Epstein's Folly

Sacsayhuaman

I have in the past discussed the woo writer and all round fringe thinker Graham Hancock1. Here I will discuss a review of Hancock’s latest woo-fest Magicians of the Gods2. The review by a Prof. Jon Epstein is a wonderful example of a Professional academic latching on to a woo claim in order to feel bold, daring and cutting edge.3

Maya Writing Tools

A Brief Note

Mayan Scribe at work

The Maya had a sophisticated system of writing. They also created some very beautiful books so what were the tools that they used in writing those books?

Oh My Goddess!*

The Great Mother of Teotihuacan

A Note

Near Mexico City is the great ruin of the city of Teotihuacan, which was a major metropolitan centre from c. 0-650 C.E. The city with its quite impressive architecture and its two huge pyramids, one called the pyramid of the Sun, the other the Pyramid of the Moon, has been the object of much speculation and an enormous amount of spade work over the years. One of the perennial questions has been the nature of its chief God. Well it appears we have an answer its chief God was a Goddess.

The Aztec Writing system

Something New in Something Old

Two generations ago a great many Archaeologists / Anthropologists and Historians would have agreed that there was a lot we didn’t know about the Pre-Columbian civilizations of the New World although the amount that we did know was large.

Diffusionistic Fantasies

Part VII

Sauna Diffusion

Or Steamed Off

Exterior of Finnish Sauna

Sometimes respected Anthropologists etc., go off the deep end. The following is a slightly expanded version of a posting I did c. 7 years ago in response to an article written by an Anthropologist who seemed to want to shock people with her daring and boldness.1

Politics and the

Warrior Queen



Carving of Bajlaj Chan K'awiil
King of Dos Pilas

One of the most surprising discoveries associated with the decipherment of Mayan Hieroglyphs has been the discovery of a whole previously unknown world of dynastic politics and intrigue. Perhaps the most convoluted involves the dynastic politics of the site of Dos Pilas.1

Sometime in the second quarter of the 7th century (625-650 C.E.) a man called Bajlaj Chan K’awiil become lord of the site of Dos Pilas. Now Dos Pilas is a small site, but the dynastic history which it participated in was not that of a minor site but that of a major power in the Mayan world.2

Diffusionistic Fantasies IIc

Thor Heyerdahl, Part Three

Sacred Sun stone (Intihuatani)

Machu Picchu Peru

In two previous postings I went through Thor Heyerdahl’s listing of reasons to believe that there was significant cultural diffusion between the Old and New World before Columbus. Here I will go through the last 14 items in Thor Heyerdahl’s list and then wrap up with a few conclusions.

The Longest Count

Stela One, Coba, Yucatan, Mexico

In a previous posting I discussed the Mayan calendar and of course the Mayan long count.1 Since the supposed ending of the world in 2012 was supposedly predicted by the Maya perhaps exactly what the Mayan long count was about should be examined. Now in the Mayan long count dates were given by giving the number of days that had passed since August 11, 3114 B.C.E., (B.C.).2 This was the so called long count which is usually transcribed into 5 numbers as in 13.0.0.0.0. The number given is in fact the beginning of the Mayan long count.

Moral Cretinism Part V

God Bless Genocide

Cultural areas in North America in 1492

On February 9, 2011 a column appeared by Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association in which Bryan Fischer stated his opinion that the dispossession of the American Indians from the great majority of the U.S.A. was moral and ethical;1 the piece is an excellent example of moral idiocy. Below I will give the article in italics with my comments plain characters.

Diffusionistic Fantasies IV

Bearded Strangers, Bearded Indians

One of the most boring traditions in alternative archaeology is the “White Gods” mythos. The whole returning white God nonsense which is almost entirely a post European discovery of Americas concoction.1 Part of this mythos is the bearded myth. The idea that since Indians can not grow beards than any story about a bearded individual, and any picture, sculpture of a bearded man must be ipso facto a picture of a non-Indian.

Thus writer after writer have used Indian stories and legends about bearded individuals as evidence of contact with peoples from the old world that pre dates Columbus and of course all depictions of bearded individuals are of non-Indians. Thor Heyerdahl was only the most prominent of the users of the bearded non-Indian story proving contact.2

Thus we get the story of the white Quetzalcoatl, with a beard. I'm also aware that it is a post conquest concoction. As time past from the Spanish conquest Quetzalcoatl got whiter and his beard longer.3

It is another myth that all Indian men can't grow beards. Cortes describes Montezuma has having thin, neat beard for example.4 In fact Diaz gives the following description of Montezuma:

The great Montezuma was about 40 years old, of good height, well proportioned, spare and slight, and not very dark, though of the usual Indian complexion. He did not wear his hair long but just over the ears, and he had a short black beard, well-shaped and thin.5

It appears that after all some Indians can grow beards, just like some Indians have straight noses. The people who came over the Bering strait were not a homogeneous bunch but varied in terms of hairiness, skin color and shape of nose etc.6

Why do so many find it so hard to believe that some Indian men without "white" ancestry could grow beards. Some Chinese and Japanese men can grow beards and they are related to the ancestors of modern Indians of the Americas. So there is no need to postulate "white" ancestry to explain portraits of bearded men in pre-Colombian art. But then these writers "know" that Indian men cannot grow beards but if they do it is because of white ancestry and if portraits of Indian men with beards exist before Columbus that only proves that white men were there in large numbers. There is not any possibility in these peoples minds, not even the smallest, that some Indian men without white ancestry could grow beards given that Japanese and Chinese men sometimes can to say nothing of the Ainu of Northern Japan? I stand amazed!7

None of this implies that all male Indians could grow beards. All that is required is that some male Indians, given the natural variation in hairiness could grow beards. The result being that there is no need to explain the depictions of men with beards in the Americas by postulating “white” immigrants. The assumption that if a Indian has a beard it indicates ”white” ancestry is wrong. To repeat beards appear among the Chinese and Japanese, who are definitely related to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. If recent evidence is anything to go by some the earliest people in the Americas were people like the Ainu of Japan the men of whom can most definitely grow beards. (I am thinking of Kennick man) some diffusionistic authors seem to categorically assume that Indians could not grow beards. (No exceptions). That is simply not true.

The depictions used as evidence and interpreted has belonging to "white" people, (could we be more specific!?). Like the allegedly Negroid Olmec heads, the people depicted are probably Native Americans. Like every human group there is variety in hairiness, head shape and skin color. So some natives were probably paler than others for example the Inca nobility tended to stayed out of sun to distinguish them selves from the peasantry so they would be paler.

From Prescott (Conquest of Mexico, Conquest of Peru) to Thor Heyerdahl (Early Man and the Ocean, etc.), Hancock, and on and on, we hear and read endless variations of the "White God" Ancient American myth. According too which the peoples of the Americas had a myth that a white bearded god (Virachocha, Quetzalcoatl, Votan etc.) brought civilization to them. And also that they believed that this "white god" would return.

This belief has become the equivalent of an "urban legend" that no amount of debunking seems to end. Instead like a rubber ball it keeps bouncing back.

Davies in his book Voyagers to the New World rather sarcastically entitles a chapter White Gods with Black Faces, and effectively demolishes this notion.

It seems that the Native Americans did not originally have a myth of "bearded white gods" bringing culture at all and the myth of return may in fact be largely Spanish in origin.

So in fact the original myths provide no such support at all. So why is this "urban legend" continually recycled? Why do its promoters continue to rely on the same outdated, inaccurate sources? I guess a little more knowledge just might blow up their theories.

It seems that these people are speaking in a closed circle and repeating what they hear from each other with no understanding that their theory is flawed, or at least this bit of evidence.

Since East Asians, Chinese and Japanese who live in the area that the natives of the Americas came from sometimes can and do grow beards and also that different people with different degrees of hairiness may have settled the Americas. There is no need to postulate “white immigrants before Columbus. For this more recent settlement, although pre-Columbus, by peoples of the Old World were is the evidence? Depictions of men with beards occur throughout the Americas; beards do exist among modern day Inuit and West Coast Indians in Canada. I could also mention the native Mexican codex's which show men with beards and of course some Mayan statutes. Diffusionists will claim that this only shows immigration in the past. Were is the evidence of such immigration?8

In the end the fantasy of the bearded white traveller is nothing more than a myth and fantasy of Europeans and those of European descent. It appears that the people that the Indians were depicting in their art and talking about in their myths and legends were other Indians.

