggested a royal bloodline but I suggest was
a blank and never finished. If it had been the family tomb of Jesus it would
have been even if Jesus had not been interned there.
It was here that one of the skulls had been found earlier by children
playing. The three skulls that had been found inside and not in a place
where one would expect to find them ,seemed to have been placed there at
a much later date but placed as some sort of sign or symbol.
Such bones or fragments could not be classified as The Grail unless
someone was sure who they belonged to. So far this has not happened.
It was possible to extract DNA data from the skulls and bone fragments to
see if there was in fact a genetic family link to the remains but this was not
carried out for some reason.
As it therefore stands and with limited evidence that has been supplied as
data for research as well as on site data recorded I am now of the opinion
that the above Tomb is not one that the remains of Jesus the man was
placed or that of his family that were close to him. Therefore from this point
of view and evidence there is no grail material here that would stand up to
close scrutiny.
Of course that will not stop people writing books and papers on the tomb
but what I ask is in their evidence that they are going to present to the
public eye and ear? Very little if the truth be known because what will be
written and of course re-written will all be rehashed data that borders on
fiction and fairy stories with the word maybe included in the text at least
30 times.
Expect it to be added to of course, like the unmarked boxes in the tomb
and skulls, to the Knights Templars, Alien bodies interned after a
spaceship crash, a hidden grail and King Arthur, and a long dead female
Egyptian Goddess who turns out to be male or vice versa.
Nothing like a clear and focused mind when it comes down to archaeology
and history where truth and evidence is needed!
Data on the Dead Sea Scrolls past and present presents some vital clues
to the thinking then as well as interpretation of such which I had to include
below. The Scroll Data could not be left out of the Grail research.
CHAPTER 12.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLL DATA
There will be problems with many people in accepting the Dead Sea Scrolls
as archeology data that is based on fact but one thing I do know is that
all the scroll scripts were written as what was believed at the time and may
have been doctored and added to by others.
There is also again the problem of languages and also the time-line factors
because they don't always add up as good strong evidence yet there could
well be clues within them that point to what the grail or grails are.
Questions may well be asked were the scrolls written or re-rewritten before
the death of Jesus or after when the Christ Movement was in full swing
because Jesus became 'Christ' after his death not before?
The scribes who wrote the scrolls may well have been making copies of the
very old originals or parts of them.
No doubt this will be found in the style of letters and the written word
itself.
My own research into the Dead Sea Scrolls and Copper Scrolls started ten
years ago and what started as a major Archaeology Research Project
became also a major forensic investigation into all the details.
It had all the makings of a good detective story as I uncovered details
of misconduct, politics of the worse kind, maybe even murder, shady
deals, good and bad archaeology practice, political intervention, fraud, and
reputations ruined and made all because of the archaeology finds at
Qumran and there-after.
Move over Dan Brown
THE HISTORY
The first findings of the scrolls in 1947 in a cave at Qumran by a young
Taamireh Bedouin teenager, Muhammad adh-Dhib, opened up Pandora's
Box in the world of religion and politics.
Archaeology Departments world-wide became hostile to others and more
so if they had any material from cave 1, from now on known as 1Q and the
others later discovered as 2Q, 3Q, and so on.
In the beginning it started off as a battle for content of scroll fragments
later to become a war.
I suspect also that somewhere in the dry sands of the Qumran area there
are modern day human bones to be yet discovered and foul play should
not be ruled out and at least three shallow graves. There were a number of
people for such a shallow grave in the beginning of this scroll saga.88
The Qumran area and the caves became the stage, the actors to play all
parts were still not on stage but were gathering in the wings, and the rest
were scattered world wide, playing bit parts when their turn came.
In the lighting of the stage set, a great shadow of the Church of Rome
loomed and elsewhere, more religious shadows fought for a place in the
lime-light or take centre stage if and when they got the chance.
There were many who wanted the chance, dead bodies or murdered
reputations mattered little to them as long as they reached their own
personal goal and had a paper published or got rich on stolen scroll
fragments as well as fraud.
In this research at first I wanted to avoid going over old ground about
the Dead Sea and Copper Scrolls.
This in a short time became impossible because to get the full story I
needed to take a hard look again at all the data that I had and in doing so
discovered much more than scrolls and scroll fragments. So for this part of
my research I had to re-write and re-think the research.
Therefore I have had to list all my research data and include it here.
(WADY QUMRAN MANUSCRIPTS)
We know in the winter of 1947 a young boy discovered the 1st lot of scrolls
in jars and scattered fragments in 1Q cave and took some scrolls and in
time passed some or all on. I have no doubt at all this was done for money
and who could blame him because times were hard and he had no89
knowledge what such scrolls were.

His friend who he brought to 1Q later removed a few more scrolls and from
here the archaeology world became involved as well as religious groups.
The Second World War was over and a new war was starting in the Holy
Land.
THE PEOPLE INVOLVED FROM THE BEGINNING.
VERSION ONE .
2 TAAMIREH BEDOUIN BOYS, ONE BEING MUHAMMED adh-DHIB.
(see photograph 1) WINTER OF 1947 FEB OR MARCH.
(There is still much debate in which months the cave was discovered
along with the first scrolls and fragments. I would suggest early March)
The summer of 1947 has also been put forward by some archaeology field
workers and not the winter. This would not be the case as flocks of goats
and sheep would need tending once in spring more so than in summer and
the lambs already born.
KHALIL ISKANDER SHANHIN (KANDO) GENERAL DEALER AND
ASSYRIAN CHRISTIAN.90
Second contact with the scrolls.
Took the scrolls he had obtained from the Bedouin to the Syrian Convent
of St. Mark in the Old City (Jerusalem).He was now alerted that there might
be more scrolls to be uncovered in 1Q and worth something so he and a
friend, GEORGE, went back to the 1Qcave and collected a number of larger
fragments. They wanted to cut out the middle man and fast.
It was then that they let the Syrian authorities of St. Marks into their secret.
That is, from my research, the first scrolls found, the fragments later
and more than likely scrolls from 1Q.91

ATHANASIUS YESHUE SAMUEL, ARCHBISHOP, SYRIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH.
Was not a Hebrew scholar but his monastery did contain many old text
scripts before he came in contact with the Dead Sea Scrolls out of 1Q.
St Marks Monastery is known to have a vast collection of ancient
documents from past history and seeing the scrolls for the first time was
aware that they were important to someone.
He first came in contact with the scrolls from 1Q in April 1947 but it was
not until July that he requested Kando (see above) along with George
Isaiah to set up a meeting with him with the two young youths who first
found the scrolls in 1Q and to bring them and the scrolls to St. Marks.
The two young Arab teenagers did in fact turn up at the gates of St.
Marks with the scrolls in a bag.92
Jerusalem being a place of unrest between Jews and Arabs the gate
keepers were unaware that Samuel had requested the youths to come
turned them away and would not let them enter.
There is little doubt from my research that these two young men did in
fact have at least 4 scrolls with them, maybe more fragments and were
angry when they left the gates of St. Marks.
It would have been more than an insult to the Bedouin men because not
only had they come a long way by requests from Kando and Isaiah, but on
getting there were dismissed out of hand by the people on the gate.
Both young men it seems, refused to have anything more to do with Kando
and Isaiah and one of them, name not known, sold his share of the scrolls
to a local dealer in the City of Bethlehem.

This Dealer I was to learn was a Jewish merchant inside the Jaffa Gate and
wanted to buy more such scrolls if they could be found and for a good
price. George Isaiah however did persuade the Arab youths to refuse such
an offer but again come with him in two weeks to St. Marks Monastery.
Kando however was able to buy the remaining scrolls later of the other
man then sold them on to Samuel at St. Marks There were 5 scrolls in all
but one was badly damaged.
The four scrolls that Samuel now had were and are listed as;
OF ISAIAH OLD TESTEMENT
GENESIS APOCRYPHON.
BOOK OF HABAKKUK ---COMMENTS.93
COMMUNITY RULE.
ARAMAIC SCROLL (Damaged and unopened)
What happened to the damaged 5th scroll I don't know but suggest that
Samuel also obtained this or at least some of the fragments?
The 5th scroll was reported broken in two.
Samuel then sent George Isaiah and one of his priests, Father Yusef with
him back to 1Q cave where they would work only at night because of army
patrols in the area and this they did, finding another jar of scrolls and
fragments as well of other scrolls that have never been seen.
There is little doubt in my mind that Samuel bought all what was found at
a price and George Isaiah went away a happy man to the bank.
Samuel needed to know the real age of the scrolls he now had so he
himself went to see a Syrian expert Stephen Hanna Stephen who worked in
the Department Of Antiquities in Palestine but Archbishop Samuel was

advised later by him that the scrolls he had control off were of a resent date
and not as old as he himself thought. This is not surprising of course I
discovered, because Stephen worked in the field of Arab history and had
little knowledge of Hebrew archaeology if any at all.
The experts started to come out of the walls like cockroaches to a dark
kitchen at night. What came to be a secret turned out as a major farce like
an old black and white movie, a real comedy of errors? Within a year it was
very hard to tell the good guys from the bad, who was screwing who and
for how much?94
Samuel then consulted one Father A.S. Marmadji about the scrolls he had
and was under the impression that the good Father would at lease have
some knowledge seeing he was a well known Arabist and from the French
Dominican School of Archaeology. Father Marmadji was as much use to
Samuel at that moment in time as a wet mere cat in a snake pit.
Father Marmadji no doubt disappointed and his ego taking a knock he then
looked up another expert, a Dutch Scholar, Father J.P.M. van der Ploeg
who was in fact staying at the Dominican Monastery of St Stephen which
the School of Archaeology had serious links. The Dutch scholar was then
sent for and came to view the said scrolls who almost at once was able to
state that the largest scroll was that of the book of Isaiah.
Samuel no doubt was delighted because this Dutch scholar was well
known and worked in the Ecole Biblique et Archaeology Francaise de
Jerusalem which was run by Dominican Monks but paid in part at that time
by the French Government.
Again he was told by the Dutch expert on scrolls and old text that the
Scrolls Samuel had passed to him to examine were not old text and
dismissed him out of hand.
It would have been like a slap in the face with a wet fish for the Archbishop
that day.
Little did this Dutch expert in fact know that he had a priceless number
of old scrolls in his fingers but lost them because he failed to look at them
closely and by closely I mean very close. He had stated that the Isaiah95
scroll was just that but not written in old text as the timeline suggested.
This Dutch expert did know two things. One, that the scrolls or scroll he
looked at was in fact the real thing and two, if he could, he would offer to
buy it.
Samuel was no archaeology expert but he was in no way stupid and he
knew that he had something of value. Money rather than history was his
thinking.
By mid September 1947 Samuel was fed up trying to get an age of his
scrolls so arranged one last meeting with his own supervisor in the Syrian
church at Homs. This Church in Homs is north of Damascus.
By now I suspect Archbishop Samuel was beginning to feel more than
stressed out and running around in small and large circles. He was now
getting close to becoming paranoid in his strong belief that what he had
was of great value.
What went on between Samuel and his supervisor behind closed doors we
may never know, but something did and I am now of the opinion that
funding was on hand for Samuel for him to form a working party and carry
out more work in 1Q at Qumran and obtain anything of interest.

It is here from my research that the plot thickens because what went on
behind those closed doors in Damascus was not just between Samuel and
his supervisor.
There was someone or a few other people who could read part of the
scrolls and who advised strongly that Samuel continues his work of any96
recovery of other scrolls and all fragments. There was also a mass of
35mm photographs taken of fragments and scrolls.
Before I go into this I was impressed by Millar Burrows version of what
happen once the first scrolls were discovered and Samuel and a few others
got involved. Millar Burrows is no slough when it comes to Near East
archaeology and more so the archaeology of the Holy Land.
His version was in dairy form and was more upfront in his observations
and comments than many of the other people involved.
Palestine and Israel would soon be at loggerheads and internal conflict was
soon rife with shootings with bombings taking place daily and movements
of people restricted. Burrows knew the area well and its history.
Burrows thought that the first scrolls were found by the two youths from
the Taamirah tribe was in late February or early March 1947. The
Archbishop who we already know stated that he first heard of the scrolls in
the month of Nisan which I suggest is April and not March, Father van der
Ploeg seen them in July. Khalil Eskander and George Isaiah is said by
Burrows to have brought one of the scrolls to Archbishop Samuel to view,
the Archbishop was puzzled because the writing was not Syriac but
Hebrew. Then he broke off a small piece of scroll and burned it , by the
smell of the smoke he was able to tell it was leather and not parchment.
Pleased with this bit of non scientific witchcraft he told the merchants that
he would buy the scrolls.
It seems by Burrows account that the merchants were unable to make97
contact again with the Bedouin youths for at least a number of weeks and
who came to Bethlehem on the first Saturday of the month of Tammuz
(July). The Archbishop (Samuel) then had a phone call from Khalil
Eskander the merchant in Bethlehem who stated that there were now three
Bedouins with scrolls with him as he spoke.
For some reason the Archbishop did not see the three men because
Eskander sent them directly to George Isaiah, the Jerusalem merchant who
was the one who took the men to the monastery to meet Samuel and is in
the first version were turned away by a priest who did not like the look of
the group.
From my point of view, both versions about the turning away from the
monastery seem to match except that George Isaiah was with the two
young men in the second version. There were also three men with George
Isaiah not two as in the first version.
Archbishop Samuel was more than a little annoyed when he found out what
had happened at the Monastery gate and phoned Eskander right away and
not George Isaiah for some reason.
Eskander informed the Archbishop that two of the men had now left their
scrolls with him for safe keeping but the third man, unhappy the way he
had been treated by Christians, took his share of the scrolls to the Muslim
sheikh at Bethlehem and sold them. It may well be that this was the part of
a scroll that was later obtained, for a price, by Professor Sukenik of the
Hebrew University sometime in November 1947.98
It seems more than a bit odd to me when I carried out this research, that a
Jewish Merchant inside Jaffa Gate offered to buy the scrolls of the two
Arabs (Muslims) and George Isaiah persuaded the men not to sell.
At this moment in time you could say that tensions between Muslims and
Jews were high and the area was a dangerous one to be, no matter what
side you were on.
So, there was a lot of coming and going, phone calls and messages by this
small group of people and I discovered as Burrows did, that the two young
Arabs did return to Eskanders shop in Bethlehem along with George Isaiah
and all four then headed off to see Archbishop Samuel. Of course this time
he would see them and welcomed them with open arms because he could
now buy five manuscripts, some damaged and two in fact part of one,
Burrows named the broken one as the Manual of Discipline.
There was of course also the great long manuscript of Isaiah, a
commentary on the book of Habakkuk and a badly damaged Aramaic script
which still had not been unrolled for inspection, known at that time as the
forth scroll.
This suggests from my research that the scrolls that Samuel was
presented on that day were the real thing and not copies made in the last
50 years past but copies all the same.
It seems that by now that the question of the scrolls was going to get much
more complicated and at least three groups of people were involved if not
more.99
A Dr. Trever, a good friend of Millar Burrows, on their return from the USA
was able to detach one column of the damaged scroll from the suggested
text and linked it directly to the lost book of Lamech which from then on
was called the Lamech Scroll by Trever and Burrows.
While all this was going on, Professor E.L. Sukenik was in the USA and it
was November 25 th 1947 that he himself first learnt of a fragment of a scroll.
It was shown to him by an antiquities dealer and was asked directly would
he buy the scroll that it came from. Sukenik I suggest may have thought it
was a forgery but said yes and four days later he arranged to have the
dealer bring the scrolls or scroll to him. This was duly done and the dealer
did turn up with help to carry the two jars and scrolls and scroll fragments.
Sukenik did not waste much time because he knew what he was looking at
was real and old. Money changed hands quickly and once everyone had
gone Sukenik wasted no time moving jars and scrolls from Bethlehem to
the much safer Jewish Jerusalem. It was the same day that the UN passed
the resolution that recommended the partition of Palestine and things went100
down hill fast from a political point of view on all sides.
Sukenik felt safe now, excited even but was not aware that Archbishop
Samuel also had scrolls and only fund out by chance in December the
same year. The news came from a Liberty assistant that by chance had
made a visit to the Monastery and heard about the scrolls there. It would
seem that the scrolls had been kept from him for at least four to five
months while he was in the USA working.
What did turn up in my research that in January 1948 Sukenik did get a
letter from Anton Kiraz, a member of the Syrian Orthodox Church no less,
and informed Sukenik in that letter that he had some old manuscripts that
he would like him to look at closely.
Things being unhealthy and very dangerous in the Arab and Jewish
quarters the meeting took place in the YMCA which was in Military Zone B
where passes were issued to the city. Sukenik and Kiraz met and the
Sukenik was surprised and delighted that what Kiraz had brought with him
matched parts of the scrolls he already had and Kiraz did admit that the
came from a cave in the Dead Sea area, Kiraz had indeed been to the cave.
Kiraz had Sukenik hooked and he offered to sell the manuscripts to the
Hebrew University and said he would also like to meet the Archbishop to
work out the financial terms of the deal.101
Samuel later said that all this had been done without his consent or even
knowledge.
As for Sukenik he was allowed to borrow three of the scrolls for two days
and he arranged for a number of columns to be copied which I should add
he later published, from the Isaiah manuscript. Sukenik is said to have
returned the borrowed scrolls on the 6 th February 1948 to Kiraz and then
was shown two others which belonged to the Manual of Discipline.
Archbishop Samuel had more plans afoot and he got George Isaiah to get
the two young men who found the first scrolls to take him to the cave (Q1).
When he got to the cave it seems there were more scrolls, some damaged
of course and one undamaged one. There was also it is reported (Burrows)
that there was also a strange and out of place, a piece of wood lying within102
scroll fragments.
Somehow the Archbishop had one Father Yusef go to the cave again and
remove any fragments and any scrolls he could find. The large jar he left as
it was too heavy to move.
Samuel and his boss had their main meeting but after that they had another
meeting behind closed doors and without the two Arab youths.
Also present at that meeting and arrived at the same time as Samuel was
a Miles Copeland and his wife Lorraine Copeland.
Miles Copeland was at that time the CIA s representative in the Damascus
office but may have been going under the name of Richard Copeland a
name he used in the past for his work, as well as others, in the Middle East
and when he was in the old OSS during World War II.
My research did show that in Copelands own words did have a visit from
a sly Egyptian merchant who took out of a dirty sack a scroll that was
flaking around the edges badly and bits being blown away into the street
which were never recovered or so they said. This may well have been the
third man that had been at the Monastery but was turned away by the priest
as well as his two other friends.
Why did he in fact mention later his meeting with the sly
Egyptian merchant because he was in fact in Syria and not Egypt?
If Copeland had been anyway good at his job he would have known that the
man was either an Egyptian or a Syrian. In those days the USA or UK
personnel linked all Arabs as Egyptians and would call them rag-heads103
even today this still happens.
Miles Copeland was in the CIA at the time and was also known to be part
of the Seed Plant Project as well as being party to the overthrow or
attempted overthrow of the Syrian leader General huk Husni-Alzaim in
1948.
One thing I do know is that the CIA Agents was very active in the Middle
East sowing seeds between Jews, Arabs and other Muslim groups in the
area. In time these seeds would become a bitter harvest and still going on
today.
The Arab and Jews were soon at another's throats soon afterwards.
As for his wife Lorraine Copeland she was a well known in the field of
Middle East archaeology and no ones fool. In fact she was much better
educated than her husband, who never got around getting a degree, had no
knowledge of archaeology that would be worth writing home about but if he
could obtain the scrolls for the USA or himself he would do it.
It was from this point that Miles Copeland agreed to have the unknown
scroll photographed back in his office in Damascus and in fact he, his wife
and a few others went there and did that.
My research revised in 2010 did revel more about this strange affair and
Copeland was under the impression that he had the scroll, the Old
Testament of Daniel.
Sukenik was said to have met an Armenian art dealer between the Jewish
and Arab Zones in Jerusalem at night, each one of the men on opposite104
sides of the barbed wire. A very dangerous place to be for both men and
then the Armenian male showed Sukenik some fragments of a scroll that
an Arab antique from Bethlehem had come to him with the day before.
This dealer from Bethlehem said he obtained them from some Bedouin
men.
What puzzles me greatly about this account is that two men meet at night
in a very dangerous place next to the barbed wire boundary and set about
talking business. Some sort of lamp or light had to be available for
Sukenik to examine the fragments, a dangerous occupation seeing Jews
where killing Arabs and British soldiers, Arabs were killing Jews and firing
on anything and British soldiers were caught in the middle and no doubt
would fire on any men near the wire if they thought that their own lives
were at stake?
Whatever happen and how seemed to set Sukenik on a quest so he
arranged again to set up another meeting for three days later.
Sukenik I suggest, being an archaeologist knew he had seen something
important so he slipped out of Jerusalem on the 29 th of November 1947 and
made his way to Bethlehem in secret. There he was shown three scrolls
that he was told were up for sale and that somehow Archbishop Samuel
has missed or at that moment in time, was unaware of. There was for
viewing the two jars that the scrolls hand been stored in. He was allowed to
take the three scrolls home to study in detail, an act of trust it seems or a
ploy by someone. He was still at this studying in detail when at midnight he105
heard on the radio and with some alarm that the UN had voted for a State of
Israel. Now he knew that somehow he had to buy the scrolls and his son,
Yigael Yadin, Chief of operations of the Haganah- a secret militia and
Jewish organization, shared his fathers convictions and concerns that the
scrolls should be bought, and fast.
Three scrolls for sale and all linked now to the New Jewish State and the
politics that came with it.
It was around the 27 th January 1948, Sukenik set up a meeting with
Archbishop Samuel and again this meeting was to be top secret to be held
this time in the British Sector in the YMCA, Jerusalem. The librarian here
was a strong member of the Archbishops flock. To get there to this
meeting Sukenik had first obtain a pass which he got from the District
Officer, Prof; Biran.
The meeting by all accounts was held in a very private room and Sukenik
was then shown the Archbishops scrolls. He was even allowed to borrow
then, again on trust, to examine at his home.
On the 6 th February 1948, Sukenik returned the scrolls back to Archbishop
Samuel but could not raise the funding at that moment in time to buy them,
much to his disappointment. He tried of course to get the Archbishop to
lower the price as we all would in the interests of archaeology history but
Samuel said no. The price for the scrolls would stand.
A few days later, Sukenik did find the funding, from where and by whom I
dont know but he was like a child going shopping. Then a letter arrived106
from Archbishop Samuel saying that the scrolls were no longer for sale.
Little did Sukenik know at this time of disappointment, that the bold
Archbishop Samuel had been dipping his pen, making phone calls and
sending cables to US scholars and other US officials, all who had seen the
scroll photographs. Samuel may not have been an archaeologist but he
could smell money, dollar green and he had been offered a much higher
price for all fragments and the scrolls he had. There was no way, even if he
knew what the new buying price was, that Sukenik could find the money in
his war torn country.
So if this deal was with the Copeland Gang then it had the blessing from
the US Government if not Rome. Copeland would have had his archaeology
trained wife to back him up that the scrolls were real.
It is stated that there were problems that Copeland himself had overlooked
or claimed to have overlooked and that was when they un-rolled the scroll
on the flat roof there was a wind and fragments were blown away and
across the roof tops as well as a good part of the parchment.
If this is true it does show that Copeland was missing a few brain cells,
common sense lacking on a mission and his wife, trained in Near East
archaeology stood there mouth open and not protesting in any form.
What was left was photographed with a 35mm camera that was not bought
locally but part of the CIA equipment on hand.
30 frames of 35 mm film were taken of the scroll on the roof but 30 frames
would not have been enough to photograph the whole damaged scroll in107
any detail.
What puzzled me here about the scroll opened on the roof is why Miles
Copeland's wife, who was good at archaeology, did not warn them of the
possible damage to this scroll in the conditions at that time?
The said photographs taken by Copeland were the sent to Beirut and
examined in more detail by someone who knew a great deal about the
ancient languages if the region.
The text it has been stated was said to be part of the book of David Old
Testament with some of the writing in Hebrew and some in Aramaic.
This may well have been part of a scroll, David Apocryphon 2Q =Q2 22.
If it was then someone had already found cave 2Q and removed at least
one scroll and fragments?
For some reason known only to his wife and himself, Copeland did not
follow this up strange scroll because both scroll and the man who had it
vanished never to be seen again, the photographs that were taken left in a
drawer and later to also vanish?108
Fragments of the same scroll were in fact found five years later which
suggests there was such a scroll at one time.
The photographs of that scroll never became public as far as I am aware.
There little doubt in my mind that Samuel was in Syria with 3 scrolls and
only one was opened on that day, damaged as it was.
Somehow what Copeland and his wife looked at and ID may have been the
Hebrew text of Isaiah, not Daniel or David yet they were told it was in
Hebrew and Aramaic.
Samuel still wanted to find out about the age of the scrolls he had so as
we now know, he was put in touch with Professor Eleazar Sukenik of the
Hebrew University who arranged a meeting with him to view the scrolls.
From my research above we know what happened next.
As time went on more scrolls and fragments were discovered in 11 caves in
all. There is in my opinion a strong link to other scrolls and fragments
discovered later but not in the caves of Qumran.
As far as the archaeology site is concerned known as the Khirbet Qumran
site not only had ruins but a vast burial area and all within a short distance
from all the caves.
Following upon the first discoveries of Scrolls in the Judean Wilderness
(1947/1948), Prof. Eliezer Sukenik proposed, primarily on the basis of his
reading of the Serekh Hayahad (Discipline Scroll of the Unity Brotherhood),
that they were writings of the Essene sect.

Pliny the Elder, after all, had described that sect as having settled in109
the Judean Wilderness as refugees from the destruction of Jerusalem, and
as being near the settlement of En Gedi.
During that same early period of discoveries, the Dominican scholar-priest
Roland de Vaux expressed the opinion that these Essenes (whom Pliny
had described as (celibates) had lived near the area where the original
Scroll cave and others being discovered nearby, for a total number of
eleven were located.
On this basis de Vaux began exploring and excavating the nearest place of
Habitation, namely Khirbet Qumran, and eventually announced that he had
uncovered the very settlement of the Essenes described by Pliny; he went
on to offer specific interpretations of structures within the settlement,such
as The Scriptorium, the Essenes Refectory, and Ritual Baths that facilitated
the claimed Essenes purification interpretations that appeared to justify his
designation of the settlement in its entirety as the Laura, or monastery, of
the Essenes.
At this stage everyone wanted on the band wagon because if de Vaux said
it, then it must be right.
Researchers around the world concerned with the study of the antiquities
of ancient Israel and the Second Temple period accepted, and to a
considerable extent still accept, Roland de Vauxs interpretation of the site.
It may be seen that he expressed his views without waiting at least 3 to
4 years for the possibility of specific material proof that might emerge to
substantiate his theory.110
No Scrolls had been discovered within Kh. Qumran itself during the period
of his excavations, and none were ever to be found there.
In time, however pieces of evidence would indeed be discovered that
contradicted and today increasingly contradict, de Vauxs opinion and that
of all writers who have continued in essence to support his view.
The major findings include the following:
Discovery of the Copper Scroll in Cave 3: This text, first unrolled in1955,
describes the hiding of scrolls and of gold and silver ingots, but also as
has been shown particularly by B.Z. Luria in his study of this manuscript of
vessels and related objects carrying the same names as those of objects
and implements used by the Jerusalem priesthood in Temple rituals.
Among the place-names mentioned in this Scroll in connection with the
sequestration of the various items are places near Jericho (itself also
mentioned by name), the Wadi Achor, and a specific place within the Wadi
Qidron which according to recent discoveries by Israeli archaeologists was
evidently one of the Wadi's whereby inhabitants of Jerusalem fled, during
the Roman siege of 70 C.E., to regions of the Judean Wilderness.
The likely home of the Copper Scroll thus appeared to be Jerusalem but I
am of the opinion that it was made elsewhere, later moved to Jerusalem
and ended up in cave 3.
However, Pre de Vauxs reaction to the discovery which posed an obvious
danger to his theory was simply to label it a forgery.
Discovery of manuscript fragments at Masada: According to Josephus,111
large numbers of inhabitants of Jerusalem fled to Masada during the siege
and subsequent Roman onslaught and the Scroll fragments discovered
there are clearly material evidence pointing in this direction.

Decipherment of the Copper Scroll, was in itself of such nature as to cast
doubt on Pre de Vauxs opinion that the hiding of the earlier-found Scrolls
in the 11 caves was specifically because of their proximity to the claimed
Essene settlement; for with this new evidence common sense dictated that
the hiding might more likely have been accomplished by Jerusalemites
fleeing eastward and southward towards both Masada and that other great
fortress of the Jews which was Machaerus, east of the Dead Sea.
This configuration of events was further indicated by the fact that the
church Father Origen had utilized a Greek Bible translation discovered,
according to him, together with other Hebrew and Greek books in a jar near
Jericho, and by a report written circa 800 A.D. by the Nestorian Patriarch
Timotheus I concerning the discovery of various writings in Hebrew script,
Biblical and otherwise, in a cave near Jericho.
(The proposal of the late Prof. Yadin, chief excavator of Masada to the
effect that these fragments were brought to Masada specifically by the
claimed Essenes of Qumran, is not supported by no piece of historical
Evidence, and even many traditional Qumranologists would eventually
begin shying away from it, as they also began abandoning de Vauxs claim
that the Copper Scroll was a forgery.)
I find it more than a little odd that Prof.Yigael Yadin ( Prof. Sukeniks son.)112
was attacked and had to be discredited in this way by fellow archaeologists
and historians.
Discovery of phylacteries among the various manuscripts of the caves:
Approximately thirty phylactery texts were discovered, but the Torah
passages found within them were far from uniform in content.

This fact ran directly counter to the rule of the Brotherhood order
(i.e., the Yahad) described in the Discipline Scroll which de Vaux and most
later Qumranologists have asserted was the operative doctrinal text utilized
by the claimed sectarians of Khirbet Qumran requiring that all members of
the Brotherhood follow uniform ritual practices.
In publishing those phylactery texts under his control, Pre Josef Milik
asserted that, specifically with respect to the phylacteries alone, each of
the claimed Essenes of Qumran was allowed to follow his own predilection
but Milik never explained his rationale of such a notable deviation.
Prof. Yadin in his edition of different phylacteries from the caves, was on
the other hand altogether silent with respect to a solution of this problem.
(Moreover, neither Milik nor Yadin could cite a single text pertaining to
the Yahad brotherhood which implied any duty at all on their part to wear
phylacteries.)
Based on the philological evidence of the texts themselves, the variations
testify to the fact that those who hid the phylacteries in the caves did not
constitute a particular sect following uniform discipline, but rather
belonged to disparate groups of individuals fleeing eastward from the113
Roman onslaught on the capital in consonance with the evidence of the
Copper Scroll and the Masada text-fragments. Whatever they brought with
them to hide may not have been just text or scrolls. There had to be
something else and I suspect both de Vaux and Prof; Yigael Yadin knew
this by some clue or clues they had already uncovered but not published
on before their deaths. The answer I suggest lies in the Copper Scroll
which I will deal with later in full and may well be one of a set of copper
scrolls, the other one not yet found or if it had been found it never has been
revealed where it is and what it contained. One thing I am aware of is that
the Copper Scroll is in no way religious as are the other scrolls. It is from
my research, a codex map with clues within it that are linked to the natural
world.
Geographical Representation of Jerusalem Hypothesis
The Scrolls found in caves near Khirbet Qumran and Jericho, as well as
those found at Masada, represent remnants of an extensive Hebraic
literature hidden by inhabitants of Jerusalem, making use of the
underground tunnels leading eastward to Wadi's lying outside of the city,
before and during the Roman siege of 70 A.D.
I suggest that such cave locations were already known and been used for
many years before the Roman siege of 70 AD by Jews and Arabs.
Khirbet Qumran itself was a strategic Hasmonaean fortress reused by
Jewish fighters during the First Revolt (66-73 A.D.).
Refugees fleeing towards Machaerus would have had to traverse the114
desert area near Kh. Qumran on the way to their destination, and are
responsible for the sequestrati on of many of the scrolls and phylacteries
found in the caves.
Publication of photographs of all the Dead Sea Scrolls under Israel
control: In order for the reader to grasp what the said scrolls looked like at
the time they were photographed I have inserted some of them below.
Note different styles of writing and lay-out.
My thanks to all who let me have use of the scroll photographs 2011
SCROLLS AND SCROLL FRAGMENTS.

This event, which transpired as a result of the freeing of the Scrolls (1992
and thereafter), opened the eyes of researchers to the fact that, according
to their individual handwritings as then revealed, only very many scribes,
approximately to the number of 500, could have copied down the Scrolls.
This development moved more than a few of the traditional Qumran
archaeology field workers to distance themselves from Pre de Vaux, now
indicating in contrast to him that it was possible or even likely that many of
the manuscripts were not copied at Kh. Qumran but rather brought from
Jerusalem or perhaps other places as well to nowhere else than the
claimed sectarian centre of Qumran.
I suggest that this unlikely claim, however, did not satisfy other
researchers, who by then had begun to perceive that no certainty whatever
could be attributed to the Qumran Essene theory, and that the Scrolls as a
whole might very likely have been of Jerusalem origin and hidden in the115
caves out of necessity during the First Revolt if not before because these
are copies of the originals which were very old and dry but never found to
this day.
Publication of the Scrolls virtually in their entirety, subject by subject:
From studies of the specific texts among the virtually forty volumes now
published under the sponsorship of the Israel Antiquities Authority, it has
become very evident that the texts attributed to the Yahad brotherhood,
social and religious phenomenon, constitute only a minority of the great
number of Scrolls and Scroll fragments now known, most of the others
having no demonstrable connection with the writings of the Yahad group.
Further results of investigation of the manuscripts:

The manuscripts as known in their fullness during the past several years
have made clear the fact that the encouragement or practice of actual
celibate asceticism is not to be found in any of the known texts.
This fact cannot but militate against the claim of de Vaux and his present-
day followers that the inhabitants of Kh. Qumran were those very celibate
ascetics described by Pliny as living above En Gedi.
Pliny left few written records or if he did then they too perished with him
when he and many others were caught in the volcanic eruptions of Mt116
Vesuvius in 79 AD and Pompeii was buried in hot ash and mudslides.
This has opened the way yet wider to the problem of identification of the
Inhabitants of Kh. Qumran, while simultaneously rising with yet greater
concern the question: Who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and why the Copper
Scroll was onetime dismissed as little more than a forgery by de Vaux?
Recent archaeological investigations:
During the past twenty years, archaeologists of professional standing and
competence have conducted extensive excavations of Kh. Qumran and
detailed studies of the findings.
They have shown that the nature of the evidence uncovered reveals no
positive indication that either Essenes or any other specifically sectarian
group inhabited that site.; (Magen and Peleg.) For the most recent analysis
dealing specifically with the cemetery adjacent to Kh. Qumran the number
given is 37 males and between 13 and 17 females analysed so far, a
proportion comparable to that of other Palestinian grave sites.
As indicated by the Kh. Qumran towers strategic position midway between
the Hasmonaean fortress of Machaerus and Jerusalem itself

,recent scholarship also supports identification of the site as a
Hasmonaean fortress erected during the 2nd century B.C., in line with
considerations and the extensive scientific reports preceding
and following.
Given the configuration of material evidence as now known, and keeping
in mind that it may not all be right or accurate I refer you to Josephus117
careful description of the plight of Jerusalem's inhabitants which led to the
hiding of their goods and treasures as the siege tightened.
Scrolls found both at Masada and in the caves in our own time are
surviving suggested evidence of that past experience.
These are only some of the main pieces of evidence inevitably leading to;
rejection of the traditional Non-essential theory and its variants, which
remain marked by internal weaknesses not capable of withstanding critical
inquiry.
On saying that I found in my research into the posted signs and
expositions presented at Kh. Qumran itself, as at the Shrine of the Book in
Jerusalem, continue to be the product of that original theory, without
indication of any endeavour to deal with its problems.
Both in the State of Israel and abroad, the actual body of evidence now
favouring the theory of Jerusalem origin continues to be almost
consistently missing from exhibitions of the Scrolls, along with any
ensuing debate about it a situation obviously calling for redress of the
known information.
It is as though, for no obvious reason, there still remains a pressing need
to support the old Sectarianism theory an unsubstantiated belief now in

troubled waters for a good many years but many in the archaeology field
are dug in for a long debate which I have no doubt will continue and lead at
times to bloody paper battles as before. People will be so busy infighting
and destroying reputations of others in order to feed their own archaeology118
ego that the whole point and answers to the questions will be lost.
I say this with respect to all those archaeologists in the future who are
planning a battle rather than a heated debate on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the
Jesus Codex and of course the search for the Grail or grails.
What will be totally missing from most of the explanations, as from the
defence put forth by individual Archaeologists, is any effort to describe
or otherwise deal with the experience of Jerusalem's inhabitants at the
moment of their greatest danger not just from the Romans but long before
with invading warring tribes. I make this point now because Jerusalems
inhabitants were not all Jewish as so often thought and if we move
forwards from 30 AD to 1200 AD then there may well be other scrolls or
copies of such yet to be discovered.
It would of course I suggest, disregard, even the testimony embedded
within the Scrolls themselves, pointing above all else to the literary
fecundity of the Palestinian Jews during these times, somehow remains
basically unacknowledged in the realm of traditional Jewish Archaeology.
Much the same thing happened and still does happen in Ireland with that
invisible border.
Suggestion being widely employed by many is that scrolls were removed
by claimed sectarians from Jerusalem to Kh. Qumran where they were
studied by those sectarians before being transferred to the caves has no

material proof. Most of them were unlikely to have more than one language
at this time and a good few could copy but I doubt very much that many119
knew what in fact they were copying.
This is not negative archaeology, and I should point out, , the attention of
good researchers chasing smoke about Jerusalem in 70 A.D., while
deflecting away from genuine cultural value of the said scrolls , with limited
possibilities may have been brought to the Judean Wilderness from
Jerusalem at the same time that a war happened to be raging in that part of
the country.
But which war?
Pre de Vaux, at the dawn of his research, perceived that there was a
connection of some sort. I intend to agree with him on part of that and he
knew something or discovered something that he never spoke or wrote
about. Whatever it was may have been connected to the Jesus movement
and his family but we may never know because he took what he knew to
his grave.
He ended up by proposing that the claimed Essenes hid their scrolls in the
eleven caves because they had learned that Roman troops then engaged
in that war were on their way from Jericho (north of Kh. Qumran) to attack
them.120
My own research finds if this was the case why did they flee to hide their
manuscripts not northward where the scroll caves were discovered but
southward, away from an attack of this kind?
The discovery of manuscripts at Masada a decade after Pre de Vauxs
proposal provided the basis for an interpretation of Scroll origins Josephus

describes the mass movement, during the siege, of refugees from
Jerusalem via (still extant) tunnels, and describes their eventual gathering
at Masada.
(a) The Jerusalem tunnels lead to the Wadi system branching out in both
an eastward and a south-eastward direction;
(b)According to Josephus, the refugees eventually arrive both at Masada
(with the exception of those slain in the Forest of Jardes) and Machaerus;
(c) Scrolls are discovered both at Masada itself as well as in areas of
the northern Judean Wilderness that refugees fleeing toward Machaerus
would have had to traverse.
(d) Despite this confluence of evidence, traditional Archaeology field
workers who now concede the likelihood of all or part of the Scrolls
Jerusalem origins never appear to discuss the fact of that War, or to
recognize its impact on the Palestinian Jews, or to assent to the likelihood
that it was that War which resulted in the transfer of scrolls from Jerusalem
to both Masada and the Judean Wilderness.
Instead, the shift being put forward by them is generated particularly by
the awareness that several hundred scribes copied just those Scrolls that121
survived a fact pointing to the primary cultural centre of Jerusalem as the
home of the Scrolls. It has even been suggested by some writers that it
was only, or mainly, those Scrolls which exhibit deviation all spellings of
Hebrew words that would actually have been written at Kh. Qumran and I
suggest that that the original scrolls, or some of them were well hidden still
have to be discovered. In that we would find many words that were not
Hebrew but of the old languages of the Near and Far East.
In this way, the conceit has become widespread that a special Qumran
Hebrew developed or was created at the site of the claimed sectarian cult
I believe as some do, that the copied scrolls that have been found so far
have been implanted with some letters or words that are a form of codex
and in order to understand it all you need all the scrolls together,
discovered and yet to be discovered to get the full meaning..
Of this belief likewise, however, not a single proof exists.
Yet there is no way that the Jews of this time, as well as Greek scribes
would move all the copies of their work to one place or area because what
they had was important for future generations. It is more likely that other
scrolls were moved as well as the originals, to the four points of the
compass but within a fifty mile radius of Jerusalem. I stand by this and am
in no doubt that more scrolls will be found in the future.
I should point out here that prior to the age of dictionaries and their
widespread use, deviations in orthography were a common feature of
written language expression in the greatest of cities.122
Examples that come to mind are the numerous orthographic variations in
Documentary Judaic-Arabic manuscripts of the Cairo Genizah, or hand-
written and printed works in many languages produced in European cities
at least until the 18th century.
If the Roman Army found any scrolls in the plunder of Jerusalem then I am
sure that they have been translated into Latin and now housed in the
Vatican archives, hopefully carefully.
In recent years these various proposals and assertions have been yet
further confounded by the claim of an Ecole Biblique scholar once closely

allied with the late Pre de Vaux, to the effect that this enigmatic group of
pious sectarians did not actually live at Kh. Qumran at all, but only in the
surrounding desert area an idea for which I found that the author who
wrote this can not cite a single piece of actual evidence.
In effect, no proof has yet materialized to support any of these claims:
neither that a group of sectarians lived round-about Kh. Qumran, nor that a
sectarian community settled at Kh. Qumran either for a few or several
generations, nor that such a group wrote scrolls there which contained
orthographic deviations while receiving others from Jerusalem
which did not, nor that was this group succeeded by eventual sectarians
who took many of the texts and marched northward so as to hide them in
some of the caves in the very face of the claimed mortal enemies
advancing from Jericho.
While the evidence of the Copper Scroll could, in terms of the paradigm123
shifts in question, conceivably be dismissed on the claim that this scroll is
merely one of those ostensibly brought to Kh.Qumran from Jerusalem
before being hidden in Cave 3, that can hardly be done with the other
impeding evidence, namely:
1) The historical record is to the effect that the inhabitants of Jerusalem
did flee to both Machaerus and Masada;
2) Hebrew manuscripts were discovered both at Masada itself as well as in
a region of the Judaean Wilderness that refugees would have had to
traverse in fleeing towards Machaerus;
3) The phylacteries found in the caves strongly imply an activity of
individuals who did not adhere to any single sectarian group; and
4) The War itself represented the major calamity of the Palestinian Jews
during the 1st Century A.D., one of whose consequences, as Josephus
writes, was the dire need of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to hide those
items and possessions valuable to them.
If I rely only on historical evidence, all of these factors in addition to the
presence of large numbers of scribble handwritings so far discovered
obviously have to be taken into consideration in drawing reasonable
conclusions about the origin of the Scrolls; and in this light, the unadorned
testimony of the Copper Scroll can hardly be ignored.
The artefacts it describes include not only scrolls, but objects such as
are associated with the Temple, as well as large sums of gold and silver
ingots evoking not the gleanings of a small sect but an institutional124
treasure such as the Temples holdings or a royal hoard.
I feel strongly that somewhere within this Codex lies a clue to the Grail or
Grails.
Over sixty hiding places described in the Copper Scroll, most of them in
the northern part of the Judaean Wilderness, reveal a much wider
suggestion of other groups than that attributable to a small sect
supposedly living in the desert.
While first expressed by traditional Qumranologists and want to be ones
in the early 1980s, the claim that some, many, or even the majority of the
Scrolls were first brought from Jerusalem (or elsewhere) to Kh. Qumran,
before being deposited in the caves, is an assertion which reached its peak
only in the 1990s, when the clear evidence of multifarious scribes had fully
emerged.
(In Ireland we would say that such people with such view were well away
with the fairies like the followers of UFOs and Alien Abductions and very
possibility linked to one another genetically!)
The failure, however, of those writers to bring their recognition of the
multiplicity of scribal hands into line with the other discoveries already
well known by that time and in the future, does reveal a continued effort to
validate the idea of a sectarian community in the desert by use of an
imaginative, but until now unproven, fall-back position in what has come to
represent a classical case of circular reasoning.
I would also add to this that such writers could become great writers of125
historic fiction because they did their research (badly) but write well
enough for a best seller.
The effect of papering over the actual configuration of historical evidence
pointing to the sequestration of the Scrolls, both in the eleven caves and at
Masada, by inhabitants of Jerusalem in the course of their flight from the
city, no evidence has yet been discovered which tends to show that a
Jewish religious sect ever inhabited Sherbet Qumran. I would also go as far
to say that if any Jews were there the number would have been very small.
That is not to say, however, that claims asserting the existence of such
evidence has not been made in past years. It could well have been a mixed
community of a number of tribes and peoples with skills.
News releases once made announcements, for example, that DNA analysis
would likely prove that the parchments on which the Scrolls were inscribed
actually came from herds living in the Judaean Wilderness near Kh.
Qumran, but no evidence to this effect has ever subsequently been

published. A goat or sheep skin is just that, nothing more and some, like
farmers of today, would buy and sell stock at a market animals that may
have crossed borders and land, blows the whole DNA suggestion out of the
water. The only thing the DNA test could so with relation to this topic is tell
if it was a sheep or goat skin, possible blood group, and very unlikely for
the time line, the breed.
More recently, a claim about the Dead Seas chemical composition and its
effect on the Scrolls parchments has surfaced, likewise implying, without126
warrant, a particular connection with Kh. Qumran.
News sells papers and glues people to TVs, even bad news, the best kind
and a few years ago news items announced the discovery of an Essene
latrine in the vicinity of Kh. Qumran, whereas what was found consisted
only of non-datable faecal remains in a patch of soil. That helps! I mean for
nearly two thousand years it lay there, hidden or maybe not so hidden and
during that span of time the person who claims this is also saying that no
other Arabs, Jews, Syrians, Germans, British troops, or Archaeologists
from many nations, who passed closed to the spot or even on the very
spot, stopped to go to the toilet?
A more serious claim was made in 1997 in advance of the Israel Museums
50 th anniversary celebration of the Scrolls discovery, when a press release
was issued by the museum announcing that an actual artefact, tracon
inscribed with Hebrew writing, had been discovered at Kh.Qumran
constituting the first archaeological proof that an actual connection existed
between Kh. Qumran and the manuscripts found in the caves.
The claimed proof, put out by a few traditional Qumranologists, consisted

of a single word within the text the word Yahad, meaning unity which is
also a word used in some of the Scrolls to designate the Unity
Brotherhood.
Magnification of the crucial line of the text, however, failed to show
actual evidence of the word Yahad and therefore there is no evidence of
the word. Although the museum, even until today, has refrained from127
issuing a retraction of its original claim, writers on the Scrolls generally do
because having egg on your face does not go well for you in University
promotion in a Department and cuts in research grants.
(It has been suggested that the press officer at that time and who wrote the
statement is now retired and living somewhere in the Himalayas with
Monks close to the Chinese Border but in a very Silent Order!)
Another traditional scholar, while acknowledging that the crucial word in
question is not to be found on the ostracon, has claimed that a different
word in the same text, this time the term mebakker, or overseer who
occasionally have a role in the Brotherhood texts can be found elsewhere
on the same ostracon. It seems from my research however, under
magnification of the crucial line evidence of this other word is also entirely
lacking.
As far as I see it the authors came up with these words from the top of
their heads basically talking 'shite' and nothing to do with a Muslim
language! On these and other efforts to find an actual proof of sectarian
settlement at Kh. Qumran.
It is not too difficult to understand why such efforts have come to take
place and why they will be likely to continue into the future.
With the passage of time, and notwithstanding Pre de Vauxs scenario,
if not stage managed drama, not a single Scroll fragment or other written
text discovered to date proves that a sect inhabited Kh. Qumran; in
addition, during the past few decades archaeologists of professional128
standing who have investigated that site with increasing care have likewise
found no evidence that scribes composed or copied manuscripts there or
that sectarians, ascetic or otherwise, lived there during the period of
the Second Jewish Commonwealth.
Such beliefs, created in the infancy of, Dead Sea Scroll Research still
remain simply that, beliefs unsupported by actual evidence.
Traditional Scroll scholars and myself, have come to insist on the
fundamental question, advocating the correctness of unsupported and
unlikely ideas while defending the scientific righteousness of revered
scholarly figures of the past who created those ideas.
A clear and certain sign pointing to this gradual transformation in the
nature of the Scrolls debate is the clearly documented one-sidedness of
the great majority of relevant museum exhibitions taking place over the
past several years, and the adoption within them of highly questionable
claims similar to those mentioned above.
It may well happen that such efforts will continue until appropriate inquiry
is made into unacknowledged and until now unrevealing background
influences possibly fuelling these efforts.
The movement towards utter transparency in the debate over Scroll
origins is only now beginning to develop. But I find it a slow process and at
times blocked by some experts in archaeology and historical ego

building.129
Meanwhile, back in the Holy Land and desert sands, despite various
claims that continue to become media news, if not to confuse ,countless
well-intentioned readers, it may surely be more honest to say, We don't
really know., about that time in the history of Israel which was the First
Revolt and Jerusalem's destruction at the hands of Roman troops came
about but more so, if in fact scrolls or other documents were copied or
moved to the caves 1 to 11 and in my opinion, even more yet un-
discovered.
BEFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE SCROLLS.
My own revised research 2008-2011,that many of the scrolls known were
likely written in part and copied from others between 170 BCE and into 68
CE. Unless people have knowledge of that time line then their own
interpretation could well be wrong so I have outlined some data that may
help.
I will come back to the political and religious intruding later in this research
and the part the Church of Rome had to play with scrolls and people they
had control off.
In order to get as close to time line dates during this turbulent period
of past history I had to research as many written texts as I could in order
even to get close. Even then most of the text was in translations so I am
sure that parts of it were interpreted wrongly or in some cases, the
information given was to hide what really was in the text.130
The Israelite Kingdom 928 BCE of the time was split in two and by 722 BCE
this Kingdom was defeated by the Assyrians from Mesopotamia and in

turn they lost all because in 587 BCE the Babylonians too it from them and
the Temple of Solomon was destroyed.
Thousands of displaced people were exiled to Babylon for 57 years.
In 539 BCE war clouds again gathered and the Persians came in force and
Judea and Babylon fell, the Jewish exiles granted permission to return
home.
The return home phase took over 100 years because many Jews and their
children had of course been exposed, even forced to take on alien religions
and teachings. They had no choice in the matter of that I am sure.
This in time brought about Jewish Sects and none more so than the
Zoroastrian religion. Such outside Sects developed even more down
through the time of writing, then making copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
By 458BCE the Jerusalem Temple had been rebuilt thanks to Persian
funding and known as the Second Temple period.
The whole Chronological Table I have listed below that was and is involved
in my research. Any mistakes I have made I have tried to correct.
CHRONOLOGIAL TABLE.
1400 BC.
HEBEW TRIBES AND OTHERS ARRIVED IN FORCE INTO CANAAN.
ISRAELITES IN EGYPT.131
1300 BC.
MOSES AND THE EXODUS FROM EGYPT.
CONQUEST OF CANAAN = PALESTINE BY JOSHUA.
1100-1200 BC.
THE JUDGES.
PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLE SETTLE ON SHORES OF
CANAAN.
1050 BC.
SAMUEL.
1025-1006 BC SAUL.
1006-968 BC.
DAVID.
EMPIRE NOW EXTENDS FROM THE BORDERS OF EGYPT TO
EUPHRATES.132
968-928 BC.
SOLOMON BUILDS THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM.
925.BC DIVISION OF THE UNITED MONARCHY.
KINGDOM OF ISRAEL.
KINGDOM OF JUDAH.
925-907 BC.
Jeroboam reigns in Israel.
Invasion by Shishak.
928-911BC Rehoboam reigns in Judah.
882-870 BC Omri reigns in Israel and builds Samaria.
New alliance with Tyre
924 BC Shishak 1 of Egypt invades Judah and Israel.
870-851 BC Ahab reigns in Israel and defeats Armenians.
Fights again Shalmanezer in the Battle of Qarqur 853 BC.
The prophet Elias very active.
867 BC-851 BC.

Jehoshaphat reigns in Judah and has a defensive alliance and co-operation
with Israel.
858-824 BC Shalmanezer III of Assyria subdues the Armenians and
reaches Gilead and Galilee.
851-843 BC Jehoram, King of Judah fails to re-conquer Edom.
852 BC Mesha, King of Moab re-establishes independence from Israel.
850-842 BC Jehoram reigns in Israel.133
850 BC Israel and Judah invade Moab without success.
842-814 BC Jehu rebels and is crowned King over Israel with help from the
prophet Elisha.
This internal struggle makes Israel very dependent on Damascus which
was ruled by Hazael.
812-810 BC.
The King of Judah is put under pressure from Damascus.
799-785 BC Amaziah gets back independence and re-captures Edom
800-785 BC Johoash reaffirms Israel's independence.
786-758 BC Uzziah reaffirms Judah s ascendancy over its neighbours to
the east, south and west.
Prophet Isaiah is active and continues well into Hezekiahs reign.
785-750 BC Jeroboam II in alliance with Uzziah of Judah and re-establishes
the Solomonic borders. Prophet Amos active during the time.
745-727 BC Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria invades and controls the
Palestinian land bridge during a number of campaigns.
724-697 BC Hezekiah rules Judah and beats back the invasion by
Sennacherib.
722 BC Samaria is taken by Sargon II of Assyria after a siege by his
predecessor Shalmanezer V that had lasted 3 years.
A great part of the population exiled into very remote parts of the Empire
and this may account for mention in other text of the Ten Lost Tribes.
It is here that the rest mingle and live with the transplanted gentiles134
and form the Samaritans though not excepted as orthodox Jews.
722-628 BC Israel now an Assyrian province.
628-609 BC Josiah- last expansion of Judah which because of the
Assyrians weakness takes in much of the lands of Israel.
609 BC Josiah killed at Megiddo in a battle with Pharaoh Necho.
605 BC.
The Ne-Babylonian Empire now established which includes most of the
Assyrian realm.
604 BC Israel now a Babylonian province.
586.BC Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem and the First Temple is
destroyed with large parts of the population exiled to Babylonia.
Jewish Troop population also flee into Egypt followed by the prophet
Hezekiah. This lead to the first Jewish military colonies in Egypt.
539 BC Israel now a Persian province.
537-332 BC THE PERSIAN PERIOD
537 BC Jews allowed to return to from Babylon to Judea
515BC The Second Temple.
440 BC the walls are rebuilt in Jerusalem.
435 BC Nehemiah arrives from Babylon and Ezra the scribe helps him in
the rebuilding.
332-134 BC HELLENISTIC PERIOD
332 BC Alexander The Great at war with the Persians and takes backs the
lands as well as Palestine. Jewish archers join his army and take Egypt.135
301-200 BC Palestine under Ptolemies of Egypt.
198 BC.
Palestine falls to Antiochus III from Syria.
190 BC Romans take Magnesia from Antiochus III
168 BC Rome takes all of Macedonia and uprising in Jerusalem, Jews
massacred and Temple looted.
( Suggest this time when first of the scrolls were written and
others copied from 170 BC to 68 CE.)
DECEMBER 167 BC Desecration of the temple.
The revolt and the Book of Daniel is given forth.
DECEMBER 164 BC Maccabees rededicate the Temple.
The Dead Sea Scrolls at the time they were written or copied were
therefore records and notes by scribes who had knowledge or some
knowledge of all of the above events.
The scrolls that were copied were a sort of back up as we would have on
a computer for our files and folders.
That suggests that some of the original written scrolls were hidden away
also or destroyed during conflicts across what is known as the Holy Land.
Very few people in archaeology would agree that there were at one-time,
Master Scrolls somewhere but I am still of the opinion that this was indeed
the case and remains so.
Why else would Jewish writings show up in today's scrolls be written in

a number of middle east languages, Hebrew and Greek as examples?136
LANGUAGE DATA.
We do not know when or where the impetus to produce and/or transmit
Jewish literature in the Greek language took root.
Probably, in the Greek (Hellenistic) world of Alexander the Great and his
successors, Jewish inhabitants in various far flung locations around the
Mediterranean Sea (and further east) came to use Greek as their normal
language. In some cases, Hebrew was dropped as a written language in
some areas.
Some of them also must have been interested in protecting their ancestral
customs and traditions, largely associated with the area known to Greeks
and Romans alike as Palestine.
One option would have been to keep the ancestral language or languages
alive (primarily Hebrew and Aramaic).
Another would be to translate materials into the newly acquired Greek
language. Reverence for Moses and the traditions associated with him
seems to have been a defining feature of early Judaism, and as Greek
became the everyday language of new generations of Jews, the desire to
have access to the books of Moses must have inspired an interest in
translating them into Greek.
This could have happened, in part or in whole, independently in various
locations in the Hellenistic world, but what has survived through the ages
is traditionally identified with the important Hellenistic city-state of
Alexandria, located at the western edge of the Nile delta on the coast of the137
Mediterranean Sea.
The tradition that an early Ptolemy, one of the Greek rulers situated in
Alexandria, desired to develop a library that contained as much of the
significant wisdom of that world as possible, provides background for the
legendary tales of the Alexandrian translation of the Pentateuch, or five
books of Moses,being translated from Hebrew into Greek by a team of 72
imported bilingual Palestinian scholars.
This tale of the translators and their miraculous production becomes the
basis for speaking of the Septuagint ,i.e. the work of the LXXII translators
(shortened to LXX, we suppose for convenience of reference; Septuagint in
Latin) and unfortunately comes to complicate by gross oversimplification
the subsequent history of related Greek translations and compositions.
For various internal reasons of vocabulary, idiom, style, and the like,
modern scholars have come to agree that Alexandria is an appropriate
location for the Pentateuch translation, probably early in the Ptolemaic
period, named after Alexander's successor who was in control of
Alexandria and Egypt.
And we have good evidence for the continuation of such translations
there, through I suspect that the introduction (prologue) written by the
grandson of Yeshua/Jesus son of Sira who translated his grandfathers
Hebrew pedagogical opus into Greek sometime before 100 BCE.
The grandson knows, also, of other efforts to render Hebrew into Greek,
which he depicts as a difficult task. He mentions I should add, rather138
vaguely, law, prophets/prophecies, and other books from the instruction
and wisdom of Israel that presumably were already known in Greek forms.
Even with this helpful information, we have no precise knowledge of the

Grandsons occupation, training, or linguistic and scribal abilities.
In his world, translation abilities would have been important for
conducting business and governmental matters, at the very least,
especially in important local centres such as Jerusalem and Alexandria.
He claims to have come to Egypt at a particular point in his life, and to
have produced his translation there.
If we assume, which I dont like to do, it seems likely, that his grandfather
taught and wrote in Palestine, it may be that the grandson also came from
that area.
Whether he already knew, before arriving in Egypt (Alexandria?), of the
various Greek translations from Hebrew to which he alludes we cannot
know.
Large fragments of his grandfathers work in Hebrew have also been
preserved, and when we look at the grandsons Greek, it is clear that he
has not slavishly followed a firmly fixed translation approach that conforms
to what we find in the Greek Pentateuch.
Similarly distant from the LXX proper (the Pentateuch) in its Greek features
is the Greek of the Psalms, and further from them both is the Greek of
Isaiah, not to mention other portions of the LXX/OG (Old Greek) anthology
of translations.139
That they all originated in the area of Alexandria is possible, but they
certainly do not all represent the same approach to translation, and it is
equally possible that at least some of them originated from other locations
in the Hellenistic world, and at various times.
That is to say, there is no translational homogeneity among the miscellany

of materials that came to be gathered together under the heading the LXX.
It is a highly artificial and doubtful collection, and that fact needs to
be highlighted more than it usually is. I suggest that more in-depth
research is needed here by others who are much more confident than I am
and also have the time because my body clock is speeding up.
Can we reconstruct from this diversity of translational efforts?
At very least, we can see some contrasting approaches that suggest
different levels of linguistic ability, translational philosophy, and, perhaps,
awareness of (and influence from) other translational activities.
To put it another way, there is no evidence for a single coherent approach
to translation in the materials that have survived and a great deal of
evidence for the contrary.
I am reminded; there is not yet any simple technological mechanism
such as the mega-codex that is attested several centuries later (4th century
CE) for gathering these various scrolls into one cohesive and easily
accessible body.140
The Context for Transmission
Most of the earliest fragments of Greek Jewish scriptural writings that
have survived come from the Pentateuch, and even among them there is
significant diversity in format and in some aspects of presentation.
Keep in mind that there was friction in the two main decoding camps in the
Holy Land from 1948 onwards and still going on today.
I need therefore to clarify for the reader as I have researched the events
that surrounded the decoding the Dead Sea Scrolls, Copper Scroll and
other fragments. I have also included here the results of what was found in
the caves for reference if needed. (Carleton 2010)
Qumran cave 4 LXXDeut 11 (2nd BCE, parchment roll) 02.
Pryl458 of Deut (2nd BCE, papyrus roll), 03.
Qumran cave7 Exod 28 (2nd/1st BCE, papyrus roll), 04.
Qumran cave4 Lev a (2nd/1st BCE, parchment roll), 06.
Pfouad266a [942] Gen (1st BCE, papyrus roll), 07.
Qumran cave4 Lev b (1st BCE, papyrus roll; tetragrammaton = IAW), 08.
Pfouad266b [848] Deut (1st BCE, papyrus roll; Hebrew/Aramaic
(tetragrammaton), 09
Pfouad266c [847] Deut (late 1st BCE, papyrus roll), 12.
Qumran cave4 Num 3-4 (turn of the era, parchment roll),
The non-pentateuchal fragments are: 05.
Qumran cave7 EpJer (2nd/1st BCE, papyrus roll), 05+.
Qumran cave7 frgs 4, 8, 12 [Epistle of Enoch? = 1 Enoch 103] (1st BCE[?],141
papyrus roll) see also reconstruction notes and frg 8 alone 05+.
Qumran cave 7 frg 5 (unidentified controversial Mark frg, turn of the
era[?], papyrus roll), 10.
Qumran cave4 paraphrase of Exod(?) (late 1st BCE, papyrus roll), 11.
Qumran cave4 unidentified Greek (late 1st BCE, parchment roll), 13.
Nahal Hever Minor Prophets (hand A), with example of paleo-Hebrew
tetragrammaton and hand B (turn of the era, parchment roll), 14.
Poxy3522 of Job 42 (1st CE, papyrus roll; Paleo-Hebrew
tetragrammaton),15.
Poxy4443 of Esther (1st/2nd CE, papyrus roll), 16.
Pfouad 203 prayer/amulet? (1st/2nd CE, papyrus roll)

Just as we do not know who made the translations in the first place, we
are in the dark about who copied and used them, and under what
conditions.
We tend to envision the transmission and use of Hebrew scriptures as
taking place in religious contexts the Jerusalem temple, local synagogues,
sectarian communities involving especially priests and scribes, community
leaders and later, rabbis.
The larger world in which all this was taking place also knew of the
transmission of written materials of various sorts, from local court and tax
records to sophisticated literature, involving professional copyists, with
bookshops and publication processes as well as governmental record
offices.142
In the Greek world, there were also Jewish professionals of various sorts,
from producers and keepers of documentary records to book store owners
and their supporting staffs.
It is not impossible that Jewish literature sometimes made its way into
non-Jewish hands, including book sellers and copyists, nor is it unlikely
that Jewish sellers sometimes handled non-Jewish materials.
Then there would be private copies presumably less formally prepared
would always be a possibility as well.
The research on which I am engaged, and am reporting here, reflects an
attempt to identify and trace possible indicators of characteristically
Jewish scribal practices in Greek, from the earliest evidence (2nd century
BCE) on into the period when Christianity comes to dominate the Grecian-
Roman world (4th-5th century CE).

The research is ongoing.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS RESEARCH TEAMS.
Things never really got going full tilt for at least a year after the first scrolls
were found and it was a long time after 1947 before the first qualified
archaeologist was on site checking out the caves 1 to 3.
Scroll forgeries and fragments were now common place once the word had
got out about the finds, the Arabs and others were not too long in flooding
the markets across the world to private dealers and some intuitions looking
for a scroll or fragment of the same but at a high price. Many Arab men
were laughing all the way to the bank with English and US currency, people143
got rich fast or robbed quickly.
Archbishop Samuel took off with his scrolls to the USA for the good times
and an asking price of one million dollars and God was on his side it seems
because when the Jordanian government demanded the return of Samuels
scrolls but it was too late.
Something had to be done because the whole Scrolls circus was now a
major embarrassment to all involved who had an interest in archaeology
rather than hard cash. That was what was shown to be on the surface at
least to the public and the bankers of Scroll archaeology research.
Things were not what they seem for all this research under the great
umbrella of archaeology. Dirty deeds were afoot, kidnapping arranged and
carried out of a young Arab man, a possible commando raid planed to go
into the sewers and invade the other research teams rooms and steal back
the scrolls there to add to their own collection. Torture and murder were
not ruled out it seems because the Jewish camp wanted all the scrolls as
well as the fragments and to get their hands on such, nothing could be
ruled out by the leaders.
Joseph Saad, director at this time of the Rockefeller Museum had been
approached by a young Arab man, a member of the Taamireh tribe, who
had some scroll, fragments. On seeing them Saad demanded of the young
man to be taken with a team of his own to the cave where the fragments
came from. He set off the next day with his team, some serving in the army
and discovered that the man with the fragments had flown the coup. He144
caught up with him on the road back to his Taamireh camp, stopped the
jeep and everyone bundled out guns pointing at the young Arab.
Before he knew what was happening he was taken by force and thrown into
the back of the jeep or lorry and was taken back to Saads HQ, put in a
room and questioned for hours. He was not long telling all to his guards,
location, type of cave, how man other people from his tribe involved and
any scrolls or fragments hidden away.
Marvellous what guns pointing at you and some electric wires can do
when you are standing in water in a room and your testacies start to shrink
at the thought of what could happen if you did not talk. Being an Arab and a
young one at that he knew that his body, and more so that part, was more
important than being brave for a few fragments of scrolls. He talked.
Saad set off almost at once, this time with a lorry and jeep. His team were
all armed in case they ran into trouble because by now the local tribes
people would have heard about the kidnapping of one of their own.
They got as far as they could to the Wadi Murabbaat and the four caves
they had been told about but had now to leave the lorry and jeep and walk
into the area of where the caves were, a good six or seven miles.
They found material and it could be dated to around 200 AD which included
letters written by Simeon bar Kochba around 133 AD which mentioned
plans for the Jewish revolt . But there was other material I am sure though
not scrolls.
Before they could get into these four caves they had to frighten off the145
local men working the caves with gunfire fired in the air. This of course was
no way to carry out any archaeology research or do work on site and it was
soon to backfire on the official Saad and those around him. When word got
back to Father de Vaux he was more than angry, he seemed to be
demented so things sped up around Qumran. Gerald Harding was in
charge and from the Department of Antiquities while de Vaux was the
archaeologist. They of course had a good mixed team and decided to do a
major survey of the caves in the Qumran area as well as the lands around
them. This went on for a good five years to 1956. de Vaux and his team
found a great number of buildings in the lowlands which he ID as the
Essene community that Pliny had mentioned before his death in AD 79.
This archaeology success was noted and Father de Vaux was also to make
friends of the Bedouin tribes and they could be employed but the whole
project was now under the watchful eye of Jordanian and Palestinian
archaeologists. The cave survey was carried out from the 10 th to the 22 nd of
March 1952. In all the number of sites listed by de Vaux I have listed below.
5 miles of cliff face, 267 sites, 37 caves with pottery shards. In cave three
(Q3) 20 th March 1952, two scrolls which later turned out to be one, this
being the Copper Scroll but was in two half rolls.

