As a student of Immanuel Velikovsky I hold that life evolved in dramatic and almost sudden bursts under catastrophic conditions. As such, there is no need to postulate the millions and millions of years needed to account for the complex life forms inhabiting planet Earth which are necessary in the Darwinian scenario. (In actual fact, irrespective of how many millions of years supplied, Natural Selection could never produce the life forms that we now see). It is evident therefore that mankind's history is to be measured in thousands of years rather than tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands; but the question remains: How many thousands?
Professor Gunnar Heinsohn of Bremen University is also a Velikovsky acolyte and he has examined the question of humanity's age in a 2000 book entitled Wie alt is das Menschengeschlecht? (How Old is Humanity?). In the latter title he suggests that modern man, homo sapiens, is little more than three thousand tears old. I would agree that humanity is much younger than stated in establishment outlets, but 3,000 years?
Heinsohn's approach to the problem – examining the stratigraphic record – has served him well among the ancient civilizations of the Middle East. This method allowed him, correctly, to shear off 2,000 years of ancient Middle Eastern history which never in fact existed. And he is absolutely correct in dating the rise of the great literate civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia to around 1000 B.C. (Personally, I would say about 1100 B.C. or 1200 B.C., but this is a minor detail). But is stratigraphy the correct way to approach the Palaeolithic epoch? In the above book Heinsohn notes that the depth of strata found in caves occupied by Palaeolithic man would suggest that the Palaeolithic Age endured no more than a handful of centuries, or even decades. As such, he dates the appearance of modern man a couple of centuries before the great catastrophe (the Venus or Ishtar Flood) which terminated the Palaeolithic epoch around 1400 B.C.
What is to be made of such a startling claim?
In order to achieve this date, Heinsohn has, I feel, made a number of methodological errors. For example, he has overlooked the crucial fact that inhabited sites do not accumulate strata, so long as they are inhabited and in use. Typically, occupation stratums develop in sites where dwellings have been flattened by fire, earthquake, flood, or deliberate demolition. Once existing habitations have been levelled, the accumulated debris becomes the foundation for new dwellings or other structures. Now Palaeolithic man was a nomad who did not, in general, construct anything that would leave permanent debris behind. The caves cited by Heinsohn were temporary and probably very occasional dwellings for tribal groups as they traversed the landscape in pursuit of game and edible plants. Whilst families or individuals were ensconced in these caverns they would have been swept clean after meals and generally made debris free. This would have been all the more necessary as food fragments, especially fragments from a meat diet, would have produced a powerful and unpleasant smell if not removed thoroughly.
In order to check this I looked at several sites used by Australian aboriginals, a people who, until contact with Europeans, retained an essentially Palaeolithic culture of hunting and gathering. Now even Heinsohn would admit that the native Australians have inhabited the continent for several thousand years. They too, like the Palaeolithic peoples of Europe, occasionally occupied caves and rock recesses. At no site in Australia however does the occupation level exceed more than two or three feet.
What then of the real age of humanity and the duration of the Palaeolithic epoch? To answer this question, we must collate the evidence of several disciplines: Above all, it seems to me that, in this regard, the evidence of DNA and language cannot be ignored.
Even a brief look at the history of language is enough to convince that Heinsohn’s conclusions are wrong, and wrong to a dramatic degree. The language from which most modern European dialects evolved is popularly known as Indo-European, or Old Indo-European. The great linguistic groups already attested in antiquity, such as Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Greek, etc, all evolved from the parent Indo-European several centuries before the start of recorded history. This is evident from the fact that the earliest Greek inscriptions, which even Heinsohn would place around 700 or 650 B.C., are clearly written in a well-developed Greek language very different from the other contemporary Indo-European tongues of Europe such as Celtic or Italic. The absolutely most recent date at which the original Indo-European dialect could have begun splintering into the historic languages of Europe and the Indian subcontinent must be about 1200 B.C.; in other words, shortly after the time of the Flood catastrophe.