To close here are some pictures from the famous photographer of Indians Curtis and yes these Indians have facial hair.

1. Reece, Katherine, The Spanish Imposition, In The Hall of Maat Here. Townsend, Camilla, Burying the White Gods, American Historical Review, Vol. 108, no. 3, June 2003, In the Hall of Maat Here.

Davies, Nigel, Voyagers to the New World, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 125-139. Wauchope, Robert, Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents, University of Chicago press, Chicago, 1962. Gardner, Brant, The Impact of the Spanish on the Record of Native Oral Tradition, 1998a, Ancient Middle America Here. (link to article no longer works. Article not available. I have copy and will send copy to anyone who requests it.).

2. For examples see Heyerdahl, Thor, Early Man and the Ocean, Vintage Books, New york, 1980, pp. 93-126. Irwin, Constance, Fair Gods and Stone Faces, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1963. Marx, Robert F., & Marx, Jennifer, In Quest of the Great White Gods, Crown Publishing Group, New York, 1992. Hancock, Graham, Fingerprints of the Gods, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1995.

3. Reece, Davies, Gardner, 1998b Quetzalcoatl as a White Man, 1998c The Bearded Quetzalcoatl Ancient Middle America Here. (link to article no longer works. Article not available. I have copy will send copy to anyone who requests it.).

4. Diaz, Bernal, The Conquest of New Spain, Penguin Books, London, 1973, p. 224. Davies, Gardner, 1998c.

5. Ibid, Diaz, p. 224. Here are a few more quotes about Indians with beards:

We have the following quote from a French Traveller:

A group of "wild people" live there, that are named Igniris; they go with their body completely naked and they have beards, which is different from all Indians, who pull out the hair as soon as it comes.

From Caribbean Consulting Here.

From Captain John Smith of Jamestown fame:

[The Powhatans are] generally tall and straight, of a comely proportion, and of a colour browne...Their haire is generally black, but few have any beards.

From First People: The Early Indians of Virgina Here.

From a Catholic Encyclopedia:

Physically the Mixe are of good height and strongly built, not handsome in features, but hardy and active, and notable burden carriers. Many wear beards.

From New Advent Here.

The following is about a tribe of Brazillian Indians:

Despite believing that if they grew beards or had their hair long at the front 'they might be seized and captured by these', some Tupinambá emulated the appearance of their French allies by growing beards. However, they plucked out all other facial and body hair.

From Wargames Foundry Here. (website now defunct).

For the above quotes thank you Doug Weller.

And how about a picture. This is one of a Yanomamo Indian.

6. Davies, pp. 21-48, Macgowan, Kenneth, & Hester, Joseph A., Early Man in the New World, Anchor Books, New York, 1962, pp. 207-232.

7. Davies, Gardner, 1998b, 1998c.Steibing, William H., Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man’s Past, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, pp. 140-141.

8. Davies, Macgowan, Meltzer, David J., First Peoples in a New World, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2009.

Pierre Cloutier

Diffusionistic Fantasies III
The Mormon Story

Moroni giving Joseph Smith the Golden plates

And I did teach my people that they should build buildings, and that they should work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass,and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
(The Book of Mormon, Second Book of Nephi, ch. 4. v.21)

Thus does the Book of Mormon describe the use of metals by the Nephities settling in the Americas. Now the Nephities were supposed to have settled in North America. The problem is that use of any of those metals is not evident in Mesoamerica at the time of the alleged Israelite migration to the New World. Although the use of copper eventually developed in South America and eventually spread to Mesoamerica, the use of steel and iron never did develop anywhere in the pre-Columbian Americas.1

The Book of Mormon is the sacred text of the Mormon faith, supposedly revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith in the 1830s when he allegedly translated the golden plates of the prophet Moroni, which were subsequently, allegedly, taken into heaven. The document allegedly describes the settlement and tribulations of various peoples who settled the Americas before Christ. The main story describes the history of the sons of Lehi in the Americas. Supposedly c. 600 B.C.E., Lehi and his sons immigrated to the New World. There they settled down and flourished. They did swiftly divide into two groups named after different sons of Lehi, Nephites and Lamanites, who were often at war with each other. The basic position is that the Nephites are the good guys and the Lamanites the bad guys. Both groups were preceded in the Americas by the Jaredites who had arrived shortly after the scattering at the tower of Babel, (c. 2800 B.C.E.). Shortly before the Lehi and his son arrived the Jaredites were whipped out in a massive war. Other groups also crossed into the Americas according to the Book of Mormon from the Old World.2

There is not surprisingly a massive literature about the “authenticity” of the document and in the end it seems to be a very dubious document. The Book of Mormon’s spiritual value aside it seems to tell us nothing useful or real about the pre-Columbian past of the Americas and so is disregarded by the overwhelming majority of modern day researchers with the exception of Mormons, (Latter Day Saints or L.D.S.).3

Now in many respects the Book of Mormon is a hyper-diffusionistic tale. It postulates fairly recent and dramatic migrations from the Old World to the New World, and in fact in visions massive significant recent demographic diffusion of Old World populations in fairly recent pre-Columbian times. Further the Book of Mormon gives fairly detailed descriptions of the life and ways of these people in the New World. How well does the descriptions in The Book of Mormon compare to the current state of Archaeological knowledge? The short answer is that they do not stand up at all. The Archaeological evidence conflicts in so many ways with The Book of Mormon as to effectively preclude it as a source for the pre-Columbian Americas.4

Let us examine several components of the descriptions given by the Book of Mormon about life in the Ancient Americas. I gave at the beginnings of this post a quote which describes the Nephites using and making brass, steel, copper and gold and silver. That would allegedly be c. 600-500 B.C.E. Well for the time period in question those metals were NOT being used in Mesoamerica. Certainly the references to metal swords do not help the veracity of the Book of Mormon account, neither does the references to plows. In fact it appears that metal use and the technology to make and cast such objects spread from South America to Mesoamerica c. 600-1000 C.E., more than 1000 years later.5

It could be objected that Joseph Smith’s account does not take place in Mesoamerica. And this would be apparently correct. After all Smith found the Book of Mormon at the hill Cumorah in New York State. And on and near the hill Cumorah was supposed to have taken place the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites. The problem is that there is little to nothing in the area of the modern day United States to show any sign of the high cultures described in the Book of Mormon so it appears that the place for these events has to be moved south in order for them to have any semblance of reality. It appears likely that Joseph Smith was heavily influence by various writers about the then mysterious Mound builders and may have constructed a religious fantasy around them.6

A quick go through of the Book of Mormon reveals why it cannot be taken seriously as a account of actual history, although its spiritual value is another matter.

Let us take for example the plant life recorded in the Book of Mormon. In the Book Of Mormon we find mentions of barley, figs, grapes and wheat:

And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land.
(The Book of Mormon, Book of Mosiah, ch. 6. v.12)

Of course pre-Columbian wheat has never been found in the Americas, and barley, grapes and figs never seem to have been domesticated in Mesoamerica. There is some indication that a type of barley may have been domesticated in the area of the lower 48 states and of course there were wild grapes in parts of North America. However these crops seem not to have been used at all in Mesoamerica. In fact it appears that Joseph Smith’s account seems to be remarkably clueless about the agricultural richness of the New World. The agriculture described seems to be nothing more than the agriculture of the Old Testament. It is interesting that tomatoes and chili peppers are absent from agriculture in the Book of Mormon. Neas and sheum are largely inexplicable although some characterize sheum as a barley like grain, which doesn’t help matters. As for the mention of corn the fact is the Bible uses the term corn to refer to wheat, barley and oats and given the obvious Old Testament attributes of the Book of Mormon it is more than likely Joseph Smith’s account is NOT referring to maize.7

Since actual pre-Columbian agricultural plants is largely absent from the Book of Mormon, what about animal life? Here we have perhaps the most glaring examples of contradiction with the facts.