I should point out that some of the Arab workers did find other scroll
fragments in the caves but said nothing and also found caves that they
said nothing about which means the survey was not completed at the time
and was I suggest was not professional by any means.146
For this part of my research my thanks to all the library staff at the
University of Birmingham who have and do allow me excess to documents
and old papers for the ongoing research. Much more remains to be done by
me on hidden codex's and I am looking at a two year project.
Of course, when I speak of books prior to the latter part of the first century
of the common era, we mean scrolls or rolls.
The codex form, with which we are so familiar (hinged on one side, written
on both sides of the page) is a technological development for which good
evidence emerges with Roman booksellers around the 70s of the first
century (Martial mentions this in his Epigrams), and which took rapid root
in some Christian circles soon thereafter.
Not that it is absolutely new at this time rough schoolbooks with wooden
waxed pages and leather thong bindings were available earlier, and some
formal records were also kept in an early codex format but its use to
transmit literature seems novel in the first century.
In a scroll dominated literary world, creation and control of large corpora
of materials was much more difficult that it became when large-scale
codices were produced under Christian auspices in the 4th century of the
common era.(CE)
The Bible as we know it could not easily exist, except perhaps as a cabinet
with appropriate slots, or in a portable scroll pouch/box (capsa), for which

the contents might be listed somewhere.
Even a mini-collection such as the Pentateuch would have been difficult147
to maintain in its multiple scroll form.
Not only in origin, but in early transmission, the LXX, or even the LXX/OG
is a seriously misleading designation.
There were scriptural scrolls, usually of individual books or the longer
books but occasionally with two or more works in a single scroll such as
the twelve Minor Prophets, or some wisdom texts (e.g. Proverbs, Qohelet),
seldom more.
Even after the development of the mega-codex technology in the 4th
century, use of smaller codices gathered into collections persists.
The Grecian-Roman world had its conventions for its literary scrolls,
especially those produced professionally.
Yes, there was room for some variation in some respects, just as there is
today between publishing houses, but on the whole the procedures were
fairly clear: spacing was not normally used to separate phrases or words
(scriptio continua),accents or breathings or punctuation were rare, as were
abbreviations of words or numbers.
Lettering was carefully formed, with attention to keeping letters relatively
uniform in size and separate from each other.
We can speak of bilinearity (regular top and bottom horizontal lines can
be imagined as enclosing the letters) and of the lack of ligatures (joined
letters, as in script).
Poetry might be formatted differently from prose, with new physical lines
for new poetic lines (normally hexameter). And so on.148

The world of professional documents operated with more flexibility, and
sometimes seems to have influenced certain copyists of literature to be
less rigorous writing formats and styles. Much the same we do today on
our computers.
Exploring the Earliest Jewish Greek Fragments.
Thanks largely to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now have
access to a significant number of Jewish /Greek literary fragments, mostly
representing works that came to find a place in the developing LXX/OG
collections. The earliest ones I have listed above.
What do they reveal about Jewish conventions of copying, assuming that
they (or at least some of them) were produced by Jewish copyists and not
by their non-Jewish counterparts?
A few things stand out and call for closer examination I discovered:
1.
Many of the fragments display a highly sophisticated lettering style, with
decorated or shaded letters, careful bilinearity (sometimes with an
emphasis on the top horizontal alignment, with letters seeming to hang
from it as also in many Hebrew manuscripts), apparently of quite good
quality. Some are less decorative, less carefully executed, but almost all
seem to be formal rather than amateur productions.
2.
Most of the fragments that preserve enough text to judge make use of
spacing of some sort, usually by sense units but in one instance even by149
word division, in contrast to expected scriptio continua.
Whether this is sufficiently unusual to constitute a Jewish scribal

characteristic remains to be argued but I am of the opinion that it would
have been in the originals.
It certainly can be viewed as consistent with what is found in many Hebrew
Jewish documents from the same period (notably the Dead Sea Scrolls),
where even word division is normal.
3.
Some of the early Jewish fragments also use marginal markings, including
letters that extend into the margin (ekthesis), enlarged letters on the
margin, and other indicators of division, which similarly contrast with any
ideal of scriptio continua.
Again, whether good parallels can be found in equally early and
presumably non-Jewish literary materials remains to be tested.
4.
While any general tendency to use abbreviations is lacking, such as will
be encountered regularly in later Christian manuscripts (nomina sacra),the
treatment of the special four-lettered name for God, the tetragrammaton,
deserves and must have close attention.
There is little unanimity among the witnesses, which suggests that even
if we can posit a Jewish style on the basis of other considerations, it is not
so homogeneous a style as to control this particular feature.
Similar comments can also be made about variety in dealing with the150
Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew and Aramaic materials in the Dead Sea
Scrolls.
Factors other than scribal style seem to be at work here! As a point of
added interest, use of the tetragrammaton, both as a term and in its

various forms, became popular in the world of magic, as can be illustrated
from various gemstones.
5.
As already noted, the early Jewish/ Greek materials are on scrolls, along
with virtually everything else from that period of Grecian-Roman literary
activity. At what point can we speak of Jewish codices? That remains to be
discussed below and I hope leaves room for debate as well as some
doubts.
Early Christian Literary Activity
As we all doubtless acknowledge, the earliest followers of Joshua/Jesus
were, as he was, Jewish until he was said to have died.
If there was a Matthew who wrote things down about Jesus, he was a
Jewish writer and not Christian as many think. His new faith came a few
years after the death of Jesus and not before. He followed the flock led by
Paul.
There will come a time or better, different times in different places and
situations when (some) Christians will dissociate themselves from that
Jewish past, but for present purposes, I want to emphasize the blurry
period of continuities rather than the similarly blurry periods in which self-151
conscious distinction may have encouraged discontinuities as well.
We all have our own ideas who and what Matthew was but was our
idealized Matthew, the literate (to some extent) Jewish follower of
Joshua/ Jesus, a trained person in any regard? Did he know about styles,
lettering, formats, abbreviation, and the like? In what context?
Documentary? Literary? It is I suggest ,he knew all this but we can only
guess.
In the first generation or two of the Jesus movement, did any Jewish
professional scribes come on board? Any Jewish publishers and/or
booksellers?
Paul wrote. In Greek. He was Jewish, and seems to have received some
sort of formal training.
Did it include mastery of scribal techniques? He mentions writing with
large letters in his own hand (Galatians 6.11), but it is difficult to know
exactly what the significance of that statement may be for our discussion,
beyond the observation that he could write legibly in Greek.
And among the non-Jewish converts to emerging Christianity, how many
had been trained or involved in the production and distribution of books?
We don't know, but such questions are relevant to the task of attempting
to identify more clearly how early Christian scribes practices developed,
and how they may relate to earlier Jewish, and non-Jewish, features.
A few characteristics seem to stand out: I outline them below.152
1.
It has often been pointed out that Christians, more quickly than their
contemporaries in the Grecian-Roman world, adopted the codex as a
format for transmitting their literature, for some a form of vanity publishing.
They did not invent the codex that much is quite clear.
Nor did they use codex exclusively. There are clearly Christian scrolls as
well, for a long time. But where did they get the codex idea in the first
place, and why did it catch on among them so rapidly?
Some scholars have suggested that Paul, or the Paulinist movement ,

already has codices in view in referring to the books [scrolls?] and the
parchments in 2 Timothy 4.13.
Also in the Luke passage about Jesus opening and closing the book of
Isaiah in the Nazareth synagogue (Lk 4.17-20), it has recently been
suggested that an early textual variant to that passage may be envisioning
a codex rather than a scroll.
I found this rather tenuous evidence, probably from the early second
century at best, but in the minds of those ancient authors and/or revisers,
of Jewish documents seems to be envisioned.
Is it possible that early Christian copyists (and authors?) learned to create
codices as part of their Jewish heritage? Of course it is possible, perhaps
even more probable, given the other continuities between Judaism and
what became Christianity.
When fragments of Jewish scriptures from the early centuries of the153
common era are discovered, one criterion used to identify their ancient
connections is the codex criterion; if the fragment is from a codex, it must
be Christian! This, of course, makes it impossible to identify any Jewish
codices among such materials .It also limits the possible answers to the
questions that need to be asked about the Jewish ones.
Early Christian manuscripts tend to be rather carelessly executed, due to
documentary influences and later doctored if it did not serve the needs of
the Church. That is why the sectarian scripts and fragments form scrolls
were buried for the most or did not surface at all because what is in them
or was in them would do great damage to Christian belief. This is probably
also true of some Jewish examples.

If I have rattled the cages of many academics in the archaeology field then
is no bad thing because all too often they churn out the same old
archaeology tape and the needle is stuck.
To students of archaeology and related studies I say in 2011 is if you don't
think it right or know the information you are being spoon fed is wrong
then challenge the Tutor. Head on and have your own answer ready.
The details are often daunting, but behind them are developments of
relevance to our historical understanding and also forgotten people who
deserve to be recognized for their accomplishments and contributions.
What is the Septuagint? = 70
The Septuagint is the traditional term, derived from the Latin word meaning
seventy, for the canonical collection of Old Greek translations of the154
Hebrew Scriptures and related literature (Greek Apocrypha).
These translations are the earliest and among the most valuable of the
surviving ancient biblical versions.
The Septuagint became the Bible for much of the early Christian Church.
When Jewish scriptures are quoted in the New Testament, it is almost
always from the Old Greek translations.
Furthermore, even when not directly quoted in the New Testament, many
of the terms used and partly crafted by the Septuagint translators became
part of the language of the New Testament and early Christian literature.
That of course does not mean that it is accurate in translation from Hebrew
to Greek and then into English or Latin.
The History of the Septuagint
According to an ancient legend, King Ptolemy Philadephus of Alexandria

wished to make a collection of the worlds best literature.
His librarian, Demetrius of Phalerum, suggested that the Hebrew books of
holy law (presumably the five books of Moses, the Pentateuch) should be
part of the collection, since the law which they contain is full of wisdom
and free from blemish or so he thought.
Ptolemy sent ambassadors with gold and jewels to the Eleazar, the high
priest in Jerusalem, requesting a copy of the Hebrew law as well as a group
of learned men who could translate the Hebrew books into Greek.
Eleazar selected six elders from each of the twelve tribes and sent them
to Alexandria with a copy of the scriptures in which the Jewish characters155
were written in gold letters.
A version of this legend has the seventy-two translators complete their
task in seventy-two days, and when they compared their efforts they
discovered that each had produced an identical translation.
A great story I suggest but almost impossible to do, even today with
computer aids.
Scholars agree that this story was created for Jewish purposes to enhance
the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures by suggesting that a pagan king
realized their significance and, therefore, arranged for a translation into
Greek. The Jews sold the King a bum steer and he took it as truth.
Such Scholars have conjectured that a likely motive for such a project was
to meet the educational and liturgical needs of the large Jewish population
in Alexandria, many of whom had forgotten their Hebrew.
They spoke Greek but, as Jews, they also wanted to be conversant with
the ancient scriptures. Much like the Irish who live away from Ireland and
become more Irish than the Irish at home.
Over time this Septuagint Pentateuch became widely used by Greek-
speaking Jews in antiquity outside of Palestine, and became a model and
magnet for other translational efforts at various times and in various
places.
From among these Greek Jewish people, the early Christian movement
attracted many of its followers while the ' Jesus Movement' attracted more
Jews who could speak Hebrew as well as some Greek156
When Christian collections of Jewish scriptures were united into the
Christian Old Testament, which was published together with the New
Testament collection to form the Greek Christian Bible, those responsible
used the available Septuagint (Old Greek) materials as the basis for their
text.
It was from these Septuagint materials that the early Latin translations
were made, which formed the background for the most influential
translation for the western Church, the Latin Vulgate.
In this way, Catholic Christianity along with the Eastern Orthodox
Churches still embraces the tradition of the Greek Old Testament, which
has served them well for two thousand years.
Religion of course raised it ugly head again because in the sixteenth
century, however, Protestants turned away from the Septuagint
and reverted to the Hebrew Jewish Bible as the basis for translations into
modern languages.
Hence, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles have more books in the
Old Testament than their Protestant counterparts.

Books like 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Jesus Sirach and
Wisdom of Solomon were preserved primarily in Greek or in translations
made from Greek and some of these books were originally written in Greek.
Those Jewish scholars who collected and transmitted the Hebrew Jewish
Bible during the early centuries CE did not accept these apocryphal works
into their authoritative Hebrew-Aramaic anthology, which in turn provided157
the base text for Protestant translations.
AUTHORS NOTE.
In case there is any misunderstanding, the scrolls and fragments are not
in any way CHRISTAIN though many people of that faith and in the early
days copied, borrowed and even stole for their own use much of the
content to suit their needs.
The Greek Church as well as the Church of Rome would only use the parts
of script
that would suit such needs and suppress other parts that they later
classified as pagan and much debate would have went on behind closed
doors of what to use and call truth and what to dismiss out of hand and not
mentioned to the faithful of such religions.
The Psalster found among the Dead Sea Scrolls includes Psalms not found
in the Book of Psalms and probably did not have all of the Psalms in the
Book of Psalms
(Psalms Scroll).This suggests at the very least that the collection of
Psalms which we now know as the Book of Psalms was not universally
accepted at the time when the SCROLL WAS DISCOVERED.
Language changes constantly.

The Hebrew Scriptures use words and mention the names of animals and
places, whose meaning has been lost to antiquity.
There is always the hope that manuscripts found in the future will shed
light upon the meaning of these words but time is running out as well as158
funding in 2011 for such research though I should add that a few people,
including myself will beaver on in hope of understanding and new
discovery, funding or not.
Some interpretations of entire passages hinge upon the understanding of
a particular word or phrase.
When archaeology provide us with texts that utilize the particular word
or phrase in question, they help us to evaluate whether or not the
interpretations based upon them are tenable. In many cases they are not
and we start again.
The expectation that archaeology will try to recover lost texts is one
aspect of the relationship between Syro-Palestinian archaeology about
which Dever complains.
He asserts: It is worth noting that serious objections to archaeology as a
discipline come almost exclusively from biblical historians, Northwest
Semitic/Hebrew epigraphers, Assyriologists, and other students of texts,
who although highly specialized themselves, value archaeology mainly for
producing literary remains...These scholars seem oblivious to the equally
valid historical data to be derived solely from the analysis of material
culture remains.
Having mentioned the positive effects that archaeology has upon the study
of Sacred Scriptures, I now feel I should mention some of the negative

effects and possibly harmful side effects.159
If we drop all the fancy jargon such as Dever and others use we are left
with the bones and from here we have to flesh them out but get it right as
best we can.
As Dever mentions at the end of his article after claiming among Syro-
Palestinian archaeology many future accomplishments will certainly be the
writing of a more comprehensive and satisfying history of ancient Palestine
in both the Old and New Testament periods,
What archaeology cannot do, even at its best, is to prove the Bible in any
sense either by demonstrating that the events claimed by the biblical
writers as central to the salvation history that actually happened, much
less by validating the theological inferences that are drawn from these
events, whether ancient or modern Here Devers point is valid.
Archaeology might help us to understand the Bible better.
It might provide evidence to confirm the occurrence of individual events
or even the historical events found in an entire book, but all archaeological
evidence and facts, like all the facts and hypotheses in science, are relative
truths.
At best, they serve as models and mirrors of absolute truths.
Since 1995, numerous variants to each of these two theories have
appeared in print, none of which, however, has been supported by actual
empirical evidence.
Such real evidence I discovered in 2009, is lacking and much that has in
fact been put forward as fact has been wishful thinking or pure guess-160
work.
The same can be said for some scroll data and the shadow of the grail.
Some readers may be aware that exhibitions of the Scrolls taking place in
museums both here and abroad over the past few decades have continued
to promote and defend only the older interpretation of Scroll origins while
at the same time, as a rule, discouraging open debate in public forum
between scholars adhering to mutually opposing views on this topic.
Those people who did in fact view the exhibit, should first be aware that,
since 1948, successive phases of dynamic development in the discovery
and investigation of the Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran site have taken
place. The present totality of evidence has inevitably led various scholars
in Europe, Israel, and the States to conclude that the original theory of
Scroll origins is unworkable.
The further evidential conclusion is that the original theory must
eventually give way to the recognition that these manuscripts have no
organic connection with any particular sect claimed to inhabit the area
where they were discovered, and that they originally came from Jerusalem
rather than any other place.
The theory of Jerusalem origin could hardly have been suggested by the
discovery and reading of the first seven Scrolls (1948-1950).
Prof. Eliezer Sukeniks almost immediate conclusion was that the Manual
of Disciplin (also called the Community Rule) was Essene writing; Pre
Roland de Vaux latched on to this idea and initiated an ambitious161
excavation project at the nearby site of Khirbet Qumran that led, one might
say ineluctably, to his eventual claim that he had found the long-lost laura,
or monastery, of the Essene celibates of the Dead Sea region described by

Pliny the Elder. This of course as we know or should know give his
enemies the ammunition they needed in the future and most of this was his
own doing.
In the early 1950s there was scarcely a scholar in the world who did not
believe that claim and yet anomalies in the theory began to emerge even
before completion of de Vauxs excavations in the mid-1950s, by which
time discoveries of many more manuscripts had been made in caves
stretching northward, from near Khirbet Qumran, a distance of at least two
kilometres.
The anomalies include the following elements:
(a) De Vaux urged that the claimed Essenes had hidden their manuscripts
in the caves upon hearing that Roman troops were about to come down
from Jericho to attack them; but he did not explain why, by that token,
those putative celibates moved northwards with their manuscripts i.e.,
towards Jericho rather than southwards away from the direction of the
supposed pending attack?
Such was his thinking at this time but then he was in fact proved wrong
in much of the evidence he had presented on the scrolls.
Today it would be unlikely that he would get away with such broad
statements. De Vaux I should point out, worked for Rome first and the162
Church and for archaeology research second. That is where he got major
grants from. He may well have been restricted of what he could or could
not say in public or publications as I suspect was the case.
(b)Pliny the Elder asserted that his celibate Essenes lived with only the
palm trees for company whereas the fact that Kh. Qumran was, by
contrast, a well-built stone site with a tower did not elicit an explanation by
de Vaux.
De Vaux insisted that the Qumran site housed celibate Jewish monks
whereas his own excavations were already producing evidence of the
presence of females there.
He recognized that a cemetery of virtually a thousand graves was present
on the very plateau of Kh. Qumran, without explaining how the purity-
loving brethren reflected in the Community Rule could allow such a
graveyard proximate to the inhabitants living quarters.
(It was either the females or the sheep and they could eat sheep!)
(c) When the Copper Scroll, discovered with other manuscripts in Cave 3
(1952), was deciphered, it was seen by the first scholars who actually read
it to describe the hiding in Judaean Wilderness sites of treasures, scrolls
and artefacts whose palpable place of origin was Jerusalem.
This was the first documentary evidence pointing to that city as the place
of origin of the Scrolls but Pre de Vaux, without offering any specific proof,
simply pronounced the Copper Scroll a forgery. A bad mistake and very
bad archaeology, the final nail that could have been used to destroy him163
later.
Thereafter, when Yigael Yadins Masada expedition;
(over 50 kilometres south of the Qumran area) revealed other scrolls of the
same character as those found earlier in the Qumran caves, Yadin claimed
that they were brought there by those same claimed Essenes of Qumran
even though Josephus had described in painful detail, as an eyewitness,
the flight of the Jews from Jerusalem to Masada in the wake of the Roman
siege.
The Masada text-evidence, when added to the documentary evidence of
the Copper Scroll, logically pointed to a different explanation for the hiding
o the Scrolls than that being pushed by Pre de Vaux and his followers.
The seven or eight researchers working with de Vaux in the decades
before the Scrolls were freed provided no information concerning the
number of scribes who copied them. There was without doubt some
conflict on site between the members as well as later.
Yet as more and more scrolls came to be published after 1992, it could be
perceived that the copyists had, as shown by their variegated and
individual handwritings, numbered no fewer than several hundred scribes.
That on its own I suggest would have caused major problems because if
you can picture a busy TV or Newspaper Newsroom with so many people
all adding and writing the same story, sparks and tempers would fly.
This new finding led inevitably to the recognition that the Scrolls could
have been produced only in a heavily populated cultural centre from which164
they could be readily removed and hidden thus reinforcing the earlier-
discovered evidence pointing to the Scrolls Jerusalem origin.
EGO OF COURSE CLOUDS THE MIND WHEN IT COMES TO
ARCHAEOLOGY FACTS AND REAL EVIDENCE.
It is an unfortunate fact of contemporary cultural history that exhibitions
of the Scrolls mounted world-wide since 1992 have offered no serious
description of these facts or any other piece of documentary evidence
pointing to the Jerusalem origin of the Scrolls.
This has continued to be the case even after well-trained European and
Israeli archaeologists who have studied the Kh. Qumran site over the past
two decades have concluded, independently of one another, that the site
offers no evidence of notably sectarian occupation or engagement in
bookmaking or literary activity.
Even while traditional Archaeology field workers continue to assert that
multifarious ritual baths dominated the site, the Israel Antiquities Authority
team in its archaeological reports on those installations states that that
they were, with one or two exceptions, water reservoirs having no
particular ritual implications.
On that basis, nothing unusual was discovered; ritual bathing was a
general rule in Palestinian Jewish society, not limited to radical sects, while
reservoirs were necessary, in inhabited sites of the Judaean Wilderness, to
sustain life during the long summer season of drought.165
The archaeological findings are of course significant, but please note that
their primary value in terms of the salient question of Scroll origins is the
confirmation they provide for the earlier-created theory of Jerusalem origin
of the Scrolls an interpretation arrived at not primarily by the study of
archaeological evidence but rather through the testimony of written texts.
At all events, and despite the above developments, exhibits of the Scrolls
since 1992 have remained notably one-sided in their treatment of the
fundamental question, at times even to the point of dogmatic recidivism.
In no uncertain terms, an introductory wall text asks, in reference to the
Scrolls: Who wrote and used them?
Scholars have two basic theories about these manuscripts.
The one is that they all belonged to a single religious sect that probably
lived at the settlement of Qumran; while the other is that they were a
random collection of texts reflecting the beliefs of several distinct Jewish
groups representing either a single priestly or public library, or the sacred
texts of various Jewish communities from Jerusalem and elsewhere in the
Land of Israel.
So far in my research and thankfully, the UFO and Alien Visitors Brigade
has not high jacked or entered the stage as they did in the past with
Egyptian Archaeology and South American archaeology with mindless
clutter and statements. There is no dispute that the value of the Scrolls are
important but conflict with other statements in the past as well as
descriptions of individual manuscripts.166
Thus for example we read in a description of the famous Community Rule
that its dictates are those of the Dead Sea community an expression often
repeated in other books and research and that the fragments as well as
scrolls, are indicative of its importance to the sectarians.
Contrary to this claim, however, publication of virtually all of the Scrolls
as now known, in their variety and with their mutually conflicting ideas.
What else? In my view and opinion it has resulted in a situation of heated
debate where only the most traditional Archaeology field workers and
researchers, would still now claim that they describe but a single
heterodox group.
It therefore cannot be proven that the actual evidence discovered at
Khirbet Qumran, and much more fully known today than in the mid-1950s,
indicates that any single group including the authors of the Community
Rule lived and had their headquarters at that site.

This is where Pre de Vaux made this claim circa 1950 as a consequence of
his belief that the home of his group should be sought in the near vicinity
of the caves where they were found; but the arguments subsequently
made by him that Kh. Qumran was that site are not objectively sustainable
because of the evidence presented by him and others is weak.
This confusion is more obvious in the descriptions of the manuscripts that
have been display, which also appear to be based upon the some
assumption of the single-sect theory.167
Thus the description of as Words of the Luminaries, while first correctly
stating it to be a sequence of Hebrew prayers intended to be recited on
fixed days of the week, goes on to state that The sectarians rejected the
way that sacrifices were conducted in the Temple, and believed that God
should be worshipped only with prayer until the end of days....
All very well and good but in the history of Scrolls scholarship, the idea
of sectarian origin of this writing arose only out of several fundamental
prior assumptions: namely that the authors and scribes of the texts found
in the caves lived as a sect at Kh. Qumran; that the writings of this sect
included only Biblical and Apocryphal texts plus the works of a single sect;
that the various poetic texts found in the caves are to be included in the
latter category; and that hence all of the ideas expressed in those poetic
writings were shared by the entirety of the claimed sect supposedly
inhabiting that site.
This was the line of reasoning initiated by Pre de Vaux and followed by
Pre Baillet and Pre Puech in their studies of this text.
This was followed later by pure archaeology shite and wild claims made
when in fact they did not know but needed a press release fast.
These assumptions, however, have never been demonstrated to have a
factual basis.
The descriptions of the other Scroll texts presented, it becomes clear that
some writers were irresponsible or poorly informed in their thinking and
presentation of the old research or maybe they wanted fame and fortune in168
the world of Academically halls?
The Biblical Book of Jeremiah, including the fact that this figure
prophesied disaster and annihilation for the Judaean kingdom.
There is little doubt in my mind that the concept of holiness of certain
writings other than the Pentateuch was gradually developing among the
Palestinian Jews in Second Temple times.
That being said, all of the writings eventually considered as canonized
prophetic books had actually attained that exalted level before the time of
the Tannaitic masters (2nd-century A.D.) has never been demonstrated,
and the mere presence of a certain number of Biblical prophetic texts
among the Scrolls does not change that picture.
Scripture is normally defined as holy writ in Hebrew, kitb haqodesh; and
it must be kept in mind that no such expression appears in the Scrolls,
which pre-date the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D.
Josephus, whose career mainly spanned the second half of the 1 st Century
A.D., does, it is true, write of the Jews having besides the Pentateuch and
four books of hymns and precepts, thirteen sacred books dealing with the
Kings and Judges and he elsewhere occasionally refers to or quotes
writings of six of the Biblical prophets plus Daniel, but nowhere does he
make mention of the prophets Amos, Hosea, Joel, Obadiah, Micah,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Zechariah or Malachi.
I found this odd of why they had been left out of text and this part of
religious history?169
Among the latter Scroll texts are fragmentary commentaries, those on
Habakkuk and Hosea, but it cannot be determined whether the interpreters
responsible for them wrote as they did because there was a general belief
in their holiness, or merely on the grounds that they opined, as individuals,
that those writings should have that status.
It is also possible I believe, that much that was written about the sectarians
when the scrolls were being decoded was left out and never published on
orders from the Church who du Vaux was over shadowed by most of his
archaeology life. This treatment appears in explanations of other texts on
display.
In the case of the small fragment of a copy of the Community Rule, the
explanation offered is that it contains instructions concerning the everyday
conduct of the Dead Sea community.
It would seem from my research that some people and with a religious axe
to grind, would make every effort to protect the single-sect theory, even if
it is wrong.
The scroll in question contains descriptions of ideas and conduct
espoused by the Yahad brotherhood, but also statements implying that the
members of that group lived in various Palestinian towns and cities but
without a single reference to communal habitation in the Judaean
Wilderness or along the shore of the Dead Sea.

The additional descriptive statement that the members lived a communal
life of abstinence according to strict rules is far more a description of the170
celibate Essenes described by Josephus than it is of the members of the
Yahad brotherhood.
The observance of purity laws, the sharing of wealth, and the holding of
special group meals and discussion sessions are traits considerably more
reminiscent of brotherhood groups of Hellenistic times by now quite well
known than they are of the activities of the genuinely abstemious Essenes
as described by Josephus, Pliny the Elder, and Philo.
Nor is it the case that the text on display condemns the religious laxity
of fellow Jews.
The words used in the manuscript are ma al anashim, the wickedness of
men not, in this case, the wickedness of the sons of Israel.
A mote point I add and no mention of women which seems odd.
As contrasted with wording in the manuscripts that condemns the scribes
own people, the passage in question, as well as various additional
statements in writings of the Yahad brotherhood and others, are clearly
meant to be construed as ideas expressing moral concern on a general
human level.
Scribes or writers no matter who they are seem to have licence to invent.
This is all the more apparent from the writers description of the heavily
Apocalyptic War Rule (=War Scroll) first published in 1962 by Yigael Yadin
(who himself supported that theory and contributed to its spread).
Thus we find the writer stating that this manuscript describes the final
war at the end of days between the Sons of Light and the Sons of171
Darkness but it does not point directly at one group or another.
I should point out that the brotherhood group designated in the
Community Rule by the expression ansh hayahad (men of the Yahad
society) is never mentioned in the War Scroll.
It was only by careful research that the Sons of Darkness covered nations
and tribes who were not Jewish in word or thought but had invaded or
tried to over many years.
The War Scroll, on the other hand, describes various nations, not only the
presumed Romans, as being included amongst the Sons of Darkness.
In the War Scroll the Sons of Darkness are vanquished by the Sons of
Light, but the latter are described, over many columns of the text, as
including all Israelites except the most rebellious sinners.
(Many writers claim that the words sons of light, appearing in three
columns which they treat as the beginning of the Community Rule, refer to
the Yahad brotherhood, but careful readers and researchers will observe
that there is no connection between those three columns and the others,
which describe only the Yahad brotherhood without any mention of the
sons of light doctrines.)
A subsequent portion of the description states that the sectarians held
that the time of this battle was near and would be heralded by the
messianic coming, a belief later shared by early Christians.
However, no reference to a Messiah, or to a messianic coming, is in the
War Scroll.172
I did find there (column 11, lines 6ff of the Yadin edition) a quotation
of the famous Biblical passage (Numbers 24.17f) announcing that A star

will tread forth from Jacob, a sceptre will rise from Israel, etc.,
but the words that both precede and follow this quotation in the scroll
interpret the declaration not as the hint of a future personal Messiah such
as early Christians claimed for it.
The Book of Tobit, according to the description, was one of the Second
Temple Jewish compositions that once again implying a static rather than
dynamic conception of the process of Second Temple Biblical
canonization.
It could be with clear thinking, a more temperate formulation would be that
Tobit and other such Hebraic texts never became part of the Hebrew Bible
either in Second Temple times or thereafter.
The description adds that eventually Tobit and certain other such texts
were adopted...by the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches as Old
Testament. A common confusion; in fact such writings were adopted by
them as deuterocanonical writings within the body of texts designated by
Christians as the Old Testament.
Since the Aramaic Apocryphon of Daniel has elicited great interest on the
part of those exploring Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity,
here too caution would be needed.
The description states that this text refers to a historical king who will
arise and be the son of God.173
This interpretation being offered is assisted by the profusion of capital
letters introduced into the translation; but the actual gist of the passage is
that a false saviour will arise whom people will naively adopt as a godly
personage, speaking of him as a heavenly creature (bar elyon) tyrannizing

the nations until the true people of the Lord arise and cause peace to
blanket the earth. (We are still waiting for this peace!)
In describing the period of tyranny, the ancient author for good reason
does not use the term mashi ah (=messiah), nor is it found or implied
anywhere else in the manuscript.
The past text scroll jar first describes the original view positing an organic
link between such jars and the manuscript-bearing caves, but then adds
that recent scientific analyses of the pottery composition of the jars
suggests a more complex picture, with clays or the jars coming from
several other sites in the area. In other words someone got the jar
fragments and labels mixed up and when they arrived for sorting this
caused a wee bit of a panic to say the least. Say Nothing! mode came
into operation right away and everyone involved kept their heads down and
their mouths shut.
Israeli archaeologist Rachel Bar Nathan, who has made a comparative
study of the northern Judaean Wilderness pottery and writes that the scroll
jar is a well-known vessel within the repertoire of the Second Temple
period, particularly in the plain of Jericho and the Dead Sea region .
The pottery from Qumran does not assist in differentiating the community174
at Qumran from that at other Judaean sites, especially in the Dead Sea
region.
Similarly, regarding the ancient sandals on display, which contain nails,
the appended label first states that they were interpreted as evidence that
the inhabitants of Qumran visited the caves often, but then is careful to
point out that only Roman soldiers wore sandals constructed with nails.
It is this type of confusion that made this research more hard work
and therefore it meant a mass of cross references by myself to even get
close to facts with evidence. More so with the Copper Scroll Research.
In describing the phylacteries (tefiiin) discovered in some of the
manuscript caves, the museum acknowledges for the first time anywhere in
a Scrolls exhibit that they comprise several different versions, and that
scholars have interpreted this either as evidence for the diversity of
Second Temple Period Judaism, or as proof that the scrolls could not have
belonged to a single sect.
(This is what front PR people do, confuse everyone.)
What I am suggesting here is that not one but several groups must have
been responsible for the phylacteries.
With regard to the scroll wrapper from Cave 4, this focuses on the fact
that the very fine weaving and the use of expensive, imported indigo dye
suggest a certain level of wealth on the part of those who cared for the
scrolls, hinting at the embarrassment this finding poses for the question of
a claimed presence at Qumran of wealth-eschewing groups such as the175
Essenes or the Yahad brotherhood.
The source of such indigo dye or ink could be obtained from Indigneria
plant species in Asia and Africa, the leaves being fomented for use as a
dye. Blue and black dyes can also be obtained from marine molluscs
species. Oak galls will give a very black dye once they are boiled up.
The inkwell discovered at Ein Feshkha, within Khirbet Qumran were
originally cited as evidence that the Scrolls were written by scribes from a
religious sect living at Qumran, but thereafter emphasizes that many text
scholars insist that all the scrolls could not have been written at this small
settlement, since they represent some five hundred different examples of
handwritings and varied scribal traditions.
Left is the fact that no evidence has ever been found within Kh. Qumran
for intense scribal activity even on the part of a small group.
But the balance obviously sought by those people is reflected in a
subsequent statement that archaeologists debate whether the number of
inkwells from Qumran make the site unique, since such objects were found
at other sites in Israel. Shekels from Tyre were also found within Khirbet
Qumran. If the residents of Qumran belonged to a religious sect, states the
commentary, the hoard could have been communal property, or the cache
could have constituted the half-shekel taxes that the sect members refused
to send to the Temple.
For those who propose that Qumran was an ordinary villa, farm or
industrial site, the hoard represents the wealthy owners savings or176
commercial profits. There is I suggest, a lack of common sense displayed
in the descriptions of the individual manuscripts, such descriptions raises
serious questions and the actual documentary evidence supporting the
described scholarly opinions, of which there are many.
It is all very well being an academic wonder boy or girl with letters after and
before your name, research papers published or waiting to be published in
archaeology, more so in Near East archaeology if you do not know how to
weed the archaeology garden at Qumran. If you are not aware of
archaeology forensics then the title before your name should be
Dead Thick, Malcolm ......, and after your name, Like real thick!
In Irish and archaeology language world wide, the word, Thick means
STUPID
Could be a horse?
Three nipples dont add up.
She has been here a long time.
What comes after 79?177
PARCHMENT TYPES.
From very remote times, hides first raw, and later tanned were used as
writing material in the Near East.
My research shows that the first mention of skins being used for such a
purpose occurred in the Egyptian IV Dynasty, that being > or < around
2600-2500 BC, that being the Early Dynastic Period though from the
evidence, I am of the opinion that it was much later than this when it came
to writing on hide.
Skins however were used also by Persians for recording their own history
from 1000 BC> when the Achaemenids, a branch of Persian tribes, moved
into W Iran and settled in FARS.
The Writer On Skin,
This has been depicted on Assyrian monuments from 800 BC and the skins
of sheep and goats were also used by the Ionian's to write on.
There may well have been mistakes made in the Egyptian data and what
was in fact classified as leather was in fact parchment and true parchment
did not appear until 200 BC. This I should add, throws cold water on some
researchers who worked on the early Dead Sea Scrolls from 1948 to 1956
The Latin word for parchment is pergamena crops up from time to time in
old Roman text data.
True parchment in fact started life in Pergamum, a city in Asia Minor.178
Authors Note. (Carleton 2011)
There is often confusion to what the Dead Sea Scrolls were recorded on
and 80% of people tend to think that all were written on animal skin that
had been treated for that purpose.
This in not in fact the case as around 50 scrolls or fragments were written
on reed papyrus.
As for the skins used in the near east my list includes sheep, goat, cattle
and deer skins that through time-lines were prepared by scraping fat and
tissue off it, limed to loosen wool and hair then scraped again with a
curved knife for that purpose.
Remaining flesh or fat are scraped away from the underside (flesh side)
and the skin is then stretched on a frame and more scraping carried out.
At one time the whole skin was used as parchment but now it is made from
the flesh side of a split skin, this being the grain side which once
contained the roots of the hair or wool.
Liming was often used and repeated to remove all grease and this left the
skins in alkaline condition and the skin required no more treatment such
as tanning. Tanning was used if skins were as leather for shoes, belts and
clothing in the past.
Drying under tension on a frame completes the process.
The most common parchment in the Near East at the time the scrolls were
copied or written was sheep and goat skin but I suggest that goat skins
were used more-so for the scrolls.179

In Co.Donegal, Ireland I did in fact carry out this process on goat, sheep
and deer skins and found that goat skins were better for writing and
drawing on once they had been cut down to size. Hare and rabbit skins did
not produce good results for writing on.
From a forensic point of view the skins used for the scrolls were from a
X type sheep or goat skin. (Cross bred )
The production of the Dead Sea Scrolls therefore needed treated skins,
reed pens, ink and inkwells, needles and thread and in the case of the
papyrus scrolls, a very good supply of papyrus reeds of which Qumran
areas were in short supply.
In that case papyrus reeds must have been imported to the area at a price.
As Egypt was low on the reed supplies the material reeds must have come
from Syria at that time and brought overland by camel or donkey.
Once the skin has therefore been treated it was cut into sheets and sewn
together to make a single blank scroll.
A handle sheet was attached at one end which would name the text that
was written and on the outside of the main scroll.
The scroll to be written on by a scribe was ready.
The ink used was a carbon based dye and the standard and writing style
by each scribe varied over time.
It should be noted that some of the dead Sea Scrolls have in fact been
edited by another scribe at one time.180
This tends to show I discovered, in the Community Rule Scroll found in 1Q
= cave 1.
The Carbon dating for some of the scrolls found.

TESTAMENT OF KOHATH 388- 353 BCE
PALAEOGRAPHIC AGE 100-75 BCE.
295-220 BCE
REWORKED PENTATEUCH.
339-324 BCE 125-100 BCE
209-117 BCE
BOOK OF ISAIAH 335-327 BCE 125-100 BCE
202-107 BCE
TESTAMENT OF LEVI 191-155 BCE 280 -100 BCE
146-120 BCE
BOOK OF SAMUEL 192-63 BCE 100-75 BCE
TEMPLE SCROLL 97 BC-1CE 180-BC- EARLY 1st CENTURY CE
GENESIS APOCRYPHON 73 BCE-14 CE AS ABOVE
THANKSGIVING HYMNS 21 BCE-61 CE 50 BCE-70CE
HEBREW RESEARCH SCRIPTS FOR THE SCROLLS.
ARCHAIC 250-150 BCE (Mainly biblical text)
HASMONAEAN 150-70CE
HERODIAN 50 BCE- 70 CE181
If Petrie was the father of Palestinian archaeology then it may be said
that Albright was the father of Biblical Archaeology.
That is, that branch of archaeology that sheds light upon the social and
political structure, the religious concepts and practices and other human
activities and relationships that are found in the Bible or pertain to peoples
mentioned in the Bible.
That bible, being the old Hebrew Bible and not the King James Bible.
The main purpose of biblical archaeology is not to prove or disprove
the Bible. Yahweh is the God who acts in history, and in as much as
archaeology sheds light on that history it is important to biblical studies.
It is the people therefore and their habitat as well as the tribes that such
research should be about. Early work done by critics was done in complete
isolation from any comparative materials. Wellhausen consciously ignored
the early archaeological finds believing that Israel's development was
essentially independent of the development of Egypt or Babylonia.
Gunkel writing only 17 years after the publication of Wellhausen's
Prolegomena found himself disagreeing with the latter's conclusions
because he took into account extra-biblical parallels, such as the
Gilgamesh Epic.
Lance concludes that after Gunkel:Old Testament research would follow
many paths...but at least one thing was clear: no longer could the Old
Testament be reliably interpreted as a self-contained system in isolation182
from the rest of the ancient Near East.
Those who would understand the Bible in depth would have to read it as
an organic part of its context. Archaeological discoveries have led to the
modification of the Documentary Hypothesis, rather than to its
abandonment.
The various sources of the hypothesis are now held to be historical, but
transmitted orally for a long period, so affecting the stage rather than
the sources themselves. Selman notes that only a few writers have argued
for the abandonment of the Documentary Hypothesis on the basis of
archaeological data.
There is much disagreement as to the exact period into which the so called
Patriarchal Age fits. Although some scholars go for a first millennium date,
most hold to a date in the early 2nd millennium, in the Middle Bronze age.
Albright and his colleague Nelson Glueck felt that they had found
irrefutable evidence for Abraham in the Middle Bronze age (MBI: 2 100 1
900 BC.). Albright associated Abraham with the Amorites migrations of this
period, arguing that he was a donkey caravanner who plied his trade in
Canaan.John Bimson argues for an earlier dating (Abraham c.2 092 1 992;
Jacobs entry into Egypt c.1 877.) on the basis that while not being
completely satisfactory, it does at least avoid some of the problems
associated with assigning the Patriarchs either to MBI or MBII. I should
point out that he hen gos on and argues that the length of the Patriarchal
age is sufficient to span the major changes in settlement patterns that183
occurred during the transition between these periods.
Cornfield et al opt for a Late Bronze Age (LBA) date for Abraham and place
Joseph in the Iron Age, because of the mention of Philistines, as well as
certain references in the poetic passages in Genesis 49, Isaac's blessing of
his sons (Gen. 27), and Noah's curse on Canaan.
From an archaeology point of view their dating runs into difficulty because
it is out of line with the biblical chronology.
The patriarchs must be placed somewhere between 2100 1700 BC < if the
Chronologies are to be regarded as anything other than artificial, which
unlikely. Such dating in a time line is of course difficult because I am very
aware that the Old Kingdom of Egypt was around 2575-2150 BC, the Middle
Kingdom 2040-1783 BC. Much evidence has been put forward for a dating
of 1950 1700 BC.
The alliances between Mesopotamian powers are typical for this period as
are the personal names of the patriarchs. Seasonal occupation of the
Negev has been substantiated, as have the presence of city states and
certain social customs. This evidence is not as strong as it was once
considered to be.
Van Seters, for example, claims that the Arabian names in Genesis 25
must be from the 1 st millennium. In his view under a guise of genealogy,
gives a picture of the wide-ranging incense trade carried on by the various
Arab tribes and localities in the sixth century BC. This argument rests on
Van Seters claim that none of these Arabian names occur in Mesopotamian184
documents before the reign of Shalmaneser III (8th century BC).
Hamilton points out that this absence is most likely due to the lack of
contact between the Tigris-Euphrates and Canaan before that time.
Van Seters reasoning thus over extends an argument from silence.
On the basis of this evidence the milieu of the patriarchal narratives is
more likely to be of the 2nd millennium than of the first, so I am for a
dating of 1950 -1700 BC.
Archaeology is, like all sciences, is not without limitations. As mentioned
above, it cannot verify spiritual truth, and data it provides can often be
interpreted in different ways and is.
There is always the possibility that data will be misused, and some of the
ways that this has happened will be discussed further below. A second
problem is simply the vast amount of information still to be collected.
Wiseman & Yamauchi point out that: in Palestine alone, of more than 6 000
sites surveyed, fewer than 200 have been excavated, and of these only 28
to any major extent... some sites are still occupied (e.g. Damascus,
Jerusalem, Erbil) and therefore can only be partially examined.
The precise location of some prominent OT places (e.g. Jericho & Ai) is
still questioned. Only a fraction of the objects retrieved from some sites
have been published.
In Palestine the high water table may have caused its perishable writing
(Papyrus & parchment) to perish. Yet of the estimated half a million
documents from OT times, fewer than 10% have been published.185
It would be too much to expect, even if the data were less fragmentary,
that we would find any direct evidence of the biblical patriarchs, and
indeed none has been discovered. That does not mean there is none yet to
be found or found and not yet decoded. Nor indeed has any historical
figure from Genesis 12-50 been identified. It would be wrong to conclude
from this that the stories are fictional, or to suggest, as some scholars
have, that the biblical narrative teaches us things about God and ourselves,
without concerning itself with historical accuracy.
Lance points out that the vast amount of data being collected has caused
archaeology and OT study to become separated simply because no one
man can be an expert in both areas. Specialization, I feel is the only way
round this problem may mean that important facts are not passed between
the various fields of study. A good example of such behaviour in the past is
the Dead Sea Scrolls data that was held back for many years.
The material contained in Genesis 14 is the most sharply debated area of
Patriarchal archaeology.
The mention of so many characters and events that would be expected to
appear in extra-biblical accounts have made this chapter a focus of special
attention. Many scholars regard the account as late and unhistorical.
Attempts at the beginning of the 20th century to identify the four Kings
(most famously Amraphel with Hammurabi, King of Babylon) have been
now been generally rejected on both philological and historical grounds.
Any positive identification, G.W. Anderson asserts, is beset by difficulties.186
Van Seters rejects the historicity of the accounts on the basis of the lack
of any evidence for such a military alliance in a 2nd millennium context.
He further argues that Abraham, with an army of 318 men would hardly
have been able to defeat a force that he reckons to number several
thousand.
However our knowledge of this period of history is still so patchy that
these events could have gone undetected in extra-biblical finds, especially
the difficult problem of Elamite rule in the Dead Sea area.
Wenham points out that the armies in the ancient world of 2nd millennium
were small, more on the level of raiding party than of an invasion force
much like the old Clans of Irish History.
Although there is no direct archaeological confirmation of this account,
the names of the Kings (which are well attested in the 2nd millennium), the
route taken by the armies and incidental references to Canaanite religion
and certain legal terms give it at least a ring of authenticity I am
suggesting.
Due to the weakness of the evidence on both sides, and there is a lot of
weak evidence here, the best solution would be to allow archaeological

research to fill the gaps on our knowledge.
The Hyksos Period (c.) 1 700 1 550 BCE)
This has received a great deal of attention because the rise of Joseph to
power and the entry of Jacob and his family into Egypt is often linked with
it.The identity of the Hyksos is uncertain.187
Some identify them with a Hurrian ruling class who, through superior
weaponry and strategy dominated Syria, Canaan and the Lower Kingdom
of Egypt.
Bright argues that they were of essentially Semitic origin, their earlier
rulers apparently being Canaanite and Amorites princes from Palestine
and Southern Syria.
The subjugation of the confused and weakened Lower Kingdom was more
likely to have been more by infiltration than by conquest.
Although the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt cannot be made to fit
Chronologically with the expulsion of Israel from Egypt, Devries points
out that Israel must have been in Egypt throughout the Hyksos period.
There is no direct evidence of Joseph's administration available from
archaeology. However, a number of incidental features of the Joseph
narrative (Gen. 37-50) have been shown to be consistent with the Hyksos
period.
The price of 20 shekels was the average slave price in the 18th century
BC ( later the price rose until it was 40-50 shekels in the 15th-14th
centuries.
The technical terms used in Pharaohs court (Butler, Baker), as well
as court (Gen. 41:14) and prison procedure and etiquette have been shown
to be accurate. The Vizier of Egypt was known as the Seal-bearer of the
King of Lower Egypt (cf.Gen. 41:42) and the gold chain sanctioned a Viziers
control over regulation of food supply. (Gen .41:42).188
Although Cornfield argues that the mention of Rameses (Gen. 47:11) before
the rise of the Nineteenth Dynasty in the 14th century is anachronistic, it is
possible that the name is accurate, being interpreted Re has created it.
The Egyptian names are not attested elsewhere until the 12th or 10th
centuries BC (e.g. Potiphar, Asenath, Zephanath-Peneah), but this is
probably due to lack of documentary evidence rather than their non-use.
Excavations in the mound of Yorghan, near Kirkuk, Iraq during 1925-31
unearthed more than 4000 clay tablets, many dating from the 15th-14th
centuries BC, when the city there was known as Nuzi, part of a province of
the Mitanni Kingdom.
These tablets include many kinds of documents, from marriage contracts
to wills and agreements of sale for land and slaves and are the source of
the striking parallels to the patriarchal stories.
Many of the texts only record the basic information necessary for the
transactions they describe, omitting that which was understood by both
parties.
This has meant that the texts are capable of being interpreted in a number
of ways, as we shall see below.
Mari (Tell-el-Harari) is located 25km from the border of Iraq, on the West
bank of the Euphrates. Excavations there began in 1925, revealing the city
to have been a prosperous city in the patriarchal period.
Among the finds were the famous Mari Letters from the Royal archive.
Although they do mention some OT names (e.g. Nahor and cities189
Haran, Hazor & Laish) their significance is more general than those from
Nuzi in that they provide us with general information about the 2nd
millennium world rather than many specific parallels, although some have
been drawn from them. The mention of tribes of pastoral nomads, known
as Amorites, has proved particularly relevant.
Of all the claims of archaeological substantiation of Biblical events and
characters, those initially made for the discoveries at Tell Mardikh
(in Northern Syria) were the most rewarding. One of these claims was that
the five cities of the plain had been found named on the same tablet in the
same order as in the Bible.
I have since discovered that his claim was later withdrawn and no surprise
there for guesswork is not much good when it comes to archaeology time-
lines.
16 000 Sumerian texts were discovered, many, as with those from Nuzi,
dealt with economic and commercial matters, but Royal decrees, lexical
and religious texts have also been found.
That old boggy of course turns up again and again with problems in
translation mean that some texts are open to interpretation and we should
know what that means. However, they do point to a 2nd millennium rather
than a 1st millennium context for Genesis as a whole, showing that names
such as Abraham, Israel, Esau and places like Salim were all current at this
time.190
This extra biblical data has been used in three ways to furnish parallels
to Biblical events. Firstly, to give further examples of practices already

known in Genesis (e.g. the supposed introductory formula used in death-
bed dispositions (Gen.27:2) and the sale of a birthright (Gen. 25:29-34).(82)
The second was to provide background information on such things as
shepherding contracts (Gen. 31) or the practice of a barren wife having
children by one of her slave-girl (Gen. 16:1-4; 30:113). The third method
was to interpret a little understood biblical practice using archaeological
data.
Three examples of this are the adoption of Eliezer by Abraham (Gen.
15:1-4), Abraham's purchase of the Cave of Machpelah (Gen.23) and
Rachel's theft of the household gods (Heb. Teraphim) (Gen.3 1:19,30-34).
The means by which these parallels were arrived at, owes more, at times,
to enthusiasm than to scientific method. Enthusiasm is well and fine but if
it does not come with good archaeology practice and knowledge then it is
as useful as a cow pat on a wet Sunday.
Millard points out that the selection of information was eclectic, being
based solely on its similarity to a Biblical passage, regardless of whether it
was representative of practices recorded in other texts found at the same
location. Often a single text was used for comparison.
Millard concludes: When all is said these parallels [those based on
unbalanced or distorted data] prove nothing. At worst, they can be
misleading as additional evidence shows a custom to be local or191
commonplace. At best they show the possibility that the Patriarchal
Narratives exhibit some [of the same] practices, so permitting us to
conclude that they may tell of the same times. They are not to be neglected,
however, when they are thoroughly understood in their context.

At least two texts from Nuzi have been used to explain Abraham's fear that
his servant Eliezer would become his heir (Gen.15:1 -4).
These texts describe how childless couples might adopt a son to serve
them in their old age and in turn inherit their property upon their demise,
after fulfilling the appropriate mourning rites.
This practice was widespread in the Ancient Near East, but despite the
popularity of this explanation it has now been largely rejected.
The main difficulty, apart from the translational difficulties inherent
in the text of (which are great), is that the Nuzi tablets state that once
adoption had been carried out the adopted could never be completely
excluded from the inheritance,
even if a son were born to his adopted parents he would then take second
place to the natural son. However, this shared inheritance is never
mentioned in Genesis, but, as Van Seters points out, is clearly excluded.
There is I feel, little point in arguing that Abraham was flouting the
accepted practice of his day it is easier to accept Wenham's observation
that too much is being read into the text from the supposed parallel as is
so often the case.192
Eliezer is not called a slave (the servant in Gen.24 is not named) and the
text does not say that he had been adopted, although Abraham may well
have been planning to do so if he had had no son of his own.
In Genesis 23 Abraham buys the Cave of Machpelah from Ephron the
Hittite as a burial place for his dead wife Sarah but I can not see why he
just did not plant her in the desert and move on as many poor people had
to do. The resemblance between this account and Laws 46 and 47 of the
Hittite Laws has led to another incident of parallel-mania as it is sometimes
called by its critics.
According to these laws, the sale of a man's entire property freed him from
all feudal responsibilities connected with the land, whereas if he disposed
of only part of it, these would remain his.
Barker and Wright therefore conclude that Ephron took advantage of
Abraham's predicament to free himself from taxes (or whatever form these
feudal responsibilities took).
Van Seters may have hit the nail on the head when he said , the main
problem is that this interpretation must supply the story with missing point
of comparison and then reconstruct the text to agree with it.
These missing parts in the account are any references to feudal service,
and any indication that Ephron was selling his entire property, which was
unlikely. This passage is not a precise parallel with a Neo-Babylonian
dialogue document but it is more likely that it represents an early form of
bargaining, which later developed into the sophisticated ritual of the Neo-193
Babylonian period suggested by Van Seters. Despite this at least three
recent articles still maintain that there is a parallel with the Hittite law code.
Many scholars, including Bright, Cornfield, Kidner, Mellor, Thompson and
Wright prefer to link the theft with a tablet from Nuzi, which implies that the
possessor of Teraphim had the right to inherit the household property.
Rachel's motive in stealing them was therefore an attempt to ensure that
Jacob would receive Labans estate. This view is one of several that is
based on an interpretation of no more than twelve, most frequently only
four or five of the approximately 300 Nuzi family law-texts known.

It would be more foolish to think that the will of the still-living father
could be thwarted by such a theft; the idols would only prove to be a
liability.
The writer was therefore not being anachronistic, but rather being
consistent with Abraham's 1st millennium context.
Despite the many dogmatic claims there is now a great deal of evidence
for the accuracy of the references to camels. Camels in the holy lan debate
has its roots in some basic facts of archaeological history.
Before 1950 animal bones found on digs were regarded as having little or
no importance. I suggest here that this was a bad mistake.
In addition most of the early sites were in interior hill country in which
the camel played a very small role but a role all the same.
With the recent increase in interest in fauna remains a number of writers
now place the domestication of the camel in the fourth millennium BC.194
Evidence discovered so far includes a mention of a Camel in a list of
domesticated animals during the Old Babylonian period (1950-1600 BC) in
a Sumerian Lexical Text from Ugarit; reference to camels milk in another
Old Babylonian text.
Pierre Montet found a 2nd millennium stone container in the form of a
camel in Egypt and Parrot uncovered a picture of the hindquarters of a
camel on a jar at Mari, also c.2000 BC, and camel bones dating from the
pre-Sargonid era (c.2400 BC).
Wiseman asserts by the 3rd millennium BC camels were in use, together
with donkeys, as slow moving beasts of burden, but were not domesticated
on a large scale until c.1500-1250 BC. Harrison, Kitchen and Yamauchi cite
further examples.
Day concludes that there is now no necessity to regard the patriarchal
references to camels as anachronisms.
As you should note, everyone has an opinion on the camel in the Holy
Land and Egypt even Wenham indicates that the camels relative rarity
probably made them something of a luxury a factor that emphasizes the
wealth of the patriarchs. The controversy over camels has tended to
overshadow a far more important fact.
That is that the first reference to horses in Scripture is not until the
time of Joseph s administration in Egypt (Gen.47:17) some time in 18th -
16th centuries BC.195
When it was first introduced to the Middle East in about 2 300 BC, the
horse was very valuable, serving as a beast of burden as well as being
used for riding. The Amarna letters (14th century BC) mention horses in
Canaan, but they do not appear to have been widely used (in warfare at
least) until the time of Solomon. A writer in the 1st millennium wishing to
emphasise the wealth of the patriarchs would have been more likely to
have substituted horse into the account rather than camel as by the 1st
millennium camels had become much more commonplace, while horses
were still expensive.
A second alleged anachronism is the record of Philistines in the
patriarchal narratives (Gen.21:32,34; 26:1,8,14,15,18), as the fierce race of
warriors from Capthtor settled on the coastal plains of Canaan in the 12 th
Century BC.
Therefore references to Philistines in this region earlier that this date

must represent an example of an unconscious anachronism.
However, Kitchen has argued persuasively that the name is a replacement
for an earlier race of immigrants from Capthtor.
These people were different to the 12th century Philistines in that they
dwelt around Gerar under a king (Heb. Melek), rather than in the five cities
of the plain, which were governed by a ruler (Heb. Seranim).
Lasor argues that the earlier Philistines were identified with the
Canaanites, and may have inherited the name of a southern Canaanite
people group called Palishti.196
Palishti was later transferred to the prst, the Egyptian name for the 12th
century Philistines. Most conservative scholars follow Kitchens
explanation. Lasor adds as an alternative that the name may have been
proleptic.
I suggest there is no longer any valid reason to claim that the name is
anachronistic.
Van Seters makes many valid points concerning the abuse of parallels,
especially those found at Nuzi. Unfortunately throughout the first section
he repeatedly makes broad assertions to justify a 1st millennium context
which do not stand close examination as my research discovered.
There are three examples below though I do not agree on Van Seters
interpretation.
When considering Gen. 12:10-20; 20; 26:1-11, in which the patriarch
pretends that his wife is really his sister, Van Seters draws on 6th century
Egyptian marriage contracts that refer to a man's wife as his sister.
This would then explain why the patriarchs acted as the did.
Moving on from here Van Seters falls into an error that he earlier
condemned by importing a meaning into the text that is clearly not there,
by arguing that in Egyptian law a man's wife was also known idiomatically
as his sister.
The explanation is rendered unnecessary by the comment of Gen.
20:12, but more seriously in Genesis 12 an Egyptian Pharaoh
misunderstands what Abraham meant ( as one would.) by calling Sarah his197
sister.
If Van Seters is correct, we could expect him to be familiar with one of
his own country's idioms? The more reasonable explanation (and the one
supported by the text) is that while a brother was likely to be at least
tolerated by a rival male, a husband was not.
There have been parallels drawn between Esaus sale of his birthright to
Jacob (Gen. 25:29-34) and texts from Nuzi that describe the transfer of
birthright amongst members of a family.
Rejecting these Van Seters bases his preferred parallel on one damaged
text. Even if it were possible to be certain about this text, the transfer of
birthright was not just a 1st millennium phenomenon, but occurred in
several periods.
Examples of a childless wife presenting her slave girl to her husband (cf.
Gen. 16; 30:3, 9) are linked by Van Seters to a Neo-Assyrian text from
Nimrod. I suggest from my research he is correct in his assertion that this
custom cannot prove a 2nd millennium context, but neither can it be used
in evidence for a 1st millennium context any more conclusively.
However his distinction between the children of the wife and those of the
husband is considered by Selman to be unrealistic.
Also the idea that the wife retains full control over the slave girl.
In fact the text is nearer to the 2nd millennium parallel cited because it is
Abraham who has to dismiss Hagar, an act that he performs reluctantly and
only with divine consent and encouragement (Gen. 21:9-14).198
The implication could be fairly made that Abraham knew that the custom
of the day forbade the expulsion of a slave girl under these circumstances.
Once again the establishment of a 1st millennium parallel does not
dismiss the 2nd millennium parallels because here, and in many other of
Van Seters examples, the practices involved are not restricted to one
period.
That is why I urge caution when reading old scripts as well as personal
interpretation of the same, because it only takes one word or sentence to
throw everything later into complete chaos.
An example I quote is the word stoat. Small mammal of the marten family
and a carnivore. Stoat is what it is known by, but in England, Scotland and
Ireland it is also called by its local name; witerick, weasel, and so on.
A weasel in Ireland is in fact a stoat because weasels, smaller than a stoat
and looks like one except for two things. It does not have a black tip to the
tail and weasels never made it across the land bridge into Ireland before
the sea levels rose.
The best, I fear that can be said is that they have a ring of authenticity and
that they do not now appear as far-fetched as was once thought but no
longer carry the weight that they once had. I conclude in this section
therefore that the burden of proof is very much on those who would deny a
second millennium context for the patriarchs, not 'Christ' as many tend to
think. I should also point out here that the Christ Movement led by Paul
was very anti Jewish and did cause conflict and pain to Jewish199
Communities as anyone who makes a study of the New Testament will see.
The trouble with old scripts and texts I discovered, was the number of
variations almost of the same story and many people have got excited by
finding a script or words in Hebrew only to discover the same later in Greek
with subtle changes in some lettering and words.
I did discover this by accident in the Mandala Yoga Ashram in Wales in
their library there which I used to haunt in search of material for research.
It is for all intentions a good reference liberty for yoga students, language
and of course text from Asia and the Near East.
What I did do was learn to understand the letters of text first and that
way if I was looking for material I knew what language it was.
The second problem and a major one for me was interpretation and again I
would enlist the help of students on courses, more so those that had
studied the classics or were from India or had lived there for a time there
and knew languages and languages linked to yoga.
Thankfully they were great with their space and time and did help.
I have laid out below some language guidance that was used for reference
below.
ARAMCIC
JUDEO-ARABC.
LADINO POSSIBLE SPANISH CONNECTION.
PHONECIAN.
YIDDISH.200
One can see from the above the great difficulty for anyone making a study
of old scripts. The trouble with all the data is that of language and a good
deal of that is from the old languages and from many different scribes.
From a research point of view I did find that some of the interpretations
left a lot to be desired and in many cases only to suit the moment in time
and were basis.
What had not and still not been studied, are the hidden scrolls and gospels
and reasons why Peter and a few others were left out of the bible? After
all, if Peter was the selected head of the Church then there had to be
someone that recorded his life after the so called death of Jesus or almost
impossible, even for a fisherman, to not have recorded part or the whole
of the great event in Rome.
Such gospels from women at the time and after Jesus have been omitted
from both the old and new testaments by Hebrew and Christian leaders but
I know that they would have been recorded.
Mystical vision
I am of the opinion and with some knowledge, that the paranormal comes
into play here and that must be kept in mind because that is where it is.
All religions are riddled with such and there is no escaping the paranormal.
Isaiah says that he received his messages in visions. That would include
dreams, trances and mystical voyages. These visionary "trips" produce
language that is highly descriptive and full of similes and symbols.
Extensive alliteration causes confusion even to the careful reader.201
Also, visionary repetition of important events three or more times does

not indicate three or more events but rather the certainty of the event.
The over throw of Satan under the symbol of Leviathan the dragon is an
example. Visions therefore need to be treated with respect but also with a
very open mind as the person having the visions may also have been
suffering from a mental illness at the time but unknown then.
Translation:
Isaiah uses many literary devices that are not translatable.One of the major
devices is the use of a play on words.
Sometimes it is simply the use of rhyming words or acronyms.
For instance Isaiah 8:22 and 9:1 (In Hebrew the same verses are 8:22, 23)
Isaiah repeats forms of the two words (mu'aph and mutsaq) in both verses
which in his contrast are a link to the meaning of the passage.
The play on these words makes it clear that it refers to the invasion of
Tiglath Pilezer III.
That 9:1 is linked to 8:22 and therefore the preceding two chapters is not
as apparent in English. At other times words are used that have double
meaning. At least one of the words that Isaiah uses has a double meaning
that is only understood as a double meaning in the light of prophetic
fulfilment.
That is the use of the word "nazer" Heb. which is fulfilled in Mat.2:23 where
it is linked to Isaiah 11:1.But that is only one of the eleven or so times
Isaiah uses the word.202
The Hebrew reader should be startled in those places where Isaiah uses
this word in contexts that are clearly messianic. These contexts also
contain the word "salvation" that in Hebrew is "Yeshua" which is also the
name Jesus.* This is only one of the startling "flights into mysticism"
available in Isaiah that defies translation.
It could well be that later translations left parts of it wrong because
of the scribes own interpretation of the script.*"Is it a light thing that you
are my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the
Nazarenes of Israel? I have also given you for a light of the Gentiles to be
my Yeshua unto the ends of the earth."
This research so far has looked at past text and history in some detail
but so far there is little or nothing pointing to what the 'grail' was or is.
The only real pointer is not the Dead Sea Scrolls that give us history but
directly to the Copper Scroll which I will deal with now in full.
What the grail or grails are could be almost anything that suits the needs of
the people or person, the tribe or country and the religions links, if any.
There are a number of possibilities and I am listing them below.
THE ARK OF CONVENT.
A CUP OR BOWL.
SECRET COPTIC TEXT.
MISSING DEAD SEA SCROLLS.
REMAINS OF JESUS AND FAMILY.
WOOD FROM THE CROSS.203
HEBREW SCRIPTS.
EGYPTIAN TEXT SCRIPTS.
LATIN AND EARLY CHURCH SCRIPTS OR OLD TEXT
KNIGHTS TEMPLAR TEXT-EVIDENCE
EARLY ARAB RECORDS AND HIDDEN TEXT-EVIDENCE.

MISSING OR HIDDEN SCRIPTS.
HIDDEN TREASURE LIKE GOLD AND SILVER
It is also possible, as I said earlier, there may well be more than one grail
type or object and this is likely considering archaeology history in the Near
East and Asia and at times poor interpretations of facts of 'evidence'.
Anyone has got this far in reading my research will by now see that
religions and Cultures play a large part in it though may have missed the
political links.
That is the problem with archaeology Empires and cultures because one
tends to focus on the tribe or culture, religion, myth and mythology, wars
and conflict and very little political interaction that tend to give us clues.
Religion and politics from a history and archaeology point of view are bed
partners of the worse kind because both always have an agenda, good or
bad.Today the Vatican is a good modern example of this as does Israel, the
Arab World and some Asian cultures.
Christianity could well be the top offender because what was put down in
the Old Testament is not being used or even thought about any more and
the pace is now gathering where numbers are dropping and converts few.204
It is, I am of the opinion, very terminally ill.
Such politics and religion came into play against Gnosticism, a Christian
off shoot to main stream Christianity which to say the least the whole
thinking of old texts referring to the life and death of Jesus the man.
As I stated before it all came about when an Arab discovered them in a
cave at Nag Hammadi in December 1945, two years before the first Dead
Sea Scrolls were found.

The fifty two texts were in a red earth ware jar along with some 'secret
poems' and they were in book form and covered in leather and were
without doubt codex's.
The location I believe now was in one of the one hundred and fifty caves
that honeycomb the face of the Jabal al-Tarif mountain in Upper Egypt.
They were early Coptic in nature but before they had been placed in the
jar in a cave, straw was also placed with them to keep them dry.
Muhammed Ali Samman who found them, had more to think about that
some mouldy old texts and straw and he left them with his mother and she
used some straw and one of the books as heating from the fire.
Then with his brother went out and killed the man who killed his father.
The caves on the mountain had been used 4300 years ago as burial places
for the dead so this suggests the red jar was placed there well after that.
I am of the opinion that these texts were copies of the original and
translations of such around 120-150 AD but what was lost in such
translation if anything, I don't know.205
Later when they had been sold on to dealers and reached the archaeology
community not only was there surprise and excitement.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947 and in a much different location
which added fuel to the fire of course.
The Nag Hammadi find in 1945 was to set teeth gnashing in Jewish and
Christianity circles because new Gospels had been discovered and
recorded. I will call these the 'hidden gospels'.
Because words of Jesus when he was alive had been written down and
copied by Judas Thomas, his possible brother and said to be a 'twin'.

This twin is also mentioned in the Greek Gospels but care must be taken
here in case the interpenetration by others is wrong.
That does not take away from the fact that the Gnostic Gospels turned
some of the stories in the bible upside down and I have listed as much of
the titles below.
Gospel of Philip- Mary Magdalene.
Secret Gospel of John The Mysteries.
(This may point to the Egyptian or Jesus Mysteries)
Fifty two texts in all that included the Gospels of John, Philip, Truth,
Egyptians the Secret Book of James, Secrets of Paul, Letters to Peter and
Philip and the Secrets of Peter. There was also one text on Thunder,
Perfect Mind but I have no idea what it means.
The Gospel of Judas is also recorded and placed at 200 AD and as a
suggested Coptic Papyrus codex which was found at Beni Masah.206
Thomas ( Judas) is recorded also going to India, but the trade routes were
not being used till 80-200 AD so he had to get there and back via another
way.
If this was the case then he may have contact with Hindus and Brahmanism
tribes or cultures. There is no way he could have went to India and not met
local people, some maybe hostile, some welcoming him.
Much later of course when there was a well established trade route people
from India may have had possible links in the Holy Land and even Egypt.
If Thomas had kept a log of his adventures in India or the people he met
earlier but there does not seem to be any record from my research.
That does not mean that there is none.

There could well have been a language problem between the people but it
surprises me that he kept no record after he came back from India.
No mention is dispatches by anyone so far.
The Gospel of Philip and Mary Magdalene does mention that 'kiss on the
lips of Jesus' and as the other research data confirms it it does not mean it
is true. From my own opinion and views I think it was and Jesus may well
have been doing the kissing not just Mary. There was I am sure a real
relationship here, a loving relationship and sexual.
If Jesus did not die on the cross and Mary and him were lovers or even
married then there is a likelihood they may well have had one child at least
if not more but living somewhere else outside of the Holy Land.207
Therefore I had to do research on Mary Magdalene in depth which I have
included below;
THE MARY MAGDALENE SAGA.
Many writers and researchers have produced data on Mary Magdalene,
some of it so far out and inaccurate that it is not worth reading or could be
used as part of this research.
The good news is that a few writers were spot on and give some good
material and the rest I did and put meat on her bones.
Mary Magdalene was a real person and she and Jesus were more than just
'good friends.' What is not always known is that when Mary anointed the
feet of Jesus and his head with an ointment that had been imported from
India, not only was it expensive but also used only by lovers or newly
weds. This strongly suggests two things.
(1) A trade route to and from India.