If we move on from that to look at the wider picture we find that Old Indo-European was related to the so-called Afro-Asiatic language group (formerly known as the Hamitic-Semitic group), a family of languages that included ancient Egyptian, Berber, Hebrew, Babylonian, and Arabic. That these languages shared a common ancestor with Indo-European is illustrated by a brief glance at some of the parallels observable in commonly-used words. Thus the Egyptian ‘mut’ (‘mother’), is clearly cognate with the Indo-European word, whilst the Egyptian phallic god Min has a name obviously related to the Indo-European ‘man’. In the same way, the Hebrew ‘sabbat’ (‘seven’) is evidently related to the Indo-European word, whilst the Arabic ‘talet’ (‘three’) has an obvious relation to the Indo-European term. So, the Afro-Asiatic languages shared a common ancestor with the Indo-European, and this begs the question: when did these two groups diverge? Clearly, we are talking about a date well before 1400 B.C. It is impossible of course to state precisely how long before, but judging by the enormous differences already evident in their earliest surviving inscriptions (ie. Egyptian and Babylonian, which even Heinsohn would date to around 1000 B.C.), we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic parent languages must have parted company some time between 3000 B.C. and 2500 B.C., at the latest.
In recent years, linguists have increasingly been drawn to the conclusion that all of mankind’s languages had a common parent, an archaic language employed by the first human clan before it broke into different groups and spread throughout the planet. This conclusion has been strongly suggested by the universal occurrence of a small but important group of words which are not onomatopoeic or otherwise occurring naturally. Among these universal words is ‘aqua’, water, and several other familiar terms. But to account for the vast differences observed for example between modern English and modern Chinese how many aeons of linguistic evolution are necessary? Clearly we are talking in terms of several millennia.
So much for the evidence of language; that of genetics points in the same direction. If we consider the striking differences between the various racial groups we cannot fail to conclude that a substantial period of time must be postulated to account for them. I am by no means a Darwinist and agree with both Heinsohn and Velikovsky that evolution occurred in rapid bursts and invariably in catastrophic conditions. This being the case, it is evident that the main racial groupings of mankind, namely the Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, must have formed during a catastrophic epoch preceding the historical catastrophic epoch initiated by the Venus Flood of circa 1400 B.C. It is also clear that these divisions must have occurred very shortly after the actual birth of the human race, homo sapiens, since the adaptations associated with each of the various races must have occurred before mankind had acquired the skills (such as use of fire, clothing, etc.) which would have made those genetic adaptations unnecessary. And it is interesting to note here that such adaptations can be observed in contemporary cases of so-called ‘wild children’, ie children raised among animals. It has often been noted that such children are found to be covered in a thick coating of hair, which gradually falls off when the child is introduced into human society and afforded the protection of clothing and shelter. Such adaptation, which might be called bio-reflexive or even bio-instinctive, seems to offer a clue to the real cause of evolution, in contradistinction to Darwin’s ridiculous concept of Natural Selection.
When then can we place this catastrophic epoch which saw the emergence of the first homo sapiens? Palaeontology speaks of an epoch preceding the Pleistocene which it terms the Pliocene and an epoch preceding the Pliocene named the Miocene. The evidence would seem to indicate some major catastrophic episode at the termination of the Miocene, whilst the Pliocene seems to have been more or less contemporary with the Pleistocene. Such being the case, it would appear that modern man must have appeared at the termination of the Miocene. But when did this occur? It will be obvious that all dates encountered in the textbooks are fictitious and must be ignored, based as they are on the absurd uniformitarianism of Lyell and Darwin. As regards the much-touted scientific dating methods, such as radiocarbon analysis, these are so much peppered with pitfalls of various types as to render them almost useless. However, taking into account the genetic and linguistic diversification mentioned above, and bearing in mind the relative speed of change demanded by Velikovsky’s cosmology, I feel we would be on reasonably safe grounds if we concluded that the modern human race, homo sapiens sapiens, appeared on the earth some time between 5000 and 3000 B.C.
Before finishing, it needs to be emphasized that the various hominid species of the Pliocene and Pleistocene, such as australopithecus, which are currently presented as human ancestors, were nothing of the sort. They were anthropoid apes who were actually contemporaries of early humans. This is proved beyond question by Michael Cremo in Forbidden Archaeology, where he lists numerous instances of human remains found underneath (and therefore of earlier date) those of hominid species. Neanderthals, on the other hand, were fully human - though of a different species from modern man - and they only became extinct at the eand of the Pleistocene (though some seem to have survived into the age of Greece and Rome and even the Middle Ages).