The Book of Mormon, refers to donkeys, or asses, cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, oxen and horses. What all those creatures have in common is that they were either never in the pre-Columbian New World or they had been gone from the New World for more than 8,000 years before the alleged events of the Book of Mormon.8

And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance,

…

And the Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses, and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years,
(The Book of Mormon, Third Book of Nephi, ch. 2. v. 29-30, 44)

Well all of the above does not describe the pre-Columbian Americas at all. The peoples of the Americas did NOT have cattle, horses and chariots, in fact aside from toys did not use the wheel at all. Of course the total absence of horses, cattle etc, from pre-Columbian sites is quite conclusive. Joseph Smith is once again creating his image of the ancient New World as a copy of the Old Testament.9

The above isn’t helped by the occasional mention of Elephants in the Book of Mormon.

And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms.
(The Book of Mormon, Book of Ether, ch. 4. v.21)

The above is supposedly from the period c. 2300 B.C.E., from a record that predates the arrival of Lehi and his sons. The problem is that although Mammoths and Mastodons had existed in the New World by 7,000 B.C.E., they were long extinct and therefore not available to be used by the Jaredites when they allegedly arrived c. 2800 B.C.E.10

According to the Book of Mormon when the Nephites and Lamanites arrived:

And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow, and the ox, and the ass, and the horse, and the goat, and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men.
(the Book of Mormon, First Book of Nephi, ch. 5. v.216)

As mentioned before there were cows, Oxen, asses (donkeys), horses to be found in the Americas at the time of the alleged arrival of Lehi’s sons. Certainly one would think that such an abundance of these animals would show up in archaeological digs. They do not, so it appears that as an historical source the Book of Mormon is dubious.11

Finally the reformed Egyptian that the Book of Mormon was allegedly written in has never turned up in the Americas.12

With the above problems does it even have to be mentioned that both genetic studies and linguistic studies provide no evidence for the Book of Mormon has an historical document.13

The Book of Mormon remains an example of man’s perennial search for spiritual truth but there is no basis for considering it an historical document and plenty of evidence indicating it is not. Of course the Book of Mormon is a powerful indicator of what we would expect to find in the New World had moderate to extreme diffusion actually happened from the Old to the New World. Since those effects as outlined in the Book of Mormon are not evidenced we can conclude that such a level of diffusion did not happen.

All quotes from the Book of Mormon come from 1990 Independence Edition, Independence MO, which can be found at Here.

1. Larson, Stan, Quest for the Gold Plates, Freethinker Press, Herriman UT, 2004, pp. 195-204, See also in same book Ferguson, Thomas Stuart, Thomas Stuart Ferguson on Book of Mormon Archaeology, pp. 235-268, at pp. 246-257. For further references to metallurgy in the New World see my two postings about Thor Heyerdahl.

2. Williams, Stephen, Fantastic Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1991, pp. 158-167, Davies, Nigel, Voyageurs to the New World, William morrow and Co. Inc, New York, 1979, pp. 141-144, Wauchope, Robert, Lost Tribes & Sunken Continents, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962, pp. 59-61, The Book of Mormon, Wikipedia, Here.

3. IBID, and Larson, pp. 175-234.

4. IBID.

5. Footnote 1. Larson and Ferguson also give lists of metal references in the Book of Mormon.

6. Larson, pp. 175-178, Williams, 158-167, Davies, pp. 141-144, Wauchope, pp. 59-61, Criticism of the Book of Mormon, Wikipedia Here, Williams pp. 165-166. An example of Modern Mormons placing the events of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica is Sorenson, John L., An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Co., Salt Lake City UT, 1985.

7. Larson, pp. 179-181, Ferguson, pp. 238-239.

8. Larson, pp. 182-194, Ferguson, pp. 240-246, Ferguson also gives an extensive list of references to those animals in the Book of Mormon.

9. IBID, Ferguson, pp. 264-266, Williams, pp. 158-167, Wauchope, pp. 74-77, 87, 91. Davies between pp. 178-179 has a picture of a Mexican wheeled toy.

10. Larson, pp. 184-188, Ferguson, p. 245. For an overview of the ice age extinction of animals in the New World, which includes the horse and elephant, see Meltzer, David J., First Peoples in a New World, University of California Press, Los Angles, 2009, pp. 239-280.

11. Larson, pp. 182-194, Ferguson, pp. 240-246.

12. Larson, pp. 204-210, Ferguson, pp. 257-264. See overview volumes like Katz, Friedrich, Ancient American Civilizations, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1969, and Leonard, Jonathan Norton, Ancient America, Time Incorporated, New York, 1967, for the failure to find any of the alleged Reformed Egyptian that was allegedly used in the New World see Reformed Egyptian Wikipedia, Here.

13. See Criticism of the Book of Mormon, and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Wikipedia Here, for an analysis that although it tries very hard to be neutral does convoy just how doubtful the Book of Mormon is, and Genetics and the Book of Mormon Wikipedia Here, this article also strives very hard for neutrality but once again it is clear that Genetic studies provide little to no support for the Book of Mormon. Both essays bend over backwards to be ‘fair” to the Book of Mormon it is sometimes more than a little silly. See also Meltzer, pp. 183-207.

Pierre Cloutier

Diffusionistic Fantasies IIb
Thor Heyerdahl, Part Two

Stela from Chavin in Peru
In a previous post I went through the first twenty points giving reasons for thinking widespread significant diffusion happened between the Old and New Worlds. Here I the next twenty reasons given by Thor Heyerdahl along with comments on each point.

21. The building of adobe houses regulated into blocks that are separated by street and public squares and equipped by water and sewer systems.
22. Long-distance supply of water for irrigation and public consumption through channels and elevated aqueducts, and the manufacture of uniform sections of pottery piping widened at one end to receive and enclose the narrow end of the next and higher pipe to form a continuous conduit.
23. Large-scale terrace agriculture with the use of animal manure and artificial irrigation for the cultivation of food crops and cotton for clothing.1

I am speechless. Does Thor Heyerdahl seriously think that learning to use mud to build shelters requires diffusion? Or that mixing it with straw and other binding agents is impossible to learn independently. We have mud building from very early on in the New World there is no need to assume diffusion. Besides the dwelling show a process of development. No sudden eruption of such dwellings. As for streets, sewers and water dispersal systems. Well those are simply natural and fairly obvious solutions to the problem of a lot of humans living together. After all there should be paths to walk among the dwelling, some sort of disposal system for all the human waste etc., created and of course people will need water. This of course especially important for people living in dry areas.

As for long distance supply if you live in an area that is dry or where the sheer number of people make it difficult to use local supplies because of pollution by human waste etc, then of course you must get it from other areas and somehow bring it to where it is needed; an aqueduct or canal are fairly obvious solutions. Besides is Thor Heyerdahl seriously suggesting that it would occur to no one to dig a canal to get water from point a to point b? As for the pottery piping. It should be pointed out that pottery piping is a good solution to the problem of getting water from point a to b. It also reduces losses through evaporation and protects the water from theft and possible blockage. Further if your going to use pottery to conduct water from point a to b you have to construct the pipes that way and seal them, otherwise water will leak out at the joints between sections. As per usual the archaeological record shows development over time in the New World.