(2) That Jesus the Man and Mary were lovers.
She then dried his feet with her hair and that meant she too was anointed.
This was done in the sight and hearing of the followers of Jesus.
It should also be kept in mind that the 'kiss' on the lips by Mary to Jesus
did create ill feeling by some of the male followers.
The daughter of Mary Jacob she was born a week before Jesus was born
in Bethany, her on the 25th of December and him on the 6th of January the
following year if you use the old Julian calendar.208
To help with the evidence here, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates
Christmas, the birth of Jesus, on the 6th of January even to this day.
I suggest when we are talking about Mary at Christmas we are talking
about the birth of Mary Jacobs and later to be known as Magdalene.
I expect critics of course to debate or dismiss these dates as fact but
they are and it is only when the Gregorian calendar came into force
divided the new Christmas Day from the old.
That is why there are twelve days of Christmas now noted as part of the
Festival.
If any one grail is to be linked to Jesus or Mary Madeline then it is to be
found in Europe that being France, Ireland or Rome and not anywhere in
the Holy Land. India in the NW is also a major contender, like around
Kashmir.
The most powerful religious group today, and who have in the vaults all
types of texts and objects relating to the Holy Land, The Catholic Church
linked in the past to The Templars, hidden text and of the old gospels.
Some I should point out will be highly sensitive because such information
is not for public viewings.
If it were it may well change the whole course of Catholic and Jewish
religious history and thinking today. Someday I have no doubt that they will
go on the Internet and much more interesting than the US data that was
uploaded in December 2010.209
The Guardian of the 'truth' as far as Rome is concerned is an organisation
Opus Dei, founded in Spain in 1928
Today in 2011 the membership (Official Numbers) I have listed below.
I take this from the Annuario Pontificio, the Official Vatican yearbook.
1,8050 < > PRIESTS, 83,644 LAYPEOPLE =85,491 MEMBERS < > AND 55%
NOW WOMEN.
The Work of God (Opus Dei) members are very faithful to the church and
more so than everyday Catholic men and women.
They come from all works of life but are mainly educated and have skills
that can be put to good use and if you don't have a skill to offer and don't
get fully involved with the Catholic faith daily then you don't get excepted.
A sort of Church Mafia if you like but with power and the ear of Cardinals.
If there are secret texts and scripts or anything remotely that could be
termed a 'holy grail' then some of these people know about it and also
know where some of them are as a location. But they don't know where at
that the location. Much the same as the Codex May on the Copper Scroll in
fact. You may find one or two locations but when you get there the
archaeology landscape will have changed and markers may have
vanished over the years. Mountains and large rock pile would not but a
river may be no more than a long dry Wadi, a home for lizards, snakes and
scorpions.Where it is not, is the USA, Russia, Greece, and Rome. Egypt
and the vast areas of the Holy Land is the target area and also some
castles and large homes in France and even England.210
I feel strongly that what people are looking for and have looked for without
success is not a solid object like bone or a cup.
It is more than likely Text codex which when found and the puzzle decoded
will lead them something more profound than they have thought it would
be. That 'something' is in France or the UK but it came from the Near and
Middle East and it was brought there well after the death of Jesus and his
family. Where it was placed it is still there today. One Grail out of many I
suggest and others still hidden, possibly never to be discovered.
I am convinced therefore that though the other scrolls I have mentioned are
of a religious nature the Copper Scroll is less so and I am off the opinion
again there is more than one beaten copper scroll.
Such a copper sheet or sheets I suggest were made in Egypt as blanks
then added to after, a form of riveting was carried out and then and only
then, the Codex written and drawn on them. This missing Copper Scroll
may well have been found and removed already.
The journey to such a resting place starts in Jerusalem and it was a group
of holy Knights that brought it, passing it on and on to their fellow knights
till journeys end. It was something that the Church wanted and did not get
though I have no doubt they had people looking for it, people questioned,
even tortured and murdered, seeking information of its whereabouts and
what in fact it contained. The One off Two I suggest here is a good
starting place for the Knights Templars involvement in removing items.211

THE KNIGHTS TEMPLARS 1118-1350 AD
It must be kept in mind that research into the Templars starting date as
a group is difficult to pin down from many sources but for the moment I
will suggest a date between 1100-1350 AD
Their main job was to protect pilgrims on the highways and byways on
their way to the city of Jerusalem in Holy Land.
The first group was small in number and founded by Hugues De Payen,
Lord or nobleman from the Champagne area of France.
In those early days they were known as 'The Order Of Poor Knights of
Christ, or Knights of the Temple of Solomon' so right from the beginning
there is evidence of a link to the Holy Land and Jerusalem though it is
highly unlikely that the eight men got close to the Holy Land for a few
years.
In time, Hugues De Payen turned up in Jerusalem at the palace of King
Baudouin 1 st and offered the Knights and himself as protectors of the
faithful. In other words they were to protect the highways and roads around
Jerusalem where pilgrims walked.
The King seems to have thought it a good idea though I am sure he
pondered on how eight knights were going to do this.
So a wing of the palace was set aside for them and as they had taken an
oath of poverty they would not have been heard to keep.
It is doubtful if they did not eat and drink well while there and the Patriarch212
of Jerusalem and Emissary to the Pope as well as religious leader of the
new kingdom made sure that they were well cared for.
What I found strange is that for nine years there were only nine knights
recorded in old records which stated that no one else had been recruited.
I found this more than strange so carried out more research which I have
included below.
Hugues de Payen and these nine men were in fact Templars but again
what is odd that there is no record of the same 'protecting' pilgrims.
No mentions of battles with cut-throats or robbers, no data on the number
of pilgrims they saved?
In 1127 it does seem that some of the nine returned to their homes and in
1128, the Church, led by Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, stated that the Grand
Master (Hugues de Payen) and the knights were officially recognised.
This again was in the year 1128 in France and trouble was not far away
from Church involvement and the Knights of the Temple and others, the
others being the Cathars or Albigensians and as far as the Church was
concerned they were all involved in heresy. That in those days was a dying
offence but only after prison and torture.
Cathars were a religious group and were known as , 'Cathars, Cathares,
Cathari 'and from Italy, 'Patarines' The trouble between Cathars and the
Church started sometime before 1165 and when they first started up were
condemned by the Ecclesiastical Council at Languedoc town of Albi,
Southern France.213
By 1200 the Roman Catholic Church was more than alarmed at the spread
of this religion, a branch of the Christian religion but not run in the same
way. The Church being the all powerful in 1209 sent in an army of 30,000
knights and foot soldiers and slaughtered men, women and children and a
trail of blood and burning went from Languedoc, Perpignan, Narbonne,

Carcassonne, to Toulouse.
Nothing or no one was spared during this Albigensian Crusade.
Pope Innocent III called for it and was pleased with the bloodshed and
results. 'Rex Mundi' (King of the World) the God of Evil and the Catholic
Church had done their job well because it lasted for at least 40 years and
you don't have to be a mathematician to work out that it ended in 1249.
and the Order of the Poor Knights was said to be formed in 1118 and by
1249 the Knights Templars stayed neutral even though they would have
known about the murder and slaughter in France.
I suggest that some Templars did in fact get involved in France under
direct orders from the Church.
Those that stayed out of the slaughter their excuse being was that they
were to fight the Saracens but to be fair to them they did take in and even
hid Cathari refugees.
What is not known is that a good many Cathars joined the ranks of the
Knights Templars and many Templars of high rank came from Cathar
families.214
The Templars from the Cathar families that lived in the Languedoc areas
and did not travel to the Holy Land but stayed there.
The South of France offered the Templars at a later date somewhere to
hide and run to when the Church they had fought for turned on them as it
had done with the Cathars.
My research from the time of the forming of the Order of Templars 1118 AD
to the betrayal by the Church and the hunting down of the Templars
across Europe, mainly France and England 1315 AD I had to look at the
links between England and France and who was in power at this time.
I did this to give a much larger picture of who may or may not have been
linked to the Knights Templars because many young men from well to do
families were knights or made knights, depending how much money or
lands they had and could hand over. There were of course a few poor
knights employed but first they had to have a sponsor, a Prince, Lord,
King or Queen who would kit them out with horse, sword and armour on
the understanding they would go to the holy land and fight for the Church.
They had to take an oath and give an undertaking to do at least three years.
Such poor knights never were awarded a title so they were known only as
Templar and were looked on by other Templars and members of the
Church in and around the Holy Land as the lowest of the low, Gods holy
peasants one Bishop said.
A very good clue to who belonged where and when is the sign of the red
cross or a cross of carved stone in castles or churches across France and215
England, Scotland and Wales. This cross was a major symbol and always
Templar linked.
I have therefore listed the families of France and England during the
Templar Period for reference.
NORMANS AND ANGEVINS.
Robert III Curthose, Duke of Normandy 1054-1134
William II Rufus, 1057-1100.
Henry Ist ,1068-1135.
Edgar, King of the Scots 1074-1106.
Alexander 1st, King of the Scots, 1077-1124.

David 1st King of the Scots,1080-1153.
William III, Count of Flanders 1101-1128.
William Athling d. 1120.
Robert of Gloucester illegi ,d.1147.
Henry V, Emperor 1086-1125.
Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. d. 1150.
Theobald, Count of Blois.d.1151.
Henry, Bishop of Winchester ?
Stephen, 1096-1154.
Henry 2nd , 1133-1189.216
Geoffrey VI of Anjou 1134-1157.
William, Count of Poiton 1136-1164.
Eustace, 1130-1152.
William, 1135-1159.
William, 1153-1156.
Henry, the young King, 1155-1183.
Richard 1st Coeur de Lion 1157-1199.
Geoffrey 1158-1186.(Married Constance of Brittany who died 1201,
linked to Arthur 1187-1203.
John Lackland 1167-1216
Henry III 1207-72.
Richard of Cornwall, King of the Romans, 1209-72
THE PLANTAGENETS.
Edward 1st 1239-1307.
Henry III 1207-1272

Edward 2nd 1284-1327
Joan of Ark 1272-1307
Edward Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster.1245-1296
Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk.1300-1338
Edmund, Earl of Kent 1307-1330.
Thomas, Earl of Lancaster 1276-85.
Henry, Earl of Lancaster 1281-1345.
Edward 3rd 1312-1377.217
Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence 1338-1368.
Henry,1st Duke of Lancaster. Died 1361
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster 1340-1399.
Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, 1341-1402
Thomas of Woodstock, Duke Of Gloucester 1356-1397.
Richard 2nd 1367-1399.
Henry IV, Earl of Bolingbroke 1366-1413.
As can be seen from the above list there is evidence of a cross over as
well as conflict if not battles. This does not mean that all those listed
above were linked to the Knights Templars but most of them were linked to
the Church and Crusades.
The women of this time I have not mentioned except for Joan of Arc of
who married had children inside and outside of marriage.
The husbands were also busy and a fair number of children were born to
other women not even of the Court.
It seems that in 1300 AD, some men from the Albigenses had went to one
Comte de Montfort and get him to come and look at some human remains
that they thought and were convinced to be that of Jesus.
He refused and left it at that but it is said that King Louis IX had been told
the story by an old man called Jean de Joinville who was an
acquaintance of the King.
Why would a King of France make up such a story?218
There was also a report of a treasure that was kept at Montse'gur and when
the place was attacked by the Pope's army nothing was found.
One has to ask was this a link or suggestion to a holy grail and if so,
what was it? If it was the grail then somewhere in the Pyrenees it still lies
hidden and close to the Spanish border.
Whatever was smuggled out of Montse'gur during the siege of the castle,
was done at night and was taken somewhere by a small band of Templars
This could have been the fortified caves of Ornolac in the Ariege but all
that has ever been found were a number of skeletons yet no one at the time
thought of preserving them.
Half a days ride away from the castle was Rennes-le- Chteau or the caves
close by it in the hills. Any treasure that left the castle that night does not
mean just gold or silver. It could have been something else and something
that needed protecting.
In 1139? a Papal Bull was issued by Pope Innocent II who one time had
been a Cistercian monk at Clairvaux. It was to proclaim that the Templars
would swear allegiance to the Pope and the Pope only to be independent of
all Kings and princes of France.
De Payen, the Grand Master of the Templars in the autumn of 1128 went to
see King Henry 1st in England and very soon young men from well to do
families in England and across Europe started to join the Knights Templars
bring with them deeds of their lands, gold and money as donations to the
cause.219
A REWRITE OF THE TEMPLAR HISTORY
My research again had to look at the Knights Templars and all those people
involved as well as Orders who muddied the waters of history by jumping
on the historical bandwagon.
This included the Church of Rome in France and the rest of Europe.
The Reader of my Research could place the Crusades alongside to the
NATO Forces in Afghanistan today.
In the case of the Crusades these were based as Holy wars and battles the
Christians of Europe being pushed by the Church of Rome.
Blood was shed, murder and rape carried out and of course, like all wars,
the civilian deaths. All in the name of God it seems.
Afghanistan is no different and NATO and the USA troops cannot in
anyway win the war much the same as the Crusaders thought when in the
Holy Land. Little if anything has been learnt from the Crusades of how not
to fight and conduct a War in a far off land.
The early days of the Knights of the Temple in the Holy Land, the battles
and the battles also across Europe.
The crusades to the Holy Land 1095-1291 AD
FIRST CRUSADE TAKES JERUSALEM AND LATIN KINGDOM FOUNDED
THERE.
1100-01 AD FOLLOW UP EXPEDITION; DEFEATED BY TURKS
1107-10 KING SIGURD OF NORWAY BRINGS HIS ARMY TO THE HOLY

LAND.220
1122-24 VENETIAN EXPEDITION TO THE HOLY LAND
1144 AD ZANGI, RULER OF MOSUL AND ALEPPO, CAPTURES EDESSA.
1146 DEATH OF ZANGI
1147-49 2ND CRUSADE; ATTACKS DAMASCUS. FAILURE
1154 NUR AL-DIN, SON OF ZANGI, CAPTURES DAMASCUS.
1169 SALADIN BECOMES VIZER OF EGYPT.
1172 PILGRIMAGE OF DUKE HENRY THE LION OF SAXONY.
1174 DEATH OF NUR AL-DIN.
SALADIN FROM EGYPT TAKES DAMASCUS.
1177 PILGRIMAGE OF COUNT PHILP OF FRANCE.
1187 SALADIN TAKES JERUSALEM.
1189-92 3RD CRUSADE TO RECOVER JERUSALEM.
FAILS BUT SOME TERRITORY GAINED.
1197-98 GERMAN CRUSADE.RECOVER SOME TERRITORY.
1201 -04 4TH CRUSADE TO ASSIST CHRISTIANS IN HOLY LAND.
CAPTURES CONSTANTINOPLE.
1217-21 5TH CRUSADE, ATTACKS EGYPT BUT ARMY CUT OFF WHEN
MUSLIMS OPEN SLUCE GATES.
1228-29 CRUSADE OF EMPEROR FREDERIC II.
JERSALEM RECOVERED BY TREATY.
1239-40 CRUSADE OF THEOBALD, COUNT OF CHAMPAGNE AND KING
OF NAVARRE. (FRANCE)
1240-41 CRUSADE OF EARL RICHARD OF CORNWALL ENGLAND.221
RECOVERS TERRITORY WITH TALKS.

1244 JERUSALEM LOST TO THE MUSLIMS.
1249-54 FIRST CURSADE OF KING LOUIS IX OF FRANCE AND ATTACKS
EGYPT. HE WAS DEFEATED 1250 CONTINUED; TO HOLY LAND 1250 AD
TO STRENGTHENS ITS DEFENCES THERE.
1269 CRUSADE OF THE PRINCES OF ARAGON.
1269-70 FRISIAN CRUSADE.
1270 2ND CRUSADE OF KING LOUIS IX OF FRANCE; TO TUNIS; FAILURE.
1271-72 CRUSADE OF THE LORD EDWARD OF ENGLAND.
1274 2ND COUMCIL OF LYONS,FRANCE, TO MAKE PLANS TO RECOVER
THE HOLY LAND.
1291 ACRE PORT CAPTURED BY AL-ASHRAF KHALIL, SULTAN OF
EGYPT.LATIN CHRISTIANS FALL.
There are no more crusades to the Holy Land but Jerusalem remains the
long term issue of crusades and fought over.
RULERS OF THE KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM 1088 AD TO 1344 AD
EUSTACE II COUNT OF BOULOGNE MARRIED (M) TO IDA OF LORRAINE.
DECENDANTS; EUSTACE III SON, GODFREY OF BOUILLON 1099-1100 AD,
BALDWIN I 1100-1118AD.
BALDWIN II, COUSIN OF BALDWIN I 1118-31 DESENDANTS LISTED
BELOW;
Hodierna M Raymond II count of Tripoli.
Raymond III M Eschiva lady of Tiberias (2nd marriage)222
MELISENDE 1131-61 M FULK (2nd marriage)1131-43 former count of Anjou.
DECENDANTS LISTED BELOW;
Baldwin III 1143-63, Amaury 1163-74 M Agnes de Courtney; DECENDANTS

LISTED BELOW;
Maria Comnena 2nd marriage to Baldwin III,BALDWIN IV 'The leper
King'1174-85, SYBYL 1186-90(M.WILLIAM OF MONTFERRAT) SYBYL THEN
MARRIED GUY OF LUSIGNAN 1186-1192 LORD OF CYPRUS 1192-94 ( 2
DAUGHETS BOTH DIED1190,BALDWIN V 1185-86
(Baldwin V never married and no known children.)
ISABEL I 1190-1205 DAUGHTER OF MARIA COMNENA.
ISABEL FIRST MARRIED HUMFRID OF TORON, NO CHILDREN AND
DIVORCED 1190.
ISABEL MARRIED (2) CONRAD MARQUIS OF MONTFERRAT
DAUGHTER MARIA M JOHN OF BRIENNE 1210-25.ISABEL Ist MARRIED
HENRY COUNT OF CHAMPAGNE 1192-97 THEN MARRIED AIMERY OF
LUSIGNAN, KING OF CYPRUS AND JERUSALEM 1197-1205 AND HAD
MELISENDE WHO DIED IN 1223.
THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER ISSUE BUT NOT KNOWN AT THE MOMENT.
ALICE A DAUGHER DIED 1246 BUT HAD M HUGH I KING OF CYPRUS, M
ALSO BEFORE HER OWN DEATH, BOHEMUND V OF ANTIOCH THEN
RALPH OF COEUVRES MARIA HAD ISABEL II 1225-28
FREDERICK II M ISABEL II 1225-28 HAD SON CONRAD WHO BECAME THE
KING OF SICILY 1243-54 THEN CONRADIN A SON BECAME KING OF223
SICILY 1243-68.
ALICE AND HUGH Ist LINKED DIRECTLY TO HENRY I KING OF CYPRUS
MARIA WHO M WALTER OF BRIENNE, ISABELLA WHO M HENRY OF
ANTIOCH.
ISABELLA DIED 1264.

HUGH II, KING OF SICILY 1253-68 WAS RELATED BY BLOOD TO HENRY I.
HUGH II WAS EXCUTED BY CHARLES 1 IN 1268.
As you can see from this research not all is going well at this time for
any of the rulers of Jerusalem from 1088 to 1344 AD and blood was spilt.
Dirty deeds and plots were afoot with King Baldwin IV 1774-1785 who
suffered from leprosy from childhood died.
After he died he was succeeded by his nephew, the child Baldwin V who
died in 1186, then his mother Sibyl and her husbands Guy of Lusignan took
over for a time.
Sibyl and her daughters died in 1190, Guy was deposed and Sibyl's half
sister Isabel was then made Ruler of the Kingdom but before that she was
forced to divorce her husband, Humphrey of Toron. She then married a
number of men all who died from 'accidents'.
Conrad her second husband was assassinated in April 1192, the third one
Henry 'fell' to his death onto the cobbles below from a window in 1197, the
forth husband died of food poisoning it is noted in 1205
It is easy for anyone to see that there were too many reported 'accidents'
and all linked to one woman, Isabel.224
The church at this time, though powerful not powerful enough in the
crusader states. They did produce a few new Orders in those states and
most of these were much needed military Orders who also become
involved in political laws and deeds of the day.
It would be wrong to think that only The Templars were the only Order
fighting in the Holy Land and during the Crusades because there were
more and also armies, all Christian from Europe getting involved with the
blessing of the Pope in power and always with the backing of the Church.
From the French and English point of view many families were married
through one another and most of them well off, some not so well off but
tried to keep their standards high, in social, political and Church circles.
A family may have had little funding for a Holy War but if they could marry
into a family that was well off then they were, as they say in Ireland, on the
pig's back.
Arranged marriages were not uncommon, much the same as in parts of
Asia today and most of the time 'love' never came into it.
That 'emotion' may come later but it mattered little just as long as there
were male children born in time.
Women in such circles were in many ways better educated than their
partners and they spoke and could write in two languages if not more.
Such women were also responsible for the writing of the times, long short
stories about knights and wars but they did in fact research well and were
not worried about using real names of people or locations.225
With that sort of writing around the time of the Crusades by some women,
you can be sure that there is, if looked for, a wealth of hidden clues of who
was who, what, why happened and where.
Below I have included some research and history of such writing for
reference.
THE MILITARY ORDERS.
This is a study of the appearances of the Military Orders in the epic and
romance literature of the Middle Ages, 1150-1500.
The subject is important for historians of the Military Orders and the
crusades because the Orders appearances in literature give an insight into
how they were viewed by the noble knightly class who supported them with
money, land and recruits, the same class for which epic and romance
literature was composed.
The Orders continued appearance in this literature throughout the Middle
Ages is valuable evidence for continued belief in the Orders vocation
military service in a religious order dedicated to defending Christians and
Christendom against their external enemies and continued support for the
crusade, with which the Military Orders were often but not invariably
associated in. The subject is also of interest to literary specialists.
The Military Orders appearances in fictional literature, and the changes in
their roles in fictional throughout the Middle Ages, indicate that while
convention was important in the composition of fictional literature, from
the late twelfth century onwards it was essential that226
fiction should reflect actual events: that it should be realistic
While this was not total realism, fictional literature must at least
have a context in actuality, and the inclusion of the Military Orders could
assist in providing this context.
No study of the Military Orders roles in medieval fictional literature
can be complete without a consideration of the Templars appearance in
Wolfram von Eschenbach version of the Grail legend, Parzival, and the later
works based on it. This study reassesses the historical context of Parzival
and sets out a new historical interpretation of the work.
It also reconsiders the connection of the Grail with the Holy Land and with
the concept of the perfect knight and considers how these themes were
developed during the course of the Middle Ages.
While the emphasis here is on the historical rather than the mystical
aspects of the Grail legend, it is also shown that Wolfram von
EschenbaTempleise, who bear a symbol of faithful love the turtle dove
were probably responsible for the development of the image of the
Templars in French literature as supporters of lovers.
Certain problems arise in a work of this sort in reconciling the
expectations of historians and of literary specialists, who differ in their
approaches to their material and in their definitions of key concepts such
as history, reality, literature and Fiction.
In attempting to define such terms there is a danger of becoming bogged
down in an epistemological morass, but at the same time to avoid any227
attempt at definition will certainly lead to misunderstanding among readers
regarded by historians as having been written primarily to entertain.
I point this out because in some of the older books of fiction written by
women may well contain clues like locations, names and deeds that could
be of use to the researcher.
As study of the military religious orders has expanded rapidly in recent
years, it is clear that a comprehensive survey of the Military Orders
appearances in medieval fictional literature would be worthwhile, as an
indication of underlying attitudes towards the Military Orders by the landed
warrior classes throughout the Middle Ages.
Hence James of Vitry declared in the thirteenth century that to question
the concept of the Military Order was a sign of heresy.
The Military Orders were orthodox Catholics, and their vocation was
regarded as essential to the defence of Christendom.
The direct predecessor of the first Military Order may have been a knightly
confraternity. During the eleventh century these associations of knights
became quite common: members would band together for some good
purpose, such as maintaining the peace in their area, the protection of a
monastery, or mutual support on an expedition.
These were informal, secular groupings which might involve the Church in
that the knights took oaths of fidelity to the group and promised to use
their swords only to fight for good, but otherwise had no formal connection
with Church institutions.228
It is possible that such an association of knights in the Holy Land, seeking
the blessing of the patriarch of Jerusalem for their military activity in
defence of the pilgrim routes, became, with Church approval and support,
the Order of the Temple.
The three leading international Military Orders, in order of militarization,
were the ; Order of the Temple of Solomon of Jerusalem (or Templars), the
Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem (or Hospitallers) and the
Hospital of St Mary of the Teutons (or Teutonic Knights).
The Order of the Temple of Solomon was so called because its
headquarters in Jerusalem was the al-Aqsa mosque, which the Latin
Christians identified, erroneously, as Solomons Temple.
Before being given to the Order, it had served as a royal palace for the
Latin kings of Jerusalem.
The Order was military from its first official foundation, probably at the
Council of Nabla in January 1120.The Hospital was named after the hospice
for poor sick pilgrims which the Order ran in Jerusalem.
The Orders role of guarding pilgrims on the pilgrim routes within the Holy
Land was a natural development of this role. When the Hospital became
Militarised is a matter of scholarly debate, but it was certainly becoming
involved in military activity by the 1130s and was fully militarised by the
1160s, while maintaining its role as a Hospital.
The Teutonic Order, which originated during the siege of Acre (1189 AD)
during the Third Crusade, also began as a hospice for sick pilgrims and229
did not become a Military Order until 1198.
These three international Orders also became involved in defending
Christian territory in Europe: the Templars and Hospitallers in Spain, and
the Teutonic Order in Prussia and Livonia, where defence became an
offensive war against the pagan Prussians,Lithuanians and the Christian
Orthodox Russians.
Their military operations on the frontiers were supported by a vast network
of estates in Europe, from which money, warriors and other supplies were
sent to the frontier.
As a result of their need to collect resources in the West for supplying
their centres of operations on the frontiers, the Military Orders also
became involved in trade and other economic activities and banking.
They also became servants and advisor's of popes, kings and nobles
throughout Europe. They were therefore very much in the public eye and
attracted a good deal of comment from contemporaries, favourable and
unfavourable.
After the final loss of the Latin Christian territories in the East to the
Muslims in May 1291, the Orders of the Temple and Hospital removed their
headquarters to Cyprus, while the Teutonic Order moved its headquarters
to Venice.
The Hospitallers went on to conquer Rhodes from 1306 onwards; the
Teutonic Order moved its headquarters to Marienburg in Prussia in 1309,
but I am sure they did not go empty handed and took with them anything230
that was of value or in time, could be sold.
The Order of the Temple, on the instigation of King Philip IV of France,
was dissolved by the pope in 1312 and its properties transferred to the
Order of the Hospital.
THE CHURCH DID ITS DUTY WELL TO GOD AND SLAUGHTERED
TEMPLARS AND OTHERS ACROSS EUROPE.
There were also national Military Orders in Spain.
The most famous of these were the Order of Santiago, also known as the
Order of St James and the Order of Calatrava.
The Way of St. James was now a well established pilgrims way and many
came from Europe to the foothills of the Pyrenees before they crossed the
high passes to Santiago de Compostela in Galicia.
You should note there is a French and Spanish way of St. James.
I am sure that the list I have made of towns and villages along St. James
Way starting at Orreaga/ Roncesvallas in the Pyrenees and moving west to
Santiago de Compostela contains Templar forts, castles, name places, and
roadside and church graves all linked to the Knights Templars.
Hidden away in villages of the main pilgrim way will be found clues and
links to the Templars, secrets that have been hidden for years still to be
found and on the skyline at dusk, the outline of a knight on a horse facing
west.
The areas I have still an interest in are Pamplona, Lizarra, Puente La Reina,
Tafalla, Los Arcos, Viana, to the SE of here and in the valley, Calahorra,231
then back on the main road to Logrono, Nagera, Burgos, Tardajos, De Sirgi,
De los Condes, Fromista, Sahaqun, Santas Martas, Leon, del Rabanedo,
Astorga, Ponferrada, del Bierzo, O Cebreiro, Sarria, Palas de Rei, North to
Lugo, back to main road and west to the end. I intend walking it, exploring
it fully in 2011/12 and writing up my research. In all it will take a month but
being seventy years old then, it may take a little longer. I will be in no hurry
but I will do it.
From 1300 to 1522 the Hospital of St John was involved in naval and land
action against the Mamluks and, later the Ottoman Turks, in the Eastern
Mediterranean, Asia Minor, Greece and the Balkans.
It finally lost Rhodes to the forces of Suleiman the Magnificent at the
beginning of 1523.
In 1530 the Order accepted an offer from the Emperor Charles V to use the
island of Malta as its base, and continued hostilities against the Ottoman
Turks from Malta until the surrender of the island to Napoleon in 1798.
The Teutonic Order continued to wage war against the pagan Lithuanians
from its bases in Prussia and Livonia. Both Orders were assisted by forces
from the West; the Hospital took part in various naval leagues with Venice,
Genoa and other naval powers, while western European knights came out
to Rhodes to give military and naval assistance.
The Teutonic Order Prussian base became a popular destination for

knights who wanted military experience against the pagans.
The Orders regular expeditions against the Lithuanians, Reisen, were232
promoted by the Order as a means of winning honour and glory as well as
serving God against the pagans.
The Reisen continued even after the official conversion of Lithuania to
Christianity in 1386. However, after the Order was defeated by the allied
forces of Poland-Lithuania at Tannenberg (Grunwald) in 1410 and the
ideology underlying its wars came under attack at the Council of
Constance, 1414 AD, the number of western Europeans prepared to come
to the Prussian front was greatly reduced.
Economic and political crises within Prussia as well as continued conflict
with Poland-Lithuania resulted in the destruction of the Teutonic Orders
hegemony in Prussia.
In 1466, with the Second Treaty of Thorn, the Teutonic Order in Prussia
became a vassal of the king of Poland, although its Livonian branch
retained considerable independence.
The military religious orders did not play a leading or dominant role in
knightly epic and romance literature, but from around 1175 until the latter
part of the fifteenth century and later they repeatedly appeared by name in
certain roles.
They did not appear in every form of epic and romance literature: they did
not appear in the great prose Arthurian romances of the thirteenth century,
the Vulgate Cycle and, or in the prose Tristan, Meliadus or Gyron le
Courtoys.233
Service with the Templars as penance for a crime was a theme taken from
contemporary events. Criminals were indeed sent overseas to serve at the
Temple of Solomon in penance for their crimes, or were required to send
knights to serve there.
Criminals of previous generations had faced penance in a religious house
or a requirement to go on pilgrimage; a pilgrimage to Jerusalem followed
by penance in a religious house that consisted of fighting the enemies of
Christians and possibly being killed in service was a reasonable
development from this. It made human book-keeping easy for the church
officers of those who died in service.
Bernard of Clairvaux wrote of villains and impious men, robbers and
sacrilegious, homicides, perjurers and adulterers going to fight with the
Templars by the early 1130s; he does not state that they were sent in
penance, but as he explains that Europe was glad to see them go it seems
probable that some were sent in penance.
Following the murder of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, in
December 1170, King Henry II of England was absolved by the Church on
condition that he provide two hundred knights to serve for a year with the
Templars in the Holy Land.
In fact, Henry provided the money to pay two hundred knights, rather than
sending the knights himself.234
The four knights responsible for the murder of the archbishop were
condemned to go overseas and fight for the defence of Jerusalem.
According to the later Lansdowne Codex MS 398 in the British Library, the
knights were given penance by the pope, to go to the holy places of
Jerusalem and fight fourteen years with military arms in the Temple against
the pagans.
The contemporary chronicler Roger of Howden tells us that they were sent
by the pope to Jerusalem in penance and after their deaths they were
buried in Jerusalem before the door of the Temple.
He does not specify whether this is the Lords Temple or the Temple of
Solomon, but the latter seems more likely in the context not that it matters
much because being dead is just that.
In fact, however, it is not clear whether the murderers did actually ever go
to Jerusalem.
In a similar vein, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, told in his Miracula
how a local lord, Humbert of Beaujeu, who had inflicted much damage on
local churches, especially the abbey of Cluny, received a vision in which he
was warned to mend his ways or he would end up in the tortures of Hell.
Terrified, Humbert went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where he joined the
Order of the Temple although he later jumped ship when things cooled
down, left the Order and returned home again ,a make believe hero and235
defender of the Faith in the eyes of his people.
In 1224 Pope Honorius III told the master of the Temple to receive a knight,
Bertran, who had killed a bishop, into the house of the Templars for seven
years to do penance for his crime.
It seems doing penance in the Order of the Temple was a suitable
punishment for a knight accused of murder; presumably an honourable
one, given that there was strong justification for Berniers crime.
The literary role of the Order of the Temple as a place of penance appears
again in Orson de Beauvais, written between 1180 and 1185, or early in the
thirteenth century.
This work was not well known, although it probably remained popular at
Beauvais beyond the thirteenth century, as it was used by the author of
Valentin et Orson, a prose romance composed between 1475 and 1489 and
printed at Lyons by Jacques Maillet in 1489.
Saracens were around in North Africa by name before the Muslim world
was founded in 570 AD and it was only during the first Crusade that
Christians and others named all Arabs, be they Muslim or not as 'Saracens'
For this research and out of respect I will call those that fought in the
Holy land as Muslims if they were of Arab blood during the Crusades.236
TIME-LINES
550 AD Birth of Muhammad.
610 AD The Cave and the first Revelation of Quran.
622 The Hijra.
623 The Battle of Badr.
630 Capture of Mecca.
632 Death of Muhammad.
1st four Orthodox caliphs.
642-728 Hasan alBasri.
655 Murder of Uthman.
565 Battle of Siffin.
661 Murder of Ali.
661-750 Umayyad caliphs.
680 Battle of Kerbala.
Death of Husaym.
750 Overthrow of Umayyads.
750-1258 Abbasis Dynasty.
765 Ismailis begin as Seveners,Nizaris.
767 d. Abu Hanifah.
795 d. Malik Anas.
801 d. Rabia.
855 d. Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
861 d. Dhu'l Nun alMisri.237
873-935 alAshari.
874 The Twelvers.
944 d. al Maturidi.
1056 AD 1147 Almoravids. Crusades
1077 AD 1130 ibn Tumart.
1170- Almohads 1210
1207-1273 Rumi.
1501 Ismail claims to be hidden Imam.
1526 Battle of Panipat.
MY RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS ON SCROLLS ONLY.
SEARCHING FOR THE RELIGIOUS GRAIL.
THE COPPER SCROLL MY DATA RESEARCH.
Carleton 2011.
Shifting through reams of paper and other evidence for the above research
led to many more questions than I had answers for but I did have answers
that led to possibilities if what the grail or grails were.
In my research I am of the opinion, with the evidence I found, that the

grail OR grails are and were real but what it is directly is not one single
thing. There are many 'grail' stories and myths, less evidence to support
such and a vast amount of red herrings over the years.
This grail 'madness' by many, more so modern writers, is very similar to
the psychological affects that started in the USA in 1947238
(Note; same year the first scrolls were discovered) when the first UFO's
were reported there. It was like a virus and spread across the USA like that
because in time, everyone started to believe in them. A UFO sighting
reported in the Press or on a TV news channel was the trigger for many
people to look to the skies, then the phone calls about sightings increased
80% and soon the UFO 'virus' spread to Europe and later world wide.
This virus in time, mutated and showed up as UFO's and Alien Abductions
world wide.
Many books, like the grail books of today were on bookshelves, a few
become best sellers and people of good standing and a brain, jumped on
the band wagon to add fuel to the virus. After all if Dr. so and so says that
UFOs are real and Alien abductions are real then the normal man and
woman in the street are going to think that this is all real?
Of course, USA and UK conspiracies abounded, departments of defence
were criticized for not releasing information to the public and those people
who claimed 'abduction.' were later found to be wanting in their evidence
as were the writers who pushed them forward and interviewed them.
Of course credibility went straight out the window by 2010. UFO's and
Alien abductions was now a dead duck in the water, a myth created by
humans for human consumption and bad for your already damaged mental
health. The head bangers who claimed alien abduction crawled back into
the shadows waiting for the next big brain damaging event, be it vampires
with a modern face and a change of habits, strange human creatures that239
were the result of radiation contamination in the 50s and 60s when they
were in the womb and the mother was eating pork that day, and so on.
Therefore, some of the grail books today fall into the above, a good read
for some, a sprinkling of historical evidence here and there to lend some
credibility to the whole drama and put across as 'truth'.
God bless King Arthur, Merlin and the ten Knights of the Round Table!
There are of course a few, a very few books on the grail, that point to
possibilities by the writers that there was and is a grail.
Their research is good from a historical point of view but for many their
evidence uncovered about a grail is weak, mainly because they put their
own interpretations on what the grail is or was.
The human context in their research and on stage was real enough but
tangled like a plate of cold spaghetti on an even colder plate.
In my own research I uncovered that the grail, or at least one of them,
the first, was around by the late ninth century and made by human hands.
What was used to make up this grail were artefacts from 30AD if not
before. There is not I discovered any evidence of the documentary kind
before 750 AD in Europe of 'Grail history' because it did not exist in any
book form but did come afterwards during the Charlemagne period.
There was of course verbal talk of a grail well before 750 but it was at the
end of the eight century and into the ninth that the first text was written as
Translatio Sanguinis Domini of Reichenau. (Codex Augiensia)

LXXXIV folio 125/136).240
I therefore have to start with one Abbot Waldo of Reichenau, said to be
the 'Seeker of the Grail.' He was of course referring to the Cross of
Niedermunster which Hugo of Tours brought to the Court.
The only Waldo I could come up with was Peter Waldo, a French lay
preacher who founded a sect 1170 AD who was dedicated to poverty
and meditation, the Bible being his sole authority.
He was I discovered pronounced heretical in 1215 and lost his head in
1217.
As for Hugo of Tours he enters the history stage later.
It was at around the time of the Emperor of Charlemagne rule, that being
Charles The Great, (Charles 1st) Frankish King (742-814), Holy Roman
Emperor in the west (800-814) shared Kingdom with his brother, Carloman
768-71, conquered Spanish March from Moors (Muslims) 788, crowned
Emperor by Leo III.
It seems therefore that Charles 1st of France was heard off In Jerusalem
by a man called Azan, a Prefect there not of the Holy City as many think
but of Osca and he sent Charles the key of this city stating he wished to
surrender. I suggest that the name 'Azan' should in fact be Hassan and that
the city was in fact Huesca in the Spanish Mark and seems to be mentioned
in the chronicles by Lorscher and Einhard in 799.
What I also discovered from the works of Fra Gaetano ; Catino di Smeraldo
Orientale gemma Consagrata,Genoa 1726 that the Chalice of Huesca is
mentioned and is kept now or was at Valentia.241
Azan however wanted to meet the Emperor and even went as far of
informing Pope Leo of his requests and also that he would like to present
the Emperor with a treasure beyond all price.
He said no and the Pope was more than a little put out when it was the
Church who in fact made him Emperor so it was suggested he come
to Rome and think again before he got there.
Azan for some reason had been informed all was in order so he set out
and took ill on the island of Corsica. He sent word that he was too ill to
make Rome and could the Emperor come to him?
The Emperor having a fear of flowing water or maybe contempt for the
request, said no but he would send someone to meet him on the island so
Waldo was appointed to sort it out but did not go himself but sent Hunfrid,
a holy man but not a priest of any sort as priests were not appointed at this
time.
The Emperor heard that Hunfrid was going but still he ordered Waldo to go
with him and when they arrived on Corsica they found Azan very ill and
bed-ridden. Presents were exchanged .
Azan then presented to both men to take back to the King, a vessel
(Ampulle) of onyx-stone said to contain the blood of Jesus and a small
cross made from gold and precious stones which contained in the arms the
blood of Jesus (Christ) and in the centre a splinter of the cross that he died
on. A nail (Roman made) was also included.
(Here we now have three possible grails)242
Waldo and Hunfrid set sail first arriving at the convent of Anastasia which
was said to be in Sicily and Hunfrid left Waldo behind to guard the cross
and vessel while for some reason unknown went to see the Emperor alone.
The Emperor and parts of his Court then went on a 500 mile pilgrimage
from Ravenna to the convent on Sicily where all the treasures were on
display when he got there including the cross and vessel.
Waldo was now Abbot Waldo with great powers, land and money.
He later became Rector of the Monastery of St. Dionysius, St, Denys near
Paris.
Monks there however had been in the past more than neglectful in their
duties and soon found the full force of Waldo's power and anger come
down on their heads, those that still had them.
Hunfrid was already old and declined to take most of the gifts offered by
the Emperor except for the cross that was said to contain the blood of
Christ. Hunfrid did get the cross and built a Monastery at Schannis to
house it in.
When Hunfrid died his son Adalbert inherited everything his father owned
including the cross but it seems that by great cunning a man called
Ruodpert, related by blood somehow to Emperor Ludwig had his master,
that being Adalbert of course, put him in charge of his estates.
When he was away on a trip, Ruodpert sized everything except the blood
relic which Adalbert had and fled to his brother living in Istria.
Both brothers gathered a small army and marched to Zizers where243
Ruodpert was but before a battle got underway, Ruodpert was kicked by a
black horse and died on the ground.
The day was won and Adalbert returned to his estates and later his son;
Udalrich got the inheritance and guarded the gold cross till he too died.
His daughter Emma took the cross and when she died it went to her son;
Udalrich, named after Emma's father, but the son was asked by Walther
husband and wife team, to hand over the gold cross to them if he wanted
to marry their daughter.
This he did and married the daughter and the mother and father build a
small chapel within their castle grounds to house the relic.
When they died it was brought over to the convent of the Virgin Mary
which was on an island and kept there.
My research turned up an interesting point because the gold cross was
moved yet again to a Monastery in Reichenau and the facts of this was to
be kept secret from those outside the walls.
Later the cross turned up in Zurich in the chapel of St. Kilian then back to
the convent on the island where it had been once before on the 7th day of
November 925 AD.
The documentary evidence ends here with no more comment on what
happened this gold cross afterwards.
It is easy to see why the above could be looked on as one of the grails
but linked to three more, the Roman nail from the cross though I suspect
that no nails were used on the cross and that the victim was tied on by the244
wrists not nailed, the splinter of wood from the cross and the blood from
Jesus. What I will add to this is that one or more persons would know of
anything that was taken from the cross and the most important is Mary
Madeline because she was close to Jesus and is said to have ended up in a
number of places, including France where she stayed to the end of her
days.
If this is fact then she went to France as a Jew not a Christian and was
a major member of the Jesus Movement at that time. The question is what
and who did she bring with her?
Her Journey from Jerusalem would not have been a direct one by sea and
land because at sea she would have done some island hopping to get
mainland Europe and what was needed was evidence of some sort that she
and the people who went with her left it in places they stayed for a time.
It is highly unlikely that she made this journey alone.
If Jesus was dead as said to be by the , then it is possible that she took
with her some form of artefacts, be it a few splinters of the cross, dried
blood, part of the shroud and so on.
If this was the case then we are now looking a more grails that were left in
locations during her travels.
The trouble with this is that Mary Madeline is reported to have fled to a
number of locations and some of these are in Asia.
That does not mean that she never went to Asia (India) but if she did, it
must have been soon after the crucifixion rather than later in her lifetime.245
I had to take into consideration her age at the time of Jesus death and the
age she would have been in France or Asia.
If we take it by the evidence in old text then Jesus and Mary were around
the same age < or > and the year recorded of the death of Jesus was
around 31 AD then by 64 AD Mary for the period, would have been an old
woman (64 years) It is highly unlikely that Mary made any long journeys at
this late time in her life so if she did then it had to be between 32 AD and 45
AD<.
There are various time lines here of reported locations of Mary Madeline
during her own life time but what I was looking for was evidence of such
between 32AD and 45AD.
This is what my research turned up below.
Keep in mind that the woman known as Mary Madeline would have been
dead by 80 AD if not well before.
'Mary' is mentioned often in the New Testament, 'Mariam' 4 times, 'Maria'10
times, and Marya and unknown number.
As 'Mary' is the English spelling I should point out that at the time of Jesus
there would have been around 8500 females with the name of Mariam or
Maria living in and close to the city of Jerusalem.
We know that the mother of Jesus was a 'Mary' but Mariam is also
mentioned 13 times and Maria 6 times when Jesus was a boy and a young
man. I had to research the possibility that such a name or names were as
common as Smith in the UK and found that this was indeed the case.246
I therefore took a sample of 3000 people in the holy land and it is a small
sample that did show if 4% of that 3000 people were named 'Mary or
Mariam' only 1 would be possible out of all the Mary's living there at the
time which would leave 2700> < unknown and around 36420 men on the
same day as Jesus died in the Holy Land.
What I discovered is that the Talpiot Tomb discovered has thrown up more
questions than answers because if Jesus was married and had a son then
he too would have been found in this tomb. The chances of Jesus being
buried in a rock carved tomb would be I suggest less than 1%.
By using the Bayes Theorel (Theory) I have come up with 00.1% that Jesus
was buried here along with all his family members which would have
included the two Mary's and his brothers.
In this tomb discovered there were ten ossuarys with a possible 35
skeletons scattered around and four of the ossuaries had no name
attached to them but six did have inscriptions which I have included below;
'YESHUA BAR YEHOSEP' = JESUS, SON OF JOSEPH.
'YEHUDAH BAR YESHUA' = JUDNA, SON OF JESUS.
'MARYA' = MARY.
'YOSEH' =JOSES.
'MATYA' = MATTHEW.
'MARIAMENOU H MARA' (Greek)
MARY, MARA, MARTHA = MASTER?
When the Tomb was found it was going to cause great excitement world247
wide and it did. What has been overlooked is that the said bones of Mary
were in Constantinople in AD 886 and before that a report in 771 AD that
the remains of Mary were in the Abbey of Vezelas, Burgundy run by the
Benedictine Order.
More research the Dominicans at St. Maximin la Sainte-Boune also claimed
the remains of Mary Madeline.
There was I discovered 'in-fighting' between the two Orders and all may
not be as it seems.
The Jesus Movement was said to be run by Mary from 55 AD up to her
death sometime in 75 AD.<
There is little doubt in my mind that Mary would have been dead
by 80 AD.
The trail now led to the discovery of the Nag Hammade Library in Egypt in
1945 where copies of Coptic manuscripts were found. These had been
copied from old Greek and had been written around 250 AD.
In the Gospel of Mary 10 pages were missing out of 19 pages and at least
four pages had been doctored in the re-writing by scribes later.
I suggest that the first copies were made in Greek from the old Hebrew
language above and then again later copied for the second time in Coptic
script. Like all translations from this time in history mistakes would have
been made and words replaced that suited the scribe at the time who put
his own interpretation on any word he could not understand.
A few years later in 1947 the Dead Sea and Copper Scrolls were also248
uncovered and we know now that a good deal of the interpretations of the
scrolls in the early days was wrong. Researchers also dragged their feet in
publishing material about the scrolls I noted. Like for years!
What has come to light with my research is that many people from AD 80
up till the present day were seeking some form of grail or artefact linked to
Jesus or what is termed, 'The Holy Family' but in the very early searches,
once a form of Christianity was up and running then established, this
increased.
Such people were not chasing 'smoke' but going on their informants and
instinct that something of great value was out there and to most, it meant
more than financial gain if discovered.
You can see from my research here that religions play an important part
in the search for the grail or grails across the world, 90% of them linked to
the Jesus Movement of the past and Christianity of the future.
However the old Jewish religion and Muslim religion also have had their
part to play and most of all, the participants taking part in seeking truth,
wisdom and knowledge.
Archaeological research such as this as well as history researchers
should avoid at all costs, a prejudiced view of other religious groups as
well as what was and is claimed as Pagan groups.
You do at your peril and more than likely will miss valuable clues that
could aid such research, even enhance it.249
SEEKING THE CROSS.
It was a woman who returned from the Holy Land, died, aged seventy four
in 328 AD and a few years before she first undertook a long journey on a
quest for what she claimed was the 'True Cross' to Jerusalem which was in
the Near East. Her name was Helena, mother of Constantine who had
coverted to Christianity and besides seeking the cross she also wanted to
build Churches in the Holy land.
The wood from the cross (lignum crucis) if found was another Grail and will
be treated as such for my research here.
Helena I suspect at the time had no idea where the cross or even splinters
of the same would be found in or around the city of Jerusalem but that did
not stop her making the long journey and her faith and perhaps wishful
thinking drove her on.
She was not just an Empress now but as a pilgrim and her journey started
from Bithynia, onto the Cilician Gates and made her way to Antioch.
From here she would have taken the road to Tyre, Caesarea and then into
Jerusalem.
This was by land and would be around 1200 miles with many dangers on
the way including bandits and a few warring tribes.
If she went by ship then the journey would have taken two weeks if she250
went direct to the ports of Caesarea Maritima or the port of Yafo and would
have to face rough seas, and of course raiding ships while she was at sea.
Today we would have looked on Helena's trip as foolhardy no matter what
route she took even with a small army and servants with her and her
advanced age. I suggest that she came by land because on the way there
would have been 'protected' staging posts where she could rest and new
horses found.
The best her party could have done in a day would be < than 25 miles.
It was a great challenge for an old woman because she also had to oversee
the building of churches and because of this, the Christian faith went from
being a small thing to something much larger in the Near East and Helena
is said to have founded 48 churches while on her pilgrimage though the
evidence only supports the ones at Bethlehem and at the Mount of Olives.
I found no evidence whatsoever that Helena suggested and overseen the
building of 48 churches and I also found it hard to take on board to
discover in my research that Constantine also sent Eutropia, the mother of
Fausta, who was at one time Constantine's wife until he boiled her alive in a
bath as an act of revenge. The reason why he sent his mother in law to the
Holy Land is not clear but was on her demands so that she could over-see
the building of a church at Mamre.
This site is said to be the place where Abraham is said to have
encountered the Three Angels.(Thankfully no UFOs, Aliens or the Devil!)
More digging and more research as Archaeologist's do and I had little251

choice in the matter if I wanted evidence to support my own findings about
Helena, born 265 AD and died 328 AD Eutropia, Fausta, murdered by
Constantine because he thought his son, Crispus was having a sexual
affair with her.
(For some reason this seemed more common across Europe than one
suspects. The English and Scots Courts were prone to mother/son sexual
awareness as were many of the Courts of Europe.)
The research does show that between the 15th and 17th of June 325AD,
this son, Crispus soon followed his step mother, as he was poisoned at
Pola, Croatia. Thanks to whispers in the ear of Constantine, Helena, his
mother killed two birds with one stone though at the time was unaware of
the murders that were to follow soon afterwards.
It has been broadcast, wrongly, that Helena was a princess from Britain,
a daughter no less of King Coel of Colchester.(Old King Coal)
Helena I suggest was a Bithynia Greek, lived with or married Constantius,
the father of Constantine.
The father in time left her or threw her out and he went on to marry
Maximian's step daughter, Theodora in 288AD.
I could not trust the data from Geoffrey of Monmouth's
(Historia regum Britanniae 1137-9) but it is worth looking at.
Again the King Coel of Colchester crops up and it is stated that he rebelled
Against one King Asclepiodotus and took the throne which may mean one
or the other were lesser Kings.252
In time it seems, his daughter Helena later married Constantius who had
paid a visit to the British shores for a visit. Not to fight I may add but to
collect tribute. This would have been in 305AD and he went there with his
son, Constantine to York. He died in York in 306AD
Monmouth also claimed that Constantine was blood related to King Arthur.
(As would happen, a psychological need to push this for some reason.)
Seeing that Constantine was a Roman Emperor and 'Arthur' was British
this seems very unlikely. Constantine was in fact born on the 28th of
February 272 AD in Serbia.
I found no evidence whatsoever that Helena was a British princess or a
Roman slave in Britain and shipped out.
She more than likely was of Greek stock as I suggested above.
I could find nothing that she was related to any King to support the view
that she was of 'Royal' blood. If anything she would have been
middle/lower class if alive today.
What also came to light is that Constantine did not become a Christian until
he was in fact lying on his death bed no matter what the Christian Church
says and considering the number of murders he ordered and carried out
himself including the murder of his wife and his son, he made a poor
Christian. But facing death within the hour tends to focus the mind so he
covered all bets I guess and became this repentant Christian.
I discovered from old data his list of children which I have included below;
Constantina, Helena, Constantine II, Constaritus II, Crispus (Murdered),253
Constants. It is therefore possible that there were more than one or two
women in his life.
Helena however was a Christian before she made her trip to the Holy Land
in search of the Cross but also to seek atonement for the crimes her son
committed over the years.
Constantine moved his capital from Rome in 326 AD to Byzantium on the
Hellespont. Of course the Christians moved into Rome like flies on dead
meat, though in a very short time they were at one another's throats and
blood was shed. Constantine died on 22nd of May 337 AD.
The time line for Constantine the Great was 306-37 AD May he have got to
Heaven before the Devil knew he was dead.
Helena was seeking the true cross when she went to the Holy Land and
that was her main aim on her quest as well as seeing some churches were
built and rebuilt. She was on a mission it seems and that mission included
the Cistercian Order when she reached Jerusalem as well as anyone who
could lead her to the wood of that cross. This was her own personal Grail.
It seems her body clock was ticking much faster by this stage and I am
sure she became aware of that by the time she was shown the first wooden
splinters of the said 'cross'. There is little doubt if the cross or bits of it
were real then splinters of it would have ended up in every Christian
Country world wide in time.
The 'lignum crucis' would have had and believed to have a very unique
talismanic power and by 359 AD such splinters were on their way to parts254
of Europe, including Rome.
Everyone wanted a slice of the holy wood and would even kill for it if it
came to that. In the end there would be such a proliferation of these
pieces that the Church itself became alarmed because it was the wood that
was being venerated and sailing again close to pagan worship.
For many, the wood was holy and not what it should have stood for and
that is the Passion. However, like the scrolls and scroll fragments it would
not have taken long for the locals and even Church members to flog
forgeries to many people for a price.
With this research evidence I can rule out the wood or splinters from the
alleged physical remains of the Cross is in no way a 'Grail' or Grails
thought it did bring on mass hysteria when the faithful at that time gathered
in a crowd.
I suggest that you would have got the same reaction if you had used any
tree species of wood found in the Holy Land and claimed it was from the
true Cross. As I said before, Paranormal and Christian belief are bed
partners and the minds of the forth century pilgrims were ripe for
implanting 'false hopes' because the wood splinters were from the
'physical' world, they could be seen and touched while the paranormal
world surrounded the whole issue.
The Jerusalem fragment was lost somewhere on the scorched fields of
Hattin in 1187 and never found again.255
My research does show that Helena just before her death in 328 AD had
arranged for a secret collection of the cross splinters, a good sized sample
in fact, to her Sessorian Palace in Rome.
Her 'home' became a church and watched over and guarded by Cistercian
monks, even today. Somewhere behind a locked door in a reliquary that
was ordered to be built by Mussolini is kept the Titulus Crucis, the head
board that was on the Cross and what Helena discovered as well as parts
of the cross.
One could say that Helena invented in part, Christian archaeology but there
was also a woman from Spain called 'Egeria or Atheria' who also made a
visit to the holy sites in the holy land and sent back a good number of
letters to a group of women in Spain in 382 and 384 AD.
The evidence comes from the remaining parts of a book
she had written (Different editions of Latin text but a book by J.Wilkinson
'Egeria's Travels, Jerusalem,1981 pp.89-147) is also worth researching.
I should point out that one letter with her name mentioned was held by one
Spanish abbot, Valerius of Bierzo who died in AD 695, 300 years after her
death but adds yet another name as author; 'Etheria.'
It is here that I found the mystery of this women complex because in
Roman mythology her name means 'Etheral One'
(The nymph of the fountains) and may well have come from the south of
France (Aquitaine) then moved to Northern Spain, (Galicial), the same area
or not far away from it where in 2011/2012 I hope to walk and do more256
research.
There is good reason to think that this woman was well off because she
could afford the pilgrimage via Constantinople (Byzantium) to Jerusalem
but also was in Galilee, Samaria, Egypt, Edessa-Urfe and after three years
made the return journey back to Spain.
This suggest a number of things; She knew Greek, wrote in Latin but not
the classical Latin of such places like Cicero or Seneca.
Her writings I am sure were more practical than being literary but
colourful.
She wanted to describe in detail what it meant to be a Christian in the
Holy Land to her women friends back home. There is no way she made
such a trip on her own so she had to have a small group of people with her
some she hired in Spain or France and all those that went with her, male
or female she trusted.
For Egeria this was no scatter brained trip or holiday and more than likely,
personal, monastic and also political she wanted to walk where Jesus had
walked, the two Mary's had stood and touch the stones.
I am suggesting here that she may have been linked from a genetic point
of view to the major players at the time of Jesus when he was alive and
died. The answer to many of my questions lies in Jerusalem and at a
church there, as well as Santa Croce in Gerusalemme that sits just on the
outskirts of ancient Rome also in a place called 'Jerusalem' because of
Helena brought the history here in a full circle.257
The women of these periods were strong willed and had quests and
reasoning beyond any man of the time. They planned well and carried out
their plans even if at times they went wrong, but they should never be
ignored. I hope that one can see from my research that it was not just male
rulers and leaders that painted the vast canvas of the Holy Land and parts
of Europe. Women had a major part to play in all this history and
archaeology, they guided leaders including their husbands and sons, they
murdered when and if they had to and it was to their own advantage, ruled
or helped to rule armies, became brides of Christ but also political with it
and most of all, could be very dangerous if crossed.
Most of all, they had courage when faced with many problems, not just as a
mother and wife but because they were a woman. The higher officials in the
Church had little regard for them but were to learn later that this was a very
bad mistake. Today, they are climbing the church steps and will soon
become a powerful force for the Vatican and Canterbury to deal with.
Mary Magdalene and those women who came after her, carried secrets with
them, knew answers to the questions that are still needed, kept their own
logs and dairies as they do, and were smiling that smile that was neither
good nor bad but left you wondering what they know that you would never
know if you were a man?258
MY COPPER SCROLL RESEARCH DATA 2011
Lets face it. The Copper Scroll found in Cave 3 in 1952 and it threw the
archaeology world into chaos once it had been noted of something more
that just sheets of beaten copper with a few symbols on it. A few
archaeology field workers thought it was a hoax, including du Vaux who
said so. When found it was thought to be two scrolls but in fact it was one
that had broken in two due to its oxidized condition and poor handling at
the time.
The width when it was almost new would have been around 0.3m and 2.4 m
in length and in rolls which seemed stuck together and very tightly at that.
It became known as 3Q15 and seemed at the time to be written in a very
early form of Hebrew, almost a square form script but I suggest linked
more to Hebrew and Aramaic but also to Egyptian hieroglyphs and
Phoenician scripts. It does not come across as a religious scroll like the
Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned earlier and has been shown to contain words
that are not found on any of the other scrolls or fragments of the same.
Dating it has been a problem for many but around 68CE < or > would be a
good starting point. There is in my opinion a very good strong Egyptian

link as well as some Astronomy linked to the skies of the Holy Land and
Egypt at the time it was made. I will include more data on this later.
The copper scrolls, both parts were in time sent to the UK and were
unrolled or opened by Prof; H Wright Baker of the Manchester College of259
Technology as it was known at that time in 1955. Note that it took three
years to get to this point as and may have never got there if it had not been
for the good work of John Allegro who had in the beginning been working
on the Dead Sea Scrolls along with Father Roland de Vaux who was from
the Ecole Biblique In Jerusalem and Lankester Harding, Director of the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Some how, and to this day I dont
know how, Allegro persuaded the two other two men for him to take it to
the UK and Manchester. There was no love lost between Allegro and
du Vaux I should point out but it was sanctioned that this is what Allegro
could do.
Both parts of the broken scroll were covered in an adhesive or wax then
carefully sliced the scroll into 23 sections for close examination.
I am of the opinion still that this copper scroll was not a one off as stated
by some writers on the subject but one of two like I stated earlier in the
research. You do not go to all the trouble finding copper in Egypt, making it
into thin strips of the length required, then transfer data to it by a number
of work men and not make a copy of it, which would be stored elsewhere.
The work on the copper scroll would have been expensive but whoever had
it made had money anyway, so cost was not a problem. The copper scroll
is now in the Amman Museum in Jordan.
When it was first looked at there was a major problem of Decipherment and
of course translation of this scrolls contents. The writing, style and mixed
language was and did test everyone involved and even today good parts of260
the codex have not been cracked. This is not due to the want of trying.
It has taken 30 years > now to get as far as we have in unlocking any
secrets of this copper scroll and it still is an enigma for most of us.
My research has uncovered evidence of at least 30 mistakes in 12 columns
of text that had been worked on and points out strongly that the original
scribe was very poor in his understanding of Hebrew. I say this because it
has been found that the language he used was well outside the working
classical Hebrew of the times.
This could be the reason why the copper scroll lay untouched for many
years. The scroll I should point out written in mirror image that is because
copper sheet was used the writing as such was done from the back of the
sheet so that it would show right on the front. To test this write a few words
backward on a sheet of paper then hold it up to a mirror and see the good
and bad results. The scribe in question had a very difficult task tp perform
and get it right. Clay was then added to the scroll finished sheet and then
rolled. What was not known is that the scribe had in fact created a very
large clay tablet that was in fact destroyed when the scroll was sent to
Manchester University to be opened using surgical cutting in strips.
In my opinion this clay was as important as was the sheet of copper and
University staff should of course have been notified of this fact, not just
because of the off print but it would also have contained pollen, insect life
maybe and even finger prints of the scribe or scribes. If the clay off print
somehow had been preserved as whole, almost impossible, bit it could261

have been x-rayed in part at least before the butchery of the main scroll
started.
Some text was lost of course in the copper scroll when the strips were
made, peeled off no less and the clay ignored as anything useful.
Never use a unqualified person with a brain who is not an archaeologist
with common sense to carry out such work. To be fair to the University
staff though, they had little guidance on what to look for. All they were told
that it was a copper scroll and needed to be looked at. They took the word,
copper, literary.
In 2006 in Wales I tried out an experiment with copper piping and beat it
with a hammer over a few days until I had a small sheet, 6x 4 (Inches).
In the end I had a very think sheet of copper, through in no way all the way
smooth but good enough for the job. With small punches I wrote on it from
the back, simple words and letters, the imprint with that mirror effect
looking ok but a bit ugly in place. With a sheet of paper and some ink I was
able to print of in part, what I had written. The results were blurred but
could be made out. Then I used puddling clay the sort that would be used262
at the bottom of a garden pond to stop leakage. I placed the clay on the
copper sheet and rolled it with a baking roller until it two was a flat sheet
over the copper sheet. Placing it in hot sun I left it to dry (summer) and in
two days was able to peel off the clay from the copper underlay.
The results were much better than the paper and ink results, however the
edges were blurred with some letters missing all together.
In the next part of this experiment I used wet clay, rolled it on the copper as
before then carefully rolled clay and copper sheet into a tight roll. This I
placed into a gas oven at very low heat for two hours, then removed it and
covered with paraffin wax. I also wrapped the roll now in a small hide which
I had dried and cleaned.
Finding a location where the land was free of man made chemicals was not
hard and I discovered a large bed of stones of all sizes and shapes on the
trail towards Tally. Here I placed my copper scroll and left it for two years.
In 2008 I went back and recovered this scroll from the stone pile and
found that the hide that the scroll was wrapped in had in fact moulded and
broken up. Back in the Ashram at Llandrada I tried to un-wrap the scroll
which was easy enough but all the clay was a jumble of crumbs and small
lumps, in no way what I wanted as a Tablet. This part of my experiment
was a failure but it did tell me that weather and conditions where it was
buried were not the best. As for the copper scroll I had made, there were
much better results. The copper sheet had in fact turned green with the
edges black but the writing I had punched out on the sheet remained263
visible enough to read. There was some fading of letters but on the whole
this part of the experiment went well. If that much damage could be done to
copper over two years in Wales then over 1000 years or more in a cave, Q3,
the damage would have been much worse, more so around the edges of
the copper scroll. My scroll was 6 inches by 6 inches while the Copper
Scroll would have been around 2.6m in length at the time it was made but
when recovered it was 2.4m in length = 8 feet. Parts were missing either
due to chemical reactions of soils and damp or had been removed when
first found either by accident in the handling or removal on site for
examinations in a lab in Jordan. Whatever the reasons I am off the opinion

that because the copper scroll was broken in two and the condition of it,
parts of the script are missing and still missing which of course makes it
very difficult for all involved to break the codexs. More damage was done
when it was examined in detail and had strips of copper removed.
So what did the damaged Copper Scroll codexes tell us?
I can say without doubt after examining a good deal of evidence that the
Copper Scroll is not linked in any way directly with Jesus or the Jesus
Movement. I look towards old Egypt for the many answers that still need to
be looked at because my research evidence tends to point to Egypt, and
the old tribes of Egypt that moved from there into the Holy-land. I will also
put forwards that the main leaders in the early days were in fact Egyptian,
with Egyptian beliefs and language codexs and not Hebrew as many claim
even today. That main migration by Abraham, Jacob and Joseph as well as264
the people who went with them, had more Egyptian blood in them than
Hebrew links. With the migrations came the old scripts, the treasures of all
and the knowledge of Akhetaten from the 18 th -20 th Dynasty which I will deal
in my new research book; AKHETATEN; THE WOMAN IN THE MOON.
Carleton 2012
In the Copper Scroll translations by John Marco Allegro which I have
reproduced below but added comments to, I thank Joan R. Allegro and the
Estate of John Allegro for it use here in my research.
I have laid out his findings and translations in one column and my
comments and opinions in another.
In defence of John Marco Allegro I am of the opinion that he was given the
dirty end of the stick when it came to the Dead Sea Scrolls research by du
Vaux and other prominent archaeologists of long standing but of little
loyalty or behaviour of a gentlemen or Knight. They grouped together like a
bunch of hyenas to attack his reputation, his standing and his archaeology
knowledge. Little did they know, that what comes around goes around and
my, how they have fallen!
Archaeology comments has ruined many a reputation as we know and at
times a debate on a subject was all part of it but when it comes to being
malicious and cruel, as many were, then as assassins we stand convicted
and most of all guilty when we cross that line and beyond the pale of
professional archaeology study.
There is no need for me to comment which assassins I mean when it came265
down to the Dead Sea and Copper Scrolls debate. They know!
JOHN M.ALLEGROS TRANSLATIONS OF THE COPPER SCROLL.
MY RESEARH COMMENTS, IF ANY. Carleton 2011
Start COLUMN 1.
ITEM 1. Finish Item 61
In the fortress which is in the Vale of Achor, forty cubits under the steps
entering to the east; a money chest and its contents of a weight of 17
talents. KeN.
I have no idea at the moment where or what this fortress is and though it
says the Vale of Achor it still leaves the problem of location.
I suggest that this is NW of Jericho.
The articles hidden there are listed as money chest but this throws up the
questions of when they were buried and when the first coinage was in
use. The coins used in the holy land from 500 BC to 200 AD I have listed
below; Currency though not coinage was also used.
700 BC. Silver ingots and jewellery, small silver and god bars.
500 BC. Silver tetradachma minted in Gaza. Only Greek and imitation Greek
coins were used showing the goddess Athena on one sie and an owl on the
other.
400 BC. Silver drachma minted in Judea, a bearded man on the front and
on the back, a God in a chariot holding a falcon.
300 BC. Gold octadrchuma struck in Joppa. Front of this coin shows
Arsinoe, wife of Egyptian ruler, Ptolemy II. On the back there is a twin
cornucopia.266
126BC-65 AD. Silver shekel minted in Tyre. Front of this coin shows the
Phoenician god Melqart. On the back an eagle.
This coin is said to be linked to the thirst pieces of Silver that Judas got
and it may well have been Tyrian shekels.
Another point of interest is that payment made to the Temple had to be of
pure silver and this coin qualified even with it pagan symbols on it.
103-76 BC. Bronze prutah struck in Judea during the time of Alexander
Janneus (103-76 BC.) Front of coin a lily though I suspect it was a marsh
flag, with the name of the king written in the old Hebrew script. On the back
is an anchor with the name of the king on it but written in Greek.
71 AD. Bronze sesterce minted in Rome to celebrate the Roman capture of
Jerusalem in 70 AD. On front shows Emperor Vespasian. The back shows a
a Roman with a Jewish woman grieving under a palm tree.
132-35 AD Roman coins minted during the Bar Kokhba Revolt were
restruck with Jewish symbols the front showing the Temple and written on
it Jerusalem in old Hebrew script.
There is nothing in the coinage or currency to show any link to a Grail.
All the other columns and items listed refer to light bars of gold, nine
hundred talents hidden in a floor, in the place of the Basin, tithe vessels
made up of lag vessels and amphorae, Stair case of refuge, 40 talents of
silver, in a slat pit under the steps,42 talents of silver, in a hole in the Old
House of Tribute 65 bars of gold, in underground passage of the Court,267
A wooden barrel inside which had a bath measure of untithed goods and
70 bars of silver, in the cistern which is 19 cubits in front of the east
gateway is the hollow that is in it, ten talents?, in the cistern under the wall
on the east is a spur of rock, 600 pitchers of silver, in the pool to the east is
a hole on the north corner 22 talents?, in the Court of...? Gold and silver
vessels for tithe, sprinkling basins, cups, sacrificial bowls, libation vessels
and in all 609, under the other corner in the east is 40 talents of silver, in
the pit which is in the north tithe vessels and garments, in the tomb in its
shaft in the north and under the corpse 13+ talents, in the Great Cistern in a
hole within a pillar in the north, talents, in the\water conduit 40 talents of
silver, between the 2 oil presses that are in the Vale of Achor, 2 pots of
hidden silver, at the clay pit which is at the bottom of the wine press 200
talents of silver, the eastern pit which is in the north (He had to be and Irish
Scribe!),in a hole 70 talents of silver, the dam sluice of the Valley of
Secacah 34 talents of silver, SW of Qumran at the head of the water
conduit which runs into Secacah from the north 7 talents of silver, in the
fissure that is in Secacah Solomon Reservoir, tithe vessels and within
them figured coins, sixty cubits from Solomons trench towards the great
watchtower buried at 3 cubits, 13 talents of silver, the tomb that is in the
Wadi Kippa in the eastern road to Secacah and buried at 7 cubits 32
talents, in the inner chamber of the Double Gate, facing east there is a
buried pitcher, one scroll under 42 talents, the inner chamber of the watch
tower that faces east, buried at 9 cubits 21 talents, the Queens Tomb on the268
west side buried at 12 cubits, 9 talents, the dam sluice which is the
bridge...the high priest that.. 9 talents, the water conduit in the north
reservoir and in 4 pots 400 talents, an inner chamber next the cool room
400 talents, in the Summer House buried at 6 cubits six pitchers of silver, at
empty space in east corner buried at 7 cubits 22 talents, next the water
outlet of the drain pipe buried 3 cubits towards the overflow tank 80 talents
of gold in two pitchers, in the drain pipe tithe jars and scrolls within the
jars, in the Outer valley in the middle of the Circle on the Stone buried at 17
cubits 17 talents of silver and gold, at the dam sluice at the mouth of the
Kidron Gorge 7 talents, a stubble field of the Shaveh facing SW in an
underground passage, 70 talents of silver, In the gutter which is at the
bottom of the rain water tank in the plaster four staters, the Second
Enclosure in the underground passage that faces east buried at 9 cubits 24
talents, the Holes in the underground passage facing south buried in
plaster at 16 cubits 22 talents, the funnel silver from consecrated
offerings, buried at the wide part of the water pipe that runs to the basin 9
talents, in the sepulchre that is in the north at the mouth of the gorge of the
Place of the Palms at the outlet of the valley all in it are consecrated
offerings, the Stronghold of Senaah gutter that opens to the south, the
second story down from above, 9 talents, in the Ravine of the Deep which
is fed from the Great Wadi, in its floor 12 talents, the reservoir which is
Beth Kerem, ten cubits on the left as you enter 60 talents of silver, in the
vat of the olive press in the west side a plug in stone of two cubits, 300269
talents of gold and ten serving vessels, under the monument of Absalom
on the west side, buried at 12 cubits 80 talents, settling tank in the bath
house of running water, under the gutter, 17 talents, in corner buttresses,
tithe vessels which contain coins, below the Porticos south corner in the
tomb of Zadok, vessels for tithe sweepings, spoilt tithes and inside them
figured coins, in the exedra of the cliff facing west in front of the Garden of
Zadok under the great sealing stone that is in its bottom; consecrated
offerings, in the grave which is under the paving stones; 40 talents, in the
grave of the common people who died absolved of their purity regulations;
vessels for tithe or tithe refuse inside them figured coins, House of two
Pools in the pool as you enter from the settling basins vessels of liquid
tithe and inside them figured coins, in the hewn chamber of the west tomb
scattered over, hundred talents of gold; in juglets sixty talents, blocking
stone also has juglets and under the sill of the tomb chamber 42
talents,under Mount Gerizim entrance of upper pit one chest and its
contents and 60 talents of silver, in the mouth of the Spring of the Temple;
vessels of silver and gold for tithe and money, the whole being 600 talents,
the Great Drain of the Basin; instruments of the House of the Basin, the
whole being a weight of 71 talents, twelve minas, and Item 61, in the Pit to
the north in a hole opening northwards and burial at its mouth; a copy of
this documents with an explanation and their measurements and an
inventory of each thing and other things.

When John Allegro died in 1988 I was in Nottingham and heard of his death270
while on a course at Nottingham University but when he died he took a lot
of useful information with him. Wherever he is right now I would like to
think he is smiling at all the confusion he has caused and a good poke in
the eye for Father du Vaux, now also dead, and his cronies who ambushed
Allegro, set up press releases against him in the newspapers and drove
him off the Dead Sea Scroll Team almost, but not quite, a broken man.
When I first research the contents in the Copper Scroll and read through
the translations of same I thought someone was taking the piss, as we say
in Ireland and for a moment I also thought that someone was John Allegro
but on reading through it again and again I knew what he had was what he
found. He also opened another door for me, just a gap to look through and
make a decision.
By the time I got this far in my research I was almost ready to wrap it up
and put it all to bed. Finished and confused but it was not to be. Nagging
doubts and excitement, hidden fears and time factors. All this and it would
have been easy to walk away now. Maybe a whisper maybe just the wind in
a winter garden; Dont! Go through the door and question more.
All I had was the results of a Copper Scroll translation, a bit more, but not
much, of a Treasure Map that give compass points, some locations but not
many, hints of buildings and design, landscape views with the odd name.
All I needed now was a skull and cross-bones on a black background with
the music from Raiders of the Lost Ark blasting in the background.
What was offered were clues from the Dead Sea Scroll area at Qumran, find271
out who the Essenes really were, their links if any to early Christianity and
links if any, to the Egyptians. The Essenes Community or cult were getting
hijacked in the past by Jews and Christians once the Dead Sea Scrolls
became public knowledge. The Jewish archaeology Departments who were
involved in their research on the few scrolls they had was up front and as
they were decoded, then published up front. The Christian Archaeology
Team were mostly made up of Church men, except for Allegro who did his
work as an archaeologist. The rest in the Christian Team held information
back, slow to publish, very slow to even get on with the job in hand, du
Vaux who was in charge of it all, did not want Jews working on the scrolls
and fragments they had and would not employ an Jewish person and never
did. This to me suggests that he disliked Jews, was racist, and had
something to hide about scroll fragments and some information from the
Copper Scroll he was frightened off. John Allegro when he was forced out
of the team had at least some parts of the Copper Scroll to work with as
well as his notes from the other scrolls he worked on and he published in
the end. He did have threats from The Christian Camp, once they failed in
stopping him publishing his data and those threats were of great concern
to himself and for his family. Of course they were anonymous and
cowardly as they always are but most people working in the field of
archaeology in the Holy Land knew who was behind such threats.
My problem with the Copper Scroll was the detail, the use of
modern day words and the way they were laid out. My other real problem272
was the weights and measures of all things mentioned in the scroll and
used in the translation. Inches and feet, yards and lbs I have no problem
with but being from the old school for a time, I was at a loss but in the end
I cracked it which I have laid out below as guidance.
It is suggested that the weight of the copper scroll without the clay would
have been 3x (30x80) x 0.1 x 8.93 = 6.429.6g (Robert Feather) 1999 but I
think it would have lost some of its weight when it was opened.
Weights and measures in the Holy Land at this time and in Egypt were I
discovered in fixed terms of everyday things. I will deal first with the Old
Testament weights first but give the Metric weight to the right of the page.
Talent (60 minas) = 34.227kg
Mina (50 Shekels) =571.175 grams.
Shekel (2 Bekas) = 11.423 grams.
Beka half shekel 10 gerahs\= 5.711 grams.
NEW TESTAMENT WEIGHTS.
Hebrew Talent = 34.227 kg.
Pound, Hebrew mina. = 571.175 grams.
Pound, Latin libra. = 325.707 grams.
OLD TESTAMENT LENGTHS.
Cubit 2 spans = 44.424 cm.
Span ( 3 hand breadths ) =22.212 cm
Handbreadth ( 4 fingers) =7.404 cm.
Finger = 1.849 cm.273
NEW TESTAMENT LENGTHS.
Cubit =45 cm.
Fathom = 182 cm.
Furlong stadia or miles =184 m
= 1.486 m.
Now whoever was involved in the text and art work of the Copper Scroll
they knew their weights and measures, good at maths to put a finer point
on it judging from the lay out but it should be remembered that the Copper
Scroll is a copy of all the information laid out on a paper or skin scroll.
That as far as I know has not been recovered year if ever.
Because of the vast amount of wealth mentioned in the Copper Scroll, and
of course the few vague locations hinted at, I am of the opinion that the
scribes were also very good at compass bearings using Astro-projections
and fixture points, landscape markers as well as building layout.
The hiding of all the wealth and other items, if in deed there is any, did not
happen overnight, was well planned and thought out. Such wealth was not
all moved over a few days from the Temple in Jerusalem because the
Roman Army would soon be hammering on the gates and I suggest that
most of it was hoards from the past and not all Jewish as many suggest.
By the time of the Crusades and the good men of the Cross, the Knights
Templars and other Knightly Orders got to Jerusalem to defend the
Christians I have little doubt that looting did take place, not just by the274
Romans and Muslims but also by the Knights of God and the Church.
Any gold and silver found as well as coinage would vanish fast, smuggled
into bags and in time, removed to Europe, which would include Rome, The
Vatican, Spain, France, Germany and the British Isles. Good Knights of
Christ they may have been on the surface but treasure was not to be left, in
fact I would go as far to say that such hidden hoards were actively looked
for.
The Qumran monks, known to Pliny, Philo and Josephus and mentioned in
dispatches were the sect known as the Essenes who may well have been
linked with the very exclusive Therapeuta who came from Egypt.
The Essenes were a large sect, had their own community, had a cemetery
close by their community home, some of the remains being that of
children, many of females and the rest male suggests strongly that it was
not in any way an all male community. What this community was not was
Jewish, even though many want to push that as fact. Nor were they early
half baked Christians or even linked to them but a few may well have at one
time been involved with the early Jesus Movement and also I suspect with
the cave dwelling Magharians. The Essenes were a real community; they
were intelligent lived in towns, villages and also caves. They had ritual and
they had burials as the cemetery proves at Qumran. The so called
monastery was excavated by no other than G.L Harding and the good
Father Pere de Vaux no less in 1951-1956. The Dead Sea Scrolls and
Copper Scroll were placed in the caves in jars around AD 66 if not a few275
years before.
To give you some idea about what the Qumran community had and could
do I have listed a number of things below out of interest.
This so called monastery area was not a major religious site. It was a major
human community made up of migrants but now Hebrews of old.
They came in migrations years before Jesus was ever born and with them
came knowledge of building, watchtowers, dinning rooms, kitchens,
bakery, pottery , shops and a very elaborate plumbing system that even the
Romans or Jews did not have at this time. When they turned their back on
Hebrew ritual they also did with Egyptian ritual little did they know that in
time they too would have to train for battle and maybe even a war or two.
The first and only real battles that came in 66-70 AD destroyed their
settlements and those that had fled to the hills and lived, returned later to
bury men, women and their children. Then like smoke on the wind, those
few that were left vanished and only the caves and rocks remained.
There were only two directions they could go and feel safe. East and West
and I suspect that a small migration did take place, a human one and with
them went their animals, corn, tents, and a fair amount of gold and silver.
They walked back across the sands to where they came from, to Egypt and
there somewhere in the Nile delta they settled but at a price.
As they farmed and did all the jobs they did at Qumran, made a living they
must have looked at the setting and rising sun and whispered a prayer to
Amenophis IV (Akhenaten) or Nefertiti. They had the Grail and always did.276
THE END.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
War in the Middle Ages. Philippe Contamine and M. Jones; Blackwell 1988.
A History Of the Arab Peoples; Albert Hourani Faber and Faber 1991.
Religions Of The World; Lionheart Books 1997.
Civilizations of the Holyland; Johnson, Boo club Associates 1979.
Oxford History of the Classical World; Oxford University Press 1995.
Paul, Envoy Extraordinary; William Collins and Sons 1972.
Birth Of Greek Civilization; Pavel Oliva, Orbis Publishing Limited 1981.
Noahs Ark; David Fasold, Sidgwick and Jackson 1990.
Neolithic Of the Near East; James Mellaart, Thames and Hudson 1973.
Archaeology of the Holyland; Avraham Negev, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1972.

THANKS ALSO TO;
University of Birmingham Staff 2010
MIND SCAPES AND YOUR PARANORMAL EVENTS,
THE TICK-TOCK HUMAN.
Ronnie Carleton.
Feb 2014
Part I The paranormal and hallucinations Codex.
We are what we are, mammals that walk, swim, dream and involved in paranormal events
wither we like it or not, the paranormal is part of the human mind landscape. Hallucinations
and dreamscapes are part of this human mind landscape.
Chapter 1 TRICKLES OF THOUGHTS.
The trouble with the human mind it is never still unless your dead of course and that is not
much use if you want to do research. So how do you research a human mind without a subject
or a biology lab?
Simple. You first research your own.
Now there is only one good way to do this and that is at random and not preplanned. It has to
be like throwing a box of jig-jaws up into the air and letting the pieces fall to the floor but you
are not dealing with one box but two and then it starts to get interesting. So, let me give you
an example or two. My own mind but not forced to think of coming up with pictures.
Example one;
You close your eyes, relax back in a chair and in a silent room. Then you try and think of
nothing and you get 'pictures' and sounds that went something like this.Thunder, clock, wire
and post fence in a curved field, aircraft sitting on a runway, clouds,
dark lake, crab in pool,seagulls on shore,washed up body,wet felt hat,twisted old tree, dunes
with blowing grass, horse walking towards me, mossy headstone, white haired man at church
gate with black overcoat and gloves,damp caravan falling apart, swings and children
laughter,woman with eggshell coloured eyes,badgers and their young, bats in flight feeding on
insects, wet looking moon,hill fort in ruins, tracks of a snake in dry sand, candlestick made of
wood, old 1944 brown suitcases, Amsterdam and Germans, woman in black coat and hat
walking across a square, man in shirt sleaves eating at table, cat watching him, wood fire
oven, smell of baking bread, hot bread and butter, warm cow milk in bucket, stickleback male
with red breast, train coming out of tunnel, lodge pole pine trees, hedge laying, small birds at
a feeding station, mainly tits, red kite in slow flight, air force jet flying fast in Wales, Barn owl
sitting in tree at dusk,railway station and train stopped.
Example two, Three days later. Evening.
Missing sparrows, aircraft overhead, ticking clock, feeling cold, ice and snow, redwings eating
berries, hedgehog in hibernatation, Sue, black and white cat with twisted jaw, grey day, damp,
cables, bed and warm, doctors, need a pee, CD blank disc, Ashram, and hedgelaying.
The above all comes into the mind in a relaxed state and with eyes closed. All the thoughts are
random and not controlled.
So as a test now that you have my random thoughts see if you can put the jigsaw together and
come up with something that could be termed as real, a picture if you like or mind landscape.
What is not always known is the thoughts that come into your mind when there is a trigger,
invisible I will agree, but there all the same. Let us take someone, maybe even yourself, go to
an old house while out for a walk. You see the ruins through the trees and stop then go an
check it out now unaware of the woods and grass around you. All you focus on now is the
house. You stop at the broken door and look at windows that no longer have glass. A swallow
flies out of an upstairs toom and you are startled for a moment, first trigger, then you shrug it
off and notice there is no longer any bird song, second trigger, but again you push on and go
into the ruin. Spiders webs, dust, smells, crunching under your feet as you walk, shadows and
these are all triggers. Who lived here you may ask yourself? What may still be here in the way
of clues if any. Two more triggers. Then out of the corner of your eye you see a movement and
glance quickly at the window. Nothing to see but your heart is now racing, your mind trying
to fit all the bits of what you seen and heard into some sort of meaning. Could it have a history
of a haunting and ghosts, a murder even?
As you can see the human mind is fickle when you enter strange places but even more so when
a strange place enters into your mind. Later you may well question what you wanted to see
and hear in that ruin, what really do you know or expect in another life if there is one. Maybe
right now, as you read this, you have one of your answers so let me take you on a trip into the
human mind, through the many doors, some that may lead nowhere, but a few that take you
to box rooms, small and large, and a few circle rooms that when you get into you can't find a
way out, or so you may think at the time. Nothing is forever.
Let us look at what I call,The Paranormal MindUK HISTORY OF GHOST REPORTS
RESEARCH.
Ronnie Carleton Dec 2013
THE UK AND IRELAND.
Many people in the UK and Ireland know of someone or somewhere that is haunted by a
ghost and such hauntings in the old days the 'ghost' may have been called under another
name. Not only that in England ghosts started haunting places here very late on as I shall
show with this research. First let me give you a basic historical background on ghosts for the
UK and Ireland.
If I take England as a starting point, the English see more reported ghosts than anyone else in
the British Isles and can be found also in imported from a supernatural point of view in the
superstitions of immigrants that being from Norway, Sweden, and Germanic. England are of
course really obsessed with their past of ruins, castles, big houses, rectory's ,battle fields, caves
and smugglers, pirates, tin mines, other mines, murders and mayhem, witchcraft and witch
craft trials, village and place names and so on.
England has a history of its ghosts, some made up, some false and a very few that cannot be
explained away. Always keep in mind that the human brain is rather complex and a trigger
can set it off to seeing things that are not really there but then there are things seen and heard
that cannot always be explained away. Paranormal organised religion of all kinds is a curse on
the landscape because anyone who believes in it do not see the 'hidden triggers' and therefore
for the most, do not question anything. The soul or Spirit for such people is important to
many, the afterlife the final goal and the Fat Woman sings her last song. So if you have
religion you are in many ways brainwashed from a paranormal point of view and everything
then has to be true. On the other hand if you are not involved in any form of religion and
'see'a spirit or ghost you tend to make a more reliable witnesses from a research point of view
but
if such a 'haunting' starts to do your head in then you have no back up. Being spiritually
bankrupt today leaves you more open to shades of the mind and even worse!
So England alone I now deal with. It may surprise many that the word 'ghost' and the word is
Anglo-Saxon but my research shows that the tribes of Anglo- Saxon's never seen or reported
any ghosts except for a mention of Grendel in Beowulf and the old poem, 'The Ruin' and the
first few lines are thus; Wraetlic is thaes wealhstane and a translation being, 'Wraith like is
this native stone.'
But even with this the Anglo-Saxon's had a deep rooted fear of what I call, uneasy soil or earth
such as marshlands, mear, mire,fen, and bog. Such places seemed to hold a deep rooted fear
for these people and not just someone vanishing into mud or water. They were I deem,
haunted but did not know by what because they had no word for it and I could find none.
I have since discovered that 'ghosts or spirits' did not come on the paranormal stage until
early medieval period as 'souls of the dead, spirits of the dead and so on. At that time of
course, if you believed in the Church and God, you also believed in the Devil and Demons.
From what I can gather then that what we know as 'ghosts' today was not in England as such
before the Anglo-Saxon era. It was when we got to the 19 th Century that ghosts, spirits,
'spooks' from Iceland, maybe brought by the Vikings, the Dobby from the Gails, Wraith from
the borders of Scotland but every community had their own name and place names for
'Ghosts.'
'Forensic' parapsychology, more so than 'ghosts hunters' must deal with such names and
place names because the clues are there if looked for. This adds to good research positive or
negative in the end result because here lies the hidden history of an area, not just a ruin or old
church but a name place.
Other names that you may come across in your research are the Man in the Oak, Fire-Drake,
Tom Thombe, Tumbler Boneless, and any place or name starting with the word 'Bug'.
The Celts of course are said to have a host of names for Spirits, the Dobbies or Dobie,
(The Black One) and linked to places like Mortham, 'Mort' meaning dead, Shotton close to
the River Dee. Some of these had names like 'Old' meaning they have been around a long time
such as 'old Flam, Clegg, and were found in the same area all the time.
In the south of England it was 'Hobs' the name given to spirits or ghosts and a few of these
were given nicknames by the living. The Midlands had also Hobs or Hobbits and place names
were then made up like, for example, 'Hob Bridge or Hob Lane.'
The far north of England had 'Boggarts' which came a Celtic word, 'bwg', which I can link to
bugbear, bug, bogeyman, Bccca, and 'boggarts' were said to bite their victims in their bed and
steal the very souls of children at times. Fire or flame was said to remove them.
Other names I have come across over the years has been 'Brag, Shellycoats, Scrags, Fetches,
Sporrans, Melch-Dicks, Mum-Pokers, Larrs, Old Shocks, Ouphs, Swathes, Scar-Bugs, Bolls,
Grindges, Nickies, Freits, Chittifaces, Clabbernappers, Know of a Dog , Flittenin and Token.
In fact I clocked up 150 names for ghosts or spirits, some long forgotten today.
The problem is that anywhere in the UK and Ireland where there is a ruin or castle 90% of
people who 'believe' in hauntings and ghosts .they assume wrongly. that Mr and Mrs Ghost
and their children as well as the pets will be there to welcome them and be standing in dark
corners. It is this type of self inflicted madness that gets right up my nose as well as TV
programs on the subject that are claimed to be real when in fact it is entertainment of the
worse kind. No self respecting ghost, if they had a mind and could think, would be seen dead
with such people most of all the large posse of TV crews and the blond presenter or the bubbly
redhead telling us fools in whispered words, I just heard something over there!
That was me sighing dear, a long suffering sigh and the control button being found to change
the channel.
Below, and only for reference are some reports, written ones on claimed hauntings for
thereader. The pen may well be mightier than the TV lens in this case.
There are literally thousands of real haunted places across the British Isles. Wherever there
are people, you will probably find an account of a phantom by at least one reputable witness.
However, the places listed here certainly seem to have more than their fair share of wraiths
I have placed my own comments in RED where I feel was needed.
The following list of words are not different types of ghost but all have the meaning of ghost.
Words that all mean 'ghost'
apparition
boggart
disembodied spirit
ghost
phantasm
phantom
shade
spectre (specter)
spirit
spook
visitant
wraith
Banshee
The banshee is not a ghost. She is a 'female spirit', associated with certain Irish families.
When the sound of her 'wailing mourning' or 'keening' is heard, it is a sure sign that someone
within the family is not long for this world.
This is not quite true because though called Banshee' it is found in Scotland, Wales and the
areas of Cornwall and even on the Isle of Man.
Cold Spot
Personally, once natural causes have been excluded, I would consider 'cold spots' to be one of
the genuine types of ghost.
I should explain that they are not small, flat or static as the name would suggest. They are like
three-dimensional columns of cold air that move around certain haunted buildings.
I experienced one once, at Bevoir Halll and it was very strange.
I do not put much faith in cold spots or hot spots when reported as part of a haunting.
Crisis Apparition
Very similar to a Fetch, a crisis apparition is the appearance to their loved one or friend of a
person at a time when they are in great peril. It will be dressed in the same clothes that the
person the apparition represents is wearing and will sometimes appear to speak.
Some investigators believe that crisis apparitions are not genuine types of ghosts as they are
not actually present. They believe that the vision is as a result of telepathy between the
twopeople involved.
Again it has nothing to do with spirits or ghosts and does not hold water.
Deathbed Vision
The appearance to the dying of dead friends and relatives. About half of those people who are
conscious in the final minutes before death will have this comforting experience of seeing a
vision of departed friends or loved-ones coming to 'take them home'.
These visions do not appear to be illusion. People have been surprised to see the 'ghost' of
those whom they assumed to still be 'in the flesh'. And dying children who experience them,
often express surprise that the 'angels' don't have wings!
One has to also consider pain killing drugs, body closing down, and auto suggestion to the ill.
Demon
Demons of various kinds are malevolent spirits. They are not types of ghost. Fortunately, one
is very unlikely to encounter one when 'ghost hunting'.
Demons of the mind are much worse and as I don't believe in them or ever met one they have
no place in hauntings. But anyone claims a demon as real does in fact have a problem.
Doppelgnger
A German word meaning, 'double goer'. It refers to an identical image a person sees of
themselves. It is usually considered for the person who sees it, to be a harbinger of ill omen if
not of their imminent death.
Electronic Voice Phenomena>
Also known as EVP or 'Spirit Voices', these are the unexplained faint sounds of human voices
that can sometimes be heard on both digital and tape recordings. Occasionally, the voices
appear in answer to questions that are put to the apparent discarnate entities by paranormal
investigators.
This can happen on audio tapes at times but so far cannot be proven as paranormal
Fetch
A fetch may sometimes be a crisis apparition if the person seen is experiencing great mental
distress. It is the image of a person who is dying or who has recently died that appears to the
friend or relative of the deceased. The fetch is not that rare an occurrence. However much
more common is for a person to 'know' for certain that someone with whom they are close has
'passed on'.
Does happen and has in my lifetime but why I do not know.Poltergeist
Poltergeist is another German word and means 'noisy spirit'. They are thought not to be
spirits at all but rather some form of energy very often connected with an adolescent or with
someone going through an emotionally trying time. Poltergeists, like the one's reported can be
mischievous, disruptive and and destructive but they very rarely hurt anyone. Minor
poltergeist activity is quite common but fortunately, the activity doesn't usually last more than
a few weeks.
Here we have a great myth and anyone reporting one needs help sorting out the pipes
problems, rats, children acting the maggot and setting it up and is used in the past for people
to get new rented accommodation somewhere else. Truth is, there is no such thing.
Spirit Orb
With the arrival of the digital camera came 'the orbs' that look like small circles of light on
the photographs. Probably 99% of the images have a perfectly natural explanation, such as
dust, pollen, moisture, lens reflection, etc. However, there are those that cannot be explained
in this way. Those that appear 'from no-where' at the request of the photographer or that
remain in the same place for minutes at a time.
Some say that they are the spirits of the departed. Others that they are the spiritual equivalent
of 'dung beetles' feeding off waste 'etherise energy'.

Normally, the characteristics of something tells us what it is. Does this help explain what are
ghosts? Let's take a look
Not really but it is a start folks
Anatomy of a ghost
Ghosts can appear solid or like a mist. They can be transparent or opaque. They can appear
to be totally unaware of our presence or they can interact with us. They may be recognisable
as to whom they were in life or they can be totally unknown. They may appear at a particular
time and / or date to a particular sort of person such as a child or female, or they may appear
any time to anyone. They may appear to be human or animal or even a mode of transport.
They may make us feel calm or they may frighten us. And they can be experienced by any of
the five senses with the exception of taste. A ghost may also be sensed rather than seen. A ghost
may be visible to one person and totally invisible to another person standing beside the
observer. So the characteristics of a phantom just seems to tell us that a ghost can appear in
many different guises.
So what are ghosts according to some popular theories?
In my informed opinion and view only , the living cannot experience a ghost of any sort of the
five senses except of seeing. The idea that a ghost may well be sensed as stated but there is no
evidence to support this theory and if triggers have been set off in the living mind then it
could be that the observer was expecting some sort of sign. The idea that one person can see a
ghost and someone else cannot who is close by suggests to me that imagination plays a big part
with the observer.
Are ghosts demons?
Some religious people will tell you that ghosts are 'demons' or 'fallen angels' who's purpose is
to keep you from God! The argument is that the dead are either, 'at rest' awaiting 'Final
Judgement', or have gone to Heaven or the other place. So, according to this theory, as ghosts
cannot be the spirits of the dead then they must be demons.
Unless someone has been messing with witchcraft black or white or indulging in some other
dangerous practice, one is unlikely to encounter a demon.
Sadly this statement does not add up because there are no demons and like I said, demons
ofthe mind only because in my opinion if demons are real then so are vampires and
werewolves
and in years of research I have never uncovered anything like them though there is a lot of
myth that suggests same but around a camp fire or fireside told as a story on a winters night.
Are ghosts souls that are 'stuck'?
There are those who believe that a ghost is the spirit of a person who has died but who is
unable to, 'move into the light', for some reason. Perhaps they have had an addiction that they
continue to try and 'feed' in death. So, for example, they may hang around bars or brothels
that they frequented in life. Or maybe they feel guilt for some crime they have committed and
they are afraid that they will be judged and found guilty and spend eternity in Hell. This, I
believe is one answer to the question, 'what are ghosts'
If you believe in Heaven or Hell then you have to believe on the Last Day when all the souls
will rise from their graves and gather in a mob. Smacks of something like Night Of The
Living Dead and all those people who have been turned to white ash after cremation are well
and truly up the creek!
Can ghosts be residual hauntings?
This idea was popularised as the 'Stone Tape Theory', which states that an event of an
emotional nature can be somehow recorded in the fabric of a building or object or in rocks
and this is then 'played back' to anyone who is sensitive. Rather like a video tape. I personally
believe that many ghosts, such as the Roman ghosts are of this nature. However, a recording is
always the same, it never changes. if the actions of a ghost change or if it interacts with those
who see it then it cannot possibly be a recording.

Wishful thinking and does not hold any credence in research. There are magnetic fields at
time but these are 'natural' and there is no good evidence that will stand up anywhere that
this is the case.
Are ghosts lost spirits?
A Ghost hunter,was asked during an interview, 'What are ghosts?', he answered, 'A ghost is a
human being who has passed out of the physical body, usually in a traumatic state and is not
aware of his true condition'. This may explain some appearances but for example, what are
ghosts of those who have had their head chopped off. I cannot believe that they are unaware
that they are dead? And what is a ghost that appears not as human but as the were-animal of
myth.
It is time people took on board that ghosts cannot think because their memory has been wiped
clean and all that is left of a body or remains somewhere is decay of the brain inside the skull.
They cannot touch humans who are alive, they cannot in anyway talk, makes noises from their
mouths, no long sighs as people state and still do because there is no life, no mental process
going on and that is it.
Are ghosts an illusion?
Some people, who do not believe in ghosts, think that they are misinterpretations of natural
phenomena. Having seen a tree in a local cemetery give off a great cloud of pollen that looked
suspiciously like some pictures I have seen of 'ghosts', I can understand this idea.
Indeed, it has been proved that, in certain situations will make a person feel that they are in
the presence of the supernatural. However, this explanation does not explain how several
people can see and describe exactly the same phantom at different times or ghosts that give a
message.
I suggest auto suggestion and as for giving a message to the living it would be something like
this; Wise up and get help.

Are ghosts created by the mind?
There are those who think that some ghosts are a thought-form. Indeed, strong
enoughthought, either of an individual or a group, can under certain situations, create what
appears
to be a physical form.
I do believe this indeed is the case and if the people are 'seeded' before then they are primed
and ready to drum up anything that would be suggested.
Keep in mind always that no one has proved beyond all doubt, that there is such a thing as
spirits or ghosts but then again, no human being today has proved beyond all doubt that there
is not.
NEW 2014
THE PARAPSYCHOLOGY CODEX.
RONNIE CARLETON
1ST Feb 2014
Part I
Those people who work in the field of paranormal research or to put it better, claim to be
'ghost
hunters of the third kind tend to think that they are in fact the bee's knees when in fact they
are
beating a big drum on an even bigger band wagon but with no sound.
Chapter 1
The paranormal has been around for a few thousand years and by that I mean at least 30,000
years
of a time line and maybe before that even. No one today knows when it started, as no one
knows
with evidence there are ghosts and spirits. No one I can tell you today, has never proved, with
evidence, that there is not!

My research deals with the kind of people who claim to be in touch with spirits and ghosts and
looks at the psychology of many such people. If I take 100 such people and place them in a
large
lecture room I can tell you now that less than 10% have had any real contact with something
that
could be claimed as a ghost or spirit, 30% will claim to have an 'ology' after their name, like
parapsychology instead of 'ghost hunter or the old down to earth name of 'paranormal
investigator
and if a spirit or ghost met them close up they would either die on the spot or are still running!
Then we have in this group, of 60% who don't believe which if my maths is any good brings
the
total to 100% of the group and in that 60% of such people will be a mixture of all walks of life,
a
few with more Ology ticks after their name, a pHd or two, a few useless degrees, at least two
religious leaders or priests, who claim they do not in any form believe in the paranormal, yet,
their
whole religion is based on it.
At least four of the people who have had some form of paranormal contact out of my 10%
have no
degrees, no HND's or anything that makes them stand out. One or more of the 10% may have
or had
some form of mental illness where as in the 60% of none believers as many as 15 has had or
has
some form of mental illness. As you can see, a nice balance of a group except at least five have
an
ego problem, they want to be known as a parapsychologist or investigator because the normal
name of Paranormal investigator or such is not good enough. Take this on board at some dull
party
with wine, ten or more people in the room and you.

You don't mix well but you do try. Someone slides up to you, another lonely soul in fact and
smiles,
And what do you do?
You look them in the eye dead pan and say softly; I talk to dead people.
The look on their face needs to be photographed to be believed at that moment and for the
most
they excuse themselves and head for someone else who looks and talks normal. Now they have
found someone, they glance in your direction at times and almost whisper to one another,
force a
laugh as if they are enjoying themselves. But take heart, you have sown the seed in their minds
that
you do talk to dead people and in time, they want to know more. Trust me on that because you
set a
trigger and they pulled it.
I can tell you now that over the last 70 years I have met many people from all walks of life
around
the world who claim to have been or can be in touch with ghosts or spirits and only a very few
came
up to scratch. The rest were want to be known as ghost hunters, a few loved the name
paranormal
investigator and one or two went for the ego crown; Parapsychologist.
Oh ye Gods! Trust me, they are out there and bad if not worse than those people who claim
Alien
abduction.
A few of the people who have contact with a spirit or ghost and that I trust all say the same
thing. It
is not like what you think it would be when it happens because you did not know at the time it
was
going to happen.
So what is parapsychology? Well it means many things to many people but the main aim of
such a
title is someone who studies the paranormal and claimed paranormal events and coming up
with
answers, not always right or even close to the mark and if they dropped the 'Para' and found
the
normal they would be much closer to the mark and the answers.
Parapsychology may also include out-of-body experiences (OBEs) - eg: astral projection;
near-
death experiences (NDE); traveling clairvoyance; poltergeists. It does not include astrology,
UFOs
and alien abductions, or cryptozoology.
1. EXPERIMENTS.
These can be carefully controlled in order to eradicate any tricks or cheating. Furthermore,
they
allow for replication, and the statistical analysis of results. If you can't do this then you are
wasting
your time or lying.2. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS.
An example is, visiting the place of poltergeist sightings or 'ghost' reports. Keep in mind
however a
'trigger' has been set already in your own mind and therefore don't take everything you see
and hear
as 'real'.
3. CASE STUDIES.
Investigating individual claims of paranormal experiences. J.B.Rhine, after 30 years of work
had
drawn together approximately 15 000 such cases. This is a claim of course that casts some
doubt on
the number of paranormal events with evidence recorded so should be taken with caution. It
is
worth noting also that witnesses tend to add little snippets or forget some of the main points in
their
first report over the years.
4. META-ANALYSIS
this is a statistical technique which allows different studies to be compared and analyzed, in
order
to find any patterns across a large amount of data. It is complex so no need to worry about
how it
works or does not work. It is not without its critics. For example, large effects will appear even
in
studies with methodological flaws (Hyman 1985). I tend to ignore meta-analysis because not
only
take up much time for a paranormal researcher but the end result ends up a hearsay rather
than a
fact.
In 1909 when William James issued his famous warning to anxious parapsychologists that
they
should not expect too much too soon , because fifty or even a hundred years might pass, before
achieving significant progress toward a comprehensive general theory of psychic phenomena
(James, 1909/1969, p. 310).
The meaning of the data was a question that would have to wait. Despite earnest efforts on the
part
of such serious and capable researchers as Dean Radin (1997), parapsychology seems no
nearer to
producing an over- arching theory of psi of a kind that would compel rational assent by
mainstream
scientists and philosophers than were the researchers of Jamess own day.
Even solidly-argued studies in such specific fields as survival research (e.g., Almeder, 1992)
have
fallen largely on deaf ears. This has led some understandably frustrated and battle-weary
parapsychologists to seek refuge in the comforting arms of certain Eastern perspectives,
namely
Hinduism or Buddhism (e.g., Becker, 1993).
These religions seem to hold out the promise of furnishing a theoretical framework more
congenial
to psi than the metaphysical materialism that still holds mainstream Western science under its
spell.
Although such perspectives do, in truth, include psi phenomena, keep in mind that all beliefs
ought
to be open to question, but in theory, and in practice, are not. My informed opinion is that we
in the
west are frightened to open Pandoras Box.
All religions, without exception, are explicitly or implicitly dogmatic in the specific sense of
harboring assumptions that are not open to questioning. Why? If we take religion as truth
without
evidence then we must take hauntings, ghosts and spirits in the same mode otherwise wise and
holy
men and women are playing mind games with us with their own hidden agenda?
If parapsychology hopes to make any progress as a discipline, it should keep its distance from
religion as well as the religion of Science and maintain its strict autonomy. If parapsychology
embraces or rejects this autonomy, in my view and informed opinion why we have the current
crisisof the discipline.
In this context it is worth reminding ourselves that the English word crisis derives from the
ancient Greek word krinein, a verb that means to decide.
Parapsychology long ago made itself parasitic upon scientific culture and its standards, and
now
seems equally determined to become the handmaiden of religions and philosophies that are
currently fashionable in certain intellectual circles.
This has happened because parapsychologists have yet to realize the singular importance of
their
discipline and its power to completely upend and transform all existing cultural forms word.
Parapsychology therefore will consciously choose to embrace or flee from its epistemological
autonomy: This remains an open question but my opinion is that we, researchers, in 2014,
want to
look good, come across as important, full of ego at times and love the attention of others.
Because
of that, we are not being true to ourselves and therefore tend to juggle the data to suit our
peers and
public. As far as I am concerned, I don't give a cow dropping what others think of my data
because I
carried it out with an open mind but most of all, with truth as I seen it.
Consider this.The ancients grasped, there are also larger (unconscious) forces at work and
these
forces transcend and include the individual mind and body which today, lie behind para
psychological phenomena.
If we wish to know something about the future of parapsychology, would be wise to look at
actual
para psychological experiences experiences of precognitive or prophetic dreams and insights.
In a prediction is it the result of conscious, a deliberate, rational calculation?
Therefore I suggest that knowledge about parapsychology must now be grounded in first-
order
parapsychological experience. So far at least up to 2014, this has not been the case and we
have
now on TV, in films and in books, self made parapsychology experts who contaminate minds
with
pure rubbish and data and no evidence for instant gratification for them and their ego of poor
standing.
The answer to this question is complex, and takes us directly into the eye of the historically
stormy
relationship between parapsychology, religion, philosophy, and science. It is no longer a battle
now
but a war.
Chapter 2 WHAT WE SHOULD KNOW.
One of the best ways to learn about parapsychology is to study its historical development.
History
can help you to understand the origin of ideas, theories, methodology, controversies, terms,
and
other things you may be interested in from the context of the times in which the developments
took
place, and considering both actual parapsychological work and the social aspects that
influenced the
field. The latter includes beliefs prevalent at the time, competition with other disciplines,
patterns of
intellectual influence, and the dynamics of professionalization, among other topics.
Once you have cracked that knowledge, which will take a few years, you can move on.
Parapsychology.
(a) Defining science and the demarcation problem: How can we differentiate science from
non-
science?(b) Defining pseudoscience: Do strict criteria exist to allow us to differentiate between
science and
pseudoscience?
(c) Defining parapsychology: What are the subject matter and methodology of the discipline?
(d) Assessing the current status of parapsychology: Is it a science or a pseudoscience?
Four good questions I say and we need to find the answers but consider this also. Is religion
world
wide based on the paranormal? The answer to the above is simple and there is no getting
away from
it. Yes. Every cult and religion is inter-twinned with the paranormal and you can not find one
that
does not have a paranormal input.
Let us now look at what we don't know but should find out about.
Anachronistic thinking:
the tendency to return to outmoded theories that have already been shown to be unworkable,
e.g.,
flat-earthen, creationists. Looking for mysteries:
the assumption that if conventional theorists cannot supply completely watertight
explanations for
every single case that is put before them, then they should admit that the pseudo scientific
claim is
valid.
Appeal to myths:
the tendency to assume that ancient myths are literally true and that they can be explained in
terms
of hypothesis special conditions that held true at the time but no longer do so. Then argue that
the
myth itself offers some confirmation of the hypothesis. Such arguments have been used, for
example, by Erich von Dniken, Immanuel Velikovsky, and creationists.
This grab-bag approach to evidence: the attitude that sheer quantity of evidence makes up
for any
deficiency in the quality of individual pieces of evidence as seen, for example, with respect to
Charles Berlitzs claims relating to the Bermuda triangle, Erich von Dnikens claims relating
to
alien visitations in ancient times, and UFO claims.
Irrefutable hypotheses:
Sir Karl Popper (1959, 1963), said ,any hypothesis that claims to be scientific must be, at least
in
principle, falsifiable. Popper himself regarded astrology, psychoanalysis, and Marxism as
pseudosciences because he believed that in all three cases there was no state of affairs that
could
conceivably count against those particular belief systems.
Argument from spurious similarity:
This tendency to argue that the principles upon which a pseudoscience is based are already
part of
legitimate science when in fact any similarity is spurious and superficial; e.g., astrologers and
supporters of biorhythm theory often refer to perfectly acceptable research into biological
rhythms
as if the latter supported their claims.
Refusal to revise in light of criticism:
This is the tendency to argue that pseudoscientific beliefs are better than conventional
scientificbeliefs, because conventional science is constantly rejecting or refining its theories in
the light of
new data like unchanging nature of astrology.
Degree courses in Parapsychology in universities are for the most useless and even if you go on
one
and get a bit of paper at the end of it how would you use it as a possible job in the future? I
have
included some such courses at random for the reader to scan through and see it they would
meet
your needs.
Bristol: At the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK, there is the opportunity to
study
anomalous experiences and parapsychology as part of the third year modules on The
Psychology of
Consciousness and The Psychology of Religion. In addition there is provision to specialize in
parapsychology or anomalous experiences as a topic of research in the final year dissertation
module, with: Dr Guy Saunders (consciousness and altered states), Dr Jenny Parker (sleep
related
anomalies), Dr Chris Alford (the physiology of altered states) or Dr Nicola Holt
(parapsychology,
belief in the paranormal and anomalous experiences).
Coventry: Contact Dr Ian Hume at Coventry University for information:
i.hume@coventry.ac.uk
Derby: Dr Ian Baker at the University of Derby teaches a secondyear module on a residential
and a
third year online module on its B.Sc Psychology degree program, and offers the opportunity
to
conduct a Ph.D in Psychology, supervised by one of the members of the Psychology of
Paranormal
Phenomena Research Group.
Edinburgh: The Koestler Parapsychology Unit, which is part of the Psychology Department at
the
University of Edinburgh grants a PhD in psychology specializing in parapsychology. The

program
consists of research and dissertation, there is no taught coursework. Parapsychologist
Caroline Watt
is currently a senior lecturer. An MSc course on the history and theory of psychology,
including
modules on mind, body, and consciousness, and history of unorthodox psychology is taught by
Dr
Peter Lamont. For more information visit the Koestler Parapsychology Unit website.
Edinburgh: Dr. Stuart Wilson teaches a one 12hour optional module to 3rd year Psychology
students at Queen Margaret University and can supervise Ph. D. students. For more
information:
swilson@qmu.ac.uk
Greenwich: Dr. David Luke (d.p.luke@gre.ac.uk) teaches a 13-week 15 credit 3rd-year option
at the
University of Greenwich on the BSc Psychology programme on Parapsychology,
Transpersonal
Psychology and Anomalistic Psychology and can supervise BSc, MSc and PhD research
projects in
parapsychology and transpersonal psychology with particular emphasis on altered states of
consciousness. For more information: www.gre.ac.uk/schools/health/departments/psychology
counselling
Hertfordshire: Psychologist Prof. Richard Wiseman supervises psychology Ph.D. students in
issues
in parapsychology at the University of Hertfordshire. For more information:
r.wiseman@herts.ac.uk
Lancashire: Dr Paul Rogers at the University of Central Lancashire runs two courses on the
paranormal, the first is a year 1 elective open to all students whereas the second is a year 4
specialist
(extended essay) on belief in the paranormal. He had also be happy to supervise a PhD
student in
paranormal belief. For more information: progers@uclan.ac.uk
Lancaster, UK: Within the School of Health and Medicine at Lancaster University
opportunitiesexist for selffunded candidates to complete Ph.D. study of a variety of
anomalous experiences
using a range of qualitative methods. Examples include anomalous experiences related to the
end
oflife, the adaptive value of hearing voices, outofbody and neardeath experiences. For more
information contact Dr. Craig Murray: c.murray@lancaster.ac.uk
Liverpool: Both the Hope and the John Moores campuses at the University of Liverpool may
have
educational opportunities in the field. Contact parapsychology@hope.ac.uk and
m.i.daniels@ljmu@hope.ac.uk respectively for further information.
London: At Goldsmith at the University of London, Professor Chris French teaches a final
year
option on Anomalistic Psychology as part of a BSc (Hons) Psychology program and supervises
MPhil/PhD students carrying out postgraduate research in this area. For more information:
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/apru
Northampton: At the University of Northampton, the Psychology Division offers fully
accredited
undergraduate degrees in psychology with a parapsychological emphasis, including an
Honours
module. Northampton also offers opportunities for accredited postgraduate study (PhDs,
MPhils &
an MSc in Transpersonal Psychology & Consciousness Studies). There are several fulltime
psychology staff members who specialize in research in parapsychology (Dr Richard
Broughton, Dr
Chris Roe, Dr Simon Sherwood, Dr Liz Roxburgh) and related areas within transpersonal
psychology (Dr Malcolm Walley & Dr Anthony Edwards).
The Psychology Division also houses the Centre for the Study of Anomalous Psychological
Processes (CSAPP), which encompasses research in parapsychology and transpersonal
psychology
topics. For more information: http://www2.northampton.ac.uk/socialsciences/sshome/csapp
York: Prof. Robin Wooffitt at the University of York offers MPhil/PhD supervision on
research on
topics that suggest anomalous psychological processes and exceptional states of consciousness.
He
has expertise in the relationship between discourse, communication and anomalous
phenomena,
including the laboratory study of parapsychological processes. For more information:
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/soci/research/aeru.htm Published In: University Education in
Parapsychology,
Do we really need such a course to investigate the paranormal events that come up or should
we not
just be good at observation, planning, note keeping, a bit of archeology or anthropology
thrown in,
able to read a map, know the points of the compass, take photographs and work a tape
recorder?
The answer my friends is blowing in the wind and it is much more fun being a freelance
paranormal
investigator without a fancy title that very few people really care about if we want to be
truthful
about it. You may think that this is a bit harsh but wait and follow me through the door of the
paranormal real world of the living and the dead. Please?
Chapter 3 HUNTING THE HAUNTED.

In this part of my research I want you to look with me at case files over many years and come
up
with your own observations of the data and if need be carry out more research on them. So
below I
have included a good number of hauntings for you to work on, if you want and like I say,
something
for everyone. Ghosts or spirits I point out are not dead people.
Haunted HouseThere are probably more haunted houses in England than in any other
country in the world. But
then there cannot be many countries where a property has been in the same family for 6 or 7
generations!Although many ancestral homes claim that they have ghosts, often it is just
rumour.
Here however, you will find details of some places that genuinely are.
King Charles
Claydon House Now owned by the National Trust, the haunted house of Claydon House was
the
home of the Verney family for over 400 years. Sir Edmund Verney was Standard Bearer to
King
Charles I at the Battle of Edge Hill in 1642. The victorious Round-heads demanded that Sir
Edmund relinquish the flag. He bravely refused to do saying, "My life is my own. My
Standard, the
King's". So, Cromwell's men ran him through. But still they could not wrest the Standard
from his
grasp, so they hacked off his hand and took the Standard and its grisly attachment off in
triumph. It
was not until much later, from a ring upon one of its fingers bearing the likeness of the King,
that
the hand was identified as belonging to Sir Edmund. The appendage was pried from the flag
staff
and returned to Claydon House, Sir Edmund's former home, for burial. But ever since, the
ghost of
Sir Edmund Verney has appeared at the house, apparently searching for the rest of his body
which is
forever missing on the field of battle. Grey Lady Another specter to be found to be found here
is the
'Grey Lady' whom some have identified as being Florence Nightingale. It could be possible.
She
lived many happy years in the haunted house and even kept a pet owl there. I wonder if she
ever
met Sir Edmund!
Beaulieu Palace House Palace House was originally the gate house for the Cistercian Abbey
that
was built in 1204. In the 16th century, the gate house was converted into a private residence. It
has
had extensive modifications made to it since then. People in the house have heard the sound of
Gregorian chanting coming from the direction of old abbey. Usually this is in the early
morning or
at dusk. This would have coincided with the time of day when the monks celebrated Matins
and
Vespers. The chanting has been heard so clearly that it was possible to identify the chant that
was
being sung. Spectral monks have also been seen in the area of the haunted house. They are
always
described as wearing white robes with strips of black cloth hanging down behind. It is
unlikely that
the observers would have been aware that these are exactly the vestments that the Cistercian
monks
would have worn and the reason why they were often known as the White Monks.
Althorp The Oak Bedroom at Althorp is haunted by a favorite groom of the fifth earl Spencer
who
lived in the haunted house from 1857 until his death. It was one of the groom's responsibilities
to
ensure that all the candles had been extinguished when everyone had gone to bed. It appears
that he
continues to faithfully carry out his duties. He wears a long red gown with brocade, highly
decorative stitching, around the hem. And in his hand, he carries a lantern. There is also the
ghost of
a little girl in Grey with floppy shoes, who has been seen entering the Picture Gallery through
a
small doorway that is half way down the gallery. Who the girl is, is a mystery as she doesn't
appear
in any of the pictures.
Longleat There are several rather vague reports of Longleat House ghosts. One of them is
supposed
to be a member of the family that owns the house and who was killed in action in 1916. He has
been
seen reading quietly in the library. But it is the Green Lady who is Longleat's most famous
spectre
and for which there would appear to be at least circumstantial evidence.
Littlecote House The first mention of a Littlecote House ghost is in notes at the end of Sir
Walter
Scott's poem,'Rokeby'. It is supposed to be a true story. If you want to check out any of the
ghosts at
this haunted house then Littlecote House is now a hotel and runs psychic Schools. So, if you
want
to try and experience the Littlecote House ghosts for yourself, this may be your best
opportunity.Newstead Abbey At one time, the poet, Lord Byron owned Newstead Abbey but
he eventually
moved on and sold it to a friend of his, Thomas Wildman. At that time Sophie Hyatt, a young
woman who was unable to speak as she was profoundly deaf, moved into a farm nearby. She
was
terribly shy and avoided contact with people. If she found it necessary to communicate then
she
wrote upon a slate which she always carried. Sophie was a great fan of the works of Byron.
When
Thomas Wildman got to hear of this, he kindly allowed her to walk in the gardens whenever
she
wanted, even letting her exercise the dog that Byron had left behind. From her habit of always
wearing light coloured clothes, she was affectionately known as the, 'Little White Lady of
Newstead'.
Sophie was unable to work and money was provided for her by a relative but in 1825, the
relative
died. Sophie had another relative in America who Sophie thought she might be able to contact.
So
she wrote a letter to the Wildmans, explaining that she was going to Nottingham to catch the
coach
to London. The Wildmans were distressed at Sophie's plight and sent a messenger to find her
and to
tell her that she didn't need any money, that she could live at Newstead for the rest of her life
as
their guest. The messenger arrived in Nottingham and found a large crowd outside the Black
Boy
pub. Upon investigation, her found that they where gathered around Sophie's lifeless body.
She had
been run down and killed by a horse and cart, unable to hear the cries of warning. Now
Sophie's
phantom can be seen in the gardens at Newstead, the place she loved so much. There she has
one
particular favourite path. A path which is known as, "White Lady's Walk".
A small sample to start with.
Real Haunted Places
There are literally thousands of real haunted places across the British Isles. Wherever there
are
people, you will probably find an account of a phantom by at least one reputable witness.
However,
the places listed here certainly seem to have more than their fair share of wraiths.
Tower of London, London For over 900 years, there have been reports of ghostly goings-on at
the
Tower of London. The headless ghost of Anne Boleyn is so famous that it inspired a music-hall
song. However, no-one sings about the botched execution of the 8th Countess of Salisbury,
which is
annually re-enacted in all its gory detail. Specters are often associated with murder and
mayhem so,
given the bloody history of the place, it would be surprising if the Tower didn't have a spook
or two.
Althelhampton Hall, Dorset I was once privileged to be able to pay a visit to Althelhampton
Hall
with a group of people who were allowed behind the barriers to 'look for ghosts' . And I can
tell you
from personal experience that there is most definitely 'something there'.
Borley Church, Essex Everyone with an interest in real haunted places must have heard of
Borley
Rectory. But although the house was the residence of the vicars of Borley, not so many people
know
of Borley Church and its manifestations, one of which I experienced myself.
Chislehurst Caves, Kent The caves stretch some 20 miles and are entirely man-made. Some of
the
oldest parts date back 8,000 years. They were excavated by prehistoric man in order to extract
the
chalk and flint. During World War II, the caves were used as both an air-raid shelter and an
underground hospital. Now they are often used as a location for horror and science-fiction
films.
The Chislehurst Caves ghost is a lady in white who is sometimes seen 'floating' across the
water of
the caves Haunted Pool. There is a tradition that she must have been murdered there by her
husband. However, there does not appear to be any tangible evidence that this is the reason
for herappearance.
There used to be a challenge that anyone who spent a whole night in the caves would win 5,
quite
a sum of money in those days. One man did succeed. However, in 1986 two cave guides
attempted
the challenge and one of them had to be hospitalised after having what appeared to be an
epileptic
fit. This was odd as he had never had a fit before. And from that date, the challenge was
withdrawn.
A section of the caves can be visited. But visitors are only allowed to enter in small groups
accompanied by a guide. Chislehurst Caves website
Pluckley, Kent Screaming Woods and Fright Corner might sound like the titles some tacky
horror
movies. However, these are real haunted places details of which can be found in Pluckley, the
Most
Haunted Village in England.

All very well and good you may say but what about animals? No worries. see below.
Animal Ghosts
Animal ghosts often appear with their human but spectral companions. Then there are those,
such as
the phantom horses that pull phantom coaches or carry ghostly highwaymen, that have a
more
integral part in the haunting. What all these animal ghosts have in common is that the
phantom has
a 'supporting role. However, listed here you will find those ghost animals that make, what you
might call, a 'special ghost appearance'. They are the stars of the show.
Ghost Cat - All Hallows by the Tower, London This is not your normal phantom cat but a
pedigree
Persian. The story goes that an organist at All Hallows Church died and left instructions that
when
her beloved moggy passed on that it should be buried in consecrated ground. The vicar would
not
allow this to be done. Now the ghost cat is seen wandering around the church. It does make
you
wonder what causes a haunting such as this. Surely the cat can't be bothered about its final
resting
place. It is one of those that is total inexplicable. For more hauntings at this particular church,
check
out the entry for All Hallows church.
Ghost Bear - Tower of London One of the many repeated animal ghost stories refers to the
large
bear that was seen in January 1816 by a sentry on guard duty in the Tower of London at what
was
then the Jewel Tower and is now the Martin Tower. The bear appeared to be real so the sentry
lunged at it with his bayonet. The bayonet went straight through the bear and struck the wall
behind.
The sentry collapsed with fear and died a few days later from shock after telling what had
happened. This apparent over-reaction becomes a little more understandable when it is
realised that,
at the time of the appearance, the Tower had a menagerie containing a variety of animals,
including
bears. The poor sentry probably thought it was one that had escaped. The Tower menagerie
closed
in 1835 and the animals were moved to the then newly built London Zoo.
Ghost White Horse - Bryn-y-maen, Nr Colyne Bay, Wales Welsh folklore features a number of
animal ghosts, including stories of phantom horses. Perhaps the origin of the tales are
appearances
such as this one. The witness on this occasion, was driving to work early in the morning but
sticking
to the minor back roads as his car was unlicensed. Just as the day dawned, suddenly a large
white
horse appeared from over a hedge. The terrified driver said that the horse, 'filled the
windscreen' and
he fully expected a collision. He braced himself as he slammed on the brakes, his car spinning
in the
road as it came to a stop. When the driver looked up, the horse had vanished. This man is not
the
only person to have seen this frightening apparition in the same area and at the same time of
day.White Horse - Edgehill Phantom horses can be found in a number of places in Britain.
'White Horse
Road' in Edgehill, is apparently one of them. It is named after the spectral white horse that
has been
seen galloping across the fields. The road runs from the site of the haunted Edgehill battlefield
to
the place where the bodies of the slain soldiers of both armies were buried. There are two
theories
as to who originally owned the horse. One is that it belonged to Prince Rupert, who survived
the
battle and the other that the phantom horse belonged to Captain Kingsmill who died on the
field of
battle.
Ghost Monkey - Athelhampton Hall, Dorset This must be one of Britain's most exotic animal
ghosts.Athelhampton House boasts a ghost monkey. The house was originally built by the
Martyn
family who's family crest was a monkey sitting on a tree stump and their motto was, "He who
looks
at Martyn's ape, Martyn's ape will look at him". And it is Martyn's ape who haunts the hall.
The
tragic story is as follows. The ape had freedom of the house and could wander as it chose. One
of
the daughters of the Martyn family had an unhappy love-affair and determined to kill herself.
Maybe the ape sensed something had upset the girl, as pets often able to do. Whatever, as the
girl
climbed the hidden stairs to the secret room, the ape followed her unobserved. The poor girl
put an
end to her life feeling, no-doubt, that she was totally alone in the world. But she was not alone,
the
ape was with her. What frantic attempts were made to find the girl or how long it was before
she
was found, we are not told. However, by that time, the poor monkey had starved to death. The
ghost
monkey is never seen but its spirit can be heard vainly scratching at the panelling of the secret
room
and staircase in an eternal, frantic attempt to escape. You can read about my experiences at
the Hall
but I did not hear any ghost animals unfortunately.
Ghost Goose - Melsonby, Yorkshire The ghost hunter, Elliott O'Donnell tells of a farmer who
was
driving in a pony and trap along the road in Melsonby when his horse suddenly shied and
bolted.
The farmer wrestled with the reins and finally got the horse under control although he was
still
travelling very fast. At a loss as to the reason for the horse's sudden fear, he saw beside the
trap
what appeared to be a large white goose waddling along the road the way geese do yet
travelling
over the ground as fast as he was. When they reached the church-yard, to the farmer's
immense
relief, the goose turned in through the closed and locked gates. This spectral bird has been
seen by
several people on a number of other occasions.
Chicken Ghost - Highgate Pond, London There are some very odd animal ghosts and this
must
count amoungst the strangest. In fact, when I recounted the story to a friend, he answered,
'Yeah,
right. Here's my leg. Now pullet!' And as befits the spectral creature, it has its own Highgate
Chicken Ghost page. While you are in the area, you might want to check out the Highgate
Vampire.
After all, did not Dracula have the ability to turn into both a dog and a bat!
Ghost Horses - Bramham Park, Yorkshire The area around Bramham Park is haunted by
some
animal ghosts in the form of a group of phantom horses. They are far more usually heard than
seen.
However, observers describe them as being unusually large, light-coloured creatures with
flowing
manes and tails. Apart from their sudden appearance, apparently from no-where, there is
nothing
about them to suggest that they are anything other than flesh and blood. It is believed that
these are
the ghosts of horses that took part in the Battle of Bramham Moor on 20th February 1408
during
which the Earl of Northumberland was killed by Sir Thomas Rokeby and his army.
Pig of Plenty - Isle of Man By contrast to the rather nasty Mauthe Doog, some animal ghosts
are
supposed to bring great fortune to the observer. This is one such that you would do well to
look out
for if you are ever on the Isle of Man. It is called in the Manx language, Arc-Vuc-Sonney
which
means, 'Pig of Plenty'. It can sometimes be seen on fine, moon-lit nights. If it crosses your path
then
try to keep it in sight for as long as possible and it will bring you good luck. It is said to be
fortunateeven if you just catch a glimpse of it.
Ghost Pigs - Merripit Hill, Dartmoor Merripit Hill is where phantom sow and her litter of
piglets
has been sighted. They are traditionally said to make there way to Cator Gate where there
had been
the carcass of a horse. But when they got there, the crows had picked the horse clean and all
that
was left were bones and skin. So the starving pigs returned to Merripit Hill. Incidentally, in a
few
years it may impossible to tell these animal ghosts from their more physical cousins! After
being
hunted to extinction 300 years ago, Britain now once again has a population of wild boar. I
rather
like the idea of the return of this indigenous species to the countryside. black rabbit
Ghost Rabbit - Thetford Warren Lodge The Lodge was built in the 15th century by monks
from the
nearby Cluniac priory for the person who looked after the rabbits in the Westwick rabbit
warren. In
those days, rabbits were an import source of both fresh meat and fur and they were farmed
much as
we farm sheep. And the animal ghost that haunts here is a white rabbit. It has been seen
several
times, hopping around near the building. A ghostly reminder of the history of the area.
Phantom Dogs - Nationwide You may think that it is odd that there are no ghost dogs listed on
a
page devoted to animal ghosts. There are a number of such such creatures that haunt the
British
Isles. However, many of them seem to come under a special category of phantom that can only
to
be found in Britain. So all spectral hounds, regardless of shape, colour or size can be found on
the
Black Dogs page. All except the Mauthe Doog, the Black Dog of Peel Castle, which has a page
all
to itself.
Black Dogs and Other Ghost Dogs
Black Dogs is the name given to a type of phantom hound that appears in many places in
Britain. In
Suffolk it is known as 'Black Shuck', in Yorkshire as 'Barghest' and in Cornwall as the 'Yeth
Hound'.
What all these have in common is that they are large, muscular black animals that it is
unlucky to
see. It is difficult in many cases to determine whether a particular spectral hound is one of the
'Black Dogs' or not. So you can find all ghost dogs (with the exception of the Mauthe Doog )
on this
page.
Black Dog Hill, Wiltshire In Britain there are several places that are named after spectral
dogs.
Black Dog Hill is one of them and is named after the phantom hound that haunts the area.
The story
tells how two men fought a duel with pistols over the love of a lady. One was shot and his
black
dog, seeing his master was fatally wounded, attacked his killer, tearing out his throat. The lady
could not bear the thought of the loss of both her lovers so killed herself. As a suicide, she was
buried at the aptly named 'Dead Maids' crossroads to prevent her from returning as some
form of
spirit. However, the reason the ghost dog should return and not either of the two men is not
related.
Brereton, Staffordshire Cannock Chase in Stafford was designated an Area of Outstanding
Natural
Beauty in 1958 and is the largest area of lowland heathland in the Midlands. It has many rare
animals, including a herd of deer that were probably introduced to the area by the Normans
over
1,000 years ago. Its rarest animal is however the 'Hellhound' or 'Ghost dog of Brereton'. The
dog
has been described as big and muscular. It has pointed ears and eyes that look like they are
glowing.
It has been observed many times around Cannock and Huntington. As with all barghests, it is
supposed to bring dire misfortune if seen. So maybe this is one of those ghosts that it is not a
good
idea to seek out.
Littlecote House, Berkshire This is not the main haunting at Littlecote, but as it is a phantom
dog, it
deserves a mention here. A ghost dog has been seen on the Jerusalem staircase by several
members
of the staff. It is black in colour and appears to be totally 'real'. If someone makes an attempt
to tograb it or stroke it, their hand goes straight through the animal.
Leeds Castle, Kent There is a spectral hound that can be found at the beautiful Leeds Castle,
which
you can read about on the Haunted Castle page. Incidentally, if you should ever go to the
castle, it
has a fascinating Dog Collar Museum that is well worth a visit.
Newgate Prison, London The notorious Newgate Prison stood near St, Paul's Cathedral until
its
demolition in 1902. In the years between 1783 and 1868, public executions by hanging outside
the
prison were a popular form of Monday morning entertainment. The condemned man, woman
or
child was led along "Deadman's Walk", beneath which their body would later be buried in
quick-
lime, and onto the scaffold. Hundreds of people turned up either to cheer or to jeer and to
watch the
poor wretch breath their last. And always, it is said, the Black Dog would appear in the prison
on
the night before the executions. Newgate Prison was demolished in 1902 but a sinister black
shape
has often been seen slithering along the top of the wall in Amen Court behind which once
stood the
prison and the Deadman's Walk. The apparition is always accompanied by a terrible smell of
death.
Incidentally, one of the massive original Newgate Prison doors can be seen in the Museum of
London. And but there does seem to be something unpleasant about it.
Famous Hauntings
Here you will find details of Britain's most famous hauntings. You can read about them in any
ghost
anthology. However, as you will discover, the facts are often somewhat different from the
stories
told!
Borley Rectory There is a rather romantic legend that near where Borley Rectory was built
was
once a monastery. One of the monks had a relationship with a nun from a nearby convent.
When it
was discovered, the monk was executed and the nun was walled up alive in the walls of the
convent.
It is just a story. The truth about Borley Rectory is much stranger than any fiction.
Edgehill Battle ghosts I believe that certain events create a sort of 'psychic scar' in a nation's
psyche.
That definitely seems to have happened when the first battle of the English Civil War pitted
brother
against brother and father against son. Although the Edgehill Battle phantoms are not the
only
ghosts to be seen on a British battlefield, they certainly are, or at least were, the most famous
hauntings of this type.
Anne Bolyn Here is one of Britain's world famous hauntings. This has become the architypal
image
of the headless specter, even inspiring the music-hall song, 'With her head tucked underneath
her
arm'. The tragic ghost of Anne Boleyn can be found haunting several locations around the
country.
Ghost of Threadneedle Street Although the Threadneedle Street ghost is, or was, a woman,
she is
not the same as the 'Old Lady of Threadneedle Street', despite what you may read. The
Threadneedle Street ghost is a spectre that is seen in and around the area of the Bank of
England.
She has even been spotted at Bank Tube Station. The 'Old Lady', on the other hand originates
from
a satirical cartoon that was published some years before the ghost made her first appearance.
York's Roman ghosts There are not many phantoms from more than 400 years ago. We do not
have
any ghostly cavemen wandering around, or if we have, I have never heard of them. Although
there
are tales of 'things' associated with Barrows and burial mounds, the 1,600 year old Roman
soldiers
of York ghosts are probably Britain's most ancient recognisably human spectres.
Raynham Hall Ghost The Raynham Hall ghost was seen several times and someone even took
a
pot-shot at her. But it is the photograph of her that was taken in September 1936 that is the
reasonwhy the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall is so famous.
Cleopatra's Needle, Embankment, London During the day, there is nothing apparently
sinister about
the column. Tourists stop and take their pictures and marvel that a 3,500 year old monolith
should
be standing on the Thames Embankment. However, late at night, it does not appear quite so
innocent. For, it has a gained a reputation for being, late at night, a magnet for would-be
suicides.
One of the Cleopatra's Needle ghosts would even appear to be a man who ended his own life
in the
River here. Man in Grey No-one has any idea of who he was in life, although it appears that
he was
a nobleman. However, the Man in Grey must be one of London's most famous hauntings.
Perhaps,
when he was alive, he just liked to watch a good play. Or maybe he had a professional reason
for
doing so. He certainly seems to be a good critic and only appears at the rehearsals of plays
that will
be a box-office success. And there is something fitting in the fact that the best known
theatrical
ghost should appear in London's oldest and most haunted theatre.
So you have got this far, enough old data to make a skull scream is it not?
Legend of the Screaming Skull Skull
The legend of the screaming skull seems to be peculiar to Britain. Although the stories
regarding the
origin of the skulls varies, the problems that follow when the haunted skull is moved have
much in
common. This includes 'bad luck', poltergeist activity and blood-curdling screams. At least
one of
the skulls has been professionally examined and it was found to be considerably older than
legend
suggests. So maybe, the stories of most if not all of the screaming skulls were made up to
explain an
otherwise inexplicable phenomena.
Bettiscombe Manor, Bettiscombe, Bridport, Dorset (Not open to the public) The story goes
that a
certain 'Azariah Pinney' who lived in Bettiscombe Manor was banished to the West Indies in
1685
for some activity connected with the English Civil War. Somehow he managed to make his
way
back to England, bringing with him an African slave. This poor man's life was very unhappy
and
mercifully he did not survive very long. His dying wish was that his body be returned to his
native
land. This was never done and he was buried in the local church-yard. Immediately, groans
and
other terrifying noises were heard coming from the grave and Azariah was forced to remove
the
corpse from the grave. He stored it for a time in the attic and over time the body crumbled
until all
that remained was the skull. Many attempts have been made to remove the skull, it has even
been
thrown into a pond, but each time it has had to be returned to the house of account of the
screams
and groans that are heard in the house. So much for legend. In 1963 the screaming skull was
examined by a pathologist. It was determined that the skull was actually between 3,000 and
4,000
years old and was from a European woman. Some think that it could have come from the Iron
Age
ritual site at Pilsdon Pen which is situated near the Manor house. Unfortunately, the house is
not
open to the public
Burton Agnes, Driffield, East Yorkshire, YO25 4NB Burton Agnes Hall was built during the
reign
of Queen Elizabeth I by three sisters, the daughters of Sir Henry Griffiths. Unfortunately,
before it
was completed, one of the sisters, Anne, was attacked. she was stabbed and fatally wounded.
Before
she died, she made her sisters promise that her head would be removed from her body and
always
be kept in the hall. Not surprisingly, this was not done. After the newly built hall was
completed, it
was plagued with 'strange moaning and weird sounds' until the poor sisters could bear it no
longer.
When they visited the family vault in order to carry out their sister's death-bed request, they
discovered that her head was now just a skull and, conveniently, it was separated from the rest
of
the torso. The skull was taken to the hall and peace returned However, a servant, not believing
the
story, threw the skull onto a passing wagon, whereupon the horses reared in fear, the hall
trembled
and pictures fell off the walls. So the screaming skull was replaced in the hall. Eventually the
skullwas bricked up in the wall somewhere within the house for safety.
Calgarth Hall, Windermere, Cumbria (Not open to the public) A Justice of the Peace by the
name of
Myles Philipson who owned Calgarth Hall in Cumbria wanted the land which was owned by a
local
couple to add to his already vast estate. However, they refused to sell. Determined to get the
land by
whatever means necessary, he invited them to a meal on Christmas Day saying that he no
longer
desired the land and wanted to show that there were no hard feelings. While they were
enjoying the
meal, a silver cup was hidden on them. Next day, soldiers arrived at their farm and demanded
to
search their humble home. Of course the cup was found and they were arrested. There was a
trial
but as Philipson was the Judge in the case, the outcome was a inevitable. The couple were
found
guilty sentenced to hang. On the scaffold, the woman uttered a terrible curse on the Philipson
family. "Hark's to here, Myles Philipson, that teenie lump o' land is t'dearest grund a
Philipson has
ever bowte. For ye shall prosper niver maur, yersl, nor yan of o't breed. And while Calgarth's
strong
woes shall stand, we'll haunt it day and neet." Shortly after the couple's death, two skulls
mysteriously appeared at the Hall. And every night, terrible screams were heard. Many
attempts
were made to dispose of the skulls but, whatever method was used, the skulls always found
their
way back to the Hall. Philipson himself, never prospered. He lost all his money and his health
failed. After his death, the Hall passed from the ownership of his family and everything
became
quiet. The screaming skulls were eventually bricked up somewhere in the Hall where they
remain to
this day.
Higher Chilton Farm, Chilton Cantelo, Near Yeovil, Somerset (Not open to the public) During
the
English Civil war, Theophilus Brome, had originally been a staunch Royalist. However, so
appalled
did he become of the way in which the King's Troops treated their prisoners that he defected
to the
Round-heads. After the War ended and King Charles II was restored to the throne,
Theophilus lived
quietly at High Farm with his sister. But he feared that, upon his death, his head would be
disinterred and put on public display as a traitor to the King. Thus is was that he made his
sister
promise that his skull would to be preserved in the house for all time. This promise his sister
made
every attempt to fulfil. When he died, his head was removed from his body and kept in the
house.
Eventually the sister died and the farm had a number of tenants. Several attempts were made
to
dispose of the cranium but whenever this was done, the most frightful screams were heard in
the
house accompanied by poltergeist activity. And so the screaming skull now sits in a special
cabinet
over a door in the hall. Brome's tomb can be seen in St. James' Church, Chilton Cantelo and
although there is no mention made in the tomb's inscription, there is some circumstantial
evidence
that suggests that there is some truth to this screaming skull legend. During restoration work
on the
church, the tomb was opened and Theophilus' skull was found to be missing!
Tunstead Farm, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire (Not open to the public) There are two stories
as to
the origin of this screaming skull, which is know to its friends as 'Dickie'. The first is that it
belonged to a man who was murdered by his cousin at Tunstead Farm in the room where the
skull is
now kept. The murdered man was called Ned Dixon, hence the nickname 'Dickie. The second
story
is that it belonged to an unnamed womam who was murdered at the Farm and who, with her
dying
breath, requested that her mortal remains not be buried but that they be kept at the farm.
Over the
years, the rest her body has been 'lost' so that all that now remains is her skull. This might be
the
more reasonable story because Tunstead Farm is also haunted by a woman who is looked
upon by
the occupants as a sort of 'guardian'. There are the traditional stories about attempts having
been
made to dispose of the object. It is said to have been stolen and to even have been buried in
consecrated ground but each time the disturbances at the Farm and also in the vicinity of the
skull
were such that it had to be returned. So what are we to make of it. Working on the assumption
that
all legends have a vestige of truth, it would appear that the skull belongs to a murder victim.
However, as to who they were, it is unlikely that we will ever know.Warbleton Priory ruin,
Rushlake Green, Heathfield, East Sussex (Not open to the public) The
former priory is now in ruins and is situated within the area covered by a modern farm. But
hidden
within its walls somewhere is not one screaming skull but two. One is supposed to have
belonged to
a Prior who was murdered. The other skull belongs to his murderer. The usual mayhem is
said to
have followed any attempt at their removal from the Priory. However, there is a lovely story
concerning them. Apparently, at some time prior to being bricked up, they were placed in the
branches of an apple tree for some reason. A blue tit took a liking to one of the skulls and built
its
nest in it. The bird used the eye sockets as entrances to this rather unique 'nest-box'. I can
only think
that the screaming skull approved of the use to which it was being put and remained silent.
Wardley Hall, Worsley, Greater Manchester (Not open to the public) That there is a skull at
Wardley
Hall, is not disputed. The original owner of the skull is even known. However, whether or not
it is a
screaming skull, that is, does it actually scream is, as they say, another story. The cranium
belonged
to a Catholic priest, Father Ambrose Barlow who was hanged, drawn and quartered in 1641
for his
faith. His head was then put on display at Lancaster Castle. The skull was taken to the hall by
a
Catholic sympathiser and hidden, only to be rediscovered in the 18th century. It is now
preserved in
a specially built niche at the top of the hall's main staircase. That is the accepted history of the
alleged 'screaming skull'. Legend, however, expands upon the known facts. It is said that a
servant
threw the relic into the moat whereupon a terrible storm arose. The owner of the hall realised
that
the skull was angry at being removed. He had the moat drained and the skull placed in the
hall
where it is today, well out of the reach of anyone else who may wish to get rid of it .
THE REAL NASTY ONES.
Density of Paranormal Places per Region (in Square Miles)
Report based on 7944 records, extracted from the Paranormal Database on 01 May 2008. The
total
area of each region has been taken from the respective wikipedia entries in square miles.
Records
have been sourced from literature within the Recommended Reading Section, newspapers,
magazines, websites and through personal communication.
Data is displayed in order by highest density of paranormal places per region.