Let get this straight is Thor Heyerdahl seriously suggesting that it requires diffusion for people to realize that if you practice agriculture on hilly and mountainous terrain it is a good idea to build terraces?! This is absurd terraces are an obvious solution to the problem. As for animal manure and irrigation; the fertility enhancing properties of animal manure are obvious and so is using canals etc., to bring water where it is needed. No need to evoke diffusion.2

24. The harvesting of the lint obtainable not from wild cotton but only from the artificially hybridized cultivated cotton; the spinning of those short fibers into yarn by twisting a stick threaded onto a specially shaped ceramic spinning whorl of identical size and form in both areas; the dyeing of the yarn; and the manufacture of the same two types of looms used to weave the yarn into polychrome fabric.
25. The similarity of cotton garments as pointed out by isolationists and diffusionists alike: the loincloth and cloak for men, and the dress with girdle and shoulder pin for women.
26. Identical types of leather and rope sandals.
27. The extremely important feather crown worn by warriors and men of rank (Characteristic of Mexican and Peruvian nobles, feather crowns are assumed by many to be a strictly American custom; it is nevertheless a characteristic headwear of the ancient Middle East, as shown in reliefs of Hittite warriors, as well as Egyptian illustrations of their sea-roving enemies, the mysterious Mediterranean “Sea People”)3

Well first of all the cotton of the New World is not “artificially” hybridized. The so-called hybridized form has existed for millions of years. Thor Heyerdahl claims this in order to provide an argument for the human borne spread of cotton and cloth manufacture. Second of all the making of cloth from cotton goes back to before 2000 B.C.E., maybe even 4000 B.C.E., in Peru which precludes pretty well diffusion and especially any diffusion by people from the Atlas region of North Africa c. 1200 B.C.E., which is Thor Heyerdahl’s main claim in the book. Given the above the further claims of similarity of whorl is not very helpful especially since the whorls are different. The whorls seem to have been in use in the Americas from early on. Diffusion seems to be precluded. As for dyeing the yarn. Since when is diffusion need to explain why people dye their clothing? The same thing for multicoloured fabrics. Of course Thor Heyerdahl ignores the differences between Peruvian textiles, with their intricate weave patterns and many, many colours with old world textiles. The two types of loom, not mentioned by Thor Heyerdahl are the back loom and the independent loom. Those are general types not specific types. Thor Heyerdahl ignores differences in detail. Further he ignores the fact that looms seem to have been in use from at least 2000 B.C.E., and probably 3000 B.C.E. Which effectively precludes diffusion. As per usual Thor Heyerdahl ignores also the evidence of the slow development of technique.

The clothing similarities Thor list ignores that the human body is the same the world over so humans happening on the same clothing solutions is not a surprise at all. Further it is likely that the first Americans had similar clothes to Europeans when they arrived in the New World so that modifications of that dress would likely have similarities with the Old World. Thor Heyerdahl also picks the clothing that is similar to the Old World examples he compares them too ignoring clothes that are different. The same goes with sandals. Once again over time and place Americans had a great variety of clothing just why are those similar ones considered so important by Thor Heyerdahl? This is an example of a trivial similarity. Diffusion is simply not necessary.

Thor Heyerdahl then tries to claim that the feathered headdresses of the New World derive from the Old World. There are a number of problems with that; one of them is that it is very likely that the so called feathered headdresses of the Hittites and Sea Peoples are no such thing but hair cut short and then bundled up with string. The other thing is that the feathered headdresses of the Olmecs seem to be quite different from any of the so-called headdresses of the Sea Peoples and Hittites. Finally it appears that feathered headdresses predate the Hittites and Sea peoples in the Americas.4

28 The Complex organization and maintenance of standing armies, with the custom of giving the soldiers shields with painted symbols intended to identify their units, and the use of canvas tents in military camps.
29. The use of the sling as an important weapon, the corresponding types of both rope and band slings with the same kinds of cradle, slit, and finger hole.
30. Parallels and identities in tools and utensils, often pointed out in farming implements, and in carpenters’ and masons’ tools, in the instruments of artists, in the
hooks, nets, and weirs of the fisherman, in the merchants’ balances, and in the drums and wind instruments of musicians.
31. Long range expeditions in search of special molluscs, highly valued for their red shells or for the red dye extracted from the snail.
32. Identical stages in the evolution of metallurgy. The same metals were sought, yet iron was ignored by the pre-European cultures here compared. Gold and silver were highly treasured, the ore was melted, hammered and molded in the same kind of pottery matrix to form figurines and jewelry sometimes with striking similarities. For the hardening of copper into bronze difficult prospecting was carried out often in remote areas, in search of the tin to produce the alloy.5

Sometimes Heyerdahl seems to display the most amazing inability to see humans as intelligent. Does he seriously believe that the idea of having a standing army requires diffusion! It is rather an obvious solution to the problem of protecting the state. The stuff about painted shields etc., and the use of tents all seem, well obvious! Finally why is Thor Heyerdahl once again comparing things that existed in the New World c. 1500 C.E., with things that existed in the Old World c. 1200 B.C.E? Thor Heyerdahl does not provide the evidence that these things existed in the New World c. 1200 B.C.E.

The sling almost certainly predates man arriving in the New World. They probably brought it there with them. Given the nature of the sling they would look alike anyway even if they were independently invented. It is of interest that Thor Heyerdahl ignores the following. His Sea People like invaders of 1200 B.C.E., had the Bow and Arrow which they unaccountably left behind in Europe the Bow and Arrow does not show up in the Americas until c. 800-1000 C.E. That is really strange in they invaded c.1200 B.C.E.

As for the general similarity of tools. Given similar problems and the similar configuration of the human body it is not surprising that many tools will show a similarity. It is for example easy to establish that fishing equipment was fairly similar between the Old and New World in say c. 8000 B.C.E. Thor Heyerdahl assumes because they look sort of look alike they had a common origin. Further no Old World tools of these types have been found in the New World. Also New World tools show a pattern of development that seems to preclude diffusion. Also it is likely that some of the very basic prototypes of these tools were brought into the Americas by the first Americans. Many of these tools seem to long precede 1200 B.C.E., in the Americas.

Regarding the dye. Firstly the use of red dyes especially red ochre is common the world over. Probably because red ochre looks like blood. So Americans investing red with importance as a colour is not a surprise. If they valued red coloured dyes and minerals that produced that colour than long expeditions to get it are not surprising. Does Thor Heyerdahl honestly think that Americans have to be taught red was important?

The last section is purest deception by Thor Heyerdahl. At the time he was writing the book he would have known that metallurgy of any kind did not appear in Mesoamerica until after c. 700 C.E. This includes silver, gold and bronze. It is passing strange that his bronze welding Sea People warriors completely forgot metallurgy when they invaded Mesoamerica. So for c. 2000+ years after they supposedly invaded Mesoamerica metallurgy was completely forgotten. Since Thor Heyerdahl would know this with even a cursory look at the literature his suppressing of this is in fact deception on his part. Further the Olmecs apparently knew nothing about metallurgy and no evidence as been found to indicate metallurgy c. 1200 B.C.E. in Mesoamerica.

As for South America it appears that metallurgy involving silver and gold appears c. 800 B.C.E., and bronze making c. 400 B.C.E. Both well after Thor Heyerdahl’s Sea People invaders are supposed to have arrived. Further Thor Heyerdahl in another effort of deception ignores that the vast majority of bronze in the Andean region was copper with arsenic as the alloy not tin. Since this is well known Thor Heyerdahl’s suppression of this information is a form of deception. Also the evidence seems to be clear that the methods of working metals including casting methods were independently invented as indicated by the archaeological record which shows the development of technique.

Of course the implied notion that Americans had to be taught to value gold and silver and had to then learn fro someone else to go into difficult areas to find it is simply risible. As for ignoring iron. Well some American did use iron, however like the peoples of the Old World, until they learned how to work it, they generally ignored iron because they did not have the requisite techniques to work it.6

33. Short-handled bronze mirrors, pincers, and small ornamental bells as major products marking entry into the Bronze Age.
34. Gold filigree work of outstanding quality. The minutely detailed articles of adornment produced by the American high cultures equalled the masterpieces of the ancient Middle East and, like the best of the fine-meshed textiles, surpassed anything in contemporary Europe.
35. Extremely sophisticated ceramic art repeated in the same specialized forms as polychrome funeral ware. The conventional tripod vase, considered so characteristic of the Middle East that it is identified as Phoenician when encountered archaeologically on the Atlantic coast of Morocco or the Canary Islands, is equally symptomatic of the American high-culture area from Mexico to Peru. Characteristic of both areas are also the polychrome effigy vessels in the form of heads and objects of various kinds. Reappearing on both sides of the Atlantic, and well known in each area, is the ceramic vase in the form of a human foot truncated above the ankle and wearing a sandal; the constantly repeated jars in the form of fish, birds, and quadrupeds, with spout and loop handles on their backs; the ring-shaped vase in the form of a coiled-up snake carrying miniature jars on its back; and its composite clusters of fruits and globular jars joined by cross tubes into one common long-necked spout.
36. The great importance of an abnormally flat ceramic figurine representing a naked female goddess. Its universal characteristic is that the body and limbs were flat as a plate, whereas the head was represented in the round. From the Middle East the Phoenicians brought this figurine westward through the Mediterranean as a representation of their principal goddess, Tanit, the Earth Mother. With identical properties the same little female figurine is perhaps the most characteristic example of early ceramic art all the way from Mexico to Peru.7

Regarding no. 33. It should be repeated that these inventions are rather obvious and further they do not appear in the New World until after 600 B.C.E., and then only in South America. Also they do not appear at all in Mesoamerica until after 800 C.E. This is long after the supposed arrival of Bronze welding invaders c. 1200 B.C.E. Once again Thor Heyerdahl “forgets” that the appearance of these traits does not synchronize very well with the Old World. Thor Heyerdahl compares traits from before 1200 B.C.E. to traits in the New World that appeared in some cases well over 1000 years later. Of course Thor Heyerdahl once again ignores all the signs of gradual development over time of these cultural traits.