Rank Area Number of Entries Size of area (Sq miles)
Paranormal places per Square Mile 1 paranormal place every x mile1
Greater London 470
609
0.77
1.30
2 Lancashire
402
1187
0.342.95
3 Isle of Wight
43
147
0.29
3.42
4 Essex
408
1417
0.29
3.47
5
Derbyshire
244
1013
0.24
4.15
6 West Midlands
81
348
0.23
4.30
7 Surrey
138
642
0.214.65
8 Suffolk
314
1467
0.21
4.67
9
Bedfordshire
97
477
0.20
4.92
10 Sussex
271
1500
0.18
5.54
11 Somerset
281
1,610
0.17
5.73
12
Lothian
93
5640.16
6.06
13 Cornwall
210
1376
0.15
6.55
14
Hertfordshire
94
634
0.15
6.74
15 Dorset
147
1024
0.14
6.97
16 Norfolk
285
2074
0.14
7.28
17 Cheshire
122
9050.13
7.42
18 Kent
194
1,442
0.13
7.43
19 Berkshire
64
487
0.13
7.61
20
Northamptonshire
112
913
0.12
8.15
21
Wiltshire
164
1346
0.12
8.21
22
Buckinghamshire86
724
0.12
8.42
23 Devon
303
2590
0.12
8.55
24
Nottinghamshire
96
834
0.12
8.69
25
Inverclyde
7
62
0.11
8.86
26 Yorkshire
493
4596
0.11
9.3227 Isle of Man
23
221
0.10
9.61
28
Hampshire
151
1455
0.10
9.64
29
Warwickshire
77
763
0.10
9.91
30
Hereford & Worcester
101
1101
0.09
10.90
31
Oxfordshire
921006
0.09
10.93
32
Gloucestershire
111
1216
0.09
10.95
33
Leicestershire
70
832
0.08
11.89
34
Renfrewshire
8
101
0.08
12.63
35 Durham
80
1033
0.08
12.9136 Shropshire
91
1346
0.07
14.79
37
Staffordshire
68
1047
0.06
15.40
38
Cambridgeshire
135
2105
0.06
15.59
39 Cumbria
167
2613
0.06
15.65
40 Fife
32
512
0.0616.00
41 Lincolnshire
153
2687
0.06
17.56
42
Lanarkshire
49
897
0.05
18.31
43 Wales
436
8000
0.05
18.35
44
Orkney
20
382
0.05
19.10
45
Northumberland
991935
0.05
19.55
46
Clackmannanshire
3
61
0.05
20.33
47
Angus
34
842
0.04
24.76
48
Dumbartonshire
2
61
0.03
30.50
49
Aberdeenshire
64
2437
0.0338.08
50
Ayrshire
29
1138
0.03
39.24
51
Borders
41
1827
0.02
44.56
52
Argyll and Bute
59
2668
0.02
45.22
53
Moray
19
864
0.02
45.47
54 Perth and Kinross38
2041
0.02
53.71
55
Shetlands
10
566
0.02
56.60
56 Falkirk
2
115
0.02
57.50
57 Outer Hebrides
20
1186
0.02
59.30
58
Dumfries and Galloway
40
2481
0.02
62.0359 Highland
142
11837
0.01
83.36
60 Stirling
10
844
0.01
84.40
61 Leinster
78
7634
0.01
97.87
62 Ulster
78
9452
0.01
121.18
63 Munster
62
9501
0.01
153.24
64 Connacht31
6839
0.00
220.61
Connacht's paranormal places per square mile equates to 0.005, below the two decimal point
rounding.
Greater London is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the region with the highest concentration on
paranormal
places per square mile - one paranormal place every 1.30 square miles, while the mean is
27.64).
Yorkshire has the highest number of paranormal database records, but because of the large
land area
it ranks at 26 on the list (with one locale every 9.32 square miles).
The median of the square miles per paranormal place is 11.42. Only one Scottish region
(Lothian)
falls below this number. Population density is likely to be a contributing factor to this, and a
future
report will cross reference population density against number of paranormal places per
county.
Bias may exist against the four Irish regions (Leinster, Ulster, Munster and Connacht). The
Paranormal Database started to collect stories for the Mainland Britain in 1999, and only
branched
into Ireland in 2004. This may be responsible for Ireland being under represented in
paranormal
locales.
Ok for research but there is more below.
PLEASE NOTE. THE COMMENTS ON EACH AND EVERYONE OF THESE REPORTS
ARE
MY OWN OPINION OF THE DATA LISTED. IT IS AN INFORMED OPINION FROM A
PARANORMAL POINT OF VIEW.
( There are a number of things any paranormal researcher should keep in mind which I now
list
first;
State of the weather at time of the report made, state of mind of the witnessess, season, day or
night
and area that may be linked to other areas in future research. English, Welsh, Irish and
Scotch
fieldnames may also be of use in the research.)
Box Carriage
Location: A31 (Surrey) - Hogs Back, Guildford bound. 1 mile Northeast of Tongham junction
Type:
Unknown Ghost Type Date / Time: 08 January 2007, 22:40h, and 1960s (around 03:00h)
Further
Comments:
En route home in 2007, a driver watched a horse drawn box carriage cross the road around
100
metres in front of him. The witness reported that he could not make out too many details as it
was
raining hard, though he was able to see a dim lantern towards the front of the carriage. As the
driver
reached the spot where he had seen the vehicle pass, he realised there was no side road where
the
coach and horses could have crossed. Another witness in the 1960s spotted a female figure
with
long hair, wearing a white dress, standing by the roadside. The witness stopped to see if she
was lost
or needed a lift, but she had vanished. Mentioning the encounter to a work colleague the
followingday, the colleague described the figure which was encountered and said the area was
haunted.
(POSSIBLE.)
White Lady
Location: Aberdeen (Aberdeenshire) - Ardoe House Hotel Type: Haunting Manifestation Date
/
Time: 1990? Further Comments: The daughter of a previous owner, this shade is thought to
have
returned after the girl's suicide. (NO EVIDENCE)
White Lady
Location: Abergavenny (Gwent) - Llanvihangel Court Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: This pallid woman is said to leave the house at midnight and
walk
into a nearby wood. The White Room is said to be haunted by a little man with green eyes. It
is not
known for sure whether these ghosts are connected to a series of dark stains on the staircases
of the
building. (NO EVIDENCE THAT BOTH ARE LINKED)
White Lady
Location: Aberhafesp (Powys) - Aberhafesp Hall Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: The phantom white woman is said to make her way from the
nearby
church to a door on the east side of the hall. (POSSIBLE)
Girl in White Lace
Location: Acton Burnell (Shropshire) - Acton Burnell Castle Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: 2004 Further Comments: A ghostly girl dressed in white lace is said to haunt this ruined
site.
A student managed to photograph a strange misty 'face' in 2004, and reported hearing
scratching
noises. (NO REAL EVIDENCE)
Lady in White
Location: Alcester (Warwickshire) - Ragley Hall Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Midnight Further Comments: A woman in white is said to appear at midnight, sit for awhile,
and
move off to a nearby stream to drink.
(GHOSTS OR SPIRITS DON'T DRINK)
Woman in White
Location: Allington (Wiltshire) - Road to Horton, near Tan Hill Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date / Time: 30 October 1904 Further Comments: Seen by two lay preachers driving a horse
and
trap, this phantom was mistaken for a real woman as she walked towards them in the rain.
They
could see she had auburn hair and a beautiful face, before she vanished without trace.
(POSSIBLE)
Burnt Dog
Location: Alton (Hampshire) - Crown Hotel, High Street Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time: Mid 1990s Further Comments: A phantom dog reportedly haunts the hotel, where it
was
kicked to death by a drunken customer. Some say that a white (or grey) woman also glides
aroundinside the building; the girl was a kitchen maid who was murdered in the hotel.
Finally, the ghost of
an old man haunts room number three. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Altrincham (Lancashire) - Ashley Hall (no longer standing) Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: This flitting creature was seen several times in a
particular room of the hall, her large black eyes staring into the empty space ahead. The room
was
sealed up as the haunting presence was so strong. (NO EVIDENCE)
Woman in White
Location: Annagh (County Cork) - Unstated property Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
1927 Further Comments: While camping close to this property, one traveller awoke to see a
white
female form standing at a gate. He woke one of his friends who also observed the ghostly
figure.
The following day the travellers moved on and never returned (special thanks to the
Churchtown
Village Renewal Trust, from their 'The Annals of Churchtown'). (NO EVIDENCE)
White Lady
Location: Annesley (Nottinghamshire) - Annesley Hall Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /

Time:
1970, 25 September 2012 and 10 October 2012 Further Comments: Dying in childbirth, this
mistress of a former owner still walks the walls. The ghost, or perhaps another, was seen in
1970 as
it crossed the road outside the hall; the driver of a car drove straight through the figure. In
October
2012, one team of ghost hunters recorded laughter in the stable when the area was empty - the
area
is reputed to be the location where a serving girl hanged herself - while another team in
September
spotted a black dog. (POSSIBLE)
Woman in White
Location: Armagh (County Armagh) - Armagh Gaol Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
August 2010 Further Comments: During a fashion shoot in this former prison, studio
photographer
Alan Wells caught a strange white female apparition in the background of one of his images.
(NO
GOOD EVIDENCE)
Swimming Horseman
Location: Ashford (Kent) - Eastwell Park and Manor House Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: 20 June - Horseman seen (reoccurring) Further Comments: Riding towards the park
house,
this phantom horseman veers off at the last minute and enters the nearby lake. A white lady
haunts
the house itself, seen by porters on the night shift. (NO GOOD EVIDENCE)
Gliding Lady
Location: Ashford (Kent) - Repton Manor Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 1940s
Further
Comments: The phantom white lady here was reportedly seen by soldiers using the building
during
the Second World War, and was thought to be the murdered wife of a former owner. Within
the
manor she would ascend the staircase holding a candle, while one person who observed her
outside
said she had no feet and had drifted across a nearby field. The kitchen area was also reputedly
haunted by a ghostly monk. (POSSIBLE)
White WomanLocation: Ashmore (Dorset) - Ashmore - area between Washer's Pit and
Spinney's Pond Type:
Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: A local story says that the
woman in white was hanged over Washer's Pit, but was saved by a washer woman. This has
not
prevented the white woman's ghost now haunting the area, where she is said to have been
seen.
(NO EVIDENCE)
White Lady
Location: Avebury (Wiltshire) - Avebury Manor Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: This pallid person drifts around the grounds of the manor and
sometimes the stones, her face covered by a large hood. The manor house itself is said to be
haunted
by several entities. One spirit which would scatter rose petals across the floor of the Crimson
Room,
a phantom monk was spotted in the library, and a ghostly Cavalier sometimes makes an
appearance.
(NO REAL EVIDENCE)

Lady in White
Location: Avebury (Wiltshire) - Footpath by Trusloe Manor Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: Mid twentieth century? Further Comments: A government worker walking from
Avebury
Manor reported encountering a ghostly woman in white lace and a white hood at a iron gate
close to
Truslow. The witness said the woman appeared from nowhere, took his shoulders, and spun
him
around before pushing him away. (GHOSTS OR SPIRITS CAN NOT TOUCH THE LIVING.
DISMISS)
Tabby Cat
Location: Axbridge (Somerset) - King John's Hunting Lodge Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: 1970s Further Comments: This feline apparition has been observed padding around on
the
first floor, vanishing when it sits down. A white Elizabethan lady is also reported to haunt the
same
floor, seen sitting in a chair. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Aycliffe (Durham) - A167 north of town Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Late
twentieth century, though sightings go back to eighteen century? Further Comments: While
the
clothing of the woman varies (from wearing a raincoat to a wedding dress), the figure is
always
white. In true 'phantom hitchhiker' style, the woman had been picked up by passing drivers,
only to
vanish a few miles down the road. (POSSIBLE BUT MORE EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH
NEEDED)
White Lady
Location: Aylmerton (Norfolk) - Circular Hollows (local name Shrieking Pits) Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: 1700s onwards Further Comments: The White Lady has been
observed
looking into each pit, crying out in pity. Her origin is unknown, but could be one created by
local
smugglers. The sound of the screams heard in the pits, though local custom blames the right
of the
woman, many reason to be the wind. (DISMISS)
White WomanLocation: Ballincollig (County Cork) - Oriel Lodge Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: Pre
1930s Further Comments: A husband and wife encountered a white female phantom standing
by the
kitchen door, after which they had their bed covers pulled from them by an unseen hand on
three
consecutive nights. (DISMISS)
White Woman
Location: Ballygarvan (County Cork) - Small bridge over a stream Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: A small bridge over a stream near Ballygarvan
was
home to a white woman. After appearing to one man who fell critically ill the following day, a
priest
went to the site and banished her. (DISMISS)
White Lady
Location: Barnsdale Forest (Yorkshire) - Robin Hood's Grave Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: Late twentieth century Further Comments: The area around the site thought to be
Robin
Hood's final resting place (one of them!) is said to be haunted by a white lady who drifts
around the
area. (DISMISS)
White Woman
Location: Barthomley (Cheshire) - Church field Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A lady in white haunts this field, while the road nearby is home
to a
phantom dog. (POSSIBLE)
Woman with Bright Pink Eyes
Location: Beaminster (Dorset) - Bell Farm Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 1998
Further
Comments: The witness, a farmer, reported seeing two figures, one a young boy and the other
a
woman wearing a long white dress, standing in a field by his livestock. When he shone his
flashlight at the people, he could see that the woman had eerie pink eyes. Filled with fear the
farmer
did not move until the figures disappeared towards the local graveyard, after which the
witness ran
home. (POSSIBLE)
Of course mines and caves will always be part of paranormal reports;
NB: Caves are not places to be explored lightly... this site lists myths and ghost stories
concerning
the sites - please ensure you do not become one of the latter...
Urisk
Location: Aberfoyle (Stirling) - Goblin's Cave, north base of Ben Venue Type: Cryptozoology
Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: This cave and the surrounding area is said to be
the
meeting place of many Urisk. (DISMISS)
Blind George
Location: Anstey (Hertfordshire) - Fields around the village, and Devil's Hole cave Type:
Legend -
Old Nick Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: Said to still be playing his fiddle in
tunnels
under the village, Blind George is said to have ventured into the Devil's Hole cave with his
trusted
dog - the hound ran out, and was found with its hair burnt away, and George was never seen
again.
(DISMISS)Piper Piping
Location: Ballintra (County Donegal) - Cave system known as Pullans Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: Moonlit nights (reoccurring) Further Comments: The sound of
pipes
echoes throughout this cave structure on certain nights, as the ghost of a piper tries to find his
way
out. (DISMISS)
Ogress
Location: Balmaneach, Island of Mull (Argyll and Bute) - MacKinnon's Cave Type: Legend
Date /
Time: Unknown Further Comments: The cave is named after a piper who travelled into its
depths to
see how far underground he could go - he bumped into a female ogre who killed him after he
failed
to please her with a tune from his pipes. (DISMISS)
Colt Pixie
Location: Beaulieu Heath (Hampshire) - Cold Pixie's Cave Type: Fairy Date / Time: Unknown
Further Comments: A horse-like pixie, this fairy entity would play mild pranks and call out to
horses so they became lost. (DISMISS)
Lion
Location: Belfast (County Antrim) - Cavehill Park, Upper Hightown end Type: ABC Date /
Time:
31 August 2008 Further Comments: Several independent witnesses called the police to report
a
sandy coloured cat in this park. The nearby Belfast Zoo reported no animals missing. A search
of
the area by police failed to find the feline. (ANOTHER BIG CAT MYTH. DISMISS)
Cursed Giant
Location: Blackgang Chime (Isle of Wight) - Cave in the area (no longer present?) Type:
Curse
Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: The chime was once a lush area, rich in vegetation
and
the hunting ground of a giant who feasted upon children. A holy man cursed the giant and the
area,
ensuring nothing would ever grow there again. (POSSIBLE CHILD MURDER SITE)
Sleeping Owain
Location: Carreg Cennen (Dyfed) - Owain Llawgoch's Cave Type: Legend Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: Regional hero Owain and fifty one other men lay sleeping somewhere in
this
cave system. When they awaken, peace shall fall all over the Earth. (AND PIGS WILL FLY!
DISMISS)
Dark Blue Bird

Location: Chapel le Dale (Yorkshire) - Cave system in village Type: Cryptozoology Date /
Time:
Twentieth century Further Comments: Three people reported seeing a large flying creature,
'much
larger than a bat', slowly glide past them as they explored the first cavern of these caves.
(DISMISS) May have been a kingfisher?
Murdered Girl
Location: Chislehurst (Kent) - Chislehurst Caves Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
1961Further Comments: A number of ghosts are said to haunt the caves, including a woman
who was
drowned in a pool who was seen in 1961 - the witness knocked himself out on the cave roof
while
trying to escape the apparition. Other 'people' have been seen within, and the sounds of
children and
sometimes horses are reported. One myth says that a priest who spent the night at the site was
found
dead, the cause of death - fright! (POSSIBLE)
Soft Music
Location: Criccieth (Gwynedd) - Unknown cave near town Type: Legend Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: Two musicians were tricked into entering the cave by fairies, who
promptly
took them to their realm. Occasionally the men's music escapes from the mouth of the cave to
deter
others from making the same mistake. (DISMISS)
Little People
Location: Dartmoor (Devon) - Sheepstor - Pixies Cave Type: Fairy Date / Time: Unknown
Further
Comments: The cave was shared with the pixies by humans when hiding during the Civil War.
(DISMISS)
Hob Hurst
Location: Deepdale (Derbyshire) - Thirst House - cave below Topley Pike Type: Legend Date /
Time: Unknown Further Comments: Hob Hurst, the generic name for a helpful yet sometimes
mischievous entity in this region, is said to have watched over a healing spring here.
(DISMISS)
Treasure Guardians
Location: Duncansby Head (Highland) - Cave system off coast Type: Cryptozoology Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A team of mermaids and mermen are reported to guard a
hidden cave
full of treasure. (DISMISS)
Captured Fisherman
Location: Dunnet Bay (Highland) - Underwater sea cave Type: Cryptozoology Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A good looking fisherman once caught the eye of a mermaid
who fell
in love with him - she kidnapped the fellow and held him in a secret cave under the sea, where
he
remains to this day... (DISMISS)
Music
Location: Durness (Highland) - Fraisgell's Cave - Loch Eribol Type: Fairy Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: Created by fairies, this music emerges from the cave and floats across the
waters of Loch Eribol. (DISMISS)
Donald
Location: Durness (Highland) - Smoo Caves Type: Legend Date / Time: Unknown Further
Comments: After selling his soul to the Devil, Donald gained access to powerful magics and
cast no
shadow in the midday sun. He turned on his dark master in the caverns here, the Devil losing
the
fight and creating the large holes in the roof of the cave as he fled the wizard. (DISMISS)
IsirLocation: Eamont Bridge (Cumbria) - Cave by the river Type: Legend Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: This natural dwelling was once home to a giant named Isir, who enjoyed
the
taste of human meat. His fate is unknown. (DISMISS)
Hugh Cesario
Location: Edenhall (Cumbria) - Isis Parlis cave system Type: Legend Date / Time: Caves still
present Further Comments: This cave system was once the home to Hugh Cesario, a giant
who
either fought on the side of good, or took local men, women and farm animals back to the cave
to
snack on. (DISMISS)
Dunny
Location: Hazelrigg (Northumberland) - St Cuthbert's Cave Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: Unknown Further Comments: This ghost would take the form of a dun coloured horse
(though really it was the shade of a pirate-cum-raider) and harass anyone who came too close
to his
treasure which was buried somewhere nearby. (DISMISS)
Mother Shipton
Location: Knaresborough (Yorkshire) - Mother Shipton's Cave Type: Other Date / Time:
1500s
Further Comments: Even in her own lifetime, Shipton was a well renowned prophetess. Her
predictions included the great fire of London, many political events, and the end of the world
in the
year 1881(!), (DISMISS)
Immortality
Location: Lisdoonvarna (County Clare) - Unknown cave between Lisdoonvarna and Ennis
Type:
Legend Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: The waters of a secret cave located
between
these two places is said to make the old young, although anyone who was actively sought to
bath
within it was never seen again. (DISMISS)
Woman
Location: Middleton (West Glamorgan) - Goat's Cave, Paviland Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date
/ Time: Unknown Further Comments: The Red Lady of Paviland, an Upper Palaeolithic era
skeleton
found in the cave, was later discovered to be male rather than female. It is unclear how this
misidentification has impacted the stories of how a phantom woman haunts the cave.
(DISMISS)
Shouting Shepherd
Location: Mitchelstown (County Cork) - Mitchelstown Caves Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: Unknown Further Comments: The ghostly shouts sometimes heard emerging from the
caves
is said to belong to a man looking for a fairy ewe which had helped him become wealthy.
When the
creature grew too old to produce quality wool, the shepherd tried to kill the creature, which
escaped
and led all his flock into the caves. (DISMISS)
Underground Figures
Location: Nottingham (Nottinghamshire) - City of Caves, Broadmarsh shopping centre Type:
Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 2000s? Further Comments: This network of caves is
said to behaunted by several figures. Dark indistinct shadows have been seen darting around,
and an upset
woman in Victorian clothing has been spotted. It has also been reported that a few people
have
heard the sound of explosions overhead - the caves were used as bomb shelters during the
Second
World War.
(PART OF THE TOMMY KNOCKERS MYTH BUT STILL A POSSIBLE REF TO
FIGURES.)
Fiddler
Location: Pendine (Dyfed) - Green Bridge Cave Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: Said to have entered the cave but never to have left, the ghostly
fiddler's music can still be heard. (DISMISS)
Lost Fisherman
Location: Polperro (Cornwall) - Willy Willock's Hole (cave system) Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Stormy nights (reoccurring) Further Comments: A local fisherman once died in
the
maze of caves located here - he can still be heard crying out for help when the atmospheric
conditions are right. (DISMISS)
Sleeping Arthur
Location: Pont Nedd Fechan (Mid Glamorgan) - Craig-y-Ddinas, cave system Type: Legend
Date /
Time: Unknown Further Comments: This location is another contender for the place where
King
Arthur and his knights lay sleeping. (DISMISS)
Drowning
Location: Portland (Dorset) - Cave Hole (or alternatively an unknown cave), close to the
lighthouse
Type: Shuck Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: The large, black dog that lives in an
unknown cave grabs the unwary and drowns them. (DISMISS)
Wrath
Location: Portreath (Cornwall) - Sea cave in the area Type: Legend Date / Time: Unknown
Further
Comments: Wrath was a giant who lived in a cave with direct access to the sea. He would wait
for a
ship to wreck before taking the surviving sailors home to eat. (DISMISS)
White Woman
Location: Rhosili (West Glamorgan) - Paviland Cave, between village and Port Eynon Type:
Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: This cave is haunted by a
greedy woman who entered it looking for hidden treasure - a sudden storm blew up, trapping
and
drowning her. (DISMISS)
Cure for Whooping Cough
Location: Runswick Bay (Yorkshire) - Hob Holes - caves along the coastline Type: Fairy
Date /
Time: Still present Further Comments: Any child taken into the caves at low tide would be
cured by
the little people who lived within. (DISMISS)
TangieLocation: Shetland Islands (Shetlands) - Fitful Head (cave), aka the Thief's Hole Type:
Legend Date
/ Time: Unknown Further Comments: A mythical seahorse that was owned by the robber-
bandit
Black Eric. The creature continued to roam the area for sometime after its master's death.
(DISMISS)
Dragon of Wormenhert
Location: St Albans (Hertfordshire) - Exact location unknown, said to have been a cave within
a
gorge in a nearby hill Type: Dragon Date / Time: Eleventh century Further Comments: Abbot
Ealdred of St Albans rebuilt his abbey using the ruins of Verulamium, a Roman city located
nearby.
During the course of the work the Abbot destroyed the lair of the dragon of Wormenhert.
(DISMISS)
Crocodile
Location: St Asaph (Clwyd) - Cefn Caves Type: Cryptozoology Date / Time: 1870 Further
Comments: Measuring around one hundred and forty centimetres in length, a crocodile was
said to
have been killed by a local man in this cave. (DISMISS)
Peter the Pirate
Location: St Donats (South Glamorgan) - Large cave at Tresilian Bay Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: First New Moon of the New Year (reoccurring) Further Comments: Peter was
buried
alive at the mouth of a large cave here. For one evening a year he screams out for help.
(DISMISS)
Pixie Home
Location: Torquay (Devon) - Kents Cavern (aka Kent's Cavern) Type: Fairy Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: One of the stories the tour guides share is that the cave was once
inhabited by
pixies. (DISMISS)
Way In
Location: Tunstead (Derbyshire) - Thor's Cave, Manifold Valley Type: Fairy Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: Wayne Anthony, in Haunted Derbyshire and the Peak District, writes
that
hidden within the cave is an entrance to the fairy kingdom, though one needs to possess
second
sight to find it. A Roman centurion also haunts the cave, and is said to guard the mouth.
(DISMISS)
Paul Whitehead
Location: West Wycombe (Buckinghamshire) - West Wycombe Park, caves under the hill
Type:
Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 1781 onwards Further Comments: The location of a
Hell-Fire
Club, Whitehead was a fully fledged and enthusiastic member who has apparently found it
hard to
leave his membership behind post mortem. (POSSIBLE)
Concealed Treasure
Location: Whitchurch (Hereford & Worcester) - King Arthur's Cave Type: Legend Date /
Time: Still
present Further Comments: Arthur hid much of his loot in this cave, which Merlin then
protected
with a spell, ensuring the treasure would never be found.(DISMISS)
Witch of Wookey
Location: Wookey Hole (Somerset) - Cavern Type: Legend Date / Time: Cavern still open to
the
public, haunting occurred 1947 - 1954 Further Comments: It was once believed that an old
hag
lived in this cave, cursing anyone who tried to visit her. She was finally turned to stone by a
monk.
A cottage on the site was briefly haunted by a old woman wearing black and white; the ghost
vanished after the site was blessed by a vicar. (POSSIBLE)
Giant Eel
Location: Wookey Hole (Somerset) - Flooded Caverns Type: Cryptozoology Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: A huge eel, some ten metres in length was chased into this cave system by
angry fishermen.(DISMISS)
More on Women in White and White Women
Gibbet and Those Hanged
Location: Beccles (Suffolk) - Park near Roos Hall Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: An oak tree standing in the park is said to be haunted by those
once
hanged there (including a woman in white), and that the Devil can be summoned by walking
around
it six times. (DEVIL FORGET POSSIBLE HAUNTING.)
Water Fairies
Location: Beddgelert (Gwynedd) - Aberglaslyn Pass Type: Fairy Date / Time: Nineteenth
century
Further Comments: A witness watched the little people playing merrily in the water at the
pass.
Nearby is the grave of Gelert (the dog that was mistakenly killed by its master after saving a
child
from a wolf) where the hound's ghost has been reported. Finally, the ghostly woman in white
who
haunts the area is an ill omen, with death said to follow a sighting. (THE WOMAN IN
WHITE IS
POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Bedworth (Warwickshire) - Bedworth Road, aka Rabbit Lane Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: Seen 2005, 28 May 2012, 16 December 2012 (01:15h) Further
Comments: A woman who was attacked down this road later committed suicide as a result of
her
psychological trauma. Her phantom is said to stand by the roadside, waiting for a lift. One
witness
who spotted her said she wore a long white dress, possibly a nightdress, and had long black
matted
hair. Another driver heading towards Astley in May 2012 said she spotted a figure on the
roadside
with her hands against her face which was holding a dreadful expression. Two more witnesses
in
December 2012 described a figure standing by the road with long black matted hair, although
this
time the figure was dressed in black. (POSSIBLE)
Waiting Woman
Location: Belaugh (Norfolk) - Riverside Type: Legend Date / Time: 24 August (reoccurring)
Further Comments: A woman in a white dress is said to wait for her Viking lover by the
riverside.
(RULE OUT THE LOVER. WOMAN HAUNTING POSSIBLE)Mrs Waggs
Location: Bentley (Hampshire) - Jenkyn Place Vineyard Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A former housekeeper, Mrs Waggs is said to haunt this
location.
Another phantom, a woman in white still loiters in the garden, and finally an unseen coach
pulls
into the driveway. (POSSIBLE)
Anne Bruce
Location: Biel (Lothian) - Lady's Walk, in grounds of the mansion Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: Anne has been named as the white woman who
walks
along the path which bares her name. She spent many months walking this path after
discovering
her husband's infidelity after his death at sea. (POSSIBLE)
Woman in White
Location: Bilston (Staffordshire) - Greyhound and Punchbowl public house, was once Stow
Heath
Manor House Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments:
Prior to
becoming a public house, the staircase of the manor house was haunted by a woman in a white
gown. The woman may still remain, and now in addition a baby has been heard crying and
mild
poltergeist activity reported. (POSSIBLE)
Lady
Location: Binfield (Berkshire) - Billingbear House Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Pre
1924 Further Comments: This house was haunted by a white lady before it burnt down. One
room
was transported to Pace College, Manhattan, and is said to contain a ghost (whether it is of
the lady
is unknown). (DISMISS)
Woman with Long Blonde Hair
Location: Birchingham (Kent) - Court Mount Hotel Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
03:00h (reoccurring) Further Comments: Said to be quite pleasant to watch, this beautiful
wraith in
her white dress disappears into a bedroom wall. The sounds of phantom footsteps have also
been
reported. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Birmingham (West Midlands) - Warstones Lane Cemetery Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Twentieth century Further Comments: Though seen wearing several different
sets of
clothing over the past fifty years, this young girl with blonde hair is thought to be Victorian,
and has
a habit of passing through parked cars. (DISMISS)
Loud Lady
Location: Bishopston (West Glamorgan) - Old Manor House Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: Unknown Further Comments: A white lady that manifested at this location was said to
be
accompanied by loud crashing sounds. Poltergeist activity was also reported. The spirit was
exorcised by twelve clerics. (DISMISS)Raped Nurse
Location: Blandford (Dorset) - Army Base Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 1937
Further
Comments: This figure dressed in white is reportedly a nurse who was once raped and killed
near
the barracks - her shade has been observed floating around the area, her facial features
almost blank.
(POSSIBLE)
Woman in White
Location: Blandford (Dorset) - Exact location unknown Type: Crisis Manifestation Date /
Time:
1837 Further Comments: A child told her mother that she had seen a white woman drifting
towards
the house. Her mother dismissed the claim, until they received word that her father had
drowned
around the same time as the sighting. (BANSHEE TYPE HAUNTING POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Blanefield (Stirling) - Blane Valley Inn? Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: This phantom lady is said to haunt the area surrounding the
bar,
although her presence is more likely to felt then seen. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Boltby (Yorkshire) - Road leading into village Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
June 2012, around midnight Further Comments: One witness in a car reported seeing a white
woman wearing an old fashioned party dress, although the woman's legs disappeared below
the
knee and the face was blurred. The witness said it was like watching a 'replay', and although
the
witness's car headlights did not illuminate the figure, the woman was visible against the
darkness of
the environment. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Bournemouth (Dorset) - Millhams Lane, and surrounding Longham area Type:
Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: February (reoccurring); last confirmed in 1970s, but legends say
she
continues Further Comments: The area around the A348 bridge is reportedly haunted by a
ghostly
white (or grey) woman, who was killed when hit by a horse and trap along the road. One story
says
she tries to entice men to jump off the bridge. (POSSIBLE)
Woman in flowing dress
Location: Bournemouth (Dorset) - West Howe Baptist Church, Anstey Road Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: 2000s (?) Further Comments: One witness observed a lady in a
long
white dress that appeared from behind a tree, crossed the path, and then promptly walked
through
the garden wall. (POSSIBLE SIGHTING.)
White Lady
Location: Bradford on Avon (Wiltshire) - Beehive Inn Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: This incorporeal woman has been reported in various parts of
the inn.
(POSSIBLE)
White LadyLocation: Bray (Berkshire) - Braywick House Type: Haunting Manifestation Date
/ Time: Said to
occur every seven years, but exact date unknown Further Comments: A ghostly, upset white
lady is
said to enter the house from the front door, drift the stairs to the east window in the attic and
throw
herself out. The building is also reputedly haunted by an Elizabethan gentleman. (POSSIBLE)
Woman in White
Location: Brecon (Powys) - Caer Bannau Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: This woman in white was said to have been a princess - anyone who
carried the
ghost to a nearby churchyard could put her soul to rest.
( HOW DOES ONE CARRY A GHOST?)
Lady with Dog
Location: Bretherton (Lancashire) - Bank Hall Type: Unknown Ghost Type Date / Time: April
/
May 2011 Further Comments: A male witness at the gate of this building spotted a lady in a
white
dress, walking her dog in the distance. The witness turned for a brief moment, and when he
looked
back, the figure and dog had vanished - there was nowhere for them to have disappeared to.
The
same witness reported that several years previous he had heard someone whisper his name at
the
hall, even though the nearest person was some one hundred metres away. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Brighton (Sussex) - Brighton Dome (theatre), New Road Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Twentieth century? Further Comments: Seen by actors as they rehearse, the
phantom
lady is described as wearing a long white dress wearing bouffant style hair. A soldier dressed
in a
red tunic, the sound of disembodied footsteps and the rattling of chains also haunt the
building.
(DISMISS)
White Lady
Location: Brighton (Sussex) - Sussex Arms public house Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time: 1970s Further Comments: Nothing is really known about this phantom white lady, and
it is
questionable whether she still exists. (DISMISS)
Woman in White
Location: Bristol (Somerset) - A38 near Barrow Gurney Reservoir Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: A certain part of the road is said to be covered in
skid
marks where various cars have had to brake to avoid hitting a phantom woman dressed in a
white
coat. The figure always vanishes immediately afterwards.
(POSSIBLE MORE RESEARCH NEEDED)
Modern Man
Location: Bristol (Somerset) - Rummer public house Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
1973 Further Comments: The shade of a man dressed in contemporary clothing was seen in
the
cellar before quickly vanishing, while the ghost of a woman with long dark hair and dressed in
white has been reported in the bar. (POSSIBLE)White Lady
Location: Broad Haven (Dyfed) - Haven Fort Hotel Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A local legend once claimed that the grounds of the hotel were
haunted by a white lady. (POSSIBLE)
White Nurse?
Location: Broadstairs (Kent) - Kingsgate Castle and beach below Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: December 2010 (nurse), October 2011 (nun) Further Comments: A photograph
taken
by artist Malcolm Baker appears to show the upper body of a white figure moving through
foliage
just outside the castle. Baker believes the figure to be a nurse in 1950s uniform, carrying a
tray in
front of her. A few months later musician Dan Smith reported spotting a nun dressed in white
on the
beach just after dawn, the figure quickly vanishing. (POSSIBLE. THE NUN MAY HAVE
BEEN A
'NURSING SISTER')
Woman in White
Location: Bucklebury (Berkshire) - Avenue at Beenham junction Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: A lady in white is said to drift along this stretch of
road.
(POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Bury St Edmunds (Suffolk) - Rushbrooke Hall (3.5 miles from Bury) Type:
Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: 1579 onwards Further Comments: Differing stories for the same
myth -
the first states that the White Lady was the wife of a former owner, murdered by her husband.
She
floats around the moat, the place she was drowned. The second tale places the murder in the
hall,
this time by persons unknown. The body was then thrown into the moat from the battlements.
(DISMISS)
Black Monk
Location: Caldey Island (Dyfed) - Priory and all over Island Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: 1920s, though no sightings since 1929 Further Comments: Standing taller than six foot,
the
monk dressed in black was said to rise from the graveyard at the old priory before drifting
off.
Though reported on the land immediately around the priory, some islanders encountered him
further
away, in their homes or on the roads. The ghosts of a white lady and of a madman were also
said to
haunt the island at some point in the dim and distant past. (MORE RESEARCH NEEDED
FOR
THIS AREA.)
Lady in White
Location: Calstock (Cornwall) - Cotehele House Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
1980
Further Comments: A young lady dressed completely in white is said to haunt this building.
The
ghost was seen as it descended the main staircase. Phantom music has also been reported in
the
house. (DISMISS)
Ginger Bearded Man
Location: Calverton (Nottinghamshire) - Main Street Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /

Time:Late twentieth century Further Comments: The main road leading through Calverton is
said to be
haunted by two ghosts - a man wearing a tweed suit and sporting a ginger beard walks along
the
path, while a phantom white lady waits patiently at a bus stop. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Cambridge (Cambridgeshire) - Sherratt & Hughes, Trinity Street (closed in 1991)
Type:
Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: Once said to be the oldest
bookshop in the UK, the building claims to have a white lady who walks silently down the
aisles.
Her history is unknown. There are also reports of a man in Victorian evening dress.
(POSSIBLE)
A Nun and Brown Dog-Thing
Location: Cambridge (Cambridgeshire) - Abbey Road, Abbey House (Nos. 1 & 2?) Type:
Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: Nineteenth and twentieth century Further Comments: Exorcised
at the
turn of the last century, Abbey House was said to be the former home for a poltergeist, the
echoes of
chains, a butler, a woman in white, a squirrel, and a hare. However, the sightings of a grey
lady in
the 60's may prove reports of the success of the exorcism premature. (POSSIBLE)
The White Lady & The Black Man
Location: Canvey Island (Essex) - Hadleigh Castle Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
1840s onwards Further Comments: No recent sightings of these figures have been reported,
and
locals accept them as being little more than smuggler's stories told to inspire fear. The white
lady is
said to offer to dance with anyone she came upon during her walks, while the black man
offered to
buy souls in return for a song. The White Lady was seen around 1917 by a group of men out
partying - one of them chased after the figure with a large stick, but the apparition
disappeared
before he reached it. (DISMISS)
White Lady
Location: Cardiff (South Glamorgan) - Castell Coch Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A 'new' building on the site of thirteenth century ruins, the
White
Lady once haunted the older area, and now has set up shop in the replacement castle. The
woman is
said to have died of a broken heart after her son drowned in a local pond. There is also
reported to
be a buried hoard of treasure here, zealously protected by three eagles, while an ethereal
cavalier
walks the castle grounds.
(DISMISS)
White Woman
Location: Carlisle (Cumbria) - Carlisle Castle Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
1842
Further Comments: This phantom lady was once challenged by a soldier on guard duty - she
faded
in front of him, and he died of shock several hours later. It is believed the ghost may have
belonged
to a body found in 1835, bricked up in a castle wall. (POSSIBLE)

Stone of Dismissal
Location: Carlton (Nottinghamshire) - Devil's Stone (outside the church?) Type: Legend
Date /
Time: Still present? Further Comments: In a reversal of the normal tale associated with these
stones,
if a witness spotted the Devil nearby, she or he had to run around the stone to dismiss Old
Nick. Thestone was also said to be haunted by a woman in white who was once sacrificed on it.
(DISMISS)
White Woman
Location: Castle Gresley (Derbyshire) - White Lady Springs, wooded area just outside the
village
Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: This small pool of
water
is haunted by the pale ghost of a woman who is said to have drowned in it many years ago.
(POSSIBLE)
Glowing Woman
Location: Chapel St Leonards (Lincolnshire) - Seafront between Trunch Lane and Vickers
Point
Ingoldmells Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: Late 1990s Further Comments: A
glowing
woman dressed in white was observed by four people here. The radiant figure walked towards
them
before turning towards the sea and vanishing. A local legend says the woman had been
spurned by
her lover and walked into the sea (which before then was further inland) to drown herself.
(DISMISS)
White Lady
Location: Charmouth (Dorset) - Charmouth Lodge Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /

Time:
1970s? Further Comments: The white lady who haunted this building was said to have been
murdered and disposed of down a well that is now located under the dining room. The lodge is
also
haunted by a monk in a brown habit, who may be the cause of the disembodied footsteps
occasionally heard travelling around the building. (POSSIBLE)
Drifting Woman
Location: Charmouth (Dorset) - Road between Charmouth and Bridport Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: 11 September 2004, between 2230h - 2330h Further Comments: A
driver and her passenger both watched a woman in white sweep across the road as they drove
towards Bridport. They both reported that the car suddenly became cold at the time of the
sighting.
(POSSIBLE)
Lady of the Lake
Location: Charnock Richard (Lancashire) - Park Hall Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A radiant white female form has been seen a couple of times in
the
lake within the Hall grounds - it is believed to be a woman who drowned herself after falling
in love
with a monk. His ghost in turn may haunt the hall. (POSSIBLE)
Bess of Hardwick
Location: Chatsworth (Derbyshire) - Chatsworth House Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Late twentieth century? Further Comments: Wayne Anthony, in Haunted Derbyshire and the
Peak
District, writes that Bess, who finished constructing her home around 1560, is one of several
shades
to haunt this house. Mary Queen of Scots is rumoured to walk where she was once held
captive,
while a grey lady and a white woman haunt other parts of the building. The library is haunted
by a
transparent figure which drifts from shelf to shelf. The bridge on the grounds is haunted by
ascreaming woman who was forced to watch her baby drowned after it was thrown into the
river by
her partner. (POSSIBLE)
Silky
Location: Chester (Cheshire) - Chirton Hall Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: A former mistress of a Duke of Argyll, this white woman has yet to leave
the
bedroom of this house. (DISMISS)
Madam Pigott
Location: Chetwynd Aston (Shropshire) - A41, and Chetwynd Hall & surrounding area Type:
Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 1969 Further Comments: Having died in childbirth,
Madam
Pigott was seen dozens of times carrying her baby and combing its hair. Some also reported
the lady
also having a cat with her. She was eventually exorcised by twelve parsons, though in 1969 two
motorists separately reported a white figure on the road near the church. (POSSIBLE)
Edwardian Gentleman
Location: Chingford (Essex) - Friday Hill House, Simmons Lane Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Twentieth century Further Comments: Said to resemble Stan Laurel, this ghost
was
seen in Friday Hill House by a former occupier. A crying woman in a white veil has also been
seen
on the site. (POSSIBLE HAUNTING)
White Lady
Location: Chorley (Lancashire) - Heskin Hall Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: Hanged during the Civil War by a traitorous priest, this female member
of the
Mundesley family still returns home. The beam of wood from which her body dangled is
considered
lucky if you touch it. (DISMISS)
Cloaked Man
Location: Chudleigh (Devon) - Bishop Lacy Inn, Fore Street Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: Twentieth century Further Comments: This figure was seen running up the staircase of
the
building - when the landlord gave chase, the man vanished into thin air. A white woman has
also
been seen on site, and at one time a group of bar dwellers watched as a pint of beer was pulled
by a
phantom hand! (DISMISS)
Lady Banks
Location: Church Knowle (Dorset) - Stone Bridge along Knowle Hill Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: Lady Banks held nearby Corfe Castle against the
Round-heads during the English Civil War. The defences were only broken after a treacherous
Royalist officer opened the gates. Lady Banks has been named as the lady in a white flowing
dress
who haunts the bridge. (DISMISS)
White Woman
Location: Churchill (Oxfordshire) - Crossroads close to Lyneham Longbarrow Type:
Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: A white female phantom is said to
walk
this area. It is unclear whether the ghost is that of an old woman who once lived in a nearby
caveand watched over a hoard of treasure. (DISMISS)
White Lady
Location: Cilfynydd (Mid Glamorgan) - Woods in the area Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: 1968 Further Comments: Last seen by a newspaper editor and a friend, this phantom
lady
darts between the trees on a hillside. Some say she is accompanied by another white figure in a
cloak. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Clacton-on-Sea (Essex) - Wilson House, Leas Road (no longer standing) Type:
Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: Mid to late twentieth century Further Comments: This figure was
said to
have been seen by several school girls when this building was a dorm. Sounds of heavy foots
could
also been heard walking along the corridors late at night. (POSSIBLE)
Quake
Location: Clogher (County Tyrone) - Rectory Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 24
December 1885 onwards Further Comments: The rector wrote of a deep rumbling which
manifested
in the kitchen, like an earthquake, although no furnishings moved. The noise suddenly
stopped, and
was replaced by smashing crockery in the pantry. Together with his servants, the rector
approached
the pantry, but before reaching the door, it opened and a white woman emerged. Pursued by
the
rector, the white woman moved upstairs and vanished in front of the rector's son. The woman
appeared several more times afterwards, but never so dramatically. (POSSIBLE BOTH A
QUAKE
AND A HAUNTING)
White Woman
Location: Clonmel (County Tipperary) - Unnamed road leading southwards, passing over a
bridge
Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: Late nineteenth or early twentieth century
Further
Comments: Walking to a friend's house late at night, this witness spotted a glowing woman in
white
with long hair cross a bridge ahead of him. The girl vanished without trace, and upon
mentioning it
when he arrived at his destination, his friend told him that the same figure had appeared at
the foot
of his bed a few nights previous. (POSSIBLE)
Moon or Hitchhiker
Location: Coalisland (County Tyrone) - Mullaghmoyle Road, Brackaville Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: January 2009 Further Comments: Reports of a white phantom in
the
form of a woman resulted in an approximately sixty car long traffic jam as people tried to
spot the
spook. Local Councillor Desmond Donnelly said the 'ghost' was more likely to be the moon
reflecting in the nearby river. (POSSIBLE)
White Woman
Location: Cobh (County Cork) - Spike Island Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: A white female form is reputedly one of the phantoms which haunts the
island.
A phantom soldier is also reputed to haunt the area, with two black holes instead of eyes.
(POSSIBLE)
Woman in WhiteLocation: Colchester (Essex) - Dolcis shoe shop (since closed) Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date /
Time: 1991 Further Comments: A former member of staff reported seeing a woman in a long
white
dress in the stockroom, hearing footsteps, and witnessing boxes of shoes jump off shelves. The
worker eventually refused to work in the room. (POSSIBLE)
Faceless White Lady wearing Perfume
Location: Colchester (Essex) - East Lodge Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: There is little to suggest who this white lady is, but those who have
witnessed
her standing on the staircase have been in shock for some time afterwards. The accompanying
smell
of perfume is said to be very strong. (P0SSIBLE)
White Woman
Location: Colne (Lancashire) - Hare and Hounds public house Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: Unknown Further Comments: This pub is rumoured to be the home of a phantom
white lady.
(DISMISS)
Simon Cunliffe
Location: Colne (Lancashire) - Wycoller Hall Type: Crisis Manifestation Date / Time: Once a
year,
middle of winter (reoccurring), sound recorded 26/07/1996 Further Comments: Simon rides
the area
where he once lived, blowing his horn prior to a tragedy. It is said that he scared his wife to
death
by riding up the staircase of their home, chasing a fox that had ran inside to escape the hunt
(ghost
hunters Colin Veacock and Peter Crawley recorded a sound similar to a riding crop here in
1996).
Another tale states that the horseman isn't Simon but an assassin, killed by a manservant
before he
could murder the master of the hall. The young daughter of a family living here during the
twentieth
century told her mother that a 'white woman' would visit her during the night - the sightings
stopped
when the child changed bedrooms. (DISMISS)
Bearded Man
Location: Combe Martin (Devon) - Pack o'Cards inn Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A small man sporting a long beard is said to haunt this
building, as is
a white woman in a flowing gown. (DISMISS)
Grey Monk
Location: Conisborough (Yorkshire) - Conisborough Castle Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: 1971 Further Comments: Sightings of this spectral figure date back to the 1770s, when
he
was first seen drifting among the ruins. Reports also exist of sightings of a white woman, and
the
sounds of quiet voices and bumping. (POSSIBLE)
Lady Mary
Location: Crieff (Perth and Kinross) - Ferntower House, tower (no longer standing) Type:
Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: Circa 1940 Further Comments: Polish troops based at this house
claimed the tower was haunted by a white woman. The tower was demolished in 1963.
(POSSIBLE)
PiperLocation: Culrain (Highland) - Carbisdale Castle Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: Though only a hundred years old, the castle is said to be
haunted by a
traditional piper and a lady in white, the latter named as Duchess Blair. (DISMISS)
Monk
Location: Dalton in Furness (Cumbria) - Furness Abbey Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
2005 Further Comments: A ghostly figure in robes was seen walking towards the gatehouse
before
vanishing into a wall. It is said the monk sometimes appears on horseback, and the site is also
haunted by a white woman. (POSSIBLE)
Woman in White
Location: Darlington (Durham) - Former guest house (no longer operating), Corporation
Road
Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 1996 Further Comments: The ghostly woman who
haunted this guest house is said to have been killed on the road outside many years earlier,
and was
seen standing on top of the staircase by the manager. Poltergeist activity was also reported on
the
site - items in the kitchen would be moved overnight, lights would turn themselves on, and the
manager was 'held' at the top of the staircase by an unknown force. (POSSIBLE)
Hunting for the Child
Location: Darwen (Lancashire) - Old cemetery Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A woman in white is said to haunt the old cemetery, looking for
her
child. She either died in childbirth or was murdered by men who then stole her baby. A local
myth
says that by speaking the words 'white lady, white lady, I stole your black baby' she will
appear.
(POSSIBLE LATE 1940'S)
White Lady
Location: Delamere Forest (Cheshire) - Deep within the forest, between Frodsham and
Delamere
Forest rail station Type: Unknown Ghost Type Date / Time: July 2006 Further Comments:
While
walking to Frodsham from the Delamere Forest station, two people encountered a white lady.
She
stared at them for a couple of minutes before floating upwards into the trees. (DISMISS)
White Lady
Location: Derby (Derbyshire) - Derby Cathedral Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: Seen on the steps behind the structure, this white lady is
known to
make brief appearances. A woman in tears has also been seen near the cathedral, carrying a
young
child. The same location is home to a man wearing old fashioned clothing, not forgetting the
former
executioner who killed his father and brother who jointly haunts the area. (POSSIBLE.
MORE
RESEARCH NEEDED)
White Woman
Location: Dickleburgh (Norfolk) - Wooded area Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A hanging white woman was said to haunt this piece of
woodland,
her dress always blowing in the wind to her left. (POSSIBLE)Distressed Woman
Location: Dorchester on Thames (Oxfordshire) - George Hotel, the 'Vicar's Room' Type:
Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: 1968 Further Comments: This female form, dressed in white, had
been
observed crying in the hotel. She last appeared at the end of a four poster bed. (POSSIBLE)
Screaming White Lady
Location: Dornoch (Highland) - Skibo Castle Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: This sad spirit is said to have been murdered in the 1600's by a servant.
The
white lady now drifts through the castle corridors, wailing and screaming. (DISMISS)
Old Lady
Location: Dublin (County Dublin) - Canal through Drimnagh Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: 1992, 02:00h Further Comments: A cyclist riding along the canal witnessed a glowing
elderly
woman in white with long hair dancing with a young man. The man wore a seventeenth or
eighteenth century military uniform and looked 'normal', unlike the woman who also
hummed a
tune. The cyclist did not stop. (POSSIBLE)
Lipsticked Lady
Location: Dudley (West Midlands) - Jolly Collier, Holly Hall (former inn) Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: December 1953 - July 1954 Further Comments: The Westwood
family
had lived in the former inn for two years before their ghostly outbreak. A young blonde
woman
wrapped in white and wearing lipstick was seen in various parts of the house, as was a
phantom
bald man. Beds were moved, knocking started and footsteps were heard in empty parts of the
building. Eventually, as strangely as it had started, the hauntings ceased. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Wellow (Somerset) - St Julien's Well Type: Crisis Manifestation Date / Time: Before
a
death of the Lord of Hungerford Further Comments: This phantom white woman would
materialise
to give warning of encroaching death. (DISMISS)
White Lady
Location: West Harptree (Somerset) - Gournay Court Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: This pallid female would travel the building, ending her
journey on
the balcony where she would disappear. (POSSIBLE)
George
Location: Westcliff on Sea (Essex) - Palace Theatre, currently an arts centre Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: 1970s Further Comments: George has been reported sitting next
to
patrons during performances - they claim to have felt someone take up position next to them,
though the entity remains invisible while seated. George is said to be the theatre manager who
hanged himself from the fly floor due to financial difficulties just after the building opened in
1912.
A white woman has been seen in the building, but it is generally agreed that these are two
different
forces, rather than the same ghost. (DISMISS)
Young WomanLocation: Weston (Hertfordshire) - Road near Lannock Hill Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date /
Time: November 1972, around 23:30h Further Comments: The phantom figure of a woman in
white
was seen by a husband and wife as they drove out of Weston. It is thought that the phantom is
a girl
who drowned on her wedding day. (POSSIBLE)
Old Soldiers
Location: Westonzoyland (Somerset) - Sedgemoor Battlefield Type: Haunting Manifestation
Date /
Time: 05 July (reoccurring) Further Comments: The spirits here reportedly include voices
that call
out to witnesses over the nearby River Carey, and horsemen who gallop silently along. People
have
also reported pockets of cold air, and watching a white woman glide over the marsh, near
where her
lover was murdered by Royalists. On the anniversary of the battle, sounds of fighting have
been
heard. (POSSIBLE)
White Woman
Location: Widnes (Cheshire) - The Clinc pond, off Alder? Lane Type: Legend Date / Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A local story states that the Clinc is haunted by a white lady
who tries
to pull people into the water. (DISMISS)
Hooded Woman
Location: Wimborne St Giles (Dorset) - St Giles Estate Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown - nineteenth century Further Comments: A phantom woman in white, with a hood
covering her face, was seen to rush into a hedge. Following this, the sounds of a horse and cart
could be heard travelling through woodland, though nothing could be seen. (DISMISS)
Tall Man
Location: Winchester (Hampshire) - Private house along Quarry Road Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: 1970s? Further Comments: A tall man wearing a black cloak, a
woman
dressed in white, and a figure resembling a nun are all said to have haunted this property.
Two
exorcisms failed to remove the entities. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady
Location: Woburn (Bedfordshire) - The Inn (was the Bedford Arms Inn) Type: Haunting
Manifestation Date / Time: Unknown Further Comments: The misty white lady is not alone in
her
haunting of this building. A ghostly figure is also reported to sit by the fireplace smoking a
pipe, a
little phantom dog by his side. (POSSIBLE)
White Lady Forewarning Death
Location: Wolterton (Norfolk) - Wolterton Hall, 3 miles northwest from Blickling Type: Crisis
Manifestation Date / Time: Unknown - possibly 1894? Further Comments: Appearing to warn
of
trouble or a death in the family, the white lady is said to be a member of the Scamler family
who
once owned the hall. (DISMISS)
White Lady
Location: Wolverhampton (West Midlands) - Stag's Head public house Type:
HauntingManifestation Date / Time: 1972 Further Comments: Seen walking around the
cellar, this phantom
also enjoyed turning the beer pump taps off, sometimes up to twenty times a month. The
entity
disappeared after structural alterations were made to the building. (POSSIBLE)
Woman in White
Location: Wombwell (Yorkshire) - Low Valley Arms public house Type: Haunting
Manifestation
Date / Time: April 2006 Further Comments: Roger Froggatt, the landlord of this pub, was left
terrified after encountering a phantom lady dressed in white in the ladies toilet after
investigating
what he believed was a break in during the early hours of the morning. He described the
figure as an
elderly woman with her cheek and jaw structure missing. (POSSIBLE)
Man in Tricorn Hat
Location: Woodhall Spa (Lincolnshire) - Pine Woods Type: Haunting Manifestation Date /
Time:
Unknown Further Comments: A man wearing a cloak and a tricorn hat is said to drift
through this
wooded area. A phantom woman in white and the sound of wailing have also been reported.
(DISMISS)
Young Lady
Location: Woolacombe (Devon) - Beach Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: Early
twentieth
century Further Comments: This woman dressed in white has been observed drifting along
the
beach, passing effortlessly over hazardous areas of sand. Sir William de Tracey also spends
time on
the beach, sorting sand as penance for the murder of Thomas a Becket.
(THE WOMAN HAUNTING POSSIBLE)
Bloodied Hands
Location: Worcester (Hereford & Worcester) - Astwood Road Cemetery Type: Unknown
Ghost
Type Date / Time: 2000s Further Comments: This witness was out with a group of friends,
messing
around in the cemetery. She turned away from the group and spotted a young girl dressed in
white,
holding out her hands and mouthing words that could not be heard. The witness held out her
own
hands, and for a brief moment saw that they were covered in blood. (DISMISS)
White lady
Location: Worstead (Norfolk) - Church Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time: 24
December
(Reoccurring), photographed 1975 Further Comments: Legend says this lady has scared to
death at
least one young bell ringer, although she is now said to have a healing effect. Poltergeist
activity has
also been reported, around the 1950's. A photograph taken in 1975 by Peter Berthelot appears
to
show a misty white lady sitting behind his wife on a pew. ( RULE OUT PHOTOGRAPH
REST
POSSIBLE)
Humming Woman
Location: Wylfa (Gwynedd) - Area near the power station Type: Haunting Manifestation Date
/
Time: Twentieth century Further Comments: This phantom white woman was seen moving
slowly
along, humming a tune to herself. The ghost would vanish near to the edge of a cliff.
(POSSIBLE)
LegsLocation: York (Yorkshire) - Black Swan Inn Type: Haunting Manifestation Date / Time:
Unknown
Further Comments: Seen descending a staircase in the building, only the lower part of this
male
body appears. Two other spirits can be found in the bar area; that of a workman wearing a
bowler
hat (dressed in Victorian clothing) and a lady in a white dress who watches the fireplace.
(DISMISS)
As you can see there is many possible hauntings but more of them dismissed and I point out
this is
only a very small sample of my data for the book. What concerns me as evidence is that the
much
older haunting reports tend to have a history laid out while a good few lack information and
one has
to wonder why in 2000-2013 that so called parapsychology investagators with all the the tools
on
hand have not come up with much better data that would stand up.
So eye witness accounts as well as paranormal investagators do seem to get better results and
data
than many self made parapsychology bods who toot around a carload of gear to help them
find even
a possiblity of a spirit or ghost while on site.
What does that suggest you may ask?
Well one has to watch the rubbish TV on programs in the USA and UK on paranormal
investigations as part of the research and I have watched 81 in the last three years and not one
produced real evidence of a spirit or ghost in any form. There were of course natural sounds,
bloody
orbs in the camera lens and rather silly people claiming on air that they felt a ghost close by.
As an
example I will set the TV stage for you. Four of a team, three on cameras and sound in some
cellar
or house, one person as the main contact to and from the 'spirit' world, most of the time as a
has
been has run and talking as we say in Ireland, 'shite'.
Gloomy shots, white faces and big eyes of the crew and then the main presenter says
something like
this;
I feel here, this cold spot, something close by, a child, no a woman and she is young. She died
at
the hands of her lover, and was bricked up in a wall. Wait! She is coming through. Mary. her
name
was Mary and she was a maid here many years ago.
Wait! I am getting more. Yes, she was with child when she died. Mary can you tell me more,
tap
once if you can.
(TAP) Yes that is good. Can you show yourself, Tap twice. (NOTHING) She is fading slowly
away.
Fading now and gone.

I think by now the reader will get my drift and such shows have done a lot of harm to
paranormal
investgations in the UK and Ireland but in 2013 it did worse to parapsychology research, it
crippled
it totally and many people think it is a farce. Who indeed can blame the pubic when they see
such
rubbish and pie in the sky comments made by a presenter who can't even act the part which
he or
she might have got away with as Possible?
In a way I would now be more interested in the paranormal researcher data that anything
that a
Parapsychology researcher presents as data because it would be more truthful, lack of
gibberish and
psychology terms and more to the point, raw data that one can understand. This does not
mean that'parapsychology' was a failure because it did in the past come up with some good
data from a
psychology point of view but its failure started when it proved nothing, for or against the real
possiblity of spirits or ghosts and in 2014,'parapsychology' has become a dirty word and is
dead in
the water for all time. There will be no parapsychology ghost coming back but there will be
fall out
for a long time to come. We now fall back on the paranormal investgator for future research,
good
and bad but at least we can move forwards.
Chapter 4 IN SEARCH OF SPIRITS.
First let us look at the upto date data that is put forward in 2013 in parapsychology as truth.
Below you will find an explanation of some terms that are commonly encountered in
parapsychology.
Psi
Psi (pronounced 'sigh') is the neutral umbrella term that is used to refer to the capacity
attributed to
some individuals to interact with their environment by means other than the recognised
sensorimotor channels, including ESP, PK and DMILS (see below).
Pseudo-Psi
Pseudo-Psi refers to 'what's not psychic but looks like it', that is, phenomena and experiences
that
individuals attribute to paranormal processes, but which actually have normal explanations.
Extrasensory Perception (ESP)
ESP is a general term used to denote any manifestations of psi that appear to be analogous to
sensory functions. It covers the phenomena of:
Telepathy: (lit. remote feeling/perception) information perceived by one person is gained by
another
person when the currently recognised sensory channels are unavailable.
Clairvoyance: (lit. clear seeing) where a person appears to gain information about their
environment
when the currently recognised sensory channels are unavailable.
Precognition: (lit. pre-knowing) where information about a future event is acquired without
the use
of inference.
Which of these terms (if any) is used is dependent on the context in which it occurs or on the
viewpoint of the observer - they are not necessarily separate phenomena.
Related terms: anomalous cognition, anomalous information transfer, second sight, tele- or
para-
gnosis, divination. Psychokinesis (PK)
PK (literally mind movement) is a term used for psi phenomena wherein a person appears to
directly affect their environment through mental intention or even by their mere presence. As
ESP
has been considered to be analogous to sensory functioning, PK would be the psi equivalent to
motor functioning. Traditionally, PK has been split into two categories:Micro PK: applies to
cases where instrumentation and/or statistical analysis is needed to determine
if there is an effect (e.g. influence of microelectronic devices).
Macro PK: applies to cases where naked-eye observation suggests there is an effect (e.g.
poltergeist,
table tipping).
Bio PK, an older term, has been used in cases where the target system to be influenced is a
living
system. However, this has been largely replaced by the DMILS (Direct Mental Interaction
between
Living Systems) acronym
see following section.Related terms: Telekinesis, mind-over-matter Direct Mental Interaction
between Living Systems (DMILS)
DMILS research arose from past work on bio-PK, remote staring and distant healing.
Currently, it
covers a range of phenomena wherein an organism appears to elicit a physiological or
behavioural
response in a remote organism, without any apparent channel of communication or influence.
The
term 'Direct Mental Interaction' is used as it allows for contributions from both the response-
initiating organism and the responder, while 'Living Systems' includes a range of organisms
from
human beings to simple cellular systems,
Related terms: Bio-PK, Healing, Remote staring Precognition
Traditionally regarded as one of the three types of ESP, the term precognition refers to the
apparent
ability to obtain information about future events without the use of inference.
Remote Viewing
This is a form of ESP methodology in which the target is typically a randomly-chosen
geographical
location that is physically distant from the 'viewer' or percipient (the person who is
attempting to
obtain information about that location without the use of the known senses or inferential
processes).
In some designs, another individual physically visits the randomly-chosen site, ostensibly to
act as a
'beacon' for the viewer. In other designs, the site is represented by photographs or other
descriptors
of the location. Theoretical Work
Theoretical approaches to parapsychology attempt to propose explanatory systems for
reported psi
phenomena.
Parapsychology does not presently have a single well-accepted theoretical framework.
Proposed theories address different levels of explanation. Most fundamental are the Physical
Theories.
The best-known of these are perhaps the so-called Observational Theories which draw on
developments in quantum physics and, broadly speaking, postulate that the consciousness of
the
observer plays a key role in 'collapsing' an observed system into a desired component state. A
key
feature of the quantum-based theories of psi is that it is claimed psi phenomena do not require
transfer of energy, only of information.
Related, and formulated in terms of systems theory, is the Model of Pragmatic Information.
The MPI states that psi effects represent meaningful non-local correlations between a person
and a
target system. Such non-local correlations cannot be used for information transfer, and thus
the MPIpredicts difficulty in obtaining replicable evidence for psi under the methods usually
used by
experimental parapsychologists.
More Conventional Explanations
Aside from the topics above, which consider explanations for ostensibly paranormal
experiences in
terms of mechanisms that are not currently understood by science, many researchers have
approached these experiences essentially from a skeptical standpoint. These approaches
consider
that paranormal interpretations are erroneous due to:
misperception,
misrecollection,
cognitive deficits,
irrationality,
poor probabilistic reasoning, etc.
Indeed there is a wealth of evidence from mainstream psychology demonstrating that humans
are
inaccurate witnesses of external events, and unreliable observers of their own experiences and
motivations, so these conventional approaches must be given some weight and can often
undermine
so-called 'spontaneous' (i.e., 'real world') accounts of paranormal experiences.
However, most of these conventional explanations can either be ruled out or quantified using
controlled laboratory methods, therefore most parapsychologists turn to laboratory psi
research
when formally testing the psi hypothesis.
Now let me get this right. This came from a University site here in the UK that want students
to do
a course in Parapsychology and great expence and time useage only to discover that there is
nothing
on hauntings, ghosts or spirits or how in the field to carry out research on the topic. It would
therefore seem by this output from the University that they are no longer interested in
hauntings,
ghosts or spirits unless you capture a spirit in a bottle that you can't drink!
It is a sign of the times in 2014, that the paranormal as I understand it and the research of,
has to be
carried out free lance again and we, you and I, get on with it but not in a sloppy manner of
course
and in fact is the way I like to do business. This way we will again deal with facts presented,
investigate and write up our findings and like I say, before you get a pearl you have to find the
oyster.
So is parapsychology a dead project when it comes to hauntings and ghosts? The writing is on
the
wall and with only one word that being 'YES' and has proved to be worse than useless when it
comes down to such paranormal projects and the misperception by those that pushed
parapsychology as a way of doing business and that includes those people who wanted the
glory
and the title in the past and in the last few years leading up to 2014 now have egg on their
faces.
Therefore the title, such as it is, of paranormal investigator is much better than
parapsycholigiest
who knows nothing about hauntings and ghosts or even now to make the effort to check it out.
You
may well ask why?
A good paranormal investigator will plan ahead, know the lay out of a site that is said to be
haunted,take in the nearby landscape, mark on a map objects close by such as phone masts
and old stone
circles, wells and other water sources, note tracks, paths and weather. He or she will also, if
they are
any good at all, research the local history of the area well before they do anything else.
The parapsycholigst will note the site, pick a time and a date, turn up on site with a ton of
equipement, set it up and come away with nothing but negitive thoughts and no data worth
peanuts
for time and effort, unless you are on TV and then you have to find 'something' or suggest
something to viewers!
I say this here and by that I mean what parapsychology should be about and was in the past
and I
leave you with this;
The history of parapsychology and its predecessors (mesmerism, spiritualism and psychical
research) is a rich and complex topic. At the KPU, we have examined historical case studies of
unexplained phenomena, such as the legendary Indian rope trick (Lamont, 2004a) and the
most
celebrated medium in history, Daniel Dunglas Home (Lamont, 2005). The history of belief in
psychic phenomena shows that one cannot simply dismiss such beliefs on the basis of
gullibility
and wishful thinking (Lamont, 2006). Rather, they were shaped not only by cultural
stereotypes
(Lamont & Bates, 2007) but also by an absence of alternative explanations (Lamont, 2004b).
Similarly, the experimental investigation of such phenomena cannot simply be dismissed as
pseudo-scientific. Not only has psychical research contributed to psychology in several

respects (e.g. Alvarado, 2002; Watt, 2005), but the dispute over its scientific status was based
upon a dispute over what counted as science (Lamont, 2007).
That's the spirit!
Ronnie Carleton 2014 (c)
STARGATE BLUE PROJECT
RONNIE CARLETON
September 10, 2015
1SKY ABOVE, SEA BELOW.
What do we really know about life on earth or elsewhere for that matter? Very
little in fact and less about how human beings as we known them today. We
can study apes all we want and have but in the past or now they were not or
are human.
I thought of this peoject for a very long time and wondered why I don't
get all the known research of the past and now and bundle it as Stargate Blue
2Project, and in case anyone is in doubt, I take my hat of to author Graham
Hancock and his work over the years and his new book out in 2015. He, and
he alone has hit many nails on the head and am delighted he and a few others
have taken on the Archaeology establishment head on. Of course such people
will never state that they got their dating wrong, or the names of people in
past history and less understanding of clay tablets than they tend to let on.
Most of them have at times talked o# the tops of their heads with a sprinkling
of archaeology and anthropology terms thrown in to make it sound good and
read better. When it comes down to bone data and dating many mistakes were
and have been made and Dart as far as I am aware was the #rst to state that
sometimes he got it wrong and he said that with foresight he could have got it
right about a bone or bones on site.
Many 'experts' on cave art and other art prehistory came out with statements
that went beyond #ction, in fact absurd at times, some even got the animal
species wrong and would not take on board that sometimes the art work was
not to tell a story but art for arts sake on the walls and stones of a cave or rock.
Much the same as you see on walls in towns and cities today and much of it
very good and takes the 'G' out of grey walls and cement.
So this research is not about one subject in the boiling pot but of much
reseached, dated as best I could, added to other contents in the pot. So history,
archaeology and anthropology dates, great storms, lights in the skies, UFO's
and dates, aliens, strange animals, tribes known and unknown to the lay per-
son,ghosts and hauntings dates and data and all fed into this great research pot
of mine. When you take a date in time, during that date or year other things
were going on at the same time and if we must, all linked to that date and other
events.
Below is an example of how it works and this is not a true case.
35th Jan 1941 2,.31am
Sunday
boy born 2.32 germans bomb city
old women dies Paris
commando raid Norway
wolf raids village Spain
Full tide U-Boat of Donegal
girl born Iceland
Music heard Rome Back street

Drunken laughter Galway City
Belfast
full moon
light snow
Pope at his desk
Vatican.
ALL PROJECT DATA LINKED TO ABOVE.
-_6,000,000,000 possible age of the Solar system,
3,000,000,000 Moon born and formed close to Earth?
1,200,000,000 Lowest form of algae formed in sea.
First life? 570,000,000 Cambrian Age,trilobites, sponges in the seas?
500,000,000 Ordovician Age, named by Lapworth 1879 AD, sea changes,
climate change, snails in sea?
YEAR. AREA OR LOCATION. EVENT. DATE IF KNOWN. NOTES.
3,500 MYA. EARTH. SIMPLE LIFE FORMS. BACTERIA AND ALGAE.
? See above 750 mya
ICE AGE 675 mya ICE AGE SIMPLE LIFE FORMS >
PALEOZOIC ERA 570-247 MYA. EARTH. PALEOZOIC ERA CAMBRIAN
570-510 MYA. JAWLESS FISH AND 505 MYA ORDOVICIAN Seas chang-
ing and hot climate change across the planet.
438 MYA SILURIAN Vertebrate animals now developed,large sea scorpions,
#rst lea#ess land plants possible.
440MYA ?
4408 MYA DEVONIAN Active volcanoes,mountain formations,bony #shes,leafy
land plants,
395 MYA Devonian ? trees, wingless animals leave the sea,old red sandstone
formed,
360 MYA CARBONIFEREROUS ? ?
340, MYA CARBONIFEREROUS
286 MYA PERMIAN
280 MYA ICE AGE Marine life species ORDOVICIAN 510-440 MYA.
MESOZOIC ERA Platystrophia marine shell with #ap.
SILUNRIAN 440- 410 MYA.
248 MYA TRIASSIC PERIOD DEVONIAN
410-360 MYA. Sharks Thick vegetation on lands
410-360 Archacopteris plants
Archimedes bryozoa,marine CARBONIFEROUS
360-290 MYA Goniatites mollusc.
251 MYA PERMIAN MASS EXTINCTION. PERMIAN
290-245 MYA TRIASSIC
245-208 MYA Dinosaurs,
146-65 mya. Tyrannosaurus rex. Meat eater.
245-65 MYA EARTH AGE OF REPTILES. NEW LIFE FORMS. DINOSAURS.
213 MYA JURASSIC PERIOD First mammals
245-208 mya Barosaurus dinosaur. Veg. BIRDS.INSECTS. Archaeopteryx
bird 150 mya
JURASSIC 208-146 MYA
144 MYA CRETACEOUS PEROID Modern sharks all species. Triceratops
horned dinosaur CRETACCOUS
146-65 MYA 65 MY BC CRETACEOUS MASS EXTINCTION. Bony #sh,Sparnodus.