Regarding no. 34. Thor Heyerdahl once again ignores signs of the development of these cultural traits over time and of course the fact that metal work appears in the New World at least 400 years after the alleged arrival of his Sea People invaders. Of course he also ignores the clear signs in the archaeological record of the development of these cultural traits over time.

No. 35 is an example of trait mining. Once again Thor Heyerdahl ignores when the various traits appeared in the New World as against the Old World. Instead he searches in the vast cornucopia of New World pottery for objects that resemble objects found in the vast cornucopia of Old World pottery. Not surprisingly given the vast amount of objects to choose from he finds some that resemble each other. Of course Thor Heyerdahl ignores issues like whether or not the objects in question are in any way close in time. Instead he compares objects that may be from very different time periods. I further note that he does not give any specifics about the New World finds he is comparing to the Old World finds. The mention of the Phoenician tripod vase is fascinating I wonder why he doesn’t mention the same detail for their New World counterparts? Perhaps because they are too far apart in time? The rest of the traits lack specifics and are also fairly general and so not of much use.

36 is fascinating although he once again gives the alleged Old World source he does not give any specifics about the New World except very general claims that the trait is early and widespread. Well that could mean all sorts of things. Well it appears that this Earth mother figure did not appear among the Olmecs or among the cultures of Peru at this time. It appears that Thor Heyerdahl has in mind the culture of Teotihuacan and its Great Goddess. By failing to give specifics and making it difficult to check Thor Heyerdahl does not help himself. It also appears that this cultural trait is not widespread in the New World.8

37. Clay models of daily life. In both areas occur identical pottery figurines showing a kneeling woman grinding flour; a pregnant woman sitting in a straddling position with another holding her from behind and a third one in front receiving an emerging baby; and a ring of little figurines holding hands in a dance around a little central figure playing the flute.
38. Funeral ware in the shape of small animals rolling on wheels. Although it was widespread I the Middle East and brought westward by the Phoenicians at least as far as Ibiza, the American distribution seems to be restricted to the early Olmec horizon in Mexico.
39. Marked importance of short-handled stamp seals as well as cylindrical seals of terracotta, with surfaces incised with a variety of figurative or geometric motifs. Dipped in color the stamp seals used for printing symbols and designs and the cylinder seals for rolling them in continuous bands. The same special motif is sometimes repeated within both areas.
40. The custom of carving wooden figurines and sometimes also big stone statues with deep concavities in place of eyes, which were subsequently inlaid with sea shells surrounding a black obsidian pupil.9

No. 37 is rather funny aside from the usual problem of what time period he is comparing them to. Is Thor Heyerdahl seriously suggesting that representations of such common motifs world wide require diffusion!? I personally think that Thor Heyerdahl is referring to, in part, the abundant pottery remains depicting everyday life that has been found in western Mexico. Unfortunately for him it dates long after c. 1200 B.C.E. This point cannot be taken the slightest bit seriously.

38 is interesting in that it remains of wheeled toys have been found at the Olmec site of Tres Zapotes dating to about 800-600 B.C.E. A problem is that they don’t look much like Phoenician wheeled toys and of course this is long after the supposed invasion of 1200 B.C.E. Also it occurs among a whole list of artifacts that show little sign of Phoenician influence and of course no Phoenician artifacts have been found. Despite what Thor Heyerdahl says the wheeled toy was used by later cultures in the Mesoamerica, notably El Tajin and the Maya. The wheeled toy seems entirely absent in South America. Of course the invaders of 1200 B.C.E. came from cultures with the widespread use of wheels, from carts to toys just why would they suddenly restrict the use of wheels to toys in the New World is a bit of a mystery. They also did not bring over the pottery wheel. It appears that this use of the wheel was discovered independently in the New World. The reason for the failure to use it in other ways like transportation seems to be related to the lack of animals to pull. Still the use of he wheel does not require draft animals and supposedly these invaders came from societies that were familiar with all sorts of ways to use the wheel. So the failure to bring those other ways assuming they came at all at least indicates that contact was not intense.

39 is another example of Thor Heyerdahl’s inability to credit human inventiveness. The fact is seals exist the world over and seem to be a fairly common invention. Further the earliest seals in the Americas do not much resemble Old World seals in terms of motifs. Of course no Old World seals have ever been discovered in the Americas. Independent invention seems to be the obvious solution.

No. 40 can be dismissed out of hand in that Thor Heyerdahl is comparing a cultural trait that is fairly late in the New World at least in terms of evidence with a trait that existed early on in the Old World. Of course once again Thor Heyerdahl ignores the idea that replacing carved eyes with inlaid eyes for a more realistic effect is not a very difficult eye. Since human whites are white and pupils black replicating them with white shell and black obsidian seems rather obvious.10

Once again we have Thor Heyerdahl making vague comparisons, making much of the trivial among other gaffes. He also engages in outright distortion in some cases. Thor Heyerdahl further gives virtually no concrete examples of comparison and almost completely ignores problems with chronology, i.e., comparing items that are far apart in time. And as per usual assuming that humans are uncreative and un-inventive. Also Thor Heyerdahl engages in what can only be called deception in some of his points. In many cases the similarities given as evidence of diffusion are vague and not terribly convincing. The failure of Thor Heyerdahl to give many specific examples for the purpose of comparison also looks deceptive. Of course he also ignores again the issue of the lack of Old World artefacts in the New World specifically during the time he assumes that the invasion by Sea People occurred.11

That some of the similarities he touts as evidence of diffusion are mere trivial similarities that prove nothing, indicates that Thor Heyerdahl was padding his list. One again the examples are not terribly convincing and the mere piling up of dubious examples doesn’t prove anything.

In another posting I will complete my analysis of all of Thor Heyerdahl’s points.

Olmec Pendant

1. Heyerdahl, Thor, Early Man and the Ocean, Vintage Books, New York, 1978, pp. 87-88.

2. Aguilar-Moreno, Manuel, Handbook to Life in the Aztec World, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, pp. 321-326, Coe, Michael D., The Maya, Seventh Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2005, pp. 204-206, Smith, Michael E., The Aztecs, Second Edition, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2003, pp. 665-72, McEwan, Gordon F., The Incas: New Perspectives, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2006, pp. 83-85, Janusk, John Wayne, Ancient Tiwanaku, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 182-193, D’Altroy, Terrence N., The Incas, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2003, pp. 24-25, 28, 32-33, 197-199.

3. Heyerdahl, p. 88.

4. Mason, J. Alden, The Ancient Civilizations of Peru, Revised Edition, Penguin Books, 1968, pp. 240-262, Moseley, Michael E., The Incas and Their Ancestors, Thames and Hudson, London, 1992, pp. 96-97, 101, 107-108, De Montellano, Bernard Ortiz, et al, Robbing Native American Cultures, in Current Anthropology, vol. 38, Issue 3, June 1997, pp. 419-441, at 437, Sandars, N. K., The Sea Peoples, Thames and Hudson, London, 1978, pp. 134-137. Dillehay, Tom D., et al, The first Settlers, in Andean Archaeology, Editor, Silverman, Helaine, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2004, pp. 16-34, at p. 25.

5. Heyerdahl, p. 88.

6. Driver, Harold E., Indians of North America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1961, pp. 177-178, Mason, pp. 57-58, Davies, Nigel, The Ancient Kingdoms of Peru, Penguin Books, London, 1997, pp. 10, 14, 19, Sharer, Robert J., The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 2006, p. 576, Meltzer, David J., First Peoples in a New World, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2009, pp. 313-318, Leonard, Jonathan Norton, Ancient America, Time Incorporated, New York, 1967, pp. 122-123.

7. Heyerdahl p. 89.

8. Davies, Nigel, Voyageurs to the New World, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 141-165, Stiebing, William H., Ancient Astronauts Cosmic Collisions, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, pp. 131-165, Fritze, Ronald H., Invented Knowledge, Reaktion Books, London, 2009, pp. 62-96, Diehl, Richard A., The Olmecs, Thames and Hudson, London, 2004, pp. 97-105, Pool, Christopher A., Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, p. 117.

9. Heyerdahl p. 89-90.

10. Davies, p. 109, Illustration between p. 178-179, Wauchope, Robert, Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962, pp. 74-77, 87, 91

11. For a fuller analysis of the logical flaws in Thor Heyerdahl’s arguments see Wauchope and Davies.

Pierre Cloutier

Diffusionistic Fantasies IIa
Thor Heyerdahl’s List Part 1

Thor Heyerdahl

The Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl was among other things an extreme Diffusionist, who believed that a group of blond / red headed, blue eyed “white” people from the Atlas region of Africa brought civilization to the Americas c. 1200 B.C.E. Further Thor Heyerdahl believed that their descendants eventually explored the Pacific ocean creating the Moai of Easter Island, and that the Polynesian’s originated in the region of coastal British Columbia and first settled Hawaii and then the rest of Polynesia intermingling with Melanesians to produce the Polynesians .1

Of course this hypothesis already unlikely in 1952, when Thor Heyerdahl published American Indians in the Pacific was even more unlikely in 1978 when he wrote Early Man and the Ocean, is now even more unlikely given the genetic and skeletal studies now done. In fact it is virtually impossible.2

Given that Thor Heyerdahl resisted until the day he died the idea that the Polynesians ultimate origin was South East Asia and that the undeniable fact that he Polynesians speak an Austro-Asiatic language. (This group includes Aboriginal languages on Taiwan, Malay, Indonesian, languages of Micronesia and the languages of coastal New Guinea)3 No Polynesian dialect or language shows any influence or vocabulary from any of the Aboriginal languages of the Americas.4 That would in itself be a powerful indication of where the Polynesians came from but Thor Heyerdahl just waved it away as of little importance.

Later in life Thor Heyerdahl convinced himself that he had found the tomb of Odin and the “real” Asgard to cap off his life of promoting far out ideas.5

But then as it was said in a review of the book by Thor Heyerdahl about Odin:

The conversation between Thor and Per, however, frequently takes on the character of an involuntary parody, since the “master” often demonstrates as much ignorance as the disciple.6

In this case “Master” Thor Heyerdahl displays a great deal of ignorance and an unbending, dogmatic adherence to his opinions and an unwillingness to learn. This is not however confined to Thor’s ideas about Odin.

In the book Thor Heyerdahl wrote called Early Man and the Ocean, Thor Heyerdahl lists 53 cultural traits that indicate contact between the Middle Eastern civilizations and the civilizations of the New World uniting them in a common cultural area with those civilizations.7 Here I will deal with the first 20 listed.

Before I start on Thor Heyerdahl’s list I would just like to mention that it is passing strange that Thor Heyerdahl in compiling this list assumes that the civilizational influence came from the Middle East. He does not consider either India or China must less Africa outside of Egypt, even though his culture bearers came from the Atlas region of North Africa. This is interesting given the very interesting and quite arresting similarities between certain cultural features of the Americas and East Asia.8 The Euro-centric bias, considering that the Middle Eastern Civilizations are generally assimilated as part of the European heritage, of Thor Heyerdahl is blatantly obvious.

1. A Hierarchy based on sun worship and complex state administration under the leadership of an absolutist priest-king whose dynasty claimed descent of the sun.
2. Brother-sister marriages in royal families to preserve the solar blood line.9

Thor Heyerdahl at once shows us that he will engage in deception by omission. He fails to tell us what those societies are. Why? The answer is obvious. The comparison is between The Inca Empire and Ancient Egypt. This faces the rather serious problem that the Inca established their Empire traditionally c. 1200 C.E., and by then Egyptian civilization had been dead for a long time. There is no evidence for the idea being transmitted to the Incas and the time difference makes it very unlikely. There is no evidence of those practices in the intervening time in Peru. In fact Thor Heyerdahl’s comparison shows deep ignorance of Egyptian practice. His comparison is with common practice during the 18th dynasty in Egypt which was c. 1530-1310 B.C.E; well over 2000 years before the Incas. At other times in Egyptian history royal incest was a lot less common.10

The rest of it is mere puffery or is he really claiming that bureaucracy and absolute rule had to diffuse from Egypt?

3. A fully developed system of script in a period when writing was still unknown among European nations.
4. Paper manufacture by soaking and beating intersecting layers of vegetable fibers, and the production of books filled with polychrome hieroglyphic inscriptions and formed as long wide bands that were folded or rolled up.11

Thor Heyerdahl carefully elides mentioning that the script developed by which I think he means Epi-olmec, Mayan and Aztec is quite distinct from any Old World system and shows no evidence of being derived from such systems. Further Thor Heyerdahl is simply wrong the earliest evidence for a writing system in Mexico is c. 600 B.C.E., and by then Europe had had several writing systems like Linear A and B, (c. 1800 B.C.E.-1200 B.C.E., and the Greek Alphabet by 750 B.C.E.) None of which have any similarity to the Mexican systems.12

Again Egypt rears it head. Thor Heyerdahl is describing the manufacture of Papyrus. Well in the Americas there is no papyrus and the techniques of manufacturing paper in the Americas, because of the different materials, (they used bark generally), have a lot of differences from making papyrus into paper. And again Thor Heyerdahl weasels out using terms like polychrome in an attempt to compare Mayan and Mexican hieroglyphic books with Egyptian papyrus scrolls. Well no one would mistake Egyptian hieroglyphs for Mayan or Aztec hieroglyphs. If the Mayans and Aztecs were making paper than it makes sense that they would write on said paper. No bearded cultural bearers needed.

Further in Egypt “books” were rolled into scrolls and in Mexico books were folded into codices with virtually no exceptions. It appears that in Peru record keeping was done with knotted string or Khipu which may have been a complete writing system and as such as no parallel in the Old World.13

Thor Heyerdahl seems to have realized that detailed comparisons tended to break down so he settled on obscurity and obfuscation.

5. The organization of spectacular masses of people for the erection of colossal structures with no practical function.
6. A technique unknown today which permitted mathematically perfect cutting of colossal blocks of stone which quite independent of either shape or size, were fitted together without cement but with joints so exact that a knife’s edge could not be inserted between them.
7. Technical knowledge which permitted the long-range transportation of such gigantic blocks, weighing upwards of 100 tons, across many miles of rugged terrain, swamps, rivers, and lakes; and the ability to maneuver them on edge as towering monoliths or to lift them onto each other in perfect megalithic walls.
8. The raising of colossal stone statutes carved in human form and serving as religious outdoor monuments.14

Numbers 5 and 8 can be dismissed as telling us nothing of value. Is Thor Heyerdahl seriously proposing that the idea to build impressive structures to the God(s) needs to be taught and that it would not occur to anyone independently? Oh and since when does Thor Heyerdahl get to decide what is practical. After all to the men of those times building temples to the Gods was very practical. Of course building outdoor statutes to the Gods seems an obvious idea or does Thor Heyerdahl seriously think that indoor statutes to the Gods are obvious but outdoor ones need to be taught? Of course with this level of analysis I am surprised Thor Heyerdahl is not suggesting that the very idea of carving statutes of the God(s) is proof of diffusion.

As for 6 and 7. Thor could have used with some intense research which would indicate that the techniques of cutting, fitting and transporting huge stone blocks were not that mysterious to Archaeologists at the time he wrote the book. Of course Thor Heyerdahl once again does not give any specifics. The cultures he as in mind seem to be mainly Ancient Egypt and the Incas. Of course the vast time difference, (more than 2000 years) between the two is forgotten. Thor Heyerdahl also seems to be thinking of the cyclopean walls of Mycenaean fortresses, Hittite structures etc., (dated c. 1200 B.C.E.) Of course the vast amount of time between those structures and the Inca ones are ignored.