5Fresh and salt water.
CENOZOIC ERA Tylocidaris sea urchin. Heart urchins.
65 MYA PALEOCENE PERIOD
65 MYA TO 40,000BC EARTH CENOZOIC ERA. CONTINENTS AND
OCEANS FORMED Last dinosaur. Triceratops. NORTH AND SOUTH AMER-
ICA JOINED PALEOCENE 65-56.5 MYA 55
MYA EOCENE PEROID First horse, hyracotherium. 65-56.5 mya Europe
N.A A = APE.
H. = HUMAN 38 MYA OLIGOCENE PEROID EOCENC 56.5-35-23.4
MYA APES.
Apidium 30 mya, Oreopithecus 13 - 7 mya Aegyptopithecus AFRICA OLIGOCENE
35.4 23.3 MYA
25 MYA MIOCENE PEROID
23 MYA Pliopithecus 26 mya Europe and Africa. Limnopithecus, gibbon,
MIOCENE 23.3-5.2 MYA
NOTE.It should be made clear that many of the Paleontologists of the the
day tended to spilt or lunp a known ape species as a new species and lead to
confussion for many years Ego #rst facts second
19 MYA KENYAPITHECUS. 8 ADULT 1 CHILD. KENYA AFRICA BONE
REMAINS. (Louis Leakey discovery 1967) A Proconsul africanus. Dating sus-
pect for these remains. Oreopithecus,Sivapithecus, Bramapithecus.
AFRICA The fossil trail from 14 -2 mya is not complete and more than likely
was all guesswork, not fact.
16 MYA APES START TO SPREAD INTO EUROPE EUROPE AT THIS
TIME WAS MUCH WARMER

Dryopithecus 25-10 mya,Europe,Africa,Asia.
AFRICA/ASIA PLIOCENE 5.2-1.8 MYA
6Ramapithecus 14 - 7 mya, Kenyapithecus.
AFRICA/ASIA Australopithecus 5 -1 mya,Paranthropus,Plesinthropus. TETHYS
SEA RETREATING. TAKEN OVER BY THICK FORESTS AND A CORRI-
DOR FROM SPAIN TO CHINA.
10 MYA OURANOPITHECUS MACEDONIENSIS (Ape) GREECE EU-
ROPE SIVAPITHECUS INDICUS (Ape) PAKISTAN ASIA
A.africanus 3.5 mya, homo habilis, A.robustus 3.5 mya, Zinjanthropus. 1.8
mya 8 MYA.
RAMAPITHECUS BREVIROSTRIS. APE RAMA'S APE. SIWALIK HILLS
PAKISTAN ASIA. (G. Edward Lewis 1934) SHORT FACED APE. 6-7 MYA
SAHELANTHROPUS TCHADENSIS. (TOUMAI) TOROS-MENALLA,CHAD,AFRICA
APE. (Brunet 2002)
6.2 MYA THE START OF MAMMAL EVEOLUTION IN AFRICA.< MANY
SPECIES
76 MYA ORRORIN TUGENENSIS. TUGEN HILLS,KENYA. APE. (Pick-
ford and B.Senut 2000)
5.8 MYA. ARDIPITHECUS KADABBA WM.MIDDLE AWASH,ETHIOPIA.
APE. (YOHANNES HAILE SELASSIE 1996)
5 MYA JAWBONE AND ELNOW FOSSILS LOTHAGAM VALLEY,KANAPOI,KEYNA.
(Patterson
discovery 1967) Dating suspect
PLIOCENE PEROID
4.4 MYA. ARDIPITHECUS RAMIDUS. ROOT APE. ARAMIS,ETHIOPIA.

APE. (Gen Suwa/Tim White 1992)
3.5 MYA. AUSTRALOPITHECUS ANAMENSIS. KANAPOI,KENYA
4.1 MYA. APE. (M.Leakey 1994)
3.3 MYA AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS. APE LUCY HADAR,ETHIOPIA
(Donald Johanson 1974)
2.3 mya EARLY TOOL MAKING AFRICA, Rudolfensis? H.erectus erectus
8Java man, 0.5 H.erectus ?
2.6mya. Pleistocene Ice Age.Canada,Scandinavia,Seberia and Britain.
PLEISTOCENE 1.8 MYA- 40,000 BC
2.5 MYA PARANTHROPUS (Ape WITH S. Crest) WEST TURKANA
BLACK SKULL. ALSO P. CRASSIDENS (Possible)
2.0 MYA P.BOISEI. (Ape) OLDUVAI,AFRICA HOMO HABILIS. (Ape)
EAST AFRICA HOMO TREE LINE
2 MYA PLEISTOCENE PEROID
HOM0 RUDOLFENSIS. (Ape) KENYA,AFRICA Skull 1470 TOOL MAK-
ERS
1.6 MYA 1.8-1.4 MYA ARCHAIC HUMANS, GEORGIA AND ISRAEL
1.8 MYA HOMO HABILIS APE. OLDUVAI,TANZANIA (Louis Leakey
1960)
AUSTRALOPITHECUS BOISEI ZINJ. OLDUVAI,TANZANIA (Mary and
Louis Leakey 1959)
1.4 mya. FIRST USE OF CONTROLLED FIRE. ACHEULEAN TOOL,
ETHIOPIA AFRICA
1.2 MYA A. AFRICANUS. TAUNG BABY TAUNG,SOUTH AFRICA.
APE. (Raymond Dart 1924)

HOMO ERECTUS. JAVA MAN TRINIL,JAVA,ASIA Eugene Dubois 1891
0.3 MYA SINANTHROPUS PEKINENSIS. PEKING MAN. ZHOUKOUDIAN
BEIJING CHINA. (Erectus) (Davinson Black 1929)
0.1 MYA HOLOCENE PEROID
HUMAN SEPERATION FROM THE APES AS A HOMO SPECIES AND
HUMAN HUMANS, CHIMPANZEES AND GORILLAS SPLIT FROM THE
COMMON ANCESTOR H.steinheimensis
0.25 HUMANS MOVED ON WHILE CHIMPS AND GORILLAS MARKED
9TIME AND STILL DO.
800,000 BC HOMO ERECTUS JAVA SPAIN ARCHAIC HUMANS AT AT-
APUERCA.SPAIN
500,000 BC ASIA HOMO ARCHAIC. Massive brow ridge.
START DNA CLOCK HERE.
Very slow change of skeleton shape. Well behind African Homo 1 mya
450,000 BC.PEKING MAN HOMO ERECTUS.
CHINA 300,000 BC low cranial front.
350.000 BC FIRE USE IN EUROPE, HUNGARY AND NW FRANCE.
PLEASE
NOTE; In my research here I do not regard the early ape like creatures as
'human' as many people do or think.
The early apes were not human or even close to being so though I have listed
the 'walking apes' they are
'advanced apes' and not humankind.
300,000 NEANDERTAL MAN INTO EUROPE.
230,000 BC ARCHAIC HOMO, DALI,CHINA. Massive brow ridge. low

cranial cault H.sapiens neanderthalensis soloensis,rhodesinsis human, 230,000
years ago to 35,000 years ago.
10200,000 BC NEANDERTHALS INTO EUROPE Greek skull dated 250,000
-300,000 years
PETRALONA THE CROSS OVER 150,000 BC
ACHEULIAN 2 AFRICA EARLY HOMO SAPIENS, AFRICA HAND AXES
AND BIFACES
100,000 BC INDONESIA, NGANGDONG, ARCHAIC HOMO ACHEULEAN
EUROPE. BIFACE MAKERS
90,000 BC TRUE HOMO BARBED BONE SPEAR, KATANDA,AFRICA
90,000 BC MODERN HUMAN BURIAL, SKHUL AND OAFZEH,ISRAEL.
MORE EVIDENCE OF HEARTH USE. Cro-Magnon Man. 50,000 years
ago East Europe and spread from there.
> CARLETON'S MODEL
82,000 BC. ATITLAN ERUPTION.
80,000 BC. HOMO ERECTUS 'THE DWARF SPECIES' ISLAND OF FLO-
RES, INDONESIA. FOUND 2004 A?
73,000 BC TOBA ERUPTION.
50,000 BC enter Cro-Magnon Man 50,000 BC > START OF 'HUMAN HIS-
TORY' MODERN MIND.
46,000 BC AFRICA BEADS FOUND IN BURIAL GROUND,ENKAPUNE
YA MUTO, KENYA, AFRICA
45,000 BC STONE TOOLS AT BOKER, ISRAEL
40,000 BC. EUROPE MODERN HUMANS IN EUROPE AND SIBERIA
ASIA HAFTED AXE,HUON, NEW GUINEA.

40,000 BC ABORIGINAL HUNTERS REACH AUSTRALIA BY SEA.
SMALL STONE TOOLS SET IN BONE HANDLES FOUND IN ISRAEL
ASIA MODERN HUMAN SKULL IN NIIAH CAVE, BORNEO.
ALL OTHER TYPES OF HUMAN APE LIKE CREATURES NOW EX-
11TINCT.
30,000 BC ENGRAVED ART OBJECTS HAYONIM CAVE, ISRAEL
FRANCE CAVE ART,CHAUVET,FRANCE, VOGELHERD,GERMANY
? ASIA
38,000 BC HUMAN USE OF CAVES IN NORTH BORNEO,ASIA. ?
EUROPE CRO- MAGNON MAN REACHES EUROPE.
37,000 BC.
PHLEGRACAN FIELDS CALDERA ERUPTION.
35,000 BC Exit the Neanderthals 35,000 years ago Last Neanderthals die
out.< ?
35,000 BC. BABOON FIBULAS FOUND IN BORDER CAVE AND MAY
HAVE BEEN COUNTERS.
AFRICA 33,000 BC. SMALL TOOLS DECORATED WITH QUARTZ STONE
IN ZAIRE,AFRICA
28,000 BC ABORIGINALS GRIND STONES TO MAKE TOOLS.
START ALL UFO/ALIEN REPORTS FROM HERE
1234,250-19,000 BC
FRANCE PALAEOLITHIC ROCK SHELTER,LES EYZIES SW FRANCE.
WINTER SITE. REINDEER AND
HUMAN REMAINS FOUND (16 YEAR OLD FEMALE) ?
ROCK PAINTINGS ALSO IN AND AROUND SHELTER.

27,500 BC ? ROCK PAINTINGS AT APOLLO CAVE,NAMIBIA, AFRICA.
NEW DATING. 24,000 BC.
CAVE PAINTINGS AT THE APOLLO SITE, NAMIBIA, SW.AFRICA.
26,000 BC RITUAL BURIAL,LAKE MUNGO, NEW S.WALES, AUST
25,000 BC ?
BURIALS AND ART SUNGIR, RUSSIA. 1ST HUMAN CREMATIONS IN
AUSTRALIA. Suggest canabalism!
CLAY ROOF HOUSES BUILT IN EUROPE.
23,000 BC FIRST HUNTER GATHERERS CLAY STATUETTES MADE.
1321,000 BC IVORY BOOMERANG MADE IN POLAND AND EARLIEST
IN EUROPE.
20,000 BC. LAST ICE AGE PEAK. > < LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM =
LGM* COLD DRY AND WINDY. STORMS.
LOW SEA LEVELS BORENO, JAVA. ?
20,000 BC. CAVE PAINTINGS IN LASCAUX IN FRANCE, ALTEMIRA
IN SPAIN.
20,000 BC MASTODONS ROAM NORTH AMERICA. RELATED TO MAM-
MOTHS AFONTOVA CULTURE.
LATE NEOLITHIC. BURIAL AND GRAVE GOODS.
POTTERY 20,000-10,000 BC SIBERIA MICRO BLADES, SCRAPERS AND
MAMMAL BONES.
(Reindeer, wooly mammmoth.)
18,000 BC. HUNTER GATHERERS SETTLE IN ZAIRE,AFRICA. HU-
MAN CAVE LIVING KUTIKINA,
SOUTH TASMANIA,AUSTRALIA
17,000 BC. WILD CEREAL GATHERING NR.LAKE KINNERET. SEA
OF GALILEE ?
FIRST ROCK PAINTINGS IN AUSTRALIA.
16,000 -10,000 BC. HUTS WITH MAMMOTH BONE ROOFS IN EU-
ROPE. WEST RUSSIA
15,000 BC INDONESIA TRIBES USE SPEARS TO HUNT WITH.
15,000 BC 15,000 BC ICE SHEETS BEGIN TO MELT. RAIN AND GLOBAL
WARMING FOR 10,000 YEARS SPAIN ? CAVE PAINTINGS AND
SIGNS,ALTAMIRA,SPAIN
13,500 BC. RISING SEA LEVELS NEAR EAST WILD WHEAT,BARLEY,LENTILS
DOMESTICATION
13000 BC MASSIVE FLOODS ACROSS EGYPT. LARGE ICE AGE BURIAL
14GROUND,KOW SWAMP.VICT ?
13,000 BC. TERRACOTTA FIGURES CRAFTED BY TRIBE IN ALGE-
RIA,N. AFRICA
FIRST CROSSING BY HUMANS FROM ASIA INTO ALASKA VIA BERING
STRAIT.
FIRST POTTERY BY JOMON HUNTERS ASIA. 12,OOO BC
12,000 BC MASTODONS ROAM SIBERIA. RELATED TO MAMMOTHS.
11,150 BC MISSOULA SUPER FLOODS. ? ROCK ART IN CAVES AT
BHIMBEKTA, INDIA.
11,000 BC CAVE DWELLERS IN NW.EUROPE MAKE HAND TOOLS
FROM OBSIDIAN CAVE USE IN
FUKUI, NAGASAKI,JAPAN !?
S.AMERICA FIRST HUMANS ARRIVE IN CHILE. ?

WARM WEATHER PERIOD THAT STARTED AROUND 11,600 BC 11,000
BC ?
SPAIN. ALTAMIRA CAVE AND CAVE ART.(Bison),
MASKS,ENGRAVINGS.
10,500 -9500 BC MISSISSIPPI SUPER FLOODS
EUROPE CAVE DWELLERS IN GREECE USE OBSIDIAN FOR TOOLS.
10,000 BC RETREAT OF THE LAST ICE AGE AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
FARMING OF SQUASH IN MEXICO HEAVY RAINFALL
IN ASIA. FARMING STARTS IN ASIA. END OF FLOODS ACROSS
EGYPT FROM 13000 BC NEAR EAST.
WILD SHEEP AND PIG MANAGEMENT
9,500 BC EARLY POTTERY MAKING IN NORTH AFRICA 9,000 BC ?
JAPAN 9,000 BC JOMON PERIOD JAPAN. ART WORK ON CLAY
POTS FRANCE CAVE SITE,HERAULT.10 LAYERSOF HUMAN USE
15LATE NEOLITHIC 9000-2500 BC
LENTILS,PEAS AND CHICK PEAS FOUND. NEAR EAST FIRST TOWNS
AND VILLAGES APPEAR. POTTER IN USE IN NEAR EAST. COPPER
USE, ANATOLIA E.EUROPE FARMING IN THE BALKANS, EUROPE BLACK
SEA AREA POTERRY SPREAD TO SE. EUROPE
PERU 9,000 BC. HUNTER GATHERERS MAKE STONE TOOLS IN
PERU, SOUTH AMERICA.
USA CLOVIS HUNT BISON IN NORTH AMERICA.
CHINA MILLET FARMING IN NORTH CHINA
8,500 BC CHINA RICE FARMING IN SOUTH CHINA.
EGYPT, W. DESERT MUD PANS HUMAN NEOLITHIC USE.

8500-5000 BC. ABU BALLAS.
GERMANY. EPIPALEOLITHIC CULTURE.FLINT SCRAPERS, TANGED
POINTS. HUNTING CAMP.
8300 BC GLOBAL WARMING USA/CANADA
9,000 BC BISON HUNTED ON THE PLAINS OF NORTH AMERICA.
8,000 BC ? 8,000 BC WEST AFRICA NATIVE ARTISTS DO CAVE PAINT-
INGS.
EARLY NEOLITHIC NEAR EAST. 8000-2000 BC.
S.AFRICA ALBANY.LATE STONE AGE INDUSTRY POTTERY AT MEHRGATH,
PAKISTAN. FARMING,
DOMESTICATION. INDUS VALLEY CATTLE HERDING,SAHARA, AFRICA
?
AFRICA HUMAN FIGURES PAINTED ON ROCK IN NORTH AFRICA.
SETTLEMENT IN JERICHO WITH DWELLINGS BUILT. MUD BUILT
BUILDINGS IN WESTERN ASIA.
EUROPE SHELLFISH USE IN COASTAL TRIBES IN EUROPE AS FOOD.
167,500 BC. USA FIRST KNOWN CEMETERY FOUND IN ARKANSAS,
NORTH AMERICA
SOUTH AMERICA CERAMICS IN USE, AMAZON VALLEY
MAJOR CLIMATIC EPISODE THROUGH THE WORLD.
7,500-5,500 BC DRY AND WARM CONDITIONS MEXICO
7,000 BC. MEXICO. FARMERS GROW CROPS
CHINA PIGS DOMESTICATED IN CHINA.
N.AFRICA FISHING COMMUNITY ESTABLISHED IN SAHARA AREA,
N. AFRICA
W.ASIA FARMING STARTS IN WESTERN ASIA.
7,250-6,000 BC MIDDLE EAST. AIN GHAZAL, EAST BANK OF THE R.
JORDAN. LARGE SETTLEMENT.
AJUERADO PHASE ?
MEXICO PLASTER HUMAN STATUES.
6,000 BC GOATS AND CATTLE NOW DOMESTICATED.
7,000 BC CROPS GROWN IN MEXICO. EUROPE FARMING SPREADS
ACROSS EUROPE
IRRGATION CANALS IN MESOPOTAMIA. EGYPT
6,600 BC WHEAT AND BARLEY GROWN IN NILE VALLEY
6,500 BC. FARMING STARTS IN THE INDUS VALLEY S.
AMERICA CERAMICS IN USE IN NORTH COLOMBA.
FIRST CEREAL FARMING IS SOUTHEAST EUROPE
GRAIN CROPS GROWN IN PERU.
HOLY LAND METAL CASTING IN SOUTH LEVANT
6,300 BC BRITAIN FIRST FARMING IN BRITAIN.
6200 BC DRAINAGE OF LAKE AGASSIZ INTO N.ATLANTIC.
EUROPE USE OF CATTLE FOR PLOUGHING AND CART PULLING.
176100 BC STOREGGA LANDSLIDE
6,000 BC WOODEN HUTS BUILT IN EUROPE (VILLAGE)
N.AFRICA CATTLE DOMESTICATED IN SAHARA AREA
YAMS AND TARO CULTVATED, NEW GUINEA.
6,000 BC. UBAID 1 TURKEY FIRST TOWNS IN TURKEY TURKMENISTAN
6000 - 3000 BC. SETTLEMENT AND WALLED.CITY AND CEMETER-
IES.
POTTERY NEOLITHIC IN CHINA AND EAST ASIA
6000-2000BC. CHINA MILLET GROWN IN YELLOW RIVER VALLEY,CHINA
5,800 BC MESOPOTAMIA IRRGATION CANALS. DONKEYS USED IN
NILE AREA AS PACK ANIMALS.
5700 BC EGYPT TOWNS BEING BUILT.
5,500 BC MEXICO FARMING OFMAIZE/BEANS, MEXICO PANAMA
CERAMICS IN USE ECUADOR COAST/ PANAMA.
5550 BC BLACK SEA FLOOD. possible N Iraq.
BRONZE IN USE NEAR EAST
5300 BC EGYPT HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING STARTS. ?
MESOPOTAMIA PICTOGRAPHIC SIGNS EVOLVE INTO CUNEIFORM
SCRIPT
5200 BC. EUROPE WOOL REPLACED PLANT FIBERS. HORSE RID-
ING SPREADS
5,000 BC. CHINA JADE IMPORTED INTO THE YELLOW VALLEY,CHINA
FROM SIBERIA. EGYPT. OLD KINGDOM ORGANIZATION. ARABIA.
USE OF THE HORSE SPREADS IN ARABIA. GOLD IN USE, VARNA, BUL-
GARIA,
EUROPE EARLY COPPER AND METAL WORKING IN EUROPE.
POTATOES AND SUNFLOWERS, ANDES CHUMASH TRIBE USE FISH-
18ING AS A WAY OF LIFE,
CALF, NORTH AMERICA.
5000 BC SAHARA GREEN AND VERY FERTILE
5,000 BC FARMING ACROSS THE WORLD, NEW HUNTING AND GATH-
ERING
4860 BC MOUNT MAZAMA CALDERA ERUPTION.
DOMISTIC ANIMALS SEE 7,000 BC EGYPTIAN HISTORY AND AR-
CHAEOLOGY. EGYPT NEOLITHIC. BADARIAN CULTURE.
4800-4500 BC UBAID 2
MESOPOTAMIA. BAKED CLAY SICKLES, PAINTED POTTERY, FLAKED
CHERT HOES PERSIAN GULF TO COASTAL SYRIA IN THE NW. IRAQ
SETTLEMENTS AND TOWNS
Migration of Arattan and Summer tribes from the mountains. Migration 1
4600 BC ASIA INDUS VALLEY STATE ORGANIZATION, CITIES AND
TOWNS. INDUS SCRIPT IN USE.
EGYPT ROYAL TOMBS OF UR
4500-4000 BC UBAID 3 + 4 PAINTED POTTERY. BRONZE USE IN
EUROPE ARATTAN AND SUMERIAN MIGRATION TRIBES.
4400 BC. EUROPE CHARIOT USE SPREADS TO THE EAST AEGEAN.
PALACE CIVILIZATION
4000-3200 BC URUK SUMERIAN CULTURE see ubaid
BRONZE WORKING IN CHINA,
ERLITOU CERAMICS IN USE E. NORTH AMERICA AND MESOAMER-
ICA
4000-3000 BC. LOWER NUBIA EGYPT. A-GROUP CULTURE.LIVESTOCK
REARING AND RITUAL BURIAL
4,000 BC CHARIOTS IN USE IN THE NILE AREA
194000 BC PORTUGAL. ALGARVE. 13 CHAMBERED TOMBS WITH LONG
PASSAGE WAYS.
VAULTED CHAMBERS. CALLSID BEADS, AMBER PENDANTS,FLAT

AXES,DAGERS.
3850 BC METORITE SWARM
3900 BC EUROPE MINOAN SCRIPTS STARTED.
LINEAR A+ B MINOAN AND MYCENAEAN CIVILIZATIONS TO 3250
BC 3800 BC ANDES LLAMS USED AS PACK ANIMALS. WOOL FROM
ALPACAS
CHINA CITIES AND STATE ORGANIZATION.
3500 BC LATE URUK BRONZE USE THAIL BRONZE WORKING IN
EGYPT
MEXICO ABEJAS PHASE. TEHUACAN VALLEY
3500-1500BC MAIZE GROWING. ANATOLIA IRON WORKING STARTS.
CHINA CHINESE IDEOGRAMS.
LEVANT LINEAR ALPHABETIC SCRIPT DEVELOPMENT. ?
HITTITE HIEROGLYPHIC IN USE.
DYNASTIES AND KINGS OF ANCIENT EGYPT. EGYPT TOWNS AND
LOCAL KINGDOMS, UPPER NILE.
3250 -3050 BC 3250 BC
JEMDET NASR NAKADA 1 AMRATIAN CULTURE.
3200- 2990 BC JEMDET NASR IRON USED IN EUROPE
3150-3050 BC. ARCHAIC PERIOD PREDYNASTIC. KING SCORPION,
NARMER. EGYPT. MEMPHIS RELIGIOUS CENTER.
3100 BC NARNER PALETTE HIST RECORD
3090 BC HOR_AHA IN POWER EGYPT 3050- 2890 BC.
1ST DYNASTY. MEMPHIS CITY BUILT. MENES,AHA,DJER,DJET,DEN.
20Menes and Aha may well be one in the same. ENGLAND CAUSEWAY CAMP
BERKSHIRE. NEOLITHIC.
3200 BC THAMES VALLEY GRAVELS.
3050-2850 BC NAKADA 2 GERZEAN CULTURE IRON USE SUB SA-
HARA
3000 BC NEAR EAST HEBREW,PHOENICIAN,ARAMAIC AND SOUTH
ARABIAN SCRIPTS USED.
2900-2700 BC EARLY DYNASTIC 1 ED 1 2900 BC
2890-2649 BC EGYPT 2ND DYNASTY.
HOTEPSEKHEMWY, RE'NEB,NINETJER,PERIBSEN,KHASEKHEMWY,
Peribsen links himself to Set rather than
Horus. 2850-2781 BC NAKADA 3 DYNASTY 0
2800 BC STONE AGE IN BRITAIN. STONE STRUCTURES AND STONE-
HENGE
2800-2500 BC ETRUSCAN CIVILIZATION EUROPE GREEK ALPHA-
BET IN USE. TRANSMITTED LATER TO ETUSCANS AND ROMANS.
SOUTH AMERICA PERU. EARLY STAGES OF STATES IN PLACE
2700-2600 BC EARLY DYNASTIC 2 ED 2
2700 BC GREEK AND ETRUSCAN CITY STATES
2686-2181 2649-2575 BC OLD KINGDOM EGYPT ?
ZANACHT, ZOSER, SEKHEMKHET, KHABA, HUNI. ZOSER BUILT
STEP PYRAMID,SAQQARA.
2650 BC. PYRAMID BUIDING STARTS IN EGYPT FIRST STEPPED
PYRIMID STARTED FOR PHARAOH ZOSER
2600- 2340 EARLY DYNASTIC 3 ED 3 A 2600 BC
2600 BC ETHIOPIA ARABIAN ALPHABET ADOPTED. IRAN

2575-2465 BC EGYPT 4TH DYNASTY. 2570 BC BUILDING STARTS
21GAZA CHEOPS SNEFRU, KHUFU (Cheops), DJEDEFRE, KHAFRE (Chep-
hren, menkaure (Mycerinus) SHEPSESKAF. (PYRAMID AGE, GIZA AND
DAHSHUR)
ASIA
ASIAN SCRIPTS
2500 BC EUROPE URBAN DEVELOPMENT, N. ALPS, LA RENE CUL-
TURE.
EUROPE CLASSICAL GREEK . BUILDING OF PARTHENON
2500 BC INDUS CIVILIZATION AND WRITING IN USE. ?
IRON USE COMES TO CHINA
2470 BC THE PALERMO STONE RECORDS OF EARLY KINGS 2465-
2323 BC EGYPT.
5TH DYNASTY. USERKAF,SAHURE, NEFERIRKARE-KAKAI,SHEPSESKARE-
INI, NEFEREFRE,
NEUSERRE, MENKAUHOR,DJEDKARE-IZEZI,
UNAS. ED 111 B 2500 BC FIRST TOWNS IN SAHEL, AFRICA
2335-2323 BC ALEXANDER THE GREAT CAMPAIGNS.
2340-2159 BC DYNASTIC OF AGADE. SARGON 1, NARAMSIN, SHARKALISHARI
2323-2150 BC EGYPT. 6TH DYNASTY. TETI, PEPI 1, MERENRE, PEPI
2.
2280-2117 BC GUTIAN PERIOD ERRIDUPIZIR, ELULUMESH
2200 BC. MIDDLE JOMON PERIOD STARTS IN JAPAN.
2117 BC TIRIGAN
2200 BC CAMEL INTRODUCTION INTO SAHARA AFRICA

MEXICO. CITY OF TEOTIHUACAN DOMINATES MIDDLE MEXICO.
ASIA WATER BUFFALO USED FOR TRACTION SE ASIA
2112-2004 BC 3RD DYNASTIC OF UR URNAMMU, SHULGI, IBBISIN,
222025 1763 BC ISIN-LARSA PERIOD. ISBIERRA, DAMIKILISHU 2004 BC
ELAMITE CONQUEST
2200 BC ? MEXICO PICTORIAL WRITING IN MEXICO.
MAYA HIEROGLYPHS
2181-2940 BC EGYPT. FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD
2150- 2040 BC WARS MEMPHES GOV OVERTHROWN BY LOCAL
WAR LORDS
2150-2040 BC 7TH AND 8TH DYNASTY. Breakdown of central authority.
Re-established by mentuhotep.
2040-1991 bc 2 datess MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT. MIDDLE KINGDOM.
XLth DYNASTY. 1783 BC UPPER EGYPT THEBES MENTUHOTEP 2,
MENTUHOTEP 3, MENTUHOTEP IV.
1991-1783 BC EGYPT.
AMENEMHET 1, SENWOSRET (Sesostris) AMENEMHET 2,SENWOS-
RET 2, SENWOSRET 3 AMENEMHET 3, AMENEMHET 4, QUEEN NE-
FRUSOBEK. Internal strife during this time
2000 BC BIRTH OF THE MARI KINGDOM SYIRA TELL-HARIRI
2000 BC ALASKA INUITS SETTLE IN THE ARCTIC
CYPRUS. COPPER MINING.LINKS TO EGYPT.
EGYPT AND HITTITE EMPIRIES 14 c TURKEY ALACA HUYUK 160
MILES EAST OF ANKARA SETTLEMENT. WALLED TOWN.
ROYAL BURIAL GRAVES, GRAVE GOODS BRONZE OBJECT INLAID

WITH GOLD.
IRON DAGGERS,. POSSIBLE LINK TO THE BLACK SEA AREA ANA-
TOLIA SETTLEMENT. ASSYRIAN LINKS.
BRONZE AGE IN EUROPE
2000- 700 BC
231900 BC ROMAN EMPIRE PEAK.
PERU COPPER AND GOLD IN USE PERU. COPPER IN N.A.
1894-1595 BC OLD BABYLONIAN DYNASTY. SUMUABU,
1792 BC HAMMURABI,
1647 BC AMMISADUGA.
1894 BC 1800 - 1200 BC ANDEAN SETTLEMENTS IN PERU.
1890 BC WALL PAINTING OF MEN SEMITIES TOMB OF KHMUNHOTEP
1783-1550 BC with donkeys entering Egypt
EGYPT SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD.
1783-1550 BC.
1750 BC MARI KINGDOM FALLS SYRIA BABYLOIANOINS INVADE
1745 BC TEXT FOUND SOBEKHOTEB III EGYPT XIIIth-XVIIth DY-
NASTIES. WARS AND CONFLICT. 79 slaves named 45 were HYKSOS
MESOAMERICA CLASSIC MAYA PERIOD.
1700 BC EUROPE RUNIC ALPHABET DERIVED FROM ETUSCAN.
GERMANIC TRIBES INDIA. AHAR,RAJSTHAN,ARAVALLI HILLS. AHAR
1 SETTLEMENT
2500-1500 BC . COPPER IN THE ARAVALLI HILLS. BLACK AND WHITE
POTTERY. LARGE MUD BRICK AND STONE SETLEMENT. COPPER
SMELTING.
1600 BC KOREA +JAPAN CHINESE IDEOGRAPHS INTRODUCED.
1550-1070 BC. EGYPT. NEW KINGDOM
1550-1070 BC XVIII th DYNASTY
1550-1307 BC. EGYPT AHMOSE, AMENHOTEP (Amenophis 1),TUTH-
MOSIS 1 AND 2, THUHMOSIS 3 QUEEN HATSHEPSUT, AMENHOTEP (
Amenophis 2)TUTHMOSIS IV, AMENHOTEP 3 AMENHOTEP IV (Akhen-
aten), SMENKHARE, TUTANKHAMON,AY, HOREMHEB.
241520 BC THERA ERUPTION.
1500 BC SHANG DYNASTY STARTS IN CHINA
1380 BC. KNOSSOS LABTRINTH DISTRUCTION.
1307-1196 BC EGYPT. XIXth DYNASTY
1307- 1196. RAMESSES 1, SETI 1, RAMESSES 2 (Ozymandias) MERNEP-
TAH, SETI 2, AMENMEASE. SIPTAH, QUEEN TWOSRET.
1196-1070 BC. EGYPT. XXtH DYNASTY
1196- 1070 BC. SETHNAKHT, RAMESSES III, RAMESSES IV, RAMESSES
VII, RAMESSES VIII RAMESSES IX, RAMESSES X, RAMESSES XI. Inter-
nal breakdown, tomb robbery.
1100 BC 1070- 712 BC. EGYPT.
3RD INTERMEDIATE PERIOD
1070-712 BC XXIst DYNASTY. SMENDES, AMENEMNISU, PSUSENNES
1, AMENOPE, OSORKON 1,
SIAMUN, PSUSENNES 2.
1000 BC AFRICA
EARLY ORGANIZATION IN SOUTH AFRICA.
AKJOUJT, MAURETANIA AREA. COPPER MINE AND COPPER AR-

ROW HEADS IRAN ACHAEMENID TRIBE.
FROM PERSIAN TRIBES INTO IRAN 1000 >
BC. 945-712 BC EGYPT. XXIInd DYNASTY
945-712 BC LIBYAN. SHOSHENQ 1, OSORKON 2, TAKELOT 1, SHOSHENQ
2,OSORKON 3,TAKELOT 2,
SHOSHENQ 3, PAMI, SHOSHENQ 5, OSOKON 5. (Nubian kings have
control)
911 BC LATE ASSYRIAN ADADNIRARI 11, ASHURNASIRPAL 11, SHAL-
MANESER 111
25878-712 BC. EGYPT. XXIIIrd DYNASTY
878-712 BC NUBIA AND THEBES. PEDUBASTE 1, OSORKON IV, PEFT-
JAUWYBAST.
724-212 BC EGYPT. XXIVth DYNASTY, SAIS.
712-332 BC EGYPT LATE KINDOM
712-332 BC. SHEBAKA, SHEBITKU. TAHARQA, TANTEMANI.
712-657 BC XXVth NUBIA AND THRBES DYNASTY
712- 657 BC Assyrian invasions 667 and 664
BC 700 BC BRONZE AGE IN SE ASIA 700- 300 BC
TURKEY. AL MINA HARBOUR SETTLEMENT AT THE MOUTH OF
THE RIVER ORONTES
GREEK POTTERY, AND TRADE GOODS
664-525 BC EGYPT. XXVIth DYNASTY
664-525 BC SAIS. PSAMMETICHUS 1 (Psam-tik), PSAMMETICHUS 2,
APRIES, AMASIS, PSAMMETICHUS 3
526-525 BC. Return to old kingdom styles

612 BC. NEO-BABYLONIAN. NEBUCHADNEZZAR, NABONIDUS.
600 BC CORSICA TOMBS AND COLONY FOUNDED FROM PHOCAEA
IN TURKEY.
ETRUSCAN CULTURE. ETRUSCAN MATERIAL IN TOMBS SUGGESTS
STRONG ETRUSCAN LINKS.
589-100 BC GREEK SICILY AGRIGEN TO. GREEK COLONY AND CITY.
TEMPLES TO THE DORIC ORDER.
(Wine, olives)
559 BC PERSIAN CYRUS 11, DARIUS 1 525-404 BC PERSIAN XXVIIth
DYNASTY 525-404 BC PERSIAN.
CAMBYSES, DARIUS 1, XERXES 1, ARTAXERXES 1, DARIUS 2 Un-
26popular Persian domination
300 BC INDIA ALAMGIRPUR. STEELEMENT.
HARAPPAN. PAINTED GREY WARE.
200-BC TO 1000 AD MEXICO AHAULULCO STEELEMENT. SHAFT
TOMB COMPLEX. CEREMONIAL.
MIDDLE EAST.
168 BC SELEUCID KING ? ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES PUT UP STATUE
OF ZEUS JERUSALEM AND STARTED
THE MACCABEAN REVOLT. THE KING LOST THE BATTLE AND
THE MACCABEAN'S WON. THIS WAS NOW
KNOWN AS THE 'HASMONEAN PEROID OR DYNASTY' AND THE
HERO'S WERE MADE KINGS AND HIGH
PRIESTS.
THE ESSENES FOR A TIME WORKED WITH THEM BUT THEN TIED
TO GET BACK THE TEMPLE FOR
THEMSELVES. IT WAS AT THIS TIME THAT THEY WROTE THE
BOOK OF DANIEL. THEY WERE THEN SENT
INTO EXILE TO QUMRAN ON THE SHORES OF THE DEAD SEA. (
Dead sea scrolls written or imported)
UFO REPORTS WORLD WIDE 2015
NOTE; UFOS MANY AREAS OF AFRICA AND ASIA
HAVE NO REPORTS
? The complex was laid out in six circles and 1 ball court. 42,510 sq m
100 BC. OHIO,USA NATIVE AMERICAN COMPLEX ADENA POTTERY,
BURIAL GROUND 88 BC ESSENE WRONG IN THEIR CALCULATIONS.
THEIR NEW CALCULATIONS SAID THAT JERUSALEM WOULD FALL
IN 60 AD
2752 BC FRANCE SETTLEMENT. CELTIC IRON AGE OPPIDUM. COTE
d OR AREA. ROMAN LINKS ALSO
45 BC JULIAN CALENDAR IN FORCE ROME JULIUS CAESAR
44 BC MAGIANS MIDDLE EAST MAGIANS FORMATATION OF LIB-
ERAL ESSENES AND USED THE SOLAR
AND JULIAN CALANDAR'S
41-37 BC HEROD THE GREAT NOW KING OF ALL THE JEWS AND
HILLEL THE GREAT, A JEWISH SAGE,
HAS A SPIRITUAL INFLUENECE OVER THE KING.
CELTIC CHIEF Vercingetorix GRAVE GOODS
3-6 AD. AFRICA
AFRICAN RED SLIP WARE.(POTTERY) ARTWORK ON POTTERY.

FOUND IN BRITAIN AND THIS IS EVIDENCE OF EXPORT.(Olive Oil?)
79 AD VESUVIUS ERUPTION.
80 AD ANTHRAX SWEEPS THROUGH ROMAN EMPIRE. ? climate
change from here?
400 AD SILTING OF EUROPEAN HARBOURS.
541 AD JUSTINIAN PLAGUE.
600 AD. EASTER ISLAND POLYNESIAN PLATFORM (Ceremonial) of
stone slabs.
AHU MAY ALSO HAVE SUPPORTED HUMAN STONE STATUES (Moai)
600-1500
AD 1000 AD MILLENNIUM DISASTER.
1054 AD SUPERNOVA IN TAURUS. ?
1066 AD IST REPORT OF HALLEY'S COMET. ?
1120 AD WHITE SHIP SINKING.
1163 AD NETHERLANDS FLOODS.
2812th CENTURY AMPLEFORTH ABBEY CASE. UFO
1228 AD ZUYDER FLOOD.
1274-1281 AD KUBLAI KHANS FLEET DISTROYED BY TYPHOONS.
1333 + AD > THE BLACK DEATH SYNDROME.
1400 AD JAPAN. AINU TRIBE. HUNTER GATHERERS OF THE PAST
THAT TOOK OVER THE ISLANDS
HOKKAIDO (Japan) and SAKHALIN ( USSR (Russia). The hokkaido
tribal group have mixed over many years
of intermarriage with the Japanese. The language of 14 TO 18TH CENT
WRITINF ON UFOs the Ainu has no

known relatives.
1556 AD SHENSI EARTHQUAKE.
1663 AD PLAGUE IN EUROPE.
1703 AD GREAT STORM OF ENGLAND.
1703 AD EDO EARTHQUAKE AND FIRES.
1717 AD HALLEY WATCHED UNKNOWN UFO FOR TWO HOURS
1737 CULCUTTA DISASTER.
1755 AD. LISBON EARTHQUAKE
1762 AD SUNSPOTS OBSERVED IN SWIZERLAND
1777AD MESSIER OBSERVED UFO DISC IN FRANCE
1811-12 AD NEW MADRID (SPAIN) EARTHQUAKES.
1815 AD TAMBORA ERUPTION.
1820AD F,ARAGO 2 UFOS FRANCE
1824 AD GRUYTHUISEN MOVING LIGHTS ON MOON OBSERVED
UFOs
1831 AD WARTMAN UFOs observed for months,SWIZERLAND. BRIGHT.
1839 AD LANDSLIDE IN DORSET UK.
291841 AD THE MAELSTROM.
1841 AD MAJOR IRISH POTATO FAMINE.
1850AD W.MAUNDER GREENWICH OSER UFO
1859 AD STORM ON THE SUN. ? CARRINGTON REDHILL OBS 2
UFOS
1866AD E.TURNER EAST COAST US UFO
1868 ORBS AND BRIGHT RADCLIFF OBS OXON ENGLAND
1873 BONHAM TEX FORT SCOTT KAN UFO US

1880 KATTENAN GERMANY. UFO REPORT PERSIAN GULF SS PATNA.
UFO REPORTED
1883 AD KRAKATOA ERUPTION. ZACATECAS OBS MEXICO UFO
SIGHTED C. FLAMMARION HOVERING
UFO FRANCE
1886 AD CHARLESTON EARTHQUAKE.
1885 AD YELLOW RIVER (CHINA) CHANGES COURSE AGAIN.
1889 AD JOHNSTOWN FLOODS.
1890 AD CHINA SEA HMS CAROLINE UFO SIGHTING
1893 ADR. COULON VAL DE LA HAYE OBS BRIGHT UFO FRANCE
1896 CAFIF; NOV 1ST USA START OF GREAT AIRSHIP MYSTERY
1897 NEW YORK APRIL 30TH CONCLUSION OF AIRSHIP MYSTERY
1900 AD GALVESTON HURRICANE
1902 AD MONT PEL'EE ERUPTION.
1903 AD HEPPNER FLOOD.
1904 AD USS SUPPLY OFF CALIF; LARGE UFO WITH 2 SATELLITE
DISKS; FLEW UP AND AWAY.
1906 AD SAN FRANCISCO EARTHQUAKE.
1908 AD TUNGUSKA FIREBALL. SIBERIA UFO COLLISION AND EX-
30PLOADED OVER TREES
1909 NE COASTWORCESTER, MASS USA AIRSHIP SIGHTED
1910 CHATTANOOGA TENN. USA AIRSHIP SIGHTED
1911 AD YANGTZE FLOODS (CHINA)
1912 AD MOUNT KATMAI ERUPTION.
1913 EAST COAST SIGHTING FROM CANADA TO CARIBBEAN AIR-

SHIPS SIGHTED
1914 EUROPE GHOST SHIPS SEEN BY WW1 FIGHTER PILOTS FRANCE
1923 AD GREAT KANTO EARTHQUAKE.
1925 AD TRI STATE TORNADO. GROS VENTRE LANDSLIDES.
1926 AD MAUNNA LOA ERUPTION.
1926 AD HIMALAYAS. SILVER UFO SEEN TIBET
1926 AD MISSISSIPPI FLOODS.
1928 AD OKEECHOBEE HURRICANE.
1928 AD MILTON ND USA. UFO SEEN WITH FLASHING LIGHTS
1929 AD SUBMARINE LANDSLIDE NEWFOUNDLAND.
1931 AD YELLOW RIVER FLOOD (CHINA)
1932 DURHAM NY USA SILVER UFO WITH AMBER PORTHOLES
1933 AD SANRIKU EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI.
1935 ETHIOPIA AFRICA UFO SIGHTINGS OVER A FEW MONTHS
1936-1939 DUST BOWL DROUGHT USA.
1938B IRAQ BALL LIGHTENING ENTERED A BOAC AIRCRAFT EX-
PLOADED
1942 COLUMBUS MISS. USA 2 REDISH DISCS SEEN HOVERING OVER
BASE
1943 AD PARICUTIN ERUPTION. WASHINGTON DC USA UFOs OB-
SERVED BY POLICE OFFICER
311943-1945 'FOO FIGHTERS EUROPE OBSERVED BY MANY PILOTS
1944 JUNE AND JULY NORMANDY RED FIRE BALLS SEEN FOR 15
MINUTES ?
1945-46 ALL OF EUROPE MANY RED AND ORANGE UFOs OBSERVED.

MARCH PACIFIC USS DELAR OF DARK
UFOs SEEN RISE FROM THE SEA AND FLEW OFF NORWAY AND
SWEDEN MANY UFOs REPORTED FIVE
USA AIRCRAFT VANISH BERMUDA AREA
1946 ALEUTIAN EARTHQUAKE. NORWAY AND SWEDEN MANY UFOs
REPORTED 'GHOST ROCKETS'
1947 MOUNT HEKLA ERUPTION. JUNE 14TH RANKIN CALIF USA
BAKERFIELD 30 UFO's REPORTED
JUNE 21ST MAURY ISLAND TACOMA WASH. SIX UFOs OBSERVED
JUNE 23RD CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA
10 UFOs OBSERVED JUNE 24TH MOUNT RAINIER WASH USA 9 UF0s
OBSERVED JUNE 28TH LAKE
MEADE NAV USA 5 + UFOS OBSERVED
1947 MISSISSIPPI FLOODS. JULY 4TH BOISE IDAHO USA 9 UF0s OB-
SERVED PORTLAND ORE USA
UNKNOWN NUMBER OF UFOs OBSERVED. 2+?
1947 RIVER THAMES FLOODS UK
JULY 8TH DRY LAKE CALIF. USA 3 BRIGHT UFOs OBSERVED JULY
9TH BOISE IDAHO USA
BLACK UFO OBSERVED JULY 10TH PORT SUMMER NM USA BRIGHT
UFO SEEN. END OF JULY
1947 UFO SECURITY NOW VERY TIGHT ALMOST PANIC MODE
AUG 1ST.KELSO WASH. USA 2 USO
32KILLED DURING UFO INVESTIGATION?
1948 JAN 7TH FORT KNOX KY JAN-FEB EUROPE MANY GHOST

ROCKETS AND FIREBALLS REPORTED
1948 JAN 7TH FORT KNOX KY CAPT; THOMAS MANTELL KILLED
WHILE AFTER UFO APRIL
5TH WHITE SANDS N.M USA UFO SIGHTING SILVER COLOURED.
SUMMER GOOSEBAY LAB CAN.
RADAR TRACKING OF 9.000MPH UFO
JULY 23RD MONTGOMERY ALA USA CIGAR SHAPED UFO WITH
LIGHTS OBSERVED.
JULY 25TH AS ABOVE AS ABOVE
OCT 1ST FARGO ND USA FLAT UFOs SEEN
2 OCT 15TH JAPAN BULLET SHAPED UFO OBSERVED
NOV 1ST GOOSE BAY LAB CAN. SEE 639 6,000 MPH
UFO TRACKED DEC SW USA LARGE NUMBERS OF GREEN FIRE-
BALLS OBSERVED
1949 JUNE 10TH WHITE SANDS USA NM 2 UFOs HOVER NEAR MIS-
SILE. WHITE DISKS
AUG 20TH LAS CRUCES NM USA 8 UFOs OBSERVED IN AREA AU-
TUMN LOCATION SUPPRESSED 5 UFOs
on RADAR OBSERVED OVER ATOMIC PLANT
1950 DESERT SPREAD IN AFRICA. >
MARCH 8TH DAYTON OHIO USA USAF CHASE LARGE BRIGHT UFO
LOST IT IN CLOUDS.
1951 NORTH ITALY FLOODS.
1952 LYNMOUTH FLOODS.
1953 SEA FLOODS ON EAST COAST UK.

33SEA FLOODS IN THE NETHERLANDS.
1960 CHILE EARTHQUAKE.
1966 ARNO FLOODS.
1970 PERU EARTHQUAKES.
1970 BHOLA CYCLONE.
1973 HEIMACY ERUPTION.
INDUS FLOODS.
1974 CYCLONE TRACY. SWARM OF USA TORNADO'S.
HURRICANE FIFI.
1976 SHOEPAC SINKHOLES.
WAURIKA TORNADO. TANGSHAN EARTHQUAKE. FLASH FLOOD
BIG THOMPSON CANYON.
1978 IZU EARTHQUAKE.
1980 MOUNT ST. HELENS ERUPTION.
1983 BUSH FIRES IN AUSTRALIA.
1984 LAKE MONOUN DISASTER.
1985 MEXICO CITY EARTHQUAKE. NEVADO DEL RUIZ ERUPTION.
1986 LAKE NYOS DISASTER.
1987-89 DROUGHT IN THE USA.
1988 ARMENIAN EARTHQUAKE.
1989 EXXON DISASTER.
1991 MOUNT PINATUBO ERUPTION.
TYPHOON THELMA.
1992 HURRICANE ANDREW.
1993 MISSISSIPPI FLOODS.

1995 KOBE EARTHQUAKE.
1996 VATNAJOKULL ICE CAP ERUPTION.
341996 > START OF 10 YEAR DROUGHT IN AUSTRALIA.
1997-98 EL NINO.
1998 HURRICAME MITCH.
1999 IZMIT EARTHQUAKE.
MOORE TORNADO.
ALASKA FOREST FIRES.
CARACAS FLOODS.
2000 MOZAMBIQUUE FLOODS AFRICA.
2001 PERU EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI.
2003 HEATWAVE ACROSS EUROPE.
2004 ELK CREEK FLOODS.
BOSCASTLE FLOODS BOXING DAY
TSUNAMI ASIA
2005 HURRICANE KATRINA.
KASHMIR EARTHQUAKES.
2006 TYPHOON BILIS NORTH KOREA.
CHINA DROUGHT. T
YPHOON DURIAN
GLOBAL WARMING ALERTS.
2007
2008
2010
2012
2014
2015
2016
35Part I
NOTE; In this part of my

research above you can see that
many things are linked, a good few
are possible links and the storms
and UFO sightings seem to close
together to be explained away.
Part II
BIG BRAINS, SMALL BRAINS
AND GUESSWORK.
WHAT DID THEY SEE, THINK THEY SEEN AND EVIDENCE?
THE CODEX OF THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT.
RONNIE CARLETON.
2014
INTRODUCTION.
That is the trouble with some research be it in forensic anthropology. Biology, crime and
murder,wildlife and conservation, the researcher will upset someone, somewhere. It is human
nature or is it just sour grapes but my own experience of life is that people in the UK and
Ireland moan and grown more than they use to?
I did discover early in my research for this book that for some reason many people frowned
on
the very idea of even starting such because as one said to me , some things are better left
alone.
The person in question was a priest and I met him at a lunch where I was also a guest and we
got to talking about poetry and writing and the subject of the Voynich manuscript came up as
a topic. He listen to what I had to say then said what he did and I changed the subject.
Afterwards I thought, here was a detective story worth writing, plenty of forensics,
archaeology, forensic anthropology, history, hidden codexs that even the best crime writer
could not crack or make up. I loved the idea of the research before the writing but was a little
worried that the more I turned up the more people were going to be upset because not
everything in the Voynich manuscript was nice or straightforward and at times could turn out
to be nasty.
The stage was set, the ghosts of the past were assembled, in the shadows across Europe, the
Third Man or even a Forth Man was lurking, the Church threw a long shadow as always, and
you could hear whispers in Latin if you were in the right place at the wrong time, plots were
hatched, red herrings left everywhere, a body here, a body there, bodies everywhere maybe.
The research also had to look at the dead of past and present and I did.
Whoever wrote or added to the Voynich manuscript had reasons that so far was beyond most
people who picked it up and read it. It came across as all circles and roundabouts, a study of
botany, a sprinkling of witchcraft maybe, plants that could not be placed in a species tree but
may be mutants, and writing that somehow did not follow the rules. Everywhere there were
clues, but clues to what?
The writer of the MS had a reason or reasons for doing so and at times through my research I
thought that he or she or both were well out of their trees and had silver bells in their brains
and a blackness in their souls.
And yes, the paranormal does raise it's head and leaves more questions to be answered, if
answered they could be so I opened the door, took a torch and stepped into the Voynich
Manuscript for three years.For all that, it give me food for thought, it brought me places and
people that I had never met
but most of all, it brought me a much better understanding of life and death and so, I had to
write about what I discovered or not discovered in my own research.
The Human Mind is a mixture of currents and eddies, deep dark holes in a pool, beauty and
hope and light.
Ronnie Carleton (c) 2014. Walsall UK

CHAPTER ONE.
INTO THE VOID.
Description of the Manuscript
Introduction
The Voynich MS is a parchment codex in octavo, measuring 23.5 x 16.2 cm. Its thickness is
about 5
cm. It has a limp vellum cover (1) without any indication of its origin (year, title or author).
This
cover was added at a later date, probably in the 17th or late 16th century (2) and it has paper
end
leaves. Some annotations on the inside cover have been made by later owners.
The manuscript consists of 20 gatherings or quires which are bound to leather thongs. It
consisted
of 116 numbered folios of which 14 are now lost. The MS is written in an elegant, but
otherwise
unknown script and almost all pages of the MS contain illustrations of unknown plants,
constellations or systems of tubes transporting liquids and populated by tiny, pudgy 'nymphs'.
These
illustrations appear also to be unique to this manuscript.

In the following, first the composition (collation) of the MS will be looked at in detail, followed
by a
description of the illustrations and the script.
Some terminology
The Voynich MS is a book or codex which is composed of parchment leaves or folios
combined, for
the most part of the MS, into standard quires or gatherings. A standard quire consists of four
bifolia
which are stacked and folded in the middle to form 8 folios. Each quire is sewn into the codex
separately, at the combined fold. A standard Voynich MS bifolium is roughly 12 inches wide
and 9
inches high.
Each folio has two sides. The front is called recto (abbreviated 'r') and the reverse verso
(abbreviated
'v'). Each of these sides is what is usually referred to as a 'page'. Thus, a standard quire has 16
pages.
The notation to identify a page in the Voynich MS is the character 'f' (for folio) followed by
the folio
number, followed by 'r' or 'v', so the first quire starts with pages f1r, f1v, f2r, f2v, f3r, etc, and
ends
with f7v, f8r, f8v. The pages f1r, f1v, f8r and f8v together form one bifolium. The MS used to
have
at least 116 folios, and the last page of the MS is indeed f116v.
The Voynich MS once appears to have consisted of at least 20 quires, but two of these are now
lost.
Also, as seen in many medieval codices, a number of quires in the Voynich MS do not consist
of the
standard 8 folios. What is more unusual is that a relatively large number of bifolia is wider
than the
standard size. These have additional folds and consequently more than the normal four pages.
They
are referred to as fold outs. Many fold outs are bifolia with the width of three pages, but some
are
even four pages wide. Finally, there is one 18 by 18 inch bifolium which also has a horizontal
fold.
Foliation
Consecutive folio numbers were written onto the MS in the top right hand corner of each
righthand
page, with the foldouts folded in. This was clearly done after the codex was bound in its
current
form. The side of the leaf on which the folio number appears is not necessarily the recto side,
due to
the various different ways in which the foldouts have been folded in 3. There is one exception
to this rule, which is probably due to a change of the fold direction some
time after the numbers were written.
The question whether the folio numbers were written by the original author or scribe, or by a
later
owner of the MS is in my opinion for the moment, unknown.
When all foldouts are completely folded out, to the right of the binding one sees the recto sides
of
the folios. To the left are the verso sides (of the previous folio). If the folio nr is n, the recto
pages
are numbered left to right, fnr1, fnr2, etc. On the verso side (with the binding to the right) the
verso
pages are numbered right to left fnv1, fnv2, ...
The exception to this general rule is the pair of folios f85 and f86, which form the above
mentioned
multiplechoice with the horizontal folding crease.
Petersen's numbering
When the 1931 Petersen photocopy of the Voynich MS was made, all the foldout folios were
labelled in white ink on the negative in a hand other than Petersen's. These circled page
numbers
were used in the FSG computer transcription . The creases on foldout folios sometimes form
boundaries between distinct pages and sometimes do not. That is, continuous lines of writing
sometimes cross foldout creases.
Quire signatures
Quire markings are written on certain pages. It is not clear when or by whom these were
written.
They are indicated with an oldfashioned numeral followed by a 9 for Latin us, and sometimes
an
'm' in between. Quire markings 16 and 18 are missing, and since there are also missing pages
between quires 15 and 17 and between 17 and 19, the reasonable assumption is that these
quires
consisted of one bifolio each, which have been lost. Furthermore, since the folio numbering
also
shows gaps over these missing quires, the assumption is that at the time when the folio
numbers
were added, these quires were not missing?
Most quire marks are written on the last verso page of each quire, but there are exceptions.
In particular, quire 9 has the quire number in such a place that one could come to the
conclusion
that this singlesheet multiple foldout quire has actually been bound incorrectly into the MS.
Quire
20 has the quire number on the first recto page, for which no clear explanation can be found
so far.
Illustrations in the Manuscript
Almost all pages in the MS are decorated with illustrations. Illustrations of similar nature are
grouped together in the MS, and some single textonly pages are found among these. Based on
these
groups of illustrations, one may tentatively identify the following sections in the MS:
a herbal section, with drawings of plants, most of which are unidentifiable or even
phantasmagoria
an astronomical section, with illustrations of Sun, Moon, stars and zodiac symbols
a socalled biological section, which contains some bewildering "anatomical" drawings with
small human (feminine) figures populating systems of tubes transporting liquids
a cosmological section, with mostly circular drawings of an as yet unexplained nature
a pharmaceutical section, so called because it has drawings of containers, next to which
various small parts of plants (leaves, roots) have been aligned
a recipes section, which consists of many short paragraphs, each accompanied by the
drawing of a star in the margin
This main classification will now be described in more detail.
Herbal illustrations
Herbal pages typically contain one, in rare cases also two, pagefilling plant pictures with some
short paragraphs of text written to carefully avoid the drawings. This composition is very
similar to
that of manuscript herbals produced between late antiquity and the early Renaissance.
About half the pages are of herbal nature, namely Q1
Astronomical illustrations
Astronomical pages feature drawings of Sun and/or moon, and arrangements of stars. It is
sometimes hard to draw a clear line between astronomical and cosmological pages (see below).
The
twelve astronomical pages which have illustrations of the zodiac are called astrological.
Cosmological illustrations
The use of the term 'cosmological' for these pages was first introduced by Newbold.
Cosmological pages feature geometric designs which cannot be easily classified. Most of them
are
circular, with the notable exception of the abovementioned composite of nine connecting
circles.
Many cosmological illustrations are of circular design, and the abovementioned composite of
nine
connecting circles (with four smaller items on the corners) is also cosmological.
Astrological illustrations (zodiac signs)
The socalled astrological pages contain concentric circles with about 30 nymphs holding stars,
and
an emblem of a zodiac sign in the centre. The nymphs are similar to those drawn in the
biological
section.
Biological illustrations
Perhaps the most enigmatic section of the Voynich MS is the biological section which contains
drawings of human figures (mostly unclothed and female) in arrangements of pipes or vessels,
what
seem like baths or clouds. Many illustrations leave the impression of representing a chemical
(alchemical) or natural process.
The biological section comprises all of Q13.
Pharmaceutical illustrations
Collections of jars and parts of plants, such as individual leaves and roots.
Textonly with marginal stars

Some pages contain only text, with stars drawn in the margin. The stars may be coloured dark
of
light, and may have a tail. This section of the manuscript is at the end, and is also referred to
as the
'recipes' section, in analogy to some alchemical MS's.
Textonly
Some pages contain no illustration at all, but only text.
Missing pages
The following pages are missing from the MS:
12 cut out, stub still visible
5964, dropped out of, or removed from the quire centre, were said to be still available at
time of Newbold but I don't know if this is fact or fiction.
74 cut out, stub still visible. The question I ask is why?
Quire 16, probably consisted of 91 and 92 but we don't know for sure.
Quire 18, probably consisted of 97 and 98 and again we do not know.
109110 may have dropped out of, or removed from the quire centre. If removed who by and
why?
Text and script of the Voynich MS.
Most of the apparent text of the Voynich MS is written in a script that is not found in any
other
surviving document. Most of the text has been written in a linebyline manner, obviously from
left
to right and from top to bottom. Especially on the herbal pages it appears that the illustration
(or at
least its outline) was on the page before the written text, and the text carefully avoids these
illustrations. This text could be extra notes for ID or to enforce a point of the Author or
Authors that
came later.
The text seems to be composed of 'words' separated by spaces. Some of these words are very
frequent and may be found on most of the pages in the MS. Others occur only once in the
entire MS,
and in fact the word frequency distribution shows a continuum which is typical for normal
language.
In some places, single 'words' are written near elements of drawings. These have come to be
called
'labels'. Other, more complicated, pages contain (often circular) diagrams, and the text is
occasionally written along radii or circumferences of the circles. In various places, short
words or
even single characters in the Voynich script form what are called 'sequences'. Their meaning
is not
yet clear, but they deserve special attention. Unlike Alice in Wonderland, we are left with a
black
rabbit! History of research of the manuscript
Introduction.
The history of the Voynich MS is described in three parts, on three pages: However I urge
caution
here because even history can be wrong when it comes to dates, time and place as well as
people.
The origin of the manuscript, describing its creation, addressing the questions where, when,
who, how, how long etc.
The history of the manuscript, describing its path through space and time, after its creation
The history of the research and analysis of the MS
As this is a subdivision by topic, the three histories will overlap in time. This page addresses
the
third part, the history of the manuscript research and analysis.

The modern beginning, so called.
When Wilfrid Voynich first saw the manuscript, he immediately considered the 13th Century
Franciscan friar Roger Bacon as its possible author. He then embarked on a thorough study of
the
MS's history, in the hope of being able to prove this. While that would make the Voynich MS
an
incredibly important and valuable document in the history of science, a fact to which an
antiquarian
book dealer would not have been insensitive, it is apparent from the way in which he
performed his
search that he seems to have genuinely believed that Bacon was the writer of the Voynich MS.
I for the moment, am keeping an open mind on this but John Dee could also be a contender in
part.
We need, however, first to go back in time, as we now know that already centuries ago people
have
attempted to solve the puzzle presented by the Voynich MS.
The earliest research
The first evidence of attempts to crack the Voynich MS is presented on its first folio. In the
right
hand margin there is an apparently erased cipher table, which is only partly visible even
under UV
illumination. It has one column with the characters of the Latin alphabet, a second column
with the
characters of the Voynich MS aligned with the Latin alphabet, and a third column, slightly
more
displaced, with again the Latin alphabet, but shifted up by one position. The first attractive
idea
could be that this is the key to the MS, left here for us by its author, but as we know from
character
entropy analysis, the Voynich MS text cannot be the result of a simple substitution. Therefore,
this
table must be a decipherer's attempt, although Dr. Gerhard Strasser proposes an interesting
alternative, by which these are notes made by a later owner, who is creating his own code from
the
cipher alphabet of the Voynich MS. It is not certain when this cipher table was written, nor by
whom, but what little can be seen of the characters is not incompatible with the time frame of
Tepenec to Kircher. If it has indeed been erased at the same time as the Tepenec signature,
then perhaps it predates
Kircher as the erasure of the signature is more likely to have been done before the MS was
sent to
Kircher. Both Barbarous and Marci would be prime suspects here but I feel there may well be
others
yet uncovered.
Barschius.
Georgius Barschius wrote two letters to Kircher, the second of which has been preserved.
Both from
this letter, and from the Marci letter accompanying the Voynich MS, it is clear that Barschius
has
spent many years trying to read the Voynich MS. We know from his 1639 letter that he
thought that
the MS described medicinal wisdom from the Orient, brought to Europe by a traveller
however I
have found no evidence of such when it comes to the plant species, some unknown in Europe if
we
go by the art work only.
So that leaves two visions.

Leonhard Rauwolf, famous for his travels to the Orient, during which he collected plants
which he
dried and glued into his herbals. As described, Rauwolf's herbals were brought to emperor
Rudolf II
and sold to him.
It could be that Barschius had something like this in mind, when he formed his theory about
the
Voynich MS. Barschius was an alchemist, interested in its application to medicine.
Guesswork however is not evidence of what Barschius really knew about the origin of the
MS.
Marci writes in his letter to Kircher that he not only sends him the Voynich MS, but also
Barschius'
extensive notes of his work. These notes have not surfaced so far but there is no surprise there
and
could be lost or destroyed. Of course if the notes did survive, they may well give us more
information. We do not know at the time of writing if Kircher received and kept them, and if
he did
then one would think they would have been part of a collection confiscated by the Italian state
in
1873 and would now be preserved in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma. I would not
hold
my breath of anyone now seeing them outside of the Vatican or Rome unless you are a good
friend
of the Pope! They could well be in some private collection outside of Europe.
Mniovsk
We know from Marci's letter that Rafael Mniovsk discussed the possible origin of the
Voynich
MS with Marci, and this must have taken place before October 1644. Philip Neal even
interprets the
translation of the Marci letter to indicate that this should have been between 1626 and 1636.
Barschius would have been still alive, so still the owner of the MS. Mniovsk states the
opinion
that the Voynich MS is a Roger Bacon MS. Was this also the opinion at Rudolf's court? We
don't
know, but it is certain that Roger Bacon was held in the highest esteem at this time, and
considered
one of the greatest alchemists. Mniovsk was, according to his own words, deeply interested
in
alchemy, and certainly a great supporter of the Polish alchemist Sendivogius. On saying that,
John
Dee's ghost lurks in the shadows in Europe, England and maybe even Wales.
Marci
I have no information about any research by Marci on the Voynich MS. We just know that he
held
on to the MS between the time of Barschius' death and his own serious decline in health, when
he
ultimately sent it to Kircher. From the letters of Godefrid A. Kinner we know that Marci was
extremely eager to find out what Kircher thought of the MS. He must have been aware of the
two
different theories of Barschius and Mniovsk, and writes in his letter to Kircher that he does
not
want to express an opinion about it. That is because he had no idea where to start.Kircher
Kircher's complete silence about the Voynich MS has puzzled many including myself. Like he
comes across as the Man of the Moment but I have doubts here about his claims.
The Czech historian Josef Smolka discovered Kircher's reply to Barschius' first (now lost)
letter.
In a letter from Kircher to Theodor Moretus dated 12 March 1639, and now preserved in
Moretus'
scientific diary kept in the National Library in Prague.
Kircher responds to a letter from Moretus and writes about unknown symbols from a book
surrounded by mystery which Moretus sent to him in his letter. Kircher reports that he was
not
successful in translating it, but is still hoping for success later on. He recognises a similarity
with
certain IIIyrian characters.
I have worked out from Barschius' second letter that he had his first letter sent by Moretus,
and now
we see that Kircher responded to Moretus directly, some six weeks before Barschius sent his
second
letter. Evidently, the two letters crossed, and probably no further correspondence took place
on this
topic. The Illyrian writing Kircher refers to is most probably the Glagolithic script, which also
Bennett mentioned in the 1970's.
The 20th century
After Voynich discovered the MS, he set into motion a proper campaign to find out more
about it,
and he contacted many experts. Kahn names in this respect: palaeographer H. Omont of the
Paris
Bibliothque Nationale.
Prof. A.G. Little, a foremost authority on Bacon, a Harvard authority of anatomy, George
Fabyan of
the Riverbank Laboratories, the vice president of the Royal Astronomical Society in London,
'even'
Cardinal Gasquet, prefect of the Vatican Archives. Almost certainly these and others tried to
solve
the codex. When the manuscript was first shown to expert cryptologists, they thought that
solving it
would be easy as the text was composed of "words", some of which were more frequent and
occurred in certain combinations. This soon turned out to be a mistake; the text could not
easily be
converted into Latin, English, German or a host of other languages. In other words, it came
across to
those in the know and known as 'experts' as gobblegook so many of them threw their hands
up in
the air looked to the skies and muttered something like, I can't, you can, sort it!
Newbold and Manly
In 1919, some of the reproductions of the Voynich MS reached one William Romaine
Newbold, a
professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. I am always cautions about
reproductions
so be warned. He set to work and decided that the Voynich MS is based on a very complicated
cipher, involving anagrams of sections of 55 to 110 characters. He presented plain text
solutions of
various pages of the MS, indicating that it was written by Roger Bacon, and that Bacon had
invented
and used both a telescope and a microscope. He presented these results in April 1921,
accompanied
by Wilfrid Voynich's own presentation of the history of the MS. In 1926 Newbold died, and
the
book that he had planned to write was published posthumously by his friend Roland Grubb
Kent, in
1928. His results were supported by such famous people as tienne Gilson and Raoul Carton.
Among others, Newbold identified one page of the MS as a depiction of the great Andromeda
nebula. The illustration shows a clear spiral structure and the deciphered text includes words
referring to a spiral in the sky. The problem is that the spiral structure of this nebula can only
be
distinguished by modern telescopes so there lies another puzzle.In 1931 John Manly wrote a
critical paper about Newbold's theory as one tends to do, exposing its
important weaknesses. Newbold did not use the letters of the Voynich MS itself, but the
irregularities of the edges of the letters as seen under a magnifying glass, which he converted
to
letters. The unreliability of such a solution based on anagramming was however the most
important
objection as Manly saw it. Newbold and all those who followed his belief were essentially
disgraced
and this has had the effect of scaring off most serious researchers from the Voynich MS.
NOTE; Manly also left a statement that the solution of the Voynich MS is a relatively simple
substitution cipher with extensive use of nulls. It has not been understood what he meant.
The Catholic University of America.
In 1931, Mrs Voynich brought a photostatic copy of the MS to Prof. H. Hyvernat of Catholic
University. Enter the Church through a hidden door and more whispers in Rome.
Hyvernat was a wellknown expert on nearEastern languages. In 1910 he had discovered a
major
collection of Coptic Manuscripts, and he had since been engaged in a major effort to ensure
that the
collection could stay together, rather than be scattered in different libraries all over the world.
The Piedmont Morgan library in New York was found willing to purchase the entire
collection, and
as Wilfrid Voynich was also dealing with this library on a regular basis, and has corresponded
with
Hyvernat on the subject of other MSs. Hyvernat and his assistant, one Fr. Theodore Petersen,
were
immediately attracted to the problem presented by the MS. Prof. Hyvernat was too busy (and
he also
suffered from serious health problems) to spend much time on it. Fr. Petersen was not.
Theodore C. Petersen
Fr. Petersen started by making a complete photocopy of the photostats. He then embarked on
the
project of making a hand copy of the Voynich MS, using also the original MS kept in a safe
deposit
vault in New York, in the case of difficult passages. He completed it in 1944. Each page of this
transcription includes comments about what it might represent. He also indicates odd
character
sequences and highlights frequent words. He includes many tentative plant identifications in
the
herbal section, using especially material by Holm and O'Neill. He has also made a complete
concordance of the words in the MS, but where it is I never found out.
Petersen worked on the Voynich MS until his death, but apart from the many notes on his
hand
transcription, no theories or conclusions have survived. At his death, his material was given to
Friedman and an inventory was made by Tiltman.
Theodore Holm
A Danish botanist and zoologist who worked at the Catholic University and identified 16
plant
species, all typically European. Quoted frequently in the hand transcription of Petersen.
Hugh O'Neill
Benedictine monk and botanist at the Catholic University who identified some plants as being
New
World species. He is also quoted frequently in the hand transcription of Petersen.