Thor Heyerdahl also ignores that the builders of Stonehenge were able to develop techniques of stone carving and moving without help from culture bearers.

The fact is the development of stone working techniques is clear from the archaeological record in Peru and shows no signs of appearing suddenly fully developed. In fact it seems to have reached its full form only with the Incas, and that includes the fitting together of irregular stones c. 1500 C.E. In other words the evidence shows slowly evolving and improving stone working and moving skills in both Mexico and Peru not a sudden interruption of a technology with no precursors.

Once again Thor Heyerdahl shows an embarrassing lack of familiarity with the Archaeological record.15

9. The erection of mnemonic stele with images of people carved in relief and surrounded by incised hieroglyphic inscriptions. The repetition in both areas of the same relief motif showing a bearded man fighting off a giant snake standing on its tail. (Hittite stele at Aleppo museum and Olmec Stele from La Venta now in Villahermosa.)
10 Stucco-covered rooms of religious edifices with walls and columns covered with polychrome fresco paintings of priest-kings and processions with people depicted in profile and with all limbs visible. The recurrence within both areas of such a special fresco motif as a man with bird head standing on the back of a plumed serpent. (Common on walls in the Valley of Kings, Egypt, and recently discovered on the excavated temple walls at Cacaxtla, Mexico).
11. The Constructions of pyramids of the Mesopotamian Ziggurat type of stupendous dimensions and geometric perfection, which on both sides of the Atlantic are sometimes built from squared stone blocks and sometimes from sun-dried adobe bricks, always with a ground plan carefully oriented astronomically. These pyramids do in some cases exhibit additional parallels on both sides of the Atlantic: a ceremonial staircase leading up one or more of the pyramid’s sides to a temple structure on the summit; a sealed and hidden doorway to a secret inner staircase leading to a burial chamber; a special hexagonal cross section of the steep passageway containing the long and narrow staircase to the door of the burial chamber; the presence in this burial chamber of a stone sarcophagus, a ventilation system, and burial gifts; the knowledge of a technical-architectural solution which, in spite of the ignorance of the principle of the arch among those pre-European constructors, nevertheless enabled the wide ceilings of the burial chamber as well as the narrower one of the inner staircase to support the enormous weight of the entire pyramid.
12. A large walled temple yard adjacent to one side of the pyramid with tall stone columns of both round and square cross sections set in long parallel rows.
13. Megalithic sarcophagus covered by a stone lid which itself weighed several tons and was sometimes sculptured to show a human image.
14. The ability and practice of mummifying deceased persons of high rank by evisceration through the anus and use of certain resins, cotton padding, and wrappings.
15 A special mummy mask perforated at the edges so as to be tied on in front of the face outside the mummy cloth.16

Regarding No. 9 it is basically a comparison between stele in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Mayan stele. Aside from the fact no one could possibly mistake Mayan for Egyptian etc., there is the obvious and rather large difference in time between say Egyptian, Mesopotamian stele and Mayan. Further the development of stele in the Mayan region shows a clear progression of development over time from simple beginnings to the elaborately carved versions. Thor Heyerdahl than for the first time gives an “exact” similarity. The problem is he provides no details of exactly what the two items are, neither does he provide illustrations. I have attempted to find pictures of the figure Thor Heyerdahl describes but have been unable to do so. The nearest one is a stand alone stele with a snake on it. As for the Olmec figure. I think Thor Heyerdahl is referring to this one.

Olmec Stele

I note that the snake is NOT fighting the man and unlike most Neo-Hittite, (Thor Heyerdahl gets it wrong the stele in the Aleppo museum are not Hittite but Neo-Hittite), this sculpture has no inscriptions, further is not artistically similar in terms of design. The similarity is vague and not very convincing with Neo-Hittite stele.

Neo Hittite Stele

Number 10 is a collection of bromides and not very convincing ones. Frescoes are common world wide and not require diffusion. Similarly stucco was made and used differently in the Americas as compared to the Old World, aside from archaeology showing the gradual development of the use and technique of stucco in the New World. The rest of the comparison is generally between the frescoes in Egyptian tombs and the frescoes of Bonampak Mexico done by the Maya c. 795 C.E. The comparisons are meaningless in that doing people in profile is easier than face on and further Thor Heyerdahl once again forgets the time difference after all the Egyptian paintings he is comparing them with date from c. 1500-1000 B.C.E., more than 1500 years earlier. The comparison of a motif in a painting from Cacaxtla Mexico (c. 800 C.E.) to paintings in the Valley of the Kings, (c. 1500-1100 B.C.E.) falls for the same reason. Of course given that Thor Heyerdahl does not supply any details about said paintings so checking is virtually impossible. (I tried).

Regarding pyramids. I dealt with that in an earlier posting but to repeat in the Americas pyramids were built with a variety of techniques including using earth and rubble. Pyramids built entirely or largely of stone do not exist in the Americas. Of course we now know that pyramids existed in the Americas before pyramids in the Old World. So much for the natives copying people from the Middle East. Note that the pictures that Thor Heyerdahl uses on p. 87 to illustrate how American and Egyptian pyramids look alike are old 19th century drawings and not pictures that make them look more alike than they are.

Once again obfuscating the issue by not providing details Thor Heyerdahl compares Egyptian pyramid burials with the tomb of Pacal (c. 680 C.E.) in Palenque Mexico; thus Ignoring the vast amount time that past between them of over 2000 years. Thor does not seem to note that in many respects the tomb of Pacal shows many one off features, and is in many respects a unique not typical Mayan royal burial. Further of course the development of Mayan royal burials was a gradual process as indicated by the archaeology and Pacal’s tomb shows clear signs of being a development of previous Royal burials. Thor Heyerdahl thus compares one Mayan Royal burial with Egyptian royal burials of the pyramid age and ignores the other Mayan royal burials probably because they are not so similar to Egyptian pyramid burials.

The final bit is about the corbelled vault, which for some reason Thor Heyerdahl does not name. I suspect because it is abundantly clear that this solution to the problem of building walls and roofs over spaces was invented multiple times all over the world, including megalithic Europe. But by dressing it up in this fashion Thor Heyerdahl can dress it up as some sort of secret arcane knowledge that could only have diffused to the Americas instead of being a common solution to a problem. I note that arches existed in the Old World by 1200 B.C.E., supposedly when these culture bearers arrive in the New World. I wonder why they failed to bring the true arch?

Number 12 is trivial a walled temple yard next to a temple is obvious and no great shakes secondly the columned hall Thor is referring to, but once again failing to name, is the columned yard next to the Temple of Warriors in Chichen-Itza, and also next to a Temple at Tula Mexico, both of which date to c. 1000 C.E., so comparing them to Egyptian mortuary temples next to Egyptian pyramids, (which were tombs and not platforms for temples, which Mexican pyramids were), which date to more than 2000 years earlier is a bit much.

Number 13 refers yet again to the tomb of Pacal at Palenque Mexico. Again the dates do not correspond and Pacal’s massive stone sarcophagus dates more than 2000 years after the pyramid age in Egypt, further as stated above in many respects Pacal’s tomb is a one off. Thor Heyerdahl once again cherry picks a particular construction that fits his ideas and ignores the others which do not.

Number 14. Well let’s just say mummification as been dated to before 4000 B.C.E., in South America. That the usual way Egyptian’s eviscerated the dead for mummification was through a slit made in the belly not through the anus. And again Thor Heyerdahl is comparing later Peruvian practice, which is not very similar to Egyptian practice and besides is much later than Egyptian practice. Once again archaeology shows a slow development of Peruvian mummification practices and no evidence of a technique fully developed suddenly appearing.

Number 15. Since masks are a near universal in human cultures tying a mask to a face by this method is obvious. So it should be a matter of little importance that people might tie masks to the deceased in the same manner. This is an example of Thor Heyerdahl making much of the trivial and obvious.17

16. Great skill in the difficult magio-surgical trepanning of the skull bone of living persons, with a high percentage of survival among the patients.