As for the New World species that has been suggested we will get to the plants later in my
research.
Below are names of other 'players' who worked on the codex and their comments if any are of
interest. Some other scientists and historians
Erwin Panofsky
The famous Renaissance Art (in particular Albrecht Drer) expert Panofsky (1892 1968)
suggested
that the MS is from about 1470 and stated his opinion that it originates from Germany. The
first
report we have from Panofsky is that he was requested to answer a list of 15 questions.
Following is
a summary of the questions and answers with my comments where needed.
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Have you examined the VMS itself?
1931
What is it written on; with what writing tool?
Parchment of some sort, not sure if vellum in the strict sense. Quill pen; colouring done with
"wash".
Q:
What's the date?
A:
Q:
A:
But for the sunflower, would have guessed 1470. "However, since the style of the drawings is
fairly provincial, a somewhat later date, even the first years of the sixteenth century, would
not
seem to be excluded. I should not go lower than ca. 15101520 because no influence of the
Italian Renaissance style is evident."
Why do you think so?
Character of the script, style of drawing, such costumes as are in evidence on certain pages,
for example folio 72 recto.
Q:
What's it about?
A:
"...first, a general cosmological philosophy explaining the medicinal properties of terrestrial
objects, particularly plants, by celestial influences transmitted by astral radiation and those
"spirits" which were frequently believed to transmit the occult power of the stars to the earth;
second, a kind of herbal describing the individual plants used for medical and, conceivably,
for magic purposes; third, a description of such compounds as may be produced by combining
individual plants in various ways."
As you can see we are now in the paranormal stage of what I call, suggested links to the John
Dee philosophy, but for the moment neither fish nor fowl in make up with evidence.
(Carleton 2014)
Q:
Are there any plain text books sort of like the VMS?
A:
Q:
Herbals, cosmological and astrological treatises, medical treatises in the narrower sense of the
term, and 4th, alchemy books.
What plain text have you found in the VMS? A:
folio 70 ff in zodiac signs, f 66, and on f 116 v. On f. 66, R. Salomon says "der mus del" which
is the same as "der Mussteil" which means the stock of household goods which cannot be
withheld from a mans widow on his death. On f 116v, "so nim geismi co o", meaning, "... take
goats milk, or..."
Q:
What plants, astronomical, etc, things have you recognized?
A:
Only sunflower.
Q:
Is it all in the same hand?
A:
Except for last page, all in same hand, but not 100% sure.
Q:
Why was it written?
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
Doctor or quack imparting secret knowledge to son or heir. ( Now he is guessing)
Carleton 2014
Where & when?

Germany. (No real evidence for this statement.) Carleton 2014.
What do you think of the Roger Bacon theory?
Quatsch. "At variance with all the available facts..." (But not evidence as such. Carleton 2014)
Full title of the Dictionary of Abbreviations. Title of Hans Titze's book on forgeries, & of
Mibillon's history of diplomatics.
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
A:
Adriano Cappelli, Diziionario delle Abbreviature Latine ed Italiane. Titze, Genuine and False:
Copies, Imitations, and Forgeries, New York, 1948. Mabillon, De re Diplomatica, 1681.
What other scholars are interested in the VMS?
Only Richard Salomon. (This in fact is not true. ) Carleton 2014
What do you think of the artificial language theory?
Not much: dates are wrong. Maybe Alberti's interest in hieroglyphics was relevant.
As recorded in his answer to the first question, Panofsky saw the MS in 1931 and we are lucky
that
this event has been recorded in the letters of Anne Nill.
She [Miss Belle Greene of the Morgan library] mentioned the Kulturwissenschaftliche
Bibliothek Warburg at Hamburg which, according to her, is a perfectly amazing hotbed
of learning. She seemed to feel that if they cannot help us noone can. Of course that
doesnt follow. Well, the upshot of it was that a certain Dr. Erwin Panofsky of that
institute is at present in New York and Miss Greene. So Mrs. Voynich met him at the
Morgan Library where she showed him the photostats (note that they are negatives and
now in poor condition, having greatly faded in some parts). He became intensely interested
and seemed to think the MS. early, perhaps as early as
the 13th century. He asked to see the original, which we showed to him last Friday. His
first impression was that it was early, but as he came to the female figures (in
conjunction with the colors used in the manuscript) he came to the conclusion that it
could not be earlier than the 15th century! The more I think of it (always making
allowance for my slender knowledge of art) the more I think that his contention is sound.
I cannot think of a single early MS. or painting which contains such shapely female
figures as those in the MS. Furthermore he is convinced that the MS. is Spanish (or
something southern near Spain) and shows strong Arabic and Jewish influences. He
thinks there is some influence of the Kabbala in it.
Well, all that would make it interesting, anyway. You know both Professor Thompson
and Professor Manly have been suggesting Spanish for some time (thought there might
be something Lullian in it). Early 15th century would make it too late for Lull, but it
might easily have something Lullian in it. Dr. Panofsky examined the two more or less
visible sentences (one on the key page and one on page 17 which are apparently not in
cipher and seemed to think they were Spanish rather than Latin (or rather something that
had to do with Spanish). I am inclined to think he is right. He also noticed, what I am
pleased to say I had noticed before, that the names of the months written in the plates of
the signs of the Zodiac, and undoubtedly by a later hand, seem to suggest Spanish. For
example April is written Abril. October is Octembre (or Octember I forget which),
which certainly suggest some form of Spanish, rather than Latin or French or Italian.
The upshot of it is that we have given him a whole set of photostats for his institute, as
he wants two men there to work on it. One of them (I think Professor Salomon or
Liebeschutz) it seems identified some remarkable Vatican manuscript (written in a

senseless sort of Latin if I remember rightly) which had defied scholars for a long time.
In conclusion, Panofsky first thought the MS to be Spanish, with Arabic influences, and later
changed his opinion that it could be German. He believed the origin to be in the 15th Century,
but
allowed a later date in consideration of the work of O'Neill and Brumbaugh.
( The facts of the matter and stand out like a sore thumb is that they don't know and a good
lot of
guesswork has gone into it all but not evidence of any sort. Carleton 2014)
Richard Salomon
Salomon (1884 1966) was one of the people involved in the founding of the Warburg Institute,
and
knew the younger Panofsky through this connection. They became close friends. From
D'Imperio
and Panofsky we know that he suggested the following reading of some phrases in the Voynich
MS
(which are in the Latin alphabet):
Charles Singer
Herbal expert. He compared the nymphs in the biological section to elements (archaei) in the
work
of Paracalsus. (I am of the opinion that some of the nude drawings were done first and then
and only
then, text of a sort added later. Carleton 2014) Other
researchers.
Feely
In 1943, a Rochester (N.Y.) lawyer, Joseph Martin Feely, published a book in which he
announced
his solution of the Voynich MS. His solution essentially proposes that the Voynich MS text
results
from a single substitution of highly abbreviated Latin. He does not say so specifically, but
hints that
the writer of the Voynich MS is indeed Roger Bacon. It is worth noting that Feely never
obtained
access to copies of the MS and had to work from illustrations in Kent & Newbold.
To quote D'Imperio:
Unfortunately for Feely, however, no other student has accepted his solution as valid
And she also quotes Tiltman (p.6):
His unmethodical method produced text in unacceptable medieval Latin, in unauthentic
abbreviated
forms.
Some examples of his results are also given in D'Imperio.
Script
Substitution
Meaning
okeedldlo FEMMININO feminine
okeedy FEMMIN feminine
daraloCThy ISTSNF(UNDU)(NTR) istis infunduntur
deeedaly IMMCISN(NTR) immiscuntur / imcistinantur
okaral FESTSN festivi sunt
Strong.
Prof. Leonell C. Strong was a medical scientist from Yale University and became attracted to
the
Voynich MS by O'Neill's publication. Working from illustrations in Newbold's book of a few
pages,
he devised a complicated poly alphabetic substitution cipher in which he saw the solution of
the
MS. The details of his system were not disclosed and can only be partly reconstructed. His
work
sheets and correspondence were once available on the web. He concluded that the MS was
written
by Anthony Askham, the lesser known brother of Roger Askham. Some of his plain text,
which has
been heavily criticised as being unrealistic, is given here:
When skuge of tun'e bag rip, seo uogon kum sli of se mosureissued pedstans skubent,
stokked kimboelbow crawknot.
Some problems with this solution are:
It heavily depends on a correct reading of the MS text. Any single transcription error
changes the entire reading. This means that the probability of the above solution being
correct is small.
The repetitive structure of the Voynich MS text is not at all explained. Different words or
parts of words of the plain text are translated to the same code 'by chance'.
The name of the proposed author (Askham) is read from the deciphered plain text so also this
must
be taken with some caution. There are still students of the Voynich MS who support and
further
explore the solution proposed by Strong.
( Why I don't know as it will not be going anywhere to help research. Carleton 2014)Child
Proposed a solution based on a Nordic language.
William and Elizabeth Friedman
The involvement of especially William Friedman with the Voynich MS has been the subject of
dedicated publications, most recently by J. Reeds. This short summary cannot do justice to
Friedman's work.
William F. Friedman (18911969) is remembered as one of the world's foremost cryptologist.

He
already became involved with the Voynich MS when, together with Manly, he demonstrated
the
invalidity of Newbold's theory. Apart from the fact that he spent some time on the MS himself,
he
also tried very hard to interest other scholars in it. In 1944 he brought together what later
became
known as the First Study Group (FSG). During his work with them, he developed the theory
that the
Voynich MS represented a text in a synthetic language.
John Tiltman
John Tiltman was a British intelligence specialist, working in association with William
Friedman.
The latter asked Tiltman for his opinion on the Voynich MS text, and sent him copies of the
final
quire of the MS. Friedman and Tiltman independently came to the same conclusion, that the
MS
text appears like an early example of an artificial (constructed) language.
Tiltman published his findings in an interesting article. He also wrote about the work done by
Theodore Petersen.
The 1970's
In the 1970's a revival of Voynich MS studies may be observed, with a variety of researchers
approaching the problem from many different aspects.
Robert S. Brumbaugh
Brumbaugh, professor of medieval philosophy, became interested in the Voynich MS during
the
'30's, and was particularly fascinated by O'Neill's publication about the American plant
species. He
became a follower of the hypothesis that the MS was a deliberate fraud by Dee and/or Kelly in
order
to dupe emperor Rudolph II, but that there was an underlying text which he tried to decipher
with a
code which maps all Roman characters onto the numbers 09, and these were mapped onto
the
Voynich MS alphabet.
Using this system, Brumbaugh published solutions of some plant labels and of many of the
zodiac
labels. D'Imperio is quite supportive of Brumbaugh's theories, but despite the multiple
degrees of
freedom in his cipher, the produced plain text is anything other than convincing it seems by
many
other researchers.
William Rolph Bennett
Bennett, another Yale professor, used the Voynich MS in a book about problem solving with
the
computer. Rather than presenting a theory about the meaning of the Voynich MS, Bennett
concentrated on the statistics of the text and finding measures of its properties. He was
probably the
first to note the low entropy of the Voynich MS text, which is discussed extensively in the
analysis
section of this web site. The only language he found with an entropy similar to the Voynich MS
was Hawaiian, without
suggesting a connection, though. He also mentioned the similarity of some characters to the
Glagolithic script, a view expressed already in the 17th Century by Athanasius Kircher as I
stated
early on.
Mary E. D'Imperio
Mary D'Imperio was introduced to the problem of the Voynich MS by John Tiltman in 1975,
and in
the following years she wrote a monograph, summarising all recorded work about the
Voynich MS.
For thirty years this has been the standard reference for the Voynich MS, and it is still the
most
quoted work about it. She also wrote several papers about different features of the MS text.
Prescott Currier
His landmark presentation in 1976 is available.
Alfred Werner
Quoted in Blunt and Raphael, p.89.
A.G. Watson
Identified foliation on Voynich MS to be in the hand of John Dee (but this is still contested by
other
Dee experts).
John Stojko
Stojko proposed in a book published in 1978 that the Voynich MS is a copy of a series of
letters
written in Ukrainian. These letters were encrypted by removing all the vowels and writing the
consonants in a secret alphabet. Following is an example of a letter, decrypted into Ukrainian
and
then translated (literally) into English. (Folio f15v):
1. Why are you measuring the measure? The measure is the same. Even after Great One, the
bones will be broken. I am telling you. Relic should believe me.
2. Where after religion you believe in religion and wish that to Ora. Emptiness is that what
Baby God's Eye is fighting for.

3. Eye of God, you are measuring empty religion for the world. Your aim, not religion, is
living
in you.
4. Eye, be careful. You should remember one holy freedom and eternal conscience.
The main reasons why Stojko's solution is finding little acceptance are:
The background history presented by Stojko deviates considerably from the generally
accepted history of the Ukraine. According to that, such letters could never have been
written.
The text of the letters does not relate to the illustrations on the pages of the MS.
Probably most importantly, the plain text is generated by introducing vowels and word
spaces
quite arbitrarily. Word spaces in cipher text and plain text are mostly unrelated. This leaves a
lot of freedom to the decipherer, and the plain text is not of such a nature as to appear
immediately as the right solution, or in fact to merit any form of encryption. Leo Levitov
Levitov proposed a pronunciation for the characters of the Voynich MS which leads to a
largely
pronounceable text, which he claims is in a creole mainly based on Flemish. His translation of
this
text deals with a Cathar cult of Isis followers, and rites related to Euthanasia. He published
his
results in a monograph. The linguistic aspect has been contested by Jacques Guy, and the
differences with the known practices of the Cathars in S.France have been analysed by Dennis
Stallings.
Modern research
Since 1991, a group was set up from a variety of backgrounds have informally tackled the
problem
of the decipherment, throwing at it the computer resources available nowadays. After a flurry
of
electronic mails via a Usenet newsgroup, the first ftp site dedicated to the MS was created by
Jim
Gillogly, with a mailing list which still exists, even though it has moved a few times before it
settled
down in the new home, wherever that may be today?
The main initial activities of this new group were to obtain access to a good copy of the MS
and to
continue / complete the transcription of the MS. With respect to the former, on 1 June 2004
the
Beinecke library has made available a nearly complete highquality digital colour scan of the
MS.
Further transcriptions of missing pages in the Currier / D'Imperio files were made by the
group, and
Reeds discovered the almost complete transcriptions made by Friedman's study groups, in the
George C. Marshall Library and Archives in Lexington, Virginia. These were entered in
computer
form by J.Reeds and J.Guy.
In 1995, the herbal expert in medieval herbals Sergio Toresella inspected the MS at the
Beinecke
library and wrote, in an article concerned with 'alchemical herbals'that the Voynich MS
appears to
be written in a script fitting with the Italian humanist book movement, and should therefore
be dated
around 1460, and not much later. He also suggests that the purpose of the book was to impress
the
gullible clientle of a doctor or quack.
Individual members of the Voynich MS mailing list have performed a multitude of analyses of
the
MS but in my opinion there is a number of ways to cook an egg and all of them right.
Gordon Rugg
A proposed solution to the Voynich MS, which attracted a lot of attention in the press, was
developed by Gordon Rugg in 2003. Based on statistical analyses done in the late 90's and
early
years of the 21st century by the Brazilian Jorge Stolfi, the English scientist has proposed that
the
Voynich MS text could well have been generated more or less randomly by techniques which
would
have been available in the 16th Century, and points in particular to Edward Kelly as the
perpetrator
of the implied hoax. Kelly I should point out was a friend of John Dee's in the bad old days.
The proposed method consists in the use of a Cardan grille and a set of sheets with word
fragments
or syllables. The major problems with this are that:
the method so far fails to reconstruct any real section of the text of the MS
chronologically, Kelly and the Cardan grille are too late in view of the radiocarbon dating of
the MS
There is, however, an important aspect which lies at the basis of Gordon Rugg's theory. This
relates
to the question why the solution to the Voynich MS has not yet been found. Rugg's answer to
that
question is that all analysts are making a number of assumptions, and these assumptions are
prohibiting them from finding the answer.
In other words, the researchers want to be first to crack the codex which so far they have
failed to do
(2014) and in this process left a lot of red herrings lying around and not always by design!
More specifically, essentially everyone assumes that the MS text is meaningful and can be
deciphered. While Rugg's solution hasnt been accepted, this understanding of hidden or
unstated
assumptions is certainly very important. What if it is in fact a paper Folly? The Voynich MS
may
very well have no meaningful content, either deliberately by it's author/authors, or because
its
meaning was lost in the process of its creation and of course if it had meaning, lost in
translations as
is often the case.
Astronomical events
Robert Teague has developed a theory whereby he connects several illustrations in the
astronomical
part of the MS with celestial events taking place in the 16th Century. He has especially
concentrated
on comet events, and the path of the moon through the Pleiades, which would appear to be
represented on F3.
Nick Pelling
Nick Pelling presented his theory about the authorship of the Voynich MS in his book: The
Curse of
the Voynich. Rumour has it that there will be a second, revised, issue of this. Based on details
in the
illustrations of the Voynich MS, in particular the rosettes folio, he believes that the MS
originates
from Milan, around or shortly after the middle of the 15th Century. As author he identifies
the
architect Antonio Averlino, based on details of his life. Beside this theory, Nick presents many
detailed and important observations about the MS itself, related to the writing and to the
composition of the codex.

Andreas Schinner
Important statistical analyses were performed by the Austrian mathematician Andreas
Schinner,
which were published in Cryptology. The results suggest that the text of the Voynich MS is
probably
meaningless. This work has received some media attention due to its relation with the work of
Gordon Rugg, but due to its complicated nature it has not yet been properly understood or
assessed
in Voynich MS circles. Again I should add is because too many people are finding clues and
seeing
ghosts that are not really there and if John Dee was alive today he would be smiling and
shaking his
head.
Edith Sherwood
The retired Ph.D. in chemistry Edith Sherwood has performed a number of analyses on the
Voynich
MS, which she presents as her theory that the Voynich MS was written by a young Leonardo
da
Vinci, her identification of most of the plant drawings in the MS, and a possible solution to the
text.
Rich SantaColoma
Based on the striking likeness of the containers in the pharmaceutical section with earliest
microscopes, Rich has first developed the theory that the Voynich MS was written by one of
the
earliest microscope developers Cornelius Drebbel, either by himself, or in collaboration with
Francis Bacon. This theory also takes into account the phantasm style of the Voynich MS
drawings,
which he links to the idea of an imaginary world as in Francis Bacon's "New Atlantis". More
recently, he also seriously considers that the Voynich MS was 'faked' by W. Voynich, finding
evidence how 15th C parchment could have been available for such an enterprise.
Diane O'Donovan
Diane O'Donovan believes that the imagery in the manuscript shows the Voynich to be a
collection
of extracts gained from considerably older sources, chiefly Hellenistic. She believes that this
material was copied in the fifteenth century. Her analysis refers only to the imagery; no
opinion is
offered on the written text. The day a woman does not have an opinion is the day Hell will
freeze
over and more so on this type of research. Of course she had an opinion but did not voice it
which is
a pity.
In chapter two I will lay out the MS canvas as part of my new research and with I hope,
informed opinions that can shed more light on the MS subject and the people involved with it.
Keep in mind that money was involved and maybe cover up's but also keep in mind that
someone had something to gain from it all.
Not everything is what it seems and what it seems to be to the observer, is not everything.
Carleton 2014
CHAPTER TWO
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

It is said that Wilfrid Vonnich was born on the 31st of October 1865 in Kovno but it
was more than likely Telschi in Kovno. There is more than a slight fog to where in fact he was
born and his birth name was Michal Wojnics and he later changed to'Wilfrid' because of his
underground political activity but I discovered his hidden middle names as 'Habdank' which
could have linked him to a far off Polish family clan. That would explain why when he
travelled in Europe he could have been known as 'Count Vonnich' and he may have used in
his
business dealings.
I could find next to nothing about his childhood but as a teenager he had enough education to
get him excepted into Moscow University where he gained a degree of sorts in Chemistry.
Later he became a member of the Polish Nationalist movement which had aims to free Poland
from Russian Rule. He did get involved in trying to free two of the Nationalist movement
members who were due to be shot as they had been condemned to death. So they still were
shot and he was nicked by the Russians and sent to prison in 1885 without any form of trail
and was locked away from the world in a small cell for two years. A good clue to his age at this
stage which was 20 years and two months. His time in prison did not help his health with a
deformity which had one of his shoulders higher than the other. There would be no doubt at
all that under Russian rule and control, Voynich would have had a hard time in prison and
would have had the title today as a 'terrorist'. In those days there were only two options for
such a terrorist, being shot dead or sent to Siberia. Poland and Russia was not a stable place
to live and high risk if you spoke or acted in anyway out of turn.
Europe at this time was in revolt, at least in thought rather than deed but in Poland and
Russia, spies were everywhere and one Sergei 'Stepniak' Kravchinsky went on the run
because
of his writings against Tsarist rule and the assassination of General Mezentsev in St,
Petersburg in 1879 and made it to London.
Voynich's future wife; Ethel Boole an Irish born woman, was friends of Kravchinsky in
London and as she could speak Russian she went back to meet some of his family who were
also under the Russian and polish microscopes.
At Easter in 1887 she was in Warsaw and was standing under the Citadel unaware that a man
above in his cell was watching her below. That man was Voynich.
There must of been some of Stepniak's family members in there as well because somehow in
time before he was to leave for the icy wastes of Siberia one of them made contact with him
and handed him a note with Boole's name on it as well as Sergei Stepniak Kravchinsky's
address in London.
Somehow Voynich managed to escape from the Citadel and he would not have been able to do
that without help or money changing hands and he started his run to London across Europe.
It took him all of six months to reach Hamburg docklands and he had no money and he got to
England by hiding on a boat carrying fruit. Once in London he made his way to the address in
Chiswick on the 5th of October 1890 and surprised that the woman he had seen from his cell
window was the same woman standing in front of him. Unknown to him at the time, he was to
become part of a UK cell of the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom.
Ethel Boole Voynich.
With help from his new friends and of course Ethel he set up a small revolutionary bookshop
but he was now known as 'Ivan Klecevski' because of his family back in Europe and for some
reason Ethel took his surname 'Voynich' and did not get married until Sept; 1902
In 1904 in April Voynich became a British citizen through naturalisation.
Both of them now started smuggling books into Europe with the help of their group and all
went well for a few years then one night Stepniak was killed by a fast train close to his home
on
a level crossing. Murder, or an accident?
Whatever the reason for their friends death they backed away from the group and fast.
I have no date of when Voynich started his book shop of rare books but within a year he
somehow had a collection for sale of unknown books and rare 'lost' books that even the now
British Museum did not have copies off.

The business went well because in a short time he moved from Soho Square to up market 68
70 Shaftesbury Avenue then not content with that onto Piccadilly. Not long afterwards with
money he somehow got he was also able to set up offices in Paris, Florence and Warsaw. I do
not know what his thinking was when he opened an office in Warsaw as it was a most
dangerous place for him to be if he ever went there as he was listed as ' on the run' by officials.
Unless he went under another name.One thing he seemed to be was a book hunter and he
found books in strange places and
bought them. Most of the books he wanted to buy and has an interest in were before 1500.
It was in 1912 he obtained a number of books from a castle in the south of Europe and all
were illuminated manuscripts one of which was written in cipher and he himself thought it
had been written in 1300's with the artwork.
Without doubt it was a very strange and in many ways weird MS with drawings of plants,
flowers, nude girls or young woman and all the art work even looked at today is crude and
primitive. Very few of the plants can be ID from a botany point of view. The nude figures
suggest pollen, seed (sperm) and a few wore hats or head dresses and all seem to suggest to the
reader a real sexual content from a biology side of things. Having looked at the drawings
closely a number of times I am therefore of the informed opinion that human birth plays a
great part in it all, images that I feel suggest fallopian tubes with human ovaries but the writer
of this had a purpose in it all.
From a forensic point of view I looked closely at the colours and as it was thought to date in
the 1300's some of the colours may have been extracted from plants and blood used as well
which may have been animal or human blood. I can not say if the art work was added after
the
writing or during or if the artist was male or female. However I did have some luck with the
colours used. But first let us look at some MS's of around 1300+
An illuminated manuscript is a manuscript in which the text is supplemented by the addition

of decoration, such as decorated initials, borders (marginalia) and miniature illustrations. In
the most strict definition of the term, an illuminated manuscript only refers to manuscripts
decorated with gold or silver, but in both common usage and modern scholarship, the term is
now used to refer to any decorated or illustrated manuscript from the Western traditions.
Comparable Far Eastern works are always described as painted, as are Mesoamerican works.
Islamic manuscripts may be referred to as illuminated, illustrated or painted, though using
essentially the same techniques as Western works.
The earliest surviving substantive illuminated manuscripts are from the period AD 400 to 600,
initially produced in Italy and the Eastern Roman Empire. The significance of these works lies
not only in their inherent art historical value, but in the maintenance of a link of literacy
offered by nonilluminated texts as well. Had it not been for the monastic scribes of Late
Antiquity, most literature of Greece and Rome would have perished in Europe; as it was, the
patterns of textual survivals were shaped by their usefulness to the severely constricted
literate
group of Christians. Illumination of manuscripts, as a way of aggrandizing ancient
documents, aided their preservation and informative value in an era when new ruling classes
were no longer literate.
The majority of surviving manuscripts are from the Middle Ages, although many illuminated
manuscripts survive from the Renaissance, along with a very limited number from Late
Antiquity. The majority of these manuscripts are of a religious nature. However, especially
from the 13th century onward, an increasing number of secular texts were illuminated. Most
illuminated manuscripts were created as codices, which had superseded scrolls. A very few
illuminated manuscript fragments survive on papyrus, which does not last nearly as long as
vellum or parchment. Most medieval manuscripts, illuminated or not, were written on
parchment (most commonly of calf, sheep, or goat skin), but most manuscripts important
enough to illuminate were written on the best quality of parchment, called vellum.*Please note
vellum for ref; Carleton 2014
Beginning in the late Middle Ages manuscripts began to be produced on paper. Very early
printed books were sometimes produced with spaces left for rubrics and miniatures, or were
given illuminated initials, or decorations in the margin, but the introduction of printing
rapidly led to the decline of illumination. Illuminated manuscripts continued to be produced
in the early 16th century, but in much smaller numbers, mostly for the very wealthy.
Manuscripts are among the most common items to survive from the Middle Ages; many
thousands survive. They are also the best surviving specimens of medieval painting, and the
best preserved. Indeed, for many areas and time periods, they are the only surviving examples
of painting.
Art historians classify illuminated manuscripts into their historic periods and types, including
(but not limited to) Late Antique, Insular, Carolingian manuscripts, Ottonian manuscripts,
Romanesque manuscripts, Gothic manuscripts, and Renaissance manuscripts. There are a
few
examples from later periods. The type of book that was most often heavily and richly
illuminated, sometimes known as a "display book", varied between periods. In the first
millennium, these were most likely to be Gospel Books, such as the Lindisfarne Gospels and
the Book of Kells.
The Romanesque period saw the creation of many huge illuminated complete Bibles one in
Sweden requires three librarians to lift it. Many Psalters were also heavily illuminated in both
this and the Gothic period. Single cards or posters of vellum, leather or paper were in wider
circulation with short stories or legends on them about the lives of saints, chivalry knights or
other mythological figures, even criminal, social or miraculous occurrences; popular events
much freely used by story tellers and itinerant actors to support their plays. Finally, the Book
of Hours, very commonly the personal devotional book of a wealthy layperson, was often
richly illuminated in the Gothic period. Other books, both liturgical and not, continued to be
illuminated at all periods. The Byzantine world also continued to produce manuscripts in its
own style, versions of which spread to other Orthodox and Eastern Christian areas.
Reusing parchments by scraping the surface and reusing them was a common practice; the
traces often left behind of the original text are known as palimpsests.
The Muslim World and in particular the Iberian Peninsula, with their traditions of literacy
uninterrupted by the Middle Ages, were instrumental in delivering ancient classic works to
the
growing intellectual circles and universities of Western Europe all through the 1100s, as books
were produced there in large numbers and on paper for the first time in Europe, and with
them full treatises on the sciences, especially astrology and medicine where illumination was
required to have profuse and accurate representations with the text.
The Gothic period, which generally saw an increase in the production of these beautiful
artefacts, also saw more secular works such as chronicles and works of literature illuminated.
Wealthy people began to build up personal libraries; Philip the Bold probably had the largest
personal library of his time in the mid15th century, is estimated to have had about 600
illuminated manuscripts, whilst a number of his friends and relations had several dozen.
Up to the twelfth century, most manuscripts were produced in monasteries in order to add to
the library or after receiving a commission from a wealthy patron. Larger monasteries often
contained separate areas for the monks who specialized in the production of manuscripts
called a scriptorium.
Within the walls of a scriptorium were individualized areas where a monk could sit and work
on a manuscript without being disturbed by his fellow brethren. If no scriptorium was
available, then separate little rooms were assigned to book copying; they were situated in
such a way that each scribe had to himself a window open to the cloister walk.] The
separation of these monks from the rest of the cloister indicates just how revered these monks
were within their society.
By the fourteenth century, the cloisters of monks writing in the scriptorium had almost fully
given way to commercial urban scriptorium, especially in Paris, Rome and the Netherlands.]
While the process of creating an illuminated manuscript did not change, the move from
monasteries to commercial settings was a radical step. Demand for manuscripts grew to an
extent that the Monastic libraries were unable to meet with the demand, and began employing
secular scribes and illuminators.] These individuals often lived close to the monastery and, in
certain instances, dressed as monks whenever they entered the monastery, but were allowed to
leave at the end of the day. In reality, illuminators were often well known and acclaimed and
many of their identities have survived.
First, the manuscript was sent to the rubricator, who added (in red or other colors) the titles,
headlines, the initials of chapters and sections, the notes and so on; and then if the book was
to be illustrated it was sent to the illuminator. In the case of manuscripts that were sold
commercially, the writing would undoubtedly have been discussed initially between the
patron and the scribe (or the scribes agent,) but by the time that the written gathering were
sent off to the illuminator there was no longer any scope for innovation.
Illumination was a complex and frequently costly process. It was usually reserved for special
books: an altar Bible, for example. Wealthy people often had richly illuminated "books of
hours" made, which set down prayers appropriate for various times in the liturgical day.
In the early Middle Ages, most books were produced in monasteries, whether for their own
use, for presentation, or for a commission. However, commercial scriptoria grew up in large
cities, especially Paris, and in Italy and the Netherlands, and by the late fourteenth century
there was a significant industry producing manuscripts, including agents who would take
longdistance commissions, with details of the heraldry of the buyer and the saints of personal
interest to him (for the calendar of a Book of hours). By the end of the period, many of the
painters were women, perhaps especially in Paris.
* Please note last line 'women'
The making of an illuminated manuscript, the text was usually written first. Sheets of
parchment or vellum, animal hides specially prepared for writing, were cut down to the
appropriate size. After the general layout of the page was planned (e.g., initial capital,
borders), the page was lightly ruled with a pointed stick, and the scribe went to work with
ink
pot and either sharpened quill feather or reed pen.
The script depended on local customs and tastes.
The sturdy Roman letters of the early Middle Ages gradually gave way to scripts such as
Uncial and halfUncial, especially in the British Isles, where distinctive scripts such as insular
majuscule and insular minuscule developed. Stocky, richly textured blackletter was first seen
around the 13th century and was
particularly popular in the later Middle Ages. Palaeography is the study of historical
handwritten scripts, and codicology the related study of other physical aspects of manuscript
codexs.
One of the most important features in the production of an illuminated manuscript is the
amount of time that was spent in the preproduction stages outlining the work. Prior to the
days of such careful planning, A typical blackletter page of these Gothic years would show a
page in which the lettering was cramped and crowded into a format dominated by huge
ornamented capitals that descended from uncial forms or by illustrations. To prevent such
poorly made manuscripts and illuminations from occurring a script was typically supplied
first, and blank spaces were left for the decoration. This presupposes very careful planning
by the scribe even before he put pen to parchment. If the scribe and the illuminator were
separate labours the planning period allowed for adequate space to be given to each
individual.
The process of illumination
A 13thcentury manuscript illumination, the earliest known depiction of Thomas Becket's
assassination
The following steps outline the detailed labor involved to create the illuminations of one page
of a manuscript:
1) Silverpoint drawing of the design were executed
2) Burnished gold dots applied
3) The application of modulating colors
4) Continuation of the previous three steps in addition to the outlining of marginal
figures
5) The penning of a rinceaux appearing in the border of a page
6) The final step, the marginal figures are paintedThe illumination and decoration was
normally planned at the inception of the work, and space
reserved for it.
However normally the text was written before illumination began. In the Early Medieval
period the text and illumination were often done by the same people, normally monks, but by
the High Middle Ages the roles were typically separated, except for routine initials and
flourishes, and by at least the 14th century there were secular workshops producing
manuscripts, and by the beginning of the 15th century these were producing most of the best
work, and were commissioned even by monasteries.
When the text was complete, the illustrator set to work. Complex designs were planned out
beforehand, probably on wax tablets, the sketch pad of the era. The design was then traced or
drawn onto the vellum (possibly with the aid of pinpricks or other markings, as in the case of
the Lindisfarne Gospels). Many incomplete manuscripts survive from most periods, giving us
a good idea of working methods.

At all times, most manuscripts did not have images in them. In the early Middle Ages,
manuscripts tend to either be display books with very full illumination, or manuscripts for
study with at most a few decorated initials and flourishes. By the Romanesque period many
more manuscripts had decorated or historiated initials, and manuscripts essentially for study
often contained some images, often not in colour.
This trend intensified in the Gothic period, when most manuscripts had at least decorative
flourishes in places, and a much larger proportion had images of some sort. Display books of
the Gothic period in particular had very elaborate decorated borders of foliate patterns, often
with small drolleries. A Gothic page might contain several areas and types of decoration: a
miniature in a frame, a historical initial beginning a passage of text, and a border with
drolleries. Often different artists worked on the different parts of the decoration.
Use of colour in illuminated manuscripts
While the use of gold is by far one of the most captivating features of illuminated manuscripts,
the bold use of varying colors provided multiple layers of dimension to the illumination. From
a religious perspective, "the diverse colors wherewith the book is illustrated, not unworthily
represent the multiple grace of heavenly wisdom." While religious authors view themselves as
instilling a part of God's vast glory on the work, many illustrations can be linked to "the
history of the texts that were required to be illustrated and the needs and tastes of the readers
of those manuscripts."Colour brought the images on the page to life and captivated the
readers. Without colour the impact of the image would have been completely lost.
Paints
The medieval artist's palette was broad; a partial list of pigments is given below. In addition,
unlikelysounding substances such as urine and earwax were used to prepare pigments.
Colour
Red
Source(s)
Insectbased colors, including:
Carmine , also known as cochineal, where carminic acid from the Dactylopius coccus insect
is mixed with an aluminum salt to produce the dye;
Crimson , also known as kermes, extracted from the insect Kermes vermilio;
and
Lac , a scarlet resinous secretion of a number of species of insects.
Chemical and mineralbased colors, including:
Red lead , chemically lead tetroxide, Pb 3 O 4 , found in nature as the mineral
minium, or made by heating white lead;
Vermilion , chemically mercury sulfide, HgS, and found in nature as the
mineral cinnabar;
Rust , chemically hydrated ferric oxide, Fe 2 O 3 n H 2 O, or iron oxiderich earth
compounds.
Plantbased colors, such as:
Weld , processed from the Reseda luteola plant;
Turmeric , from the Curcuma longa plant; and
Saffron , rarely due to cost, from the Crocus sativus.
Yellow
Mineralbased colors, including:
Ochre , an earth pigment that occurs as the mineral limonite; and
Orpiment , chemically arsenic trisulfide, As 2 S 3 .
Verdigris , chemically cupric acetate, Cu(OAc) 2 (H 2 O) 2 , made historically by
Green
boiling copper plates in vinegar;

Malachite , a mineral found in nature, chemically basic copper carbonate,
Cu 2 CO 3 (OH) 2 ; and
China green, a plantbased pigment extracted from buckthorn (
Rhamnus
tinctoria, R. utilis ) berries.

Plantbased substances such as:
Blue
Woad , produced from the leaves of the plant Isatis tinctoria;
Indigo , derived from the plant Indigofera tinctoria; and
Turnsole , also known as folium, a dyestuff prepared from the plant Crozophora
tinctoria.
Chemical and mineralbased colors, including:
Ultramarine , made from the minerals lapis lazuli or azurite; and
Smalt , now known as cobalt blue. White lead , chemically basic lead carbonate, 2PbCO
3 Pb(OH) 2 , and
White
Black
historically made by corroding sheets of lead with vinegar, and covering that
with decaying matter, such as dung, to provide the necessary carbon dioxide
for the chemical reaction; and
Chalk , chemically calcium carbonate, CaCO 3 .
Carbon , from sources such as lampblack, charcoal, or burnt bones or ivory;

Sepia , from the ink produced by the cuttlefish, usually for an escape
mechanism; and
Iron gall ink , where in medieval times iron nails would be boiled in vinegar; the
resulting compound would then be mixed with an extract of oak apple (oak
galls).
Gold Gold leaf , gold hammered extremely thin, or gold powder, bound in gum
arabic or egg; the latter is called shell gold.
Silver Silver , either silver leaf or powdered, as with gold; and
Tin leaf, also as with gold.
Gilding
The 11th century Tyniec Sacramentary was written with gold on purple background.
An illuminated manuscript is not considered illuminated unless one or many illuminations
contained gold foil or was brushed with gold specks, a process known as burnishing. The
inclusion of gold on an illumination alludes to many different possibilities for the text. If the
text is of religious nature the gold is a sign of exalting the text. In the early centuries of
Christianity, Gospel manuscripts were sometimes written entirely in gold. Aside from
adding flashy decoration to the text, scribes during the time considered themselves to be
praising God with their use of gold. In one particular instance, The life of Christ executed on
gold backgrounds with much greater richness in the midst of innumerable scenes of the chase,
tourneys, games and grotesque subjects. Furthermore, gold was used if a patron who had
commissioned a book to be written wished to display the vastness of his riches. Eventually, the
addition of gold to manuscripts became so frequent, that its value as a barometer of status
with the manuscript was degraded. During this time period the price of gold had become so
cheap that its inclusion in an illuminated manuscript accounted for only a tenth of the cost of
production. By adding richness and depth to the manuscript, the use of gold in illuminations
created pieces of art that are still valued today.
The application of gold leaf or dust to an illumination is a very detailed process that only the
most skilled illuminators can undertake and successfully achieve.
The first detail an illuminator considered when dealing with gold was whether to use gold leaf
or specks of gold that could be applied with a brush. When working with gold leaf the pieces
would be hammered and thinned until they were thinner than the thinnest paper.
The use of this type of leaf allowed for numerous areas of the text to be outlined in gold. There
were several ways of applying gold to an illumination one of the most popular included mixing
the gold with stags glue and then pour it into water and dissolve it with your finger. Once
the gold was soft and malleable in the water it was ready to be applied to the page.
Illuminators had to be very careful when applying gold leaf to the manuscript for fear ruining
the color already placed in the illumination. Gold leaf is able to adhere to any pigment which
had already been laid, ruining the design, and secondly the action of burnishing it is vigorous
and runs the risk of smudging any painting already around it. The careless implementing of
gold could ruin the labor already placed in the illumination and thus cause the entire folio to
be discarded.
Patrons of illumination
Many monasteries produced manuscripts for the collection in their own libraries, and wealthy
individuals commissioned works as a sign of status within the community. Commissioning
these works, the wealthy individuals requested that the illuminator place them somewhere in
the illumination in a donor portrait.
"In a scene from the New Testament, Christ would be shown larger than an apostle, who
would be bigger than a mere bystander in the picture, while the humble donor of the painting
or the artist himself might appear as a tiny figure in the corner." The inclusion of oneself in
artistic endeavors dates back to the time of Justinian and his wife, Theodora, who are
prominently displayed in the Hagia Sophia. Additionally, these wealthy individuals "were
presented on the first page in all their royal apparel; they are often surrounded by allegorical
figures borrowed from antiquity."
Displaying the amazing detail and richness of a text, the addition of illumination was never an
afterthought. The inclusion of illumination is twofold, it added value to the work, but more
importantly it provides pictures for the illiterate members of society to "make the reading
seem more vivid and perhaps more credible. The Antiquity of Manuscript
Books
Manuscript books began to supplant papyrus scrolls in Antiquity. Rare surviving books of the
Fourth Century are surprisingly similar in general appearance to works written a millennium
later. Until the late Middle Ages, the great majority of western books were written in
monasteries by scribes, who enjoyed the highest social status in their communities. As
civilization progressed and the demand for books became greater, later works were executed
by pupils of the Renaissance "writing master", who taught the craft to apprentices. Some
early students' copybooks survive as witnesses to the difficulties of mastering this exacting
skill.
Of Vellum and Paper
These early books were mostly written on vellum, a fine grade of goat, calf, or sheep skin.
Fortunately for collectors, it is an extremely durable substance which generally survives the
centuries well. It was an expensive material, however, and the production of a complete Bible,
for example, might require years of a scribe's time, and the skins of several hundred animals,
thus making books a rare and expensive commodity. The Medieval practice of autumn
livestock butchering, to conserve fodder for the winter, is thought to have been the primary
source of skins used in the production of books. How the skins were prepared has been
recorded in a monastic account of the Twelfth century; they were alternately soaked in clear
water, immersed in a strong lime solution, then scraped of hairs, and sundried. The process
was repeated over the course of several weeks until the vellum became sufficiently clean and
flexible for use. As natural animal products, old vellum leaves and documents exhibit wide
variations in texture, thickness, and tone, and almost all books exhibit a few small natural
flaws in the leaves, around which the copyist skilfully worked his text. One side of a vellum is
always darker than the other, as the "inside" side of the skin was harder to clean of flesh than
the outer or "skin" side.
The art of papermaking was first utilized by the Chinese, who appear to have discovered the
craft as early as the 2nd century B.C. Paper first became available to the rest of the world in
the mid 8th century, as Arab contacts with the Chinese at Samarkand divulged the secrets of
its manufacture, from fibrous vegetable matter. Initially flax and linen were the favored
materials in the west; in later years the rarer cotton was also used. The first European center
of papermaking was in Moorish Spain in the 12th century. From there Italy became the first
great center of the papermaking industry, its factories beginning in 1276 and supplying much
of Europe's needs as late as the 15th century. In Germany, France, and the Netherlands there
also developed thriving papermaking concerns by 1400. Concurrent with the rise of printing
in the last half of the 15th century was the supplanting of vellum by paper in the making of
books, with the former all but abandoned within a century. Pens and
Inks
Pens used by the copyists were generally natural quills, plucked from geese, crows, or turkeys,
or later, iron pens. Inks exist in two major kinds. One is black encaustic, an acidic iron gall
mixture that etches into the vellum and thus fixes itself ineradicable. The other and more
often employed ink is a mixture of common lampblack, a fixing agent and a medium such as
oil or water. It is brown in colour and, although it has a slight tendency to flake off the vellum
under humid condition, MSS written in this common ink are still fully legible today. Colored
inks were most often supplied in red and blue, though oils in all colors were available and used
in the most sumptuous presentation volumes for royalty and the clergy. Gold accents were
sometimes added to the MSS, in two forms, one of gold leaf, which still retains its flashing
brilliance in extant manuscripts, and the other as gold ink, which adds a lovely highlight to
the
initial letter decorations.
Types of Books
The great majority of early books in the Western world are of religious content, as fitting the
"Age of Faith". Consequently, most manuscript leaves and books surviving today are Bibles,
Psalters, Books of Hours, and Breviaries. Manuscript books stating the name of the copyist
and exact year of their production exist, but they are the rare exception rather than the rule,
as our modern notions of self and time were irrelevant to the Medieval world view. The works
are, generally, attributed by the style of the script and rubrication (ornamentation), which are
quite unique to their time and place of origin and can readily be recognized. Thus surviving
works can be attributed with authority to the correct city or region, and to their period within
a date range of a generation or so. Even after the advent of printing, traditional manuscript
books, especially Hours, continued to be produced for several generations, and these are
readily discernible from their ancestors of earlier times.
At the preRenaissance period, Bibles and other Sacred books were copied by monks in
"carols", small cubicles set up in the cloisters of the monasteries and great cathedrals in
response to the unprecedented need for copies of books. It is of interest that the monkish
copyists traditionally spoke the words aloud as they wrote them. This oral "chewing" of the
text was closely associated with the act of prayer, also helping to identify words whose
meaning might be otherwise obscure in the original MSS due to misspelling or excessive use of
contractions. The reading of the Holy text was also considered a form of meditation in which
the scribe savored Divine wisdom directly from his books, which retained the mystical aura of
miraculous objects at this period.
In a surviving sermon of a twelfth century English Bishop to the monkish copyists of Durham
Cathedral is found this eloquent summation of both the reverent attitude toward illuminated
manuscript books and of the materials used in their production:
"You write with the pen of memory on the parchment of pure conscience, scraped by
the knife of Divine fear, smoothed by the pumice of heavenly desires, and whitened by
the chalk of holy thoughts. The ruler is the Will of God. The split nib is the joint love
of God and our neighbor. Coloured inks are heavenly grace. The exemplar is the life
of Christ." The End of Manuscript Production.
The introduction of printing from movable type in 1455 signalled the end of an era. Within a
generation virtually all book production was undertaken using the new and vastly more
inexpensive technology of the printing press. The explosion of knowledge brought about by
this unprecedented dissemination of books immensely benefited mankind, helping to usher in
the freedom of thought and material prosperity that define the modern world.
Paris remained a centre of the production of handwritten religious books until about 1540,
due in no small part to the clout of the scribes' guilds. Catholic Spain was the final bastion of
the old ways, where Antiphonals would continue to be handwritten by cloistered monks well
into the eighteenth century. Many of the now jobless scribes of the 15th century found
employment as rubricators of the earliest printed books, adding the traditional handpainted
Uncial initial letters and other embellishments to the printed texts.
Manuscript Leaves as Collector's Items
The study and collecting of old manuscripts has been actively pursued for centuries. The great
majority of these early works have perished over time, victims of hard use and the incessant
warfare that scourged Europe. The collecting of individual leaves from defective or
incomplete
works has been an accepted part of the bibliophile's world for an equally long period.
The factors determining a manuscript leaf's collapsibility are, generally speaking, its
appearance, condition, and rarity. The more artistic the piece the greater is the collector
demand, and hence its value. Leaves with illustrations and fine decoration are currently
collectors' favourites.
Leaves from Bibles and prayer books are the most likely to be encountered in today's market,
followed in general category by Classical Latin authors' works. Manuscript leaves from works
on science, technology, astronomy, alchemy and the like are virtually nonexistent in today's
collector market as such works are very arre and should never be broken up for leaves, no
matter how fragmentary.
Today these leaves are extremely popular for decorating. Housed in suitable mats and frames
they remain lovely works of art and the most affordable artifacts from the preRenaissance
era. The mats in which they may be housed for display should always be made of archival
quality materials, to ensure that their contents will remain undamaged.
Preservation
Briefly, the enemies of all old documents are heat, humidity, and sunlight. I will also add book
lice to this list. Documents maybe treated with acidneutralizing chemical agents, though it is
suggested that amateurs do not attempt this process as the solvents can be harmful and the
results erratic.
If we take on board from this part of my research for or against matters little as long as there
is debate and possible more research which I have carried out below. All we have at the
moment above are clues, some answers but more questions. Bacon and John Dee I am of the
informed opinion, are the main clues to what the MS is about but as they are long dead
though not forgotten, I move on. DEAD MEN LIE.

The author Ronnie Carleton 2014
So now we know something about the man and monk, Rodger Bacon, his works and his links
to the Church. We also have problems with some of the writings he claimed to have written as
well as his dating by others that he wrote what is known as the Voynich Manuscript and when.
Having looked a number of times at the writing of the Voynich MS and another one by
Bacon
dealing with optics the handwriting is has differences that I find hard to explain away.
What I am saying after careful consideration, Rodger Bacon did not write by hand, both MSs
as I have set out above. If he also as claimed with the art work then looking at it over a week it
suggests to me, that in the case of the Voynich MS, the art work was done first, which I should
add is very strange for the time and the writing added later, the scribe being very careful not
to write on the art work. It will be noted that writing and art do not overlap.
Somehow the codex and the artwork are linked otherwise why put one or both in the book?
My second suspect as the Author of the MS is without doubt John Dee and comes across now
as the main one. That does not mean that Bacon has no part to play but I will come back to
him later. Both men were brilliant in their own ways and they both knew what buttons to push
to keep people interested in their work and maybe how to obtain funding form people when
and if needed.
As human beings, they also had flaws in their mental thinking and processes with strong links
to the paranormal and even practices. Ego's were large once they became known, and both
had that which tends to have me thinking that maybe they were not all they seemed to be in
public and hid away their dark sides. CHAPTER THREE.
INTO THE UNKNOWN MIND.
The above is the animal skin cover of the so called Voynich Manuscript and Rodger
Bacon is said by many to be the author and possible artist. Yet through the ages the front of
the cover has changed from plain skin to shapes on it. If you look at it closely you may see the
shapes. Of course it could be to do with aging, in the past dust and even staining and all
normal.
Which brings me to the art work concerning the nude nymphs first. For some reason it is
connected with the female form bathing ritual bathing, in pools and tubs. This throws up the
thorny question of why a monk like Bacon be involved in such art when he was in the shadow
of the Church? If it was him that drew the nudes and plants the artwork is poor to bad and
many of the plants are not listed as a botanist would do for a purpose, medical or otherwise
and in my opinion linked to a paranormal concept or something much darker like
witchcraft.They say a picture says a thousand words but below it all comes down to
intellectual thinking
and of course, human interpretation of what it means.
If Rodger Bacon was the author of the MS and artwork the whole thing seems pointless such
as unknown plants and flowers, a script that does not pan out except as a jumble of so far
meaningless letters and nude women either dancing in a cult way or getting in tune with
nature which to them, and Bacon was symbolic. For what reason you may ask?
Some of the answers or clues may lie in letters which I include below;
LETTERS OF DISCONTENT.
The letter of Johannes Marcus Marci to Athanasius Kircher (1640)
Reverend Lord Father in Christ and valued friend,
I wrote to your Reverence at Regensburg that the things entrusted to me by your Reverence
had been transacted in the presence of the emperor as promised. I directed my letters to the
most illustrious Count of Martinitz and I can confirm that they were received by him. And
since six weeks have gone by I am eagerly awaiting the response.
The Reverend Father Gans has written to me that your reverence is having no end of troubles.
He said it all too nobly, which arouses my concern. And since you are entitled to know
something of this I have copied out part of the letter.
The most illustrious Count Bernard had lamented to me that he had received no reply to his
letters. I have received many benefits from him, and I know that he is most concerned for
your
reverence, and has done no little in the presence of his Majesty which will benefit us, so I
should prefer to welcome any kind of statement of goodwill and friendship.
The Sphinx will understand from the attached sheet what my friend Mr Georg Barschius
wanted to have written by me. Though he is undoubtedly a man of the highest quality and
greatly skilled in chemical matters, he has not in fact achieved the real goal he longs for. He
seeks it for the sake not of money but of medicine.
His Majesty also asked me very keenly about that heliotrope. Did I know it or had I at least
seen the effect? I told him No and No, which surprised him. I said I had not dared to abuse
our friendship, which was then just beginning, by prying into what was considered a major
secret. If it will not cause distress and it is not right to say it face to face I would ask to know
in general terms whether the phenomenon is natural or artificial, mineral or vegetable, and
whether it is available in this country. Whatever may be said, I shall keep it under any seal of
silence by which I may be bound.
In any case, I should like a description of that variegated black ink and of the succulatum,
both of which were promised me at Rome. If there is anything else worth knowing, it will do
no harm to add it. By which I mean, is the Coptic Arabic lexicon to be typeset in Arabic
letters? I have urged in my most recent letters that those founts of oriental letters should be
engraved as soon as possible. If by chance any secrets needed to be published here we must
not
lack the requisite tools.
And with that I wish your Reverence all good fortune and pray you to visit us as soon as
possible. May your Reverence be so kind as to salute Ferrarius. He will know his servant from
his signature Joannes Marci.
Prague 12 September 1640
Your Reverence's obedient servant
Joannes Marcus Marci
NOTE 1
Notes on the letter of Georgius Barschius to Athanasius Kircher (1637)
When all due allowance has been made for the formality of the age, it is impossible to disguise
the patronising, selfimportant tone of this letter. Barschius takes it for granted that his
previous communication can only have gone unanswered because it got lost in the mail.
On learning that the first letter in fact reached its destination, he concludes that Kircher must
have been too busy to perceive the vital importance of the transcripts he was sent and needs
more flattery and cajoling. A 'clerical individual' (religiosae personae) surely means a member
of a religious order. It
would seem a curt description unless secrecy is involved. Elsewhere in the letter Barschius is
conventionally reverential but lacks the piety of Marci and Kinner. We do not discover the
messenger's identity (if it had been Moretus, Barschius would have said so), only that he or
she
was drafted as a witness to the transcription of the manuscript. Plots are being planned!
Oedipus Aegyptiacus 'the Egyptian Oedipus' of course means Kircher and Sphinx means any
riddle: it was then schoolboy knowledge that only Oedipus could solve the Riddle of the
Sphinx. Kircher went on to write a book called Oedipus Aegyptiacus
but it was only published

in 16524 and at this time he was famous as the author of Prodromus Copticus
(1636).
In the preface to that book he expressed his hopes that Coptic would prove to be the 'Oedipus'
of hieroglyphics.
Barschius wants Kircher to 'correlate those characters of unknown devising with known
letters' (characteres illos fictionis ignotae, literis notis manifestare). This is a free translation:
a more literal one would run 'manifest in known letters those characters of unknown
making. (In my opinion it suggests a work of fiction. Carleton 2014)
The point is that Barschius assumes that the key to the problem is simply to identify the
script.
He describes the manuscript he owns as containing 'pictures of herbs, of which there are a
great many in the codex, and of varied images, stars and other things bearing the appearance
of chemical symbolism'.
Some have questioned whether he is talking about Beinecke MS 408: the description would
apply to plenty of old books, and why doesn't he mention the naked women? But his aim is to
persuade Kircher of the high seriousness of the puzzle, and a priest would probably refuse to
look at any book which might be suspected of being pornographic. Or so it is thought but a
good many priests today are not beyond pornographic magazines or DVD's and child sexual
abuse and are still hidden away by the Church.
It is of interest that seventeenth century herbalists could not identify the plants. I mean plants
and herbs were part of everyday living across Europe and in the British Isles for medical
purposes, and even murder.
Barschius speculates, purely on the basis of the illustrations, that the manuscript concerns
medicine and was written in Egyptian by a vir bonus, a 'good man'. He wants it translated for
the benefit of boni, 'good men'. What exactly is a good man? One of ability and integrity no
doubt, but also one who disdains the practice of medicine and conceals important knowledge
causa plebeiorum occultandorum, 'to keep the common people ignorant'. The phrase has
connotations of social class and I have translated it as 'a man of quality' with paranormal
overtones.
'Medical wisdom': Daniele Metilli points out that the transcription should be medicae
sapientiae, not the nonexistent word predicae which has previously been suggested.
Like I stated in the early pages of my research a lot can be lost or added in translations of
script and languages, sometimes deliberately for gain or to hide the real meaning.Ages at this
time of the individuals involved
Rudolph II: dead for 25 years

Jacobus Horcziczky: dead for 14 years
Raphael Mnihovsky: 57
Georgius Barschius: about 52
Johannes Marcus Marci: 41
Athanasius Kircher: 34
NOTES 2
Notes on the letter of Johannes Marcus Marci to Athanasius Kircher (1641)
This letter merely mentions Barschius and is included for completeness. The 'magnetism
book' is Kircher's Magnes, published in that year.
Ages at this time of the individuals involved
Rudolph II: dead for 28 years

Jacobus Horcziczky: dead for 17 years
Raphael Mnihovsky: 60
Georgius Barschius: about 55
Johannes Marcus Marci: 45
Athanasius Kircher: 38
If Roger Bacon is not the author then who is? To be or not to be that is the question.
What else can we deduce about the author(s)?
Given that the writing materials were relatively valuable (as described above), the author
must
have had some means, or a patron with some means. At the same time, the book was most
probably not a commission by a rich client, as it has not been prepared with the typical care of
such valuable documents. The text area has not been delineated and there is no ruling. The
painting of the colours is of very low quality.
The layout of the herbal pages is typical for some MS herbals from the 15th century and
before, and some details of plant drawings as well, so the author almost certainly must have
had access to, and been familiar with such manuscripts. The same consideration applies to the
drawings of the zodiac pages. The author must have been familiar with the meaning of
paranatellonta. This means that the author had knowledge of at least two important sciences
of his time. The author according to some theories:

The following is not a complete list of proposed authors.
Roger Bacon, as suggested by Voynich and Newbold, and which also Feely later
believed. Largely rejected. Someone from a Cathar cult of Isis followers, as suggested by
Levitov. Said to be
disproved by Guy and Stallings.
Anthony Askham, writing a coded almanac, as suggested by L.C. Strong. The name of
Askham derives from an otherwise incredible decryption of the MS.
John Dee and/or Edward Kelly as suggested by many and most strongly supported by
Brumbaugh and more recently Rugg. This is not out of the question as it concerns Dee
and as for Kelley, there is little evidence so far to support it. On saying that Dee has
many links to the paranormal and Kelley was no saint.
A designer of an early form of a synthetic language, as suggested by Friedman and
Tiltman. This cannot be disproved, but is chronologically quite challenging.
Possibly a missionary to the Far East, in an early attempt to convert Chinese (or
another oriental language) to an alphabetic script. This theory is based on certain
peculiar text statistics and is by no means disproved, but there is difficulty with the fact
that the entire MS has a Western European look. A specific connection (e.g. encoding)
with any specific oriental language has also not yet been proposed.
Wilfrid Voynich creating a modern fake. Disproved by the recent radiocarbon dating of
the MS, and the earlier discovery of additional letters referring to the MS.
I need to look at John Dee more closely and some of the riffraff around him.
John Dee
Born: 13 July 1527 in Tower Ward, London, England
Died: 26 March 1609 in Mortlake, London, England
John Dee's father was Roland Dee who was of Welsh descent. Roland Dee dealt in textiles and,
in addition, was a gentleman sewer at the court of Henry VIII. In this latter capacity he would
have made clothing for the royal household as well as buying and supplying fabrics for the
King. John Dee's mother was Jane Wild. Jane married Roland when she was fifteen years of
age and, three years later, John (who was their first and only child) was born.
John was educated at a school in Chelmsford in Essex from 1535, then entered St. John's
College, Cambridge in November of 1542. There he studied Greek, Latin,
philosophy,
geometry, arithmetic and astronomy.
Woolley writes,
He was so eager to learn, he later recalled, so "vehemently bent to study", that he
worked eighteen hours a day, allowing just four hours for sleep and two for meals.
Mathematics was his passion ... During 1546, his final year as an undergraduate, he began to
make astronomical observations.
Using a quadrant and a crossstaff he made (as he later wrote in Compendious Rehearsal):
... observations (very many to the hour and minute) of the heavenly influences and
operations actual in this elemental portion of the world. Of which sort I made some
thousands in the years then following.
Perhaps we should say a few words at this stage to explain this quotation. One would not
expect a modern astronomer to say "observations of the heavenly influences" but Dee, in
common with the general practice in his time, believed in astrology. However, Dee sought a
scientific explanation for the reasons that the positions of the planets at the moment of a
person's birth would affect their future. He would argue that each body emitted rays of force
which acted on all other bodies. One could view this as an early form of the law of universal
gravitation, but this might be somewhat overstating Dee's idea.
Dee graduated with a B.A. in 1546 and became a Fellow of St John's College. In December
1546 he became a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Henry VIII founded Trinity College,
the largest of the Cambridge colleges, in 1546 and Dee became one of its founding Fellows.
Being unhappy with the scientific attitude in England, Dee travelled on the Continent between
1548 to 1551. He first made a visit to Louvain near Brussels, arriving on 24 June 1548, where
he studied.
Dee later wrote:
It was the custom of our mutual friendship and intimacy that, during three whole
years, neither of us lacked the other's presence for as much as three whole days.
During his time in Louvain Dee wrote two texts on astronomy.
In 1550 he went to Brussels to meet the mathematicians working there. It seems that around
this time he met Nunes and they became close friends. In the same year Dee went to Paris
where he lectured on the Elements. He must have been an impressive lecturer for
it was
reported that people flocked to hear his lectures which filled the lecture rooms to overflowing.
In 1551 Dee was offered an appointment as professor of mathematics in Paris but declined. He
also declined a lectureship in mathematics at Oxford three years later.
Back in England Dee entered the service of the Earl of Pembroke in February 1552, then he
entered the service of the Duke of Northumberland near the end of the same year. While
holding this latter post he wrote a work on tides. I suggest here that this work on tides was
also
linked to the Moon and magnetic forces as well as earth forces.
After the death of King Edward VI, there were great problems between
Catholics and
Protestants as to the succession. The Catholic Queen Mary came to the throne very much
against the wishes of many Protestants who feared for their safety. Indeed they were right to
have such fears as Mary instigated a campaign against eminent Protestants and one person to
be arrested was Roland Dee, John Dee's father, who was taken prisoner in August 1553.
He was released, but only after he had been deprived of all his financial assets. John, who had
expected to inherit considerable wealth from his father and be in a position to carry out
scientific studies free from worries about earning an income, was put in a difficult position.
He might have solved his financial problems by accepting a mathematics post at
the
University of Oxford which he was offered in 1554, but his views on the lack of scholarship in
the English universities led him to turn the offer down.
On 28 May 1555 Dee was arrested and charged with "calculating". At this time mathematics
in England was considered to be equivalent to the possession of magical powers and Aubrey
writes that the authorities had:
... burned mathematical books for conjuring books.
Well I always think if anyone burns books of knowledge they tend to be able to
burn people without a thought. History has proved this. (Carleton 2014)
Although he was found guilty of the charges brought against him, Dee was released in August
after being held for three months. Although he was released as a free man his sources of
income were removed putting him in severe financial problems. Like stony broke.
Dee's father died in 1555 without being able to recover his wealth. As to Dee's religious
position this seems a little harder to ascertain. He seems, with good reason, to have tried to
avoid taking sides in the CatholicProtestant argument, something I found hard to do when I
lived in Ireland during the troubles. When his release came from prison he seemed at home in
the Catholic regime which had imprisoned him. He may have changed sides for
political
convenience, or out of fear, more than likely he knew what side his buttered on.
Dee presented plans for a national library to Queen Mary on 15 January 1556. It was a
superb
scheme to preserve learning by finding copies of all important books and keeping them in a
Royal Library which men could consult to settle:
... such doubts and points of learning, as might cumber and vex their heads [and]
learning [would] wonderfully be advanced.
The scheme did not receive official backing, but nevertheless Dee, despite his
financial
difficulties, set out to create his own library. As he had no money and the then Queen was just
parted from her head somehow he found books, many of them rare.
Queen Mary died in 1558 and the Protestant Elizabeth became Queen. Dee quickly found
favour with Elizabeth and was even asked to use his astrological skills to select the
most
appropriate day for her coronation. This he did but one is left wondering how someone so
closely associated with the previous Catholic administration might have found favour so soon.
Woolley suggests that Dee may have acted as a spy for Elizabeth in Mary's administration and
this would certainly be consistent with events and explain some otherwise puzzling ones.
During the next five years Dee spent time abroad collecting books for his library, and studying
astronomy, astrology, mathematics, coding, and magic all topics which were linked in his
mind as he struggled to understand the ultimate truths about the universe. Despite being close
to Queen Elizabeth, and advising her frequently, he never achieved from her the financial
security that he longed for to enable him to devote himself completely to his studies.
By 1566 he was living with his mother at Mortlake, in London, to reduce his living costs.
There he built up a remarkable collection of scholarly works in his library as
well as a
collection of astronomical instruments, globes (including one given to him by Mercator) and
accurate clocks.
In 1568 he published Propaedeumata Aphoristica and presented the work to Queen Elizabeth.
Elizabeth was impressed and Dee gave her mathematics lessons to enable her to understand it.
The book contains a mixture of good physics and mathematics, and also a lot of astrology and
magic. Magic?Many of the great scientists and mathematicians of his time, and much later,
had such interests.
Dee, was obsessed with studying alchemy. Among what we would describe as "good science"
in Propaedeumata Aphoristica is a statement that unequal masses fall at the same speed. Dee
refers to earlier scientists who also claimed this fact. He also states that every object in the
universe exerted a force on all others.
In 1570 Dee edited an edition of Euclid's Elements translated by Billingsley. Dee
wrote a
famous preface to this edition justifying the study of mathematics:
O comfortable allurement, O ravishing persuasion to deal with a science whose
subject is so ancient, so pure, so excellent, so surrounding all creatures, so used of the
almighty and incomprehensible wisdom of the Creator, in distinct creation of all
creatures: in all their distinct parts, properties, natures, and virtues, by order, and
most absolute number, brought from nothing to the formality of their being and state.
Dee observed the "new star" which is often called "Tycho Brahe's supernova of 1572" and in
the following year he wrote Parallacticae commentationis praxosque which gives
trigonometric
methods which were applied to find the distance to the new star. He had made
accurate
observations with his assistant Thomas Digges and the two probably corresponded with Brahe
about the star. Certainly.
Dee brought instruments of navigation back from the Continent when he returned in 1551.
From 1555 he was a consultant to the Muscovy Company. The Muscovy Company was formed
in 1555 by the navigator and explorer Sebastian Cabot together with a number of London
merchants. It was granted a monopoly of AngloRussian trade and had as one of its aims the
search for the Northeast Passage. Dee prepared nautical information, including charts for
navigation in the polar regions, for the company during the next 32 years. He instructed the
crews on geometry and cosmography before they left for voyages to North America in 1576.
In 1579 Dee's mother gave her house at Mortlake (which he had lived in for at least 13 years)
to him; she died the following year. Dee had married Jane Fromands in February 1578 and
together they had eight children. She was his third wife his second wife had died in March
1576 in the year following their marriage. He had no children (at least none that survived)
from his first two marriages.
Edward Kelley entered Dee's life in March of 1582. He was a medium who claimed to be able
to contact angels and spirits and he did so by gazing into a crystal ball. Although this was not
the first time Dee had been involved in such practices, at first he was still highly suspicious
that Kelley's visions were real. Two things convinced him, however: Kelley was highly skilled
in his art, and secondly Dee so longed to understand the ultimate truth about the universe
which he had failed to find by other means. The lack of reaction of others to his scientific
work was also a factor, as was the fact that he
had been accused of magic so often in his life. Dee became more and more deeply involved in
conversing with angels and spirits through Kelley and, sadly, it dominated the latter part of
his life. This took place over a period of about five years. Several of the references give details
of these conversations which Dee recorded in a diary; see for example. Note that in his diaries
Dee refers to himself as , a clever pun on the fact that is the Greek character for the letter
"dee" and also a magical symbol. But it should be noted that the and the are in fact
known as basic shapes.
Dee made a proposal to Queen Elizabeth for calendar reform in February 1583. He proposed
the removal of eleven days to bring the calendar into line with the astronomical year.
He was, of course, exactly the right course of action and Dee's proposal gained support from
several of Elizabeth's advisors. The Archbishop of Canterbury opposed the scheme, partly
because he was engaged in a long standing argument with Elizabeth, partly
because he
considered such a scheme to be close to what the Catholic Church had adopted in the previous
year. The Church Fat Cat was not amused. Dee's scheme was, however, a better one than that
adopted across Europe after the proclamation by Pope Gregory XIII.
The Gregorian calendar was based on the date of the Council of Nicaea in 325, while Dee
proposed a calendar with an astronomical base rather than a political one as
he clearly
pointed out. The failure of Dee's calendar reform proposal would mean that England retained
a calendar at odds with that in the rest of Europe until 1752.
It is hard for me to work out what kind of relationship Dee and Kelley were in but I feel that
Kelley had some sort of hold over Dee. They visited Poland and Bohemia (158389), giving
displays of magic at the courts of princes. Kelley achieved fame and wealth and was knighted.
On the other hand Dee, still in severe financial problems, returned to Mortlake in December
1589 to discover that much of his library had been stolen, as were his scientific instruments.
There lies a tail in itself.
Around this time Dee must have become friendly with Thomas Harriot. The two discussed the
allegations of atheism made against Raleigh's school and discussed which of them was being
referred to as "the conjurer that is master thereof". They also discussed
scientific and
mathematical matters in the 1590s. In 1590 Harriot sent Dee a copy of one of his books in
which he had written "To my dear friend".
For a number of years Dee tried unsuccessfully to gain compensation for the income he had
lost over the years. He tried to gain an appointment as Master of St John's Cross which was
approved by Queen Elizabeth subject to approval by the Archbishop of Canterbury but this
approval never materialised. No surprise there as he was still under the microscope by
Church
and State. In 1596 he was appointed warden of the Collegiate Chapter in Manchester, almost
certainly as a means of removing him from London. In 1605 Manchester was hit by the plague
and Dee's wife and several of his children died. He returned to London where he died a few
years later.
Somehow Dee and Kelley were looked at by Voynich as a possible link to the MS but did not
come up with much. None of it makes much headway to the mystery solving of it and it could
be that Voynich with all his book knowledge, was sold a 'pup' with three legs and no bark.If
this was the case and I think it was then he could have went into panic mode because he had
made the find public and now needed to get other opinions on the MS so he started sending off
some copied sheets to people he though would know at least some of the answers.
What is clear at this stage of the research is that Roger Bacon died without getting any
endorsement from Pope Clement IV because he died on the 29th of November 1268 and that
left Bacon hanging on a limb and now hit rock bottom but fast. When Roger Bacon died his
work was lost for a long time, no doubt in smoke screens and red herrings put about by Rome
and his name was rarely mentioned, his work less so. In truth he became a joke in the
Scientific community and the Church of Rome. He was I add, buried three times, once in
England, once in Rome and once by the Scientific community from England, across Europe
and into Italy. John Dee did try and get his work back on the scientific stage but failed.
It could well be,that Dee did in fact find some of his work and documents, bought them and it
is possible that the MS known as the Voynich MS was almost finished by Bacon and Dee
himself added to it or redone the whole MS.
Seven hindered years later in 1912 on the anniversary of Bacon's birth his spirit rose from the
ashes because Voynich had made contact with one Professor William Newbold in the USA and
together they made this statement;

"Of all the inventions,few if any have contributed more to the increase of knowledge than
those
of the microscope and the telescope. That both these are known and were probably discovered
by
Roger Bacon and by their means he made discoveries of great importance, the Voynich
manuscript puts beyond the range of reasonable doubt."
As the time this statement was made to the College of Physicians in Philadelphia, Newbold
and
Voynich must have thought at the time, solved the riddles and codexs in the MS and no doubt
thinking of the rewards such would reap in time, including wealth and of course recognition.
It was Newbold who was pushing the issue because he thought in fact he had uncovered Roger
Bacon's encryption's and therefore so provided the key evidence to prove beyond doubt, in his
own mind, the ID of the MS's writer or author. To be truthful this would not have been an
easy task even today as we now know. Optimism is a great thing but I am of the opinion both
men jumped the gun and of course the enormous implications involved if they had got it
wrong one does not want to think about.
Newbold became aware of the Voynich MS in 1915 but it was not until 1919 when Voynich
sent
him the copies of three of the pages that he started to study them. Why Voynich wanted
Newbold to study the pages is beyond me because the man had no history or any experience of
any sort of codebreaking or cryptography. An example would be from a forensic
anthropology point of view of me sending a cracked pelvic girdle to a fishmonger in
Birmingham and ask his opinion did it belong to a male or female and what age it was.
It seems a strange choice that it was Newbold who had a degree in philosophy and gained his
Ph.D. in 1891 from the University of Pennsylvania. Greek philosophy may be useful in some
cases but not this one. Dr William Newbold.