17. Circumcision performed on young boys as a religious ritual.18

Is Thor Heyerdahl serious? Trepanning is an exceptionally common practice all over the world dating from well before civilization and practiced by many so-called primitive peoples. There is no reason to assume diffusion at all.

As for circumcision again it is practiced all over the world by all sorts of people including Australian Aborigines who entered Australia before 50,000 B.C.E. It is a common practice and again there is no need to assume diffusion at all.19

19. The use of false beards as ceremonial attire of high priests.
20. The making of adobe bricks from a paste of selected soil mixed with straw and water and formed into rectangular blocks in a wooden mold, subsequently sun dried and used for the building of pyramids, temples, and houses with one or more floors.20

Number 19 is basically pretty trivial. It seems rather obvious that if you can grow a real beard a false beard would follow and from that would follow using it in ceremonies. Thor Heyerdahl is thinking I believe of the use of false beards by Egyptian Pharaohs and Priests. I merely note that the again the chronological lack of comparisons between the use of false beards in ancient Egypt and false beards in Mexico c. 1000-1500 C.E. False beards seem to have been less used in Peru and the chronological problem is the same.

Number 20 is simply adobe is used the world over. The use of clay / mud for building is universal. Further in Peru and Mexico a variety of methods and types of technologies were used to create adobe bricks. To say nothing of adobe techniques that did not use molds or adobe at all. Oh and the Peruvians were using adobe c. 3000 B.C.E. Thor Heyerdahl is once again cherry picking a trait that is similar, although not that similar, to a technique also used in the Old World to prove diffusion. Also once again Thor Heyerdahl ignores issues of chronology or the indications of the slow development of the technique in the New World.21

Over and over again Thor Heyerdahl cherry picks particular traits, regardless of the time those traits existed. He for example picks traits from the New World that date from 1500 C.E. and compares them to traits that existed in the Old World c. 1200 B.C.E., and earlier. Thor Heyerdahl assumes surface similarity is evidence of contact and ignores specifics. He picks as evidence of diffusion traits which are commonplaces and evidence of nothing but Thor Heyerdahl’s lack of knowledge, like circumcision and trepanning.

He waves away the problems with the idea of contact like the almost total lack of even arguable Old World artefacts in the New World during this so called contact period. He neglects to tell us why invaders from North Africa would bring such a cacophony of traits from a smorgasbord of Old World cultures. Thor Heyerdahl does not try to match it up with cultural traits from North Africa c. 1200 B.C.E. The fact that he matches traits from all sorts of different time periods in the Old World to time periods in the New World from Olmec times to the conquest doesn’t help.

Thor Heyerdahl’s cherry picking is just that he goes through the enormous variety of Old and New World traits and declares that the similarities he picks are evidence of contact. The mere piling up of similarities proves nothing, a bunch of vague similarities does not get added weight by piling them up on top of each other. Bad evidence remains bad evidence regardless of the amount; it does not become good evidence by simply accumulating examples.

Thor Heyerdahl seems to assume that similarities are evidence of contact when what a lot of them prove is that humans tend sometimes to find similar solutions by virtue of the fact that we are all human. It should not be the slightest surprise that human cultures show similarities, it would be more astounding if they did not.

Thor Heyerdahl glides over the problem of the total lack, (with some dubious exceptions) of ancient Old World artefacts in the New World. The time period he gives for his Conquistador like conquest of the New World is c. 1200 B.C.E., would indicate that we should find such Old World remains at such a time. We do not. The Archaeological record does not record such an event. Instead it see the steady development of village cultures into Olmec civilization with no massive intrusion of outsiders.

Thor Heyerdahl neglects to explain how bronze weapon welding invaders managed not to bring bronze weapons with them to Mexico or how bronze weapons didn’t appear in Mexico until c. 800 C.E. To say nothing of various Old World crops. In fact what they left behind is amazing; say pigs and rats for example. Yet they came in such numbers as to conquer Mexico and Peru!

Finally if similarities are evidence of contact than logically differences are evidence of lack of contact. And such differences are not minor. For example the quite different agricultures of the Old World and New World in terms of plants.

In the end the obvious solution is that the civilizations of the New World arose largely independently of Old World civilizations, and any contact had little or no influence on the development of New World civilizations.

Thor Heyerdahl used a variety of polemical techniques, such as not giving details that could be checked, ignoring crucial data in evaluating claims etc., and he does not forget the ultimate technique of portraying himself as a moderate against two extremes; when of course his idea of bearded, blue eyed, blond and white culture bearers conquering Mexico and Peru, bringing civilization, c. 1200 B.C.E., is in fact nothing but extreme hyper-diffussionistic fantasy.

Of course the recent the discoveries in Peru, pushing back high culture if not civilization to c. 3000 B.C.E., to say nothing of Olmec culture or at least it precursors being pushed back to c. 2000 B.C.E. have made Thor Heyerdahl’s fantasy of 1200 B.C.E. very unlikely indeed.

1. See Heyerdahl, Thor, American Indians in the Pacific, 1952, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., New York, 1952, and Early Man and the Ocean, Vintage Books, New York, 1978, pp. 151-184, 273-281.

2. Flenley, John & Bahn, Paul, The Enigmas of Easter Island, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, pp. 50-60.

3. Diamond, Jared, Guns, Germs, and Steel, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, 1998, pp. 334-339.

4. I am excluding coincidental similarities and recent additions.

5. See Heyerdahl, Thor, & Lilliestrom, Per, Jakten på Odin—På sporet av vår fortid, J.M. Stenersens forlag, Oslo, 2001. For a devastating review of the above book see Hovdhaugen, Even, et al, at Google Cache, Here. (Note: the document does not seem to be available anymore at Google Cache. I'll send a copy to anyone who requests it)

6. Hovdhaugen, pp. 1-2.

7. Heyerdahl, 1978, pp. 84-91.

8. Heyerdahl, 1978, p. 84. For the similarities between East Asia and the Americas see, Davies, Nigel, Voyageurs to the New World, William morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 103-124.

9. Heyerdahl, 1978, p. 84.

10. Tyldesley, Joyce, Daughters of Isis, Penguin Books, London, 1994, pp. 198-199, Mason, J. Alden, The Ancient Civilizations of Peru, 2nd Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1968, pp. 155, 186.

11. Heyerdahl, 1978, pp. 84-85.

12. Diehl, Richard A, The Olmecs, Thames and Hudson, London, 2004, pp. 96-97, Pool, Christopher A., Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007, pp. 260-263, . Finley, M.I., Early Greece, W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York, 1970, pp. 34-38, 145.

13. Hawkes, Jacquetta, The First Great Civilizations, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1973, pp. 436-442, Longhena, Maria, Maya Script, Abbeville Press, Publishers, New York, 2000, p. 20, Townsend, Richard F., The Aztecs, 3rd Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2009, pp. 206-212, Urton, Gary, Signs of the Inka Khipu, University of Texas Press, Austin, 2003, pp. 1-36.

14. Heyerdahl. 1978, p. 85.

15. Mason, pp. 160-165, Moseley, Michael E., The Incas and their Ancestors, Thames and Hudson, London, 1992, pp. 74-75, 153, 165, 205, 212.

16. Heyerdahl, 1978, pp. 85-86.

17. See Sharer, Robert J., et al, The Ancient Maya, 6th Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 2006, check out items in Index marked Stelae, also pp. 215-216, 449-450, 568-575, Schele, Linda, et Al, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York 1990, pp. 96-129, Gurnay, O.R., The Hittites, Penguin Books, London, 1952, pp. 39-46, Miller, Mary Ellen, The Art of Mesoamerica, 3rd Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2001, pp. 165-167, Schele, Linda, et al, The Code of Kings, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1998, pp. 95-132, Mason, 187-188, Moseley, pp. 54, 93-94, 151-152.

18. Heyerdahl, 1978, p. 86.

19. See Wikipedia article Circumcision Here. See also Majno, Guido, The Healing Hand, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS, 1975. pp. 24-29.

20, Heyerdahl, 1978, p. 86.

21. See Wikipedia article Notre Chico Civilization Here. See Davies, pp. 125-126, for an example of use of a false beard in a mythological context in Mesoamerica.

22. IBID, Notre Chico Civilization, Heyerdahl, 1978, pp, 273-281, Pool, pp. 92-144.

Pierre Cloutier