Newbold was well and truly hooked by the three copies of the MS pages and it was the two
and
the half lines on the last page that did it which were in part in cipher and in part plain Latin
which he took on board as a Key to the cipher. A number of years he studied it, worked on it,
sometimes with rather erratic methodology. 16v was lost it seems?
I have included here of the first line that Newbold thinks was a key.
michiton oladabas multos te teer cere portas.
All well and good and Newbold came up with a Latin phrase by dropping a number of letters,
changing one O for an A and came up with michi dabas miltas portas which he said he
translated as "to me thou gavest (or wast giving) many gates"
In the first word Michiton my translation from the word is "desider/ to desire to make
water,"and I could find no word 'michi' for Latin translation into English. Point 1
Point 2. The word 'dabas' I could not find in the Latin English up to date Dictionary so I tried
a translation on the www in Latin of the whole line of Newbold's translations as well as his key
words. This is what came up first.
'michiton oladabas many gates you teer player'
I then put in Newbold's suggested tranlation and came up with;
'I applied the many gates,'
The words that jump out at you now are, many gates, applied, I, the and you and player.
So Newbold in his translation only cracked 'many gates' when, if he was any good at all
should
have got much closer with "I applied many gates."
Not everything is what it seems and I am of the informed opinion that assumptions by
Voynich
and Newbold to now go down the Cabala road as Bacon had been familiar with the Jewish
tradition they thought. Such assumptions of course did have a major effect on their future
research seeing it had a paranormal input and could have been full of red herrings, myth and
magic and messing around with the Hebrew alphabet and of course unless you had a good
knowledge of the Cabala = (to receive) ,and Hebrew you were well and truely up a pole and
trying to apply Many Gates was more than impossible for the two men.
So why did Voynich push Newbold into the route?
Whatever the reason, when Newbold then got the full MS he was without doubt up a gumtree,
got stuck and anything gleamed was a very slow process. A snail could move across a page
much quicker that the poor man could read and research. He now stated he was working on
two cipher systems so it was little wonder his eyesight was going and he informed William
Voynich that he was making slow progress but getting there.
It was to cost Newbold dear and he became ill, said to have collapsed with headaches.
On the 20th of April 1921 Newbold and Voynich both give lectures on the codexes and the MS
and in public.
For a while it became front page news and though the lectures were recieved many left them
still puzzled of how a holy man of the church and a monk in his drawings showed nude
women, sperm, ova and ovaries, structure of the testicle and is said to have used a micoscope
he made. What it does not say is where did he get his samples from and why do the drawings
first.?
In his research Newbold also stated that he had found mention of an eclipse of the sun in 1290
and also a comet in seen in 1274.
There was in fact an eclipse in 1290 and I placed some information below
In 1290, Edward II, Crown Prince of England, was named as the count of the French province
of Ponthieu, upon the death of his mother, Eleanor of Castile. But his title was contested by
the
Count of Alencon. The only coinage of Ponthieu during the rule of Edward prior to his
becoming king has a unique design consisting of crescents and annulets.

On the 5th of September 1290, during the first year of his reign as count, an annular solar
eclipse crossed directly over southern England and northern Europe, including the province
of
Ponthieu. Did Edward II use this celestial event as an omen for his right to authority?
With such knowledge Voynich now knew that his or Bacon's MS was worth money and the
price he had put on it was $160,000 but to be able to sell it he started to push Newbold much
harder to get more information from the MS but Newbold dug his heels in and had to rest.
He tried again and again to work on the MS but because he was ill, never sent much details to
Voynich and this annoyed Voynich. It mattered little because in September 1926, in Maine
USA Newbold took ill and was dead within 24 hours and buried within a week and Voynich
ended up with no code broken MS. Never trust a dead man or one that is on his way out.
Whatever data Newbold had in his head went with him to the other side and lost for
evermore. Unless he kept good notes on his progress near the end, which I doubt, we may
never know if he found anything more worth knowing or that could be added to the codex.
So we can see up to the present of this first part of the research on the codex and the
players involved in it that that both Church and State were also involved, murder was done,
whispers behind closed doors, finger pointing, fear and of course history all had their part to
play. Bacon came first, Dee second and both men for a long time were on the same course,
almost along the same lines but brainwise and forward thinking, it was John Dee by a head.
I therefore had a lot of data to shift through and reshift through and even at that, the forensics
did not add up when it came down to the nitty gritty of the Voynich MS and what it contained
or meant. So far in the past people were grasping at straws but still sinking. Deep!
CHAPTER FOUR.
THE VOYNICH MANUSCRIPT FORENSICS.
2014The art work on the plants tends to show the
roots, stems, leaves and at times in flower but

sadly it does not give us the English names for such plants. One also has to keep in mind that
the name of a plant though right in fact may also have a number of other local names that
should not be ignored and some of those 'local names' may also be used in many parts of
Europe. So one plant if it is wild could have its real name but as many as six or seven local
name tags attached to it. A plant with a local name in Italy may not have the same local name
as in France, the UK or Greece. Thankfully the evidence does point to plant use so narrows
down the long list of plants that look alike but have no useful purpose in medicine or magic at
the time they were painted or drawn in the master MS.
Let us refresh the list of people, places and things below before I deal with the rest of my
research. Be warned that the witnesses of the early research are all dead!
Glossary
A
Askham, Anthony: lesser known brother of Roger Askham. Wrote a herbal and an almanac.
Suggested writer of the Voynich MS according to the proposed solution by Leonard Strong .
B
Bacon, Francis: occasionally mistakenly understood to be the writer of the Voynich MS, when
really Roger Bacon was intended. He was involved in cryptography as well, for which see
D'Imperio and Kahn.
Bacon, Roger: suggested writer of the Voynich MS, according to W. Voynich and Newbold.
The Marci letter attached to the Voynich MS mentions that this was also believed at the court
of Rudolph II of Bohemia. This attribution is probably due to the Bacon admirer John Dee.
Baresch, M. Georgius: otherwise unknown owner of the Voynich MS in the 1630's, who left it
in his will to Marci. His letter to Kircher asking for advice about this MS is preserved.
Beckx, Petrus S.J.: 22nd father general of the society of Jesus, from 1853 to 1884, died in 1887.
Beinecke: The Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University is the current
owner of the Voynich MS, and of collateral material from its past owners.
Bennett, William Ralph: author of a book using the Voynich MS as an example for text
analysis with the computer.
bifolio:
Brumbaugh, Robert S:
Died in 199x, and his children (son Robert Conrad Brumbaugh and an otherwise unknown
daughter) are reportedly continuing his work. Bruno, Giordano: potential writer of the
Voynich MS. Bruno briefly visited the court of
Rudolph. Declared a heretic, he died at the stake in 1600.
C
Cathars: brought in connection with the Voynich MS ( incorrectly) by Levitov.
Catholic University: the Catholic University in Washington D.C. has had a long involvement
with the Voynich MS. After the death of W. Voynich, a copy of the MS was made available to
Prof. H. Hvernat by Mrs. E Voynich. This formed the basis of study by at least the following
people at this University: Th. Petersen, Th. Holm and Hugh O'Neill.
Child, James: proposed a solution to the Voynich MS. Not mentioned in D'Imperio.
Participated in the 1972 symposium led by Mary D'Imperio and advanced the theory that the
Voynich MS is old high German (Norse?). Mainly guesswork?
Currier, Captn. Prescott ~: studied the Voynich MS and advanced the theory that it must have
been composed by at least two people, but perhaps even more.
D
Dee, John: suspected owner and seller to Rudolph II of Bohemia of the Voynich MS.
Dunstan, Book of St. ~: book once (probably) owned by Kelly.
E
EKT: Extended King Tut. A hypothesis by Dennis Stallings about how the low entropy of the
Voynich MS text may be explained.
entropy: here: a measure of the information contained in a piece of text.
F
Feely, Joseph M.: Proposed a solution to the Voynich MS.
folio: see description of MS layout
Friedman, Elizebeth: wife of William Friedman, also interested in the Voynich MS and herself
also a keep cryptographer.
Friedman, William F.: One of the most active students of the Voynich MS, who advocated that
it may have been written in and early form of a synthetic language. Set up the 'First Study
Group' (FSG) and the 'Second Study Group' (SSG). His contributions have been studied
especialy by Jim Reeds, and they will also be summarised on a future page at this site.
FSG: First Study Group, as set up by William F. Friedman. Also the name of the transcription
alphabet used by this group
G
gallows: term used for four apparent characters in the script of the Voynich MS. Called
'intruding gallows' when they are combined with (writtten through) another character of the
alphabet. Will be explained in the section about the MS script. gathering: (=quire), see
description of MS layout
H
Holm, Theodor: Danish (not Dutch as D'Imperio suggests) botanist and zoologist at the
Catholic University who made several tentative plant identifications used by Petersen.
Horcicky, Jacobus ~ de Tepenec: his signature (Jacobj Tepenece) is on the first folio of the
manuscript. He assumed the Latinised name of Sinapius. See the history section.
Hyvernat, Prof. H.: scholar of neareastern languages who discovered an important source of
coptic documents in 1910. Made sure they were not sold to individual private owners but that
they were bought by the Pierpont Morgan Lirbray. Wilfrid Voynich knew him but avoided
direct contact.
See the history section.
I
D'Imperio, Mary E.: Wrote a book about the Voynich MS which compiles all information she
found about in in the 1970's. This is generally agreed to be the best single source about the
Voynich MS and it has been used extensively at this site. Also organised a symposium about
the MS, which included Currier's important findings.
Internet mailing list:
J
K
Kelly, Edward: affiliated with John Dee. Stayed in Prague until 1595 and was imprisoned
there, dying as a result of a failed escape attempt. See the section about the origin of the MS.
Kent, Roland G.: friend of Newbold. Published Newbold's theories about the Voynich MS
after
the latter's death.
Kircher, Athanasius ~ S.J.: See the history section.
See also the Galileo Project >> biographies.
IMAGE: portraits
IMAGE: the museum Kircherianum
Kraus, Hans P.: See D'Imperio. Bought the Voynich MS from the estate of Mrs. E.Voynich for
US$ 24,500 in 1961. When unable to sell it, he donated it to the Beinecke library of Yale
university in 1969. (Include references to his two books.)
L
label: an apparent word in the Voynich MS which is written near an illustration, and which is
generally believed to say something about this illustration. See the section about the text of the
MS.
Levitov, Leo: proposed that the Voynich MS represents a Cathar praying book. (Include Ref
to
his book). A >> critical linguistic analysis was written by Frogguy and Stallings has extensive
>> background information about Cathars, showing that the details of Levitov's theory are
incorrect.
locus: term used to indicate one piece of written text in the Voynich MS. Usually, this is one
line of writing, part of a paragraph. Alternatively, it may be one label, or a word written
somewhere in the middle of a page, or a piece of writing along a radiating or circumferential
line in one of the astronomical or cosmological diagrams in the MS.
M
Manly, John M.: one of the chief detractors of Newbold's solution to the Voynich MS. (Ref. to
his publications).
Marci, Johannus Marcus ~ de Kronland: owned the Voynich MS and sent it to Kircher in
1665
(or 1666). See the history section.
See also the Galileo Project >> biographies.
There are several portraits at the portrait gallery
McKenna, Terence: published some theories arguing that the MS is a fake (Dee + Kelley?).
(Include reference to his publication and audio tape.)
Misserone, Dionysius: also known as Miseroni. See the history section.
IMAGE: portrait
Missowski: see Raphael.
Mondragone: a villa located near Frascati. This used to house a Jesuit college, where a large
Jesuit book collection was being kept during the second suppression of the Jesuit order. This is
where Voynich found and bought the MS with the aid of one Fr. Strickland S.J. See the
history
section.
See also a >> description of the villa and both an IMAGE: 18th Century (?) etching and a
modern picture of the villa
MS: abbreviation for Manuscript
N
Newbold, William Romaine: See D'Imperio, section 5.1. Proposed the most famous (and most
controversial) solution of the Voynich MS, indicating that Roger Bacon write the Voynich MS.
This was rejected and disproved by John Manly. His theory was published posthumously by
Roland G. Kent. (Include ref)
O
O'Neill, Hugh: botanist at the Catholic University in the 1940's. Suggested that the Voynich
MS must have been written after 1493 as he identified several plants from the Americas.
P
Panofsky, E.: historian and expert about the German Renaissance, esp. Albrecht Duerer.
Petersen: Assistant of Prof. H. Hyvernat at the Catholic University of America. Made a
complete hand transcription of the MS and was one of the most active students of it. Q
quire: see description of MS layout
R
Raphael: mentioned in the Marci letter. Full name: Raphael Sobiehrd Mnisowski de Sebuzin
and de Horstein
See the origin of the VMs (eventually).
recipes (section): See description of MS illustrations
Rudolph II of Bohemia: see D'Imperio, early sections. Mentioned as the buyer of the Voynich
MS in the letter to Marci.
S
Sinapius: see Horcicky
Soyga,, book of ~: book once owned by Dee, and mistakenly thought to be identical with the
Voynich MS. See origin of the Voynich MS
Stojko, John: proposed solution to the Voynich MS.
Strickland: Jesuit priest at the boarding school of Villa Mondragone, who enabled W. Voynich
to buy some valuable MS's, among which the Voynich MS.
Strong, Leonell: proposed solution to the Voynich MS. See D'Imperio section 5.3. His
correspondence used to be available on the internet but appears to be lost now.
T
Talbot: Pseudonym used by Kelly when he met Dee.
Tepenec: see Horcicky.
Tiltman, John: Cryptographer and friend of W. Friedman. Made an important study of the
stars section of the Voynich MS.
Toresella, Sergio: A herbal expert who places the Voynich MS in the tradition of alchemical
herbals, and dates it to the 1460's.
Tut, King: see EKT.
U
V
Voynich, Ethel Lillian: daughter of mathematcian Boole, and writer of the famous novel 'The
Gadfly'. Married Wilfrid Voynich (q.v.) and owned the Voynich MS from his death in 1930 to
her own death in 1960. See history of the Voynich MS.
IMAGE: portrait
Voynich, Wilfrid Michael: An antiquarian bookdealer. Discoverer of the manuscript in 1912

in the Villa Mondragone. (Include reference to his article.) See history of the Voynich MS. I
W
X
Y
Yale: the Beinecke (q.v.) library of Yale University (New Haven, Conn., USA) now owns the
Voynich MS, after the donation by H.P. Kraus.
Z
John Dee.
Analysis of the text
Introduction
The main mystery of the Voynich MS is of course its text. This has been analysed in many
different ways over the last 100 years, in order to decipher it. The purpose of the present
section of this web site is to present these analyses. This part is subdivided into five 'sub
pages'. The present page is more an overview.
1. Introductory information
2. Character statistics
3. Word structure
4. Word statistics
Sentences, paragraphs,
sections
I need to start with some disclaimers: it has not been possible for me to read everything that
has been written on this topic, and this part cannot therefore be complete. I will always be
5.grateful for information about additional work that has been done.
It is also difficult to present the multitude of analyses that have been performed in an orderly
fashion. There have been observations on the properties and distribution of individual
characters, others on those of words and others again on the combinations of words. There
are
also studies that cannot be classified so easily. Furthermore, it has been observed that the
apparent words in the Voynich MS appear to have some type of structure.
The text analysis presented here is therefore organised along the following topics, on
dedicated
pages.
1. Introductory information
This part introduces the concepts used in the analysis section: Currier languages, entropy,
Zipf law, etc. The reader is reminded that the analysis of the script of the MS is investigated
on
a separate page, a page which also describes the details of the MS transcription.
A few more words about transcription
The transcription alphabet used in these web pages is primarily the EVA alphabet, for which a
more detailed description is given on a dedicated page (temporary copy of a page by Gabriel
Landini). In some places, I will use small graphic files for the Voynich characters. In the
present analysis section, the Voynich characters are rendered by the "Voynich EVA Hand 1"
True Type font created by Gabriel Landinia True Type font designed by Gabriel Landini. This
is demonstrated below, using the first paragraph of text on folio 1r of the manuscript:
The following figure was created using the EVA True Type font. The EVA text representing
this section is given below it. It is then repeated, but using the EVA True Type font for the
rendition .
fachys ykal ar ataiin Shol Shory cThres y

kor Sholdy
sory cThar or y kair chtaiin Shar are cThar

cThar dan
syaiir Sheky or ykaiin Shod cThoary cThes
daraiin sa
o'oiin oteey oteor roloty cth*ar daiin
otaiin or okan
sair y chear cThaiin cPhar cFhaiin
ydaraiShyfachys ykal ar ataiin Shol Shory cThres y
kor Sholdy
sory cThar or y kair chtaiin Shar are cThar
cThar dan
syaiir Sheky or ykaiin Shod cThoary cThes
daraiin sa
o'oiin oteey oteor roloty cth*ar daiin
otaiin or okan
sair y chear cThaiin cPhar cFhaiin
ydaraiShy
The choice of the transcription alphabet will have an impact on numerical analysis done on
the Voynich MS text. This is most obvious for the calculation of the word length distribution,
since the number of charcters to represent one 'glyph' of the Voynich MS text is different for
each alphabet.
2. Character statistics
This includes, among others:
qualitative observations of the properties of some characters

frequency distribution of single characters
properties of combinations of two or three characters (entropy)
vowel / consonant analysis
3. + 4. Word statistics
When people talk about a 'word' in the Voynich MS, they refer to a string of characters
separated from other such words by a space in the writing. Whether these strings of
characters actually represent words as we understand it, is not certain.
The analysis of the apparent words in the Voynich MS is discussed in two separate sections.
The first treats the word struture, a unique property of the Voynich MS text.
The second section includes:
some qualitative observations of the properties of some words

the question whether spaces in the MS are 'word separators'
frequency distribution of words
application of Zipf's laws
5. Sentences, paragraphs, sections
This includes topics like:
Currier's 'line as a functional unit'

the search for common word combinations
page cluster analysis based on word statistics
longrange character and word correlations
any other work that is mixed or difficult to classify.Analysis of the illustrations
Introduction
This section attempts to present an analysis of the illustrations found in the Voynich MS. Such
an analysis should be made by competent specialists, such as historians of botany or
astronomy, of paleography, or of medieval history in general. There is still a lack of such
expert reports and the interpretation of the illustrations inevitably allows for a lot of well
meant speculation. It cannot be completely avoided that such speculation is also present in
this
page.
The first part of this page follows the various 'sections' of the MS as explained in the
description of the manuscript:
Herbal
Astronomical and zodiac
Biological
Pharmaceutical
Text only with marginal stars
After that, some specific details of the illustrations are addressed (1).
Illustrations by section of the Manuscript
Herbal illustrations
As the herbal section of the Voynich MS covers about half the mansucript, this whole topic
deserves a thorough discussion, and a dedicated page will be written to address it. Until that
time, a more summary discussion is presented here (2).
Herbal pages typically contain one, sometimes two, pagefilling plant illustrations with some
short paragraphs of text written to carefully avoid the drawings. This composition is very
similar to some of the herbal manuscripts produced between late antiquity and the early
Renaissance. Apart from this similarity, there is also a striking difference. While the herbal
traditions were primarily copying illustrations from one manuscript to another, all the way
from antiquity into the 16th Century, the Voynich MS has truly unique and original drawings,
and was apparently not further copied (3).
The oldest surviving illustrated herbal manuscript is the Juliana Anicia Codex, which includes
the herbal of Dioscurides. It was written in the 6th Century and its quality remained
unsurpassed for many centuries. It was brought to Europe after the Voynich MS was most
probably written, so it is relatively unlikely that the Voynich author has seen it. This MS also
has single page filling plant drawings. Later versions of the Dioscorides herbals tended to
have
two or more plants per page, and a page layout different from the Voynich MS, and they all
tended to be copies from each other. The plant drawings degenerated almost into caricatures
in the course of the centuries.
A second herbal tradition is best known as pseudoApuleius, and it has generally less elaborate
plant drawings than the earliest Dioscorides MSs. Again, illustrations were copies
from manuscript to manuscript through the ages. By the time of the Voynich MS, they had
become quite abstract, and it was not usually possible to recognise any plant just from the
illustration.
During the transition from the 13th to the 14th century a new herbal tradition arose around
the medical school of Salerno in S. Italy. It has become known as the Tractatus de Herbis. It
featured new, original plant drawings, based clearly on observations from nature, but in some
cases also based on Dioscurides or PseudoApuleius. Again, this tradition was propagated by
the copying of manuscripts, and two branches arose: the north Italian branch known still as
the Tractatus de Herbis, and the French branch better known as the Livre des simples
Mdicines.
It was during this time that the Voynich MS was probably composed, and at this time,
Dioscurides was still an important reference, but the pseudoApuleius appears to have lost
popularity. It has always been stated that the Voynich MS illustrations do not look like any of
the three above traditions. The plants cannot be easily recognised, and appear mostly
fantastic, but I will come back to this later.
In the 1990's the herbal MS expert Serio Toresella (4) inspected the Voynich MS and observed
similarities to the herbal tradition known as 'alchemical herbals', a shorterlived tradition
mainly from Northern Italy, between the end of the 14th and the first half of the 16th century.
The plant illustrations are mostly fantastical (though they derive to some extrent from existing
plants). A good summary of the main reference on this (5) is given by Philip Neal (6).
Most of the alchemical herbals are combined with copies of a selection of illustrations from
the Tractatus de Herbis together in one manuscript. They have a very similar page layout as
the
Voynich MS, with usually one, sometimes two plants per page, and short paragraphs of text,
referred to as recipes (7). They originate from Northern Italy, and a time frame overlapping
with the probable origin of the Voynich MS. There are a few alchemical herbals which have
been painted with almost the same lack of detail as the Voynich MS.
As I have attempted to demonstrate at the Voynich Centennial meeting in the Villa
Mondragone in 2012 (8), the drawings in the Voynich MS are most similar in style to the
alchemical herbals, but have a level of detail in the outline drawings that is not worse than the
contemporary Tractatus de Herbis copies. This will be discussed in more detail in a dedicated
page already announced above.
Many attempts have been made over the years to identify individual herbal illustrations in the
Voynich MS. The first known attempts have been collected in the Petersen hand
transcriptions, and by Ethel Voynich in her notebooks. I have collected these at a dedicated
page. These have barely been studied, but this is presently changing.
Some 'furore' was generated by the identification of a Sunflower and a pepper plant by the
herbal expert O'Neill (9), suggesting that the MS postdates Columbus' second voyage to
America, in 1493. These ientifications are far from being generally accepted, however.
An interesting feature was observed independently by Petersen in the 1930's and Jorge Stolfi
in the 1990's, that a number of drawings in the pharmaceutical section of the MS are copies of
herbal drawings in the MS (or vice versa). Some cases are very obvious and other less so. This
still requires a more thorough analysis. Some highly interesting herbal identifications have
been made, or attempted, by several people
in recent years, and published in web sites and blogs (10). These are always subjective, but
many are highly convincing. They have certainly changed my opinion of the Voynich MS
herbal drawings, and I no longer believe that the Voynich MS primarily includes fantastic
plants. In several cases, these (tentative) identifications coincided with the lists of Petersen and
Ethel Voynich, demonstrating that these require more attention.
Astronomical and Zodiac illustrations

Astronomical pages feature drawings of Sun and/or moon, and arrangements of stars. It is
sometimes hard to draw a clear line between astronomical and cosmological pages (see below).
The twelve astronomical pages which have illustrations of the zodiac are called astrological or
zodiac pages.
The zodiac pages contain concentric circles with about 30 nymphs holding stars, and an
emblem of a zodiac sign in the centre. The nymphs are similar to those drawn in the biological
section (see below). There is a probably relevant precedent for such nymphs in a Byzantine
astronomical MS in the Vatican Library.
The zodiac does not start with Aries, but with Pisces. The following signs, Aries and Taurus
are both represented in two illustations with 15 nymphs each. The illustrations for Capricorn
and Aquarius are missing, but there is a missing folio (f84) exactly at the point where they
should have appeared. The presentation of these illustations appears related to
paranatellonta, as shown in illustrations in other MSs, that have 30 'objects' arranged in
circular arrangements around emblems of the zodiac signs. See for example: IMAGE: Leo
and IMAGE: Scorpius.
The zodiac emblems themselves are easily recognisable, but often unusual. Libra is completely
standard, while Sagittarius represents a standing male figure holding a crossbow, deviating
from the much more typical centaur with a bow and arrow. The Scorpius does not look like a
scorpion at all, apart from the attempt at a curly tail. However, I have seen worse illustrations
of Scorpius that this one (IMAGE: is this a Scorpius???).
One other recognisable item in the astronomical pages are the Pleiades on fol. 68r3, given that
this is illustrated as a group of seven small stars very close to each other. It has also been
suggested by Newbold that fol. 68v3 represents the Andromeda galaxy. This is, however, not
realistic.
Cosmological illustrations
Cosmological pages feature geometric designs, all essentially circular, which cannot be easily
classified. The use of the term 'cosmological' for these pages was first introduced by Newbold.
There is one very large composite drawing on a sixpage foldout consisting of nine connecting
circles with four smaller items on the corners. This is usually called the 'Rosettes' page. It
includes innumerable details, among others with several illustrations of buildings, one
reminiscent of a N.Italian castle. The central circle includes six minaretlike towers supporting
a plane filled with stars (the sky?). Biological illustrations
The following section of the Voynich MS has traditionally been called the biological section,
though others prefer to call it the balneological section. D'Imperio qualifies it as the most
unusual part of the Voynich MS.
It contains drawings of socalled nymphs (unclothed female figures) populating arrangements
of pipes or vessels, and what seem like baths or clouds. These nymphs are very similar to the
ones in the zodiac pages described above. Many illustrations leave the impression of
representing a chemical (alchemical) or natural process, or appear to represent organs in the
human body.
Several people have, independently from each other, pointed out a resemblance of these
illustrations to the MSs of the 'Balneis Puteolanis', a description of some medicinal baths
written in the 13th Century. This has led to the introduction of the term balneological for this
section. There is also a suggestion that this section really consists of two parts that have
become mixed during a (re)binding of the MS (11).
An interesting piece of evidence for an incorrect binding of this part of the MS is the fact that
the illustrations on fol. 78v and fol. 81r form one connecting design, with water flowing from
the left part into the right part. Presently, another bifolium is bound in front of this one, and
the combined design is invisible.
Pharmaceutical illustrations
The socalled pharmaceutical section consists of small herbal drawings and other items. The
herbal drawings typically do not present a complete herb, but only leaves or roots. In a
number of cases, the drawings are copies of (parts of) herbal drawings. The 'other items'
mentioned above appear like jars, but have been likened to early microscopes (12).
These jars all appear on the left margin of the pages, with the 'plant parts' aligned to the right
of them. This part of the MS appears unfinished. The pharmaceutical folios are also not
adjacent in the MS. They are include in two quires, and the two quires have quite a different
style of 'jars' among them.
The supposed pepper identified by O'Neill is included in the pharmaceutical section.
This section is not really similar to any other herbal MS that I am aware of, but it is not at all
unusual for herbal MSS to include drawings of a quality and size similar to this.
Textonly with marginal stars
At the end of the MS there are some pages containing only text, with stars drawn in the
margin. These stars are usually red or yellow, and many of them have a tail. This section is
usually referred to as the 'recipes' section, in analogy to some alchemical MS's. One more folio
in the middle of the MS: fol. 58 has a similar lack of other illustrations, and a few stars in the
margin. Illustrations by type
Missing pages
Some pages do not have any illustrations, but there are pages that do not even exist at all (13).
The following pages are missing from the MS:
fol. 12 (cut out, stub still visible)
fols. 5964 (possibly dropped out of quire centre but were supposedly still present at the
time of Newbold) (14)
fol. 74 (cut out, stub still visible)
The complete Quire 16 (fols. 91 and 92)

The complete Quire 18 (fols. 97 and 98)
fols. 109110 (possibly dropped out of quire centre).
Some pages appear to have been cut out of the MS. When this happened is not clear, but it
seems as if one page of each type is missing.
Other graphical elements in the Ms
Animals
A dragon eating from a leave on fol. 25v
Two snakes or worms curling between the roots of a plant on fol. 49r
Several different animals on fol. 79v. These could be a fish, a salamander, a lion, and a
lamb in the "Golden Fleece" posture.
Birds (nesting and flying) on fol.86v3
A frog on a pharmaceutical folio fol.102r2
The Sun
fol. 67v2, 1
fol. 68r1, 2
fol. 68v1
fol. 85r2
The Moon
fol. 67r1
fol. 67v2
fol. 68r1, 2, 3
fol. 70r2
fol. 86v4
Stars, constellations
fol. 67v1
fol. 68r1, 2, 3
fol. 68v3, 2, 1
TO maps
Some pages contain a circle subdivided into two halves, with one half further split into two
quarters. This design is very similar to a medieval stylized world map referred to as a TO
map. The three sections of the TO map refer to the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa.
These maps may be seen on the following pages:
fol. 68v3 .
fol. 86r6 .
An apparently incomplete one on fol. 86v3.
Miscellaneaous oddities
The roots on fol. 17r seem to contain eyes.

A strange doodle, perhaps indicating the number 17, on fol. 57v
A dead person, with small indeterminate objects near it, on fol. 66r.
A romanesque castle and a tower on fol. 86r6.
Christian imagery
The Voynich MS contains very few recognisable Christian symbols (indeed, there are few
recognisable symbols from any known religion). However, in fol. 79v, the woman in the top left
of the picture holds a crucifix and is illuminated by radiance coming down from above
Possible relations between illustrations and text
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it has to be assumed that, if the Voynich MS
contains meaningful text, this text is related with the illustrations. Some examples of how this
may help in the decipherment of the MS are given below.
It is assumed that the text near the plant drawings in the herbal section contain
descriptions of that plant. However, no clear subdivision of these pages into standard
sections (such as appear in 'normal' herbals) can be observed. It has been suggested
(<Stolfi) that the first word on each page gives the plant name, as these words are often
unique or at least rare in the MS.
The plant with snakes or worms on fol. 49r could possibly be a plant producing a
snakebite cure.
Short words (the socalled "labels") near stars in the astronomical and astrological
sections strongly suggest that the names of the stars are written here.
Labels near leaves and roots in the pharmaceutical section strongly suggest that the
names of the plants are written here.
The text inside the sectors of the TO maps could be related to the continent in
question.
Description
Quire 2 is a standard quire containing folios 9 through 16. The gathering mark is on f16v.
Folio 12
is missing.
Schematic folio layout:
Browse interlinear transcription of Quire 2
Folio 9
Normal folio. The folio nr. is on f9r.
f9r
Description
Herbal page
Plant with weird leaves, earth plateau and peculiar (hairy) roots. No flowers but some kind of
seeds. Two paragraphs of text. Folio nr (9) in upper right corner. Text
Browse interlinear transcription of f9r
Two paragraphs of text.
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
f9v
Description
Herbal page
Looks a bit like a violet. Text in paragraphs.
TextTwo paragraphs of text.
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
Looks a bit like a violet.
Folio 10
f10r
Description
Herbal page
Looks like a very common flower (dandelion?), dying. Text in paragraphs. Folio nr (10) in
upper
right corner. Text
Two paragraphs of text
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
Miscellaneous
An illustration of this page appears in Kraus, 35 Mss (ref), XXX (<Reeds)
f10v
Description
Herbal page
Flower with two rows of weird leaves. Text in paragraphs. Text
Browse interlinear transcription of f10v

Two short paragraphs of text.
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
Folio 11
f11r
Description
Herbal page
Bushel of leaves with tiny dark flowers sticking out in all directions. Text in paragraphs. Folio
nr
(11) in upper right corner. Text
Two short paragraphs of text.
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
f11v
Description
Herbal page
Even more compressed bushel than on recto. Text in one paragraph.
Text
Browse interlinear transcription of f11v One paragraph of text.

Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
Folio 12
This folio is missing but a stub of it is still visible.
Folio 13
f13r
Description
Herbal page
Folio nr (13) in upper right corner. Text
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
f13v
Description
Herbal page
Text
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1 Folio 14

f14r
Description
Herbal page
Plant with leaves like arrows. Text in paragraphs. Folio nr (14) in upper right corner.
Text
Two paragraphs of text.
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1 Miscellaneous
An illustration of this page appears in Levitov, p. 57 (<Reeds)
f14v
Description
Herbal page
Text in one paragraph.
Text
One paragraph of text.
Analysis
Currier language: A Currier hand: 1
Folio 15
f15r
Description
Herbal page
Folio nr (15) in upper right corner.
Text
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1 f15v
Description
Herbal page
Text
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
Folio 16
f16r
Description
Herbal page
Plant with starry leaves and seeds instead of flowers (but tiny leaves sticking out there too).
Text in
paragraphs. Folio nr (16) in upper right corner.

Text
Three short paragraphs of text.
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1
f16v
Description
Herbal page
Plant whose flower and leaves are bright within, surrounded by dark. Strange. Gathering
mark (29)
in lower right corner.
Text
Analysis
Currier language: A
Currier hand: 1 Analysis of the writing (script)
Introduction
THE FORENSICS
Almost the entire Voynich MS is written in a script that is not found in any other surviving
document.
Most of the text has been written in a linebyline manner, obviously from left to right and
from top to bottom. Especially on the herbal pages it appears that the illustration (or at least
its outline) was on the page before the written text, and the text carefully avoids these
illustrations.
In some places, single 'words' are written near elements of drawings. These have come to be
called 'labels'. Other, more complicated, pages contain (often circular) diagrams, and the text
occasionally seems to form an integral part of these. It may be written along radii or along
circumferences of the circles.
In various places, short words or even single characters in the Voynich script form what are
called 'sequences'. Their meaning is not yet clear, but they deserve special attention.
In addition to the above, there are a few lines or words in the MS which are not written in the
Voynich script. This socalled 'extraneous writing', even though obviously in the normal
Roman alphabet, is almost all unintelligible. These occurrences will be described below, after
a more detailed discussion of the Voynich MS script.
Similarities with other scripts
To be included here are general observations about:
Latin abbreviations
Capelli
alchemical symbols
15th C cipher
Characters such as found in Tranchedino.
The encrypted works of Fontana.
All those who studied the Voynich MS text realised the need to be able to convert the text to
Roman characters. The only exception to this rule was Fr. Th. Petersen of the Catholic
University of America, who made a complete hand transcription of the MS using the original
alphabet. This was in the 1930's, well before the introduction of the computer, of course.
Various transcription alphabets for the Voynich MS script have been devised in the past. The
First Study Group (FSG) of Friedman defined an alphabet agreed by all members of the
team.
Using this alphabet, they transcribed almost the entire MS in the 1940's. Because of the desire
for secrecy by Friedman, nobody outside his team was aware of this transcription exercise or
the alphabet they used.
Prof. Bennett of Yale University was one of the first to use the computer to analyse parts of the
Voynich MS text, and he therefore needed a transcription alphabet.
Currier, working on his own, also devised a transcription alphabet. When he presented his
findings at the 1976 symposium, Mary D'Imperio suggested that it would be important that
all
researchers use a unified alphabet, and announced that she would abandon here own in
favour of Currier's.
Later, D'Imperio showed that many characters in the Voynich MS cannot be represented
exactly by any of the existing alphabets. There are some 'rare' characters, and there are what
appear to be ligatures of several characters. This was reflected in a new generation of
transcription alphabets.
The first example of this was the 'Frogguy' alphabet by Jacques Guy, first presented in 1991.
This alphabet uses characters which represents common 'strokes', and thus allows the
representation of the many ligatured characters using these strokes.
The second example of this is the EVA alphabet which will be used throughout this site.
After this, Glen Claston devised a transcription alphabet which he called Voynich 101, (here
V101 for short) which again includes 'composite' characters as single elements, and which
distinguish between several variants of characters that were considered one in all previous
alphabets. He used this in his transcription of the entire Voynich MS.
Both for EVA and V101 True Type fonts have been designed, allowing a rendition of the
Voynich MS text in documents.
Overview of the alphabet
The following table gives an overview of the alphabets mentioned above, presenting the most
frequently used characters of the Voynich MS script. The columns of the Currier and EVA
alphabet have been highlighted. After that, some further information about the four most
relevant alphabets is presented. The V101 font is still missing and needs to be added.
Bennett FSG Currier Char Frogguy EVA V101
D444q
OOOoo
S888d
GG99y
Z22ss
L E E x lQ R R 2 r
CT T S ct ch
ET S Z c't sh
H H P qp t
Bennett FSG Currier Char Frogguy EVA
P P B qj p
K D F lp k
F F V lj f
CHT HZ Q cqpt cth
CPT PZ W cqjt cph
CKT DZ X clpt ckh
CFT FZ Y cljt cfh
AAA a a
CCCce
IIIii

IL IE G ix il
IIL IIE H iix iil
IIIL IIIE 1 iiix iiil
IQ IR T i2 ir
IIQ IIR U ii2 iir
IIIQ IIIR 0 iii2 iiir
U Lv n
DN N(*) N iv in
M M(*) M iiv iin
IM IIIL 3 iiiv iiin
K J ig m
IK K iig im
IIK L iiig iim
IIIK 5 iiiig iiim
(6) 6 cg g
(7) 7 & j
Y Y (n) n x
V V (v) ^ v
(*) Note: Tiltman used the FSG alphabet, but instead of N and M wrote IL and IIL.
FSG
The FSG alphabet uses capital letters and numbers. It has an unusual method for
transcribing
the 'intruding gallows', by using a special symbol (Z) for the intruded pedestal.
The FSG transcription is well described in a paper by Jim Reeds (ref). A printout of this
transcription was found by Jim in the Marshall library, and together with Jacques Guy he
entered it in computer readable form. This file is >> available for downloading.
Currier
Currier had transcribed a significant part of the MS in his alphabet. This uses the capital
letters AZ and the numbers 09 (i.e. all 36). Currier's alphabet does not represent some
characters which FSG does, and uses single characters for what appear to be composites.
Mary D'Imperio had also started transcribing parts of the MS using her own alphabet, which
she abdicated in favour of Currier's. The two files were merged and the result is the most
oftenused transcription of the MS, which, however, has some lacunae, which is not always
realised by its users.
Frogguy
This powerful alphabet was devised by Jacques Guy. It uses lowercase characters, numbers
and diacritical marks, and represents the closest similarity with the original script. As a result
of its analytical nature, some characters which appear to be one, are represented by several in
this alphabet. It is well explained at >> one of Jim Reeds' web pages EVA
The EVA alphabet was designed in the framework of a more recent transcription effort. It is
analytical, like Frogguy, but it uses only lowercase alphabetical characters. These have also
been chosen in such a way that the transcribed text is almost pronouncible. The power of this
alphabet lies in the fact that it allows the definition of 'rare' characters or character
components using numerical strings, in such a way that the entire MS can be represented.
Currier's Hands
While various experts have stated that the handwriting appears to be uniform throughout the
MS (refs: Watson, Toresella, other?), Prescott Currier (ref) was the first to point out a
variation in handwriting style. He correlated these with textual statistics, as will be described
later). The following 'cuts' from various pages of the Voynich MS show the different
handwriting styles usd in the different sections of the Manuscript. Currier's classification of
languages into A or B has been reflected in the font used in the captions. Red and bold for A
language, blue and italic for Blanguage and neutral when no identification was given.
Each image represents a 32mm x 32mm section of a page. They were scanned from
Friedman's copy of the Voynich MS now kept at the George C. Marshall Library and
Archives
in Virginia.
f2r, Herbal f26r, Herbal f70r2, Cosmological
f79v, Biological f86v5, Textonly f88v, Pharma
f116r, RecipesAt first sight, only the HerbalB page seems different, but more samples should
be compared
before any conclusions can be drawn. Pending that, it would appear that Currier's correlation
between hands and languages, which he based mostly on the herbal section, may not be valid
for the other sections.
Special Topics
Labels
'Labels' is the term used for the appearance of single words or short phrases near drawings.
The suggestion is very strong that the label gives the name of the item shown. The following
types of labels may be found in the Voynich Ms:
Whole plant labels in the herbal section, on fol. 2r, fol. 41v (uncertain) and fol. 65r.
A label near the dead body on fol. 66r.
Star labels in the zodiac section, on fol. 70v2,1, fol. 71, fol. 72, fol. 73, and on the
astronomical pages.
Labels near items in the illustrations of the biological section
Labels near plant parts in the illustrations of the pharmaceutical section
Titles
The term 'titles' was introduced by John Grove. It is a term used for the occurrence of words
appearing at the end of a paragraph of text, written somewhat away from the main text
(usually at the right margin or centred). They are discussed at one of his pages (reference to be
included).
Character or word sequences
In some circular designs and in the margins of some pages, sequences of single characters or
short words may be found. These are usually referred to as keylike sequences.
These are:
Erased character tables on fol. 1r.

In the margin of fol. 49v.
A four times repeating sequence of 17 characters, and further sequences on fol. 57v.
Characters and short words in the left margin of fol. 66r.
Single characters, accompanied by the roman numbers 15, in the left margin of f76r (This
needs to be checked for completeness)
Extraneous writing
Only very few barely legible phrases in the normal (nonVoynich) alphabet may be observed in
the Voynich MS. These are:
The erased signature of Jacobus of Tepenec on fol. 1r.

Erased character tables on fol. 1r.
An unreadable comment near the top margin of fol. 17r.
Some (German?) words on fol. 66r, near the dead body of a man or woman, interpreted
by R. Salomon as 'der Mussdel'.
Strange, similar scribbles (perhaps not really text) on fol. 66v and fol. 86v3
The characters 'a', 'b' and 'c' written in the top corners of some pages (with pencil): fol.
67r1, 2, fol. 68r1, 2, 3, fol. 70r1, 2. These are written in pencil and obviously originate
from a later owner of the MS.
Month names in a not yet fully identified language or dialect on each of the zodiac
pages: fol. 70v2,1, fol. 71, fol. 72 and fol. 73.
Three lines of perhaps magical words on fol. 116v, possibly representing a decipherers
attempt at reading the Ms.
Origin of the Manuscript.
The history of the Voynich MS is described in three parts, on three pages:

The origin of the manuscript, describing its creation, addressing the questions where,
when, who, how, how long etc.
The history of the manuscript, descibing its path through space and time, after its
creation
The history of the research and analysis of the MS
As this is a subdivision by topic, the three histories will overlap in time. This page addresses
the first part, the origin of the manuscript. It will first address the process of creating the MS,
and the time in which this probably took place, followed by analyses of the possible place
where this happened, and the possible author(s).
How and when was the Voynich MS constructed
In this section I will refer to 'the author' as if it were a single person. This is not necessarily
true,
but it is done for convenience and readability. The question about the number of authors is
discussed further below.
The materials
The Voynich MS is made of parchment, but not vellum in the strict sense (1). The limp
parchment cover was added at a much later date and is not part of the original MS. De Ricci
(2) states that the limp vellum cover and the paper end leaves of the MS were added in the
16th Cenury. The quality of the parchment is quite good, but not top rated, i.e. not like the
parchment used in expensive books made for rich clients (such as books of hours). Also the
edges of the skins were used, as some folios show concave outlines which are from the edges of
the skin. Folios with holes were equally used, and in some places stiches, applies during the
parchment production process (stretching), are still visible. These minor deficiencies are quite
common in parchment codices. Parchment was a relatively expensive material, but top rated
vellum was very expensive indeed.
In many places marks of the stretching of the parchment during its production are visible
mostly under the microscope, but it is easily visible to the naked eye even on some of the lower
resolution images, for example folio 44r (top right corner. The MS has been analysed under
the microscope in January 2009 and in October 2009, both by McCrone and Yale specialists,
and they concluded that the parchment does not show any signs of scratching, such as to erase
previous writing. The parchment was not previously written upon.
In 2009, the University of Arizona performed a radiocarbon dating of the parchment. Four
samples from different locations in the MS were individually tested, and the probability
curves of their C14 content were fully consistent with each other. The combined date of the
parchment was established as ranging between 1404 and 1438 with 95% probability.
At the same time, the McCrone institute analysed the inks and the pigments used for the
writing and painting of the MS respectively. Detailed results from this analysis are not yet
publicly available, but it was stated that there were only minor variations of the ink
composition throughout the manuscript, and iron gall ink was used everywhere. The pigments
were based on ground minerals of high quality, for which recipes existed since the middle
ages.
There was no sign of any constituent which was inconsistent with the radiocarbon dating of
the parchment. The pigments were also considered to have been expensive.
The above paints a picture of an origin of the MS in the 14001450 time frame, so the first half
of the 15th century. It is not impossible, but it would have been quite unusual, for the
parchment to remain unused for a long time. The writing materials would not have been
affordable for most common people, but are also below the level of what would have been
used
for a commission by a rich client.
Before this scientific dating there have been long debates deriving from an observation by the
botanist Hugh O'Neill of the Catholic University, who identified one plant drawing with the
American Sunflower, not seen in Europe before 1493 (3). This plant identification is by no
means certain.
The order of the MS creation
This section analyses the sequence in which the MS may have been created. In several points
it
is quite speculative. Not all researchers agree on all points here, and I will try to represent
alternative views fairly.
Looking at the production of each single bifolio (or foldout folio), there is little or no doubt,
that the illustration outline was drawn first. Secondly, the text was written, carefully avoiding
the illustation. There are, however, cases, where the text interleaves with the illustration, and
the size of the gap between (for example) braches of a herb exactly fits the size of the word
written in between. This has been seen by some as an indication that the text is meaningless
filler, but it could also mean that the page has been copied from a wellprepared draft.
Whether all four drawings on a bifolio were done before all four text sections, or it was done
page by page, seems impossible to say.
The painting of the illustrations was done afterwards. There are places in the MS where one
can observe the painting to be on top of the plant outlines, and even on top of the text (to be
checked / confirmed). Some people suggest that the painting was done in several stages, by
different people. Due to the very low quality of the painting, some people also suggest that it
was done by a child.
It is not clear whether the painting was done on individual bifolios, or only after the quires
were already collated. This question can quite possibly still be answered, by a comprehensive
analysis of the use of colours throughout the manuscript. This includes a complete overview of
all the hues of the paints, and paint transfer between folios by contact. Until now, these
aspects
have only been looked at in piecemeal fashion, currently most actively by Nick Pelling (4),
leading to results that are still very debatable.
There is every reason to believe that the Voynich MS was basically produced bifolio per bifolio
(or foldout folio), as the properties discovered by Currier (different hands and different text
statistics throughout the MS) are generally consistent for each bifolio. This issue is closely
related to the question of the current page order of the MS, and whether this is the same as
the order intended by the author, which is discussed further below.
Folio and quire numbering
Every folio of the Voynich MS is numbered, in the upper right corner of each folio, and in case
of large foldout folios, when the folio is completely folded in. Quire numbers (Latin ordinal
numbers) are written mostly in the lower right corner of the verso side of the last folio of each
quire. D'Imperio already mentioned the difference in style between these two sets of numbers,
and this point is further analysed by Nick Pelling (5). John Manly suggested that the style of
the quire numbers belongs to the 15th Century (6). The folio numbers appear to be 16th or
even early 17th Century: De Ricci (see note 2) gives the 16th Century and Manly (see note 6)
the 17th (based on the handwriting style).
Quire and folio numbers were definitely added by different people, in a different age. While
the quire numbers could have been added already very shortly after the creation of the MS,
this is certainly not the case for the folio numbers. Still, it is important to point out that the
quire numbers and folio numbers are fully consistent. Both increase monotonously thoughout
the manuscript. Wherever there are missing folio numbers, there is also evidence for missing
folios, and the two missing quires (numbers 16 and 18) coincide with gaps in the foliation (2
missing folios each).
The current vs. original page order
There are several reasons to believe why the current page order in the Voynich MS is different
from the original order, or the originally planned order. While some, if not most, of these
arguments are quite sensible, without being able to read the text, they are difficult to prove.
This is a problem for which not all evidence has been collected yet, similar to the question
above of the time of the painting of the colours. These two questions are also closely related.
For the time being, the evidence for modifications in the page order is summarised in a list
only.
After a long herbal section, there are astronomical, cosmological and biological
sections, only to have another number of herbal pages which are not fundamentally
different from the earlier ones. They look out of place, as if they should have belonged
in the earlier part.
In the early herbal section, there are a number of bifolios written in a different hand
and with different text statistics (7). They seem arbitrarily mixed, as if it was
unintentional.
In the biological section, the bifolio consisting of folios 78 (verso) and 81 (recto)
together form an integrated design with water flowing from one folio to the other. This
design would have been visible if the bifolio were in the centre of the quire, but it is not
(8).
Glen Claston has observed that the biological section could be considered to consist of
two different topics, and should have formed two separate quires instead of one (9).
While it was already known that the quire mark of quire 9 is not in the usual place,
John Grove noticed that there appeared to be stitching gaps of a previous binding in
one of the foldout creases. By assumung that this should have been the original binding
crease, all of a sudden the quire number falls in its right place (10).
As the quire numbers increase monotonously, and appear on Herbal A and Herbal B pages
alike, the quire numbers must have been added to the Voynich MS after any page
rearrangement took place. As the quire numbers appear in a style belonging to the 15th
Century, any folio rearrangement must have taken place relatively soon after the MS was
written. To compicate matters, Nick Pelling proposes that several different hands in the quire
marks can be identified (11).
Extraneous writing
'Extraneous writing' is a term used here for entries which are in the Latin alphabet rather
than in the Voynich script, or which are found in the margins. An overview is presented on a
later page at this site, and details are provided on the folio descriptions. Here, we are mainly
interested which of these could have been added by the original author and which are from
later owners.
Single Latin characters and the word 'rot' written inside plant drawings have been observed
after the highresolution colour images of the Voynich MS were made available by the
Beinecke library. These were clearly written by the original scribe of the MS. A comparison
with another 15th Century herbal: MS 362 of the 'Biblioteca Civica Bertoliana' in Vicenza
(one of the socalled alchemical herbals), makes it plausbile that the mother tongue of the
Voynich MS scribe was German (12). A more detailed explanation will be provided here later.
The famous entry on f116v, referred to usually as 'michiton oladabas', is a mixture of
apparently pseudoLatin, Voynichese and German text. It is written in the normal text frame
of the Voynich MS, so was so it was also written most probably by the original scribe. Its
meaning has been debated since decades. The script appears to my untrained eyes as German,
and belonging to the 14301450 time interval, but we need a more expert analysis of this. There
is more writing in the top margin, but as for the writing on f17r, this looks more like having
been added by a later owner.
Another entry is on f66v, which supposedly says 'der Musdel' which is supposed to be
German, but it is not at all clear whether this is from the original scribe or a later owner, and
its meaning is also quite unclear.
All marginalia are very difficult to read. Nick Pelling argues that most of these extraneous
entries have been modified by having been written over at some later time. As Nick is a keen
observer, this has to be taken seriously, but the precise consequence of this observation is not
yet fully clear.
How long did it take to write the Voynich MS

How long it may have taken tha author of the Voynich MS to produce the entire MS is a
question for which we have no hard evidence to help us find the answer. The radiocarbon
dating of the indivual folios does not help, as it is simply not accurate enough. Furthermore,
all parchment may have been acquired at once, and then used over a longer period of time.
Gordon Rugg proposes that, using his method, it could have taken only a few months of
continuous work, but this is by far the lowest estimate. Other people have estimated that, just
to preduce the MS as we see it, may have taken the order of a year, but this does not include
any preparation time, and assumes that the author had all his time available for drawing and
writing. There is one famous encyclopedic manuscript, written between 1090 and 1120, which
took its author 30 years to complete (13). This is not saying that this is the best estimate for the
Voynich MS, but it provides a possible upper limit.
Some more annotations on the Voynich MS
Some annotations on the Voynich MS were undoubtedly made at a much later date, and
should not be considered as part of the origin of the MS. These annotations, all made with a
pencil, will be discussed in a later version of the history page.
Where lies the origin of the Voynich MS
Hints from the illustrations in the MS
The illustrations in the Voynich MS are discussed in more detail on a later page. Here, I just
summarise those points which give some possible indications about the place of origin of the
MS.
Probably the most famous and most indicative detail is the small castle which is part of the
rosettes page. It has swallowtail or ghibelline crenellations, a building style which is
predominantly found in Northern Italy. While these decorations are also found in other places
in Italy and central Europe, they are closely associated with the Scaligers of the region around
Verona, from the 14th century onwards. Manuscripts with drawings of castles and other
buildings with similar crenellations all tend to originate from N. Italy. In German
manuscripts only straight or guelph crenellations are observed.
It should also be noted that there are more illustrations of buildings in the Voynich MS, and a
complete analysis including all of them should be made by a relevant expert. Another
illustration that has received some attention is the Sagittarius in the zodiac section,
which (unusually) is a man with a crossbow. The dress of this man is typically German. A
similarly dressed Sagittarius is observed in the late 15th century manuscript from Konstanz.
(14). Elmar Vogt has furthermore identified a picture on a grave of a German warrior in
Wrzburg, dressed in the same way.
A modern historian of botany, Sergio Toresella, identifies the style of the herbal drawings of
the Voynich MS and the style of the script with Northern Italy, around 1460. He recognises a
humanist hand in the script of the MS. A similar opinion was expressed by J. Parez, archivist
of the Strahov library in Prague, when I met him in 2004. He commented that the MS pages
show an Italian style and that the scribe was clearly expert in writing the script of the Voynich
MS. He also indicated that the last page of the MS, with its mixture of German, Latin and
"Voynichese" text, looks more Central European, and is from well before 1550.
With predominantly Italian and also some German influences, the best guess one can make at
this time is that of an 'Alpine' origin of the MS. One region where both influences could be
expected would be Tyrol, nowadays composed of the regions Tirol, SdTirol and Trentino
Alto Adige, divided over Austria and Italy, but this is just a speculation. It is however of
interest that this region includes the warm baths of Vetriolo, with arsenic, cuprous and ferrous
minerals, which were already known in the late middle ages, and whose waters may have
appeared relatively green. Would these be the baths represented in the biological section of the
MS?
Voynich and Newbold believed that the MS originates in England, with Roger Bacon.
This was later also believed by Feely. L.C. Strong also points to England but believes
the author was Anthony Askham.
Levitov believed that the MS originates from the South of France, from a Cathar cult of Isis
followers.
Jacques Guy and later Jorge Stolfi suggested the Far East, as the structure of the MS
text is considered by them to exhibit patterns that could point to an oriental language.
Nick Pelling points to Milan.
Who was the author?
To identify the person or persons who wrote the MS is not likely to lead to success.
It has been much debated whether the MS is the product of a single person, or of two or even
more persons. In a famous presentation, Prescott Currier recognised two writing styles and
two different text properties, and concluded that the Voynich MS must be the product of two
people (perhaps even more). Both would have written part of the text of the MS.
Alternatively, there is the possibility of the collaboration of an author who made a draft, and a
scribe who made a fair copy. In that case, the scribe could either read and understand the text,
or he could not. In this second scenario, it is possible that the socalled 'ignorant scribe'
introduced so many mistakes in the text, that its meaning has become irrecoverable. This
brings us to the absolute key question about the Voynich MS...
Does the text of the Voynich MS have any meaning?
This question has been debated more heavily than any other question related to the Voynich
MS. The answer, if I knew it, would tell us a bit more about the possible author(s).
The MS includes meaningful text, which hasn't yet been deciphered
The text of the MS was meaningful to the author, but not to anybody else, as it is in
some private or so far,unknown language.

The text used to have a meaning but it is no longer recoverable (or only partly) due to
the way it has been 'encrypted'
The text was never meant to be meaningful, and the MS is a deliberate hoax
The author(s) may, a scientist or someone with some sort of a mental disorder. These are not
mutually exclusive. Toresella proposes that the author may have been someone impressed by a
travelling quack or charlatan and decided that he would be able to make an impression by
owning a mysterious book.
What EVIDENCE of the author(s)?
Given that the writing materials were relatively valuable (as described above), the author
must
have had some means, or a patron with some means. At the same time, the book was most
probably not a commission by a rich client, as it has not been prepared with the typical care of
such valuable documents. The text area has not been delineated and there is no ruling. The
painting of the colours is of very low quality.
The layout of the herbal pages is typical for some MS herbals from the 15th century and
before, and some details of plant drawings as well, so the author almost certainly must have
had access to, and been familiar with such manuscripts. The same consideration applies to the
drawings of the zodiac pages. The author must have been familiar with the meaning of
paranatellonta. This means that the author had knowledge of at least two important sciences
of his time.
The author according to some theories
OTHER RESEARCHER'S OPINIONS
Roger Bacon, as suggested by Voynich and Newbold, and which also Feely later
believed. Largely rejected.
Someone from a Cathar cult of Isis followers, as suggested by Levitov. Well disproven
by Guy and Stallings.

Anthony Askham, writing a coded almanac, as suggested by L.C. Strong. The name of
Askham derives from an otherwise incredible decryption of the MS.
John Dee and/or Edward Kelly as suggested by many and most strongly supported by
Brumbaugh and more recently Rugg. This is essentially out of the question as it
concerns Dee and as for Kelley, there is also no evidence to support it.
A designer of an early form of a synthetic language, as suggested by Friedman and
Tiltman. This cannot be disproved, but is chronologically quite challenging.
Possibly a missionary to the Far East, in an early attempt to convert Chinese (or
another oriental language) to an alphabetic script. This theory is based on certain
peculiar text statistics and is by no means disproved, but there is difficulty with the fact
that the entire MS has a Western European look. A specific connection (e.g. encoding)
with any specific oriental language has also not yet been proposed.
Wilfrid Voynich creating a modern fake. Disproved by the recent radiocarbon dating of
the MS, and the earlier discovery of additional letters referring to the MS.
As you can see, there is a lot of information on the Voynich Codex to take in, to juggle and
tweak, to believe or not to believe from the suggested evidence, to look hard at the given facts
and to ignore totally at this stage of the game, the when's, why, who,s. Where?
What I do know it was written by someone, maybe more as part of a great work that dropped
off for some reason or another and ended up as a colourful comic books for readers of the 21st
century. I have placed all my comments and observations below for this research.
Carleton R. 2014
CONCLUSIONS.
I have looked through the evidence, read and reread the comments of others
and studied hard the artwork and flower species listed. All very interesting as
a reader of history, a study of nature including human nature, and come to the conclusion's
that the evidence presented is lacking in clarity and the forensics of the Voynich Manuscript
does not add up. On saying that I am of the informed opinion that there were two main
Authors, that being John Dee and an unknown. There was of course many scribblers who
wrote on the MS and of course everyone who read it in full had like I have, an opinion on the
author and content. Everyone it seems wants to be on the covered wagon singing Wandering
Star. No one has found a reason for the MS in the first place or what it is supposed to mean
because they were too busy with all the questions with no answers.
My opinion is that the MS has a great deal of paranormal input and also that John Dee and a
few people around him were also. That then suggests strongly that the book is about the
paranormal, religion, Gods and Godesses, stars and planets, reincarnation, rebirth, death and
dying and devils and hidden demons. The only thing that is missing from the MS is something
on Alien beings and Alien abduction which if you believe then you need go see your doctor or
if you already have, keep taking the tablets!
No research on such a topic is wasted but time and even money is and as one can see many
other researches had more time on their hands than I have as well as money but came up with
little or nothing.
The MS I now feel is a work of art, but also a work of fiction and science but without a
present
day known purpose. Except as a book it has no information within the pages that would be of
use today. Critics of course like the many of this book/MS are people who see a mountain but
never climb it and for many of them they talk of the top of their heads about the why's and
reasons for such a MS. That is easy to work out. There is none. The MS is the work of one or
two people who would be classified today if they were around as wishful thinkers, and into
Parapsychology and the paranormal. Lee and Kelley were such people and they worked
together and concocted the MS but also had extra help. It is very possible that today, John
Dee
would have been sectioned by two doctors in the last years of his life if he had presented the
MS to the public.
The MS I should add is not a hoax it is real but real only for the authors of it and has little or
no value in knowledge today though may well be of value money wise if the original copy was
found and the missing pages.
One can procrastinate on such findings and many have, but I don't.
The Voynich Manuscript is real but there are no codes to be broken in it, no hidden secrets to
discover and the only one who would have known are they authors of the MS and they are in
their graves and tombs smiling the smile of the dead.
Ronnie Carleton Walsall, West Midlands UK
2017 (c)
So how come most of us get it wrong or just being hopeful we are always right so we take
risks. After all, we are human whatever that means today. A good example of the human being
right all of the time, most of the time he or she gamble on being right and the General
Election just past is a good example of poor leadership by the Prime minister of the day.
HATE TO SAY THIS BUT..
Many of us do not read the data from the same page and therefore we fail to see that our own
interpretation of a subject be it bones or history of humans past is in fact hogwash when it
comes down to the evidence and facts because we all want to be Mr or Miss right all of the
time. I worry when the so called humans lie most of the time and all politicians lie all of the
time or arrange someone to lie for them just to get a political point across. They forget that
our own civilizations at present are already in the process of crumbling around us, and all
Trumps and Mays men and women and when people like that use the word I instead of we
I know that they dont want to know about the facts of climate change, new diseases and virus
waiting in the wings and spending hand over fist large sums of money to see if there is a micro
life form in deep space. The aliens are not up there, they came here at least one million years
ago, and mutated in the sea, and we humans are the result of mutations and self inflicted no
less. Look at the many sunken cities around the world in deep water, do your maths if you can
count backwards and sea rise data and you will be as wise as Murphys Catalans cell. The
answer for all human mind scapes is to look to the sea not the sky.

The Key To Human Kind

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Key To Human Kind

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE KEY TO HUMAN KIND.

THE FINAL REPORT.

Academic Year: 2015-2017

Content goes here THE EARTH TIME LINE

THE HUMAN FACTOR TIME LINE

THE TIME-LINE CODEX

Ronnie Carleton 2017

PLEASE NOTE. ALL DATA HERE IS COPY-WRITE.

WHAT YOU SEE MAY INFORM THE HUMAN BRAIN

IF THE BONES LOOK HUMAN THEN THE ARE

THE STARGATE PROJECT DATA.

UFO star M shower

flares solar flares moon

-_6,000,000,000 possible age of the Solar system,

forensic anthropology data archeology data

FORMED Last dinosaur. Triceratops.

HOMO TREE LINE.

H.erectus 350.000 BC FIRE USE IN EUROPE, HUNGARY AND NW FRANCE.

46,000 BC AFRICA BEADS FOUND IN BURIAL GROUND,ENKAPUNE YA MUTO,

27,500 BC ? ROCK PAINTINGS AT APOLLO CAVE,NAMIBIA, AFRICA. NEW DATING.

LIGHTS IN THE SKY OBSERVED AND RECORDED ON BRAHMAN TABLETS *

4000-3200 BC URUK SUMERIAN CULTURE see ubaid

DAHSHUR) ? ASIA . ASIAN SCRIPTS

2040-1991 BC 2 datess MIDDLE KINGDOM EGYPT. MIDDLE KINGDOM. XLth

1700 BC EUROPE RUNIC ALPHABET DERIVED FROM ETUSCAN. GERMANIC

911 BC LATE ASSYRIAN ADADNIRARI 11, ASHURNASIRPAL 11, SHALMANESER

THE HUMAN MIND-SCAPE TODAY IS NOW A MUTANT, GENETICALLY DAMAGED

THE FUTURE DECLINE OF HUMANS.

NOT MUCH TIME I KNOW.

THE HUMAN POPULATION OF THE WORLD WILL PEAK 2020

IT WAS GODS FAULT HONEST.

THE NEANDERTHAL DAWN.

ARCHEOLOGY RESEARCH PROJECT 2017 EARLY HUMANS.

Pliopithecus 26-27 mya Africa and Europe.

WHO WERE YOU?

THE ARCHEOLOGY OF AFRICA.

end of that range (Lewin, 1987).

Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecines,

Shipman, 1992; Trinkaus and Howells, 1979)

different species, that name will also be given.

do not know. Thats useful!

Europe and into Asia.

other living or extinct nonhuman primate is not in serious dispute."

Listen to Gish (1993) on the apelike qualities of the skullcap:

slender and weakened.

that possesses the entire constellation of traits that define Neandertals" .

around, more so that fifty thousand years ago.

that your mind has stored of images, colours and sounds.

Australopithecus Species: afarensis

Grandmother = Scot = Celt x =? yes

dating is now in doubt and I suggest here that it needs to be revised.

handed families throughout Europe I then thought that Neanderthal family

conditions while others are common in families.( cystic fibrosis in 1 of 2,000

There are 3 versions of 1 gene, A-determining version, B-determining version

in Europe there is no records of sickle cell gene which is odd because it is

perspective of gender politics," Dr. Page said. "But many of my colleagues

Other sites included in Europe are, Bockstein in Germany, Hungary, Russian

A quarter of each childs genes are inherited from each grandparent.

USA No possible links.

Ashkenazim 10 million. Some possible links.

advanced fossil state. He of course claimed that it belonged to the remains of

Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was almost beaten to the

63.7 67.3 56.6 47.5