My Forbidden Archaeology class will have its first meeting this Friday morning. As usual, I've waited until almost the last minute to attempt to finalize the syllabus. But that attempt has now been made, and I still have a day to spare. Go me. 

As anyone who has ever created a syllabus from scratch knows, there comes a point when the rubber meets the road and you have to cease thinking vaguely and start nailing down the specifics. I've still got a few more nails to drive in (you'll notice some "TBA's" in the day-by-day readings, and I'm still working on a couple of additions to the guest list), but this is more or less what we'll be driving this semester. Yes, I know I'm mixing metaphors. It's been a long day. One of my kids woke me up at 2:30 and then again at 3:30 and I wasn't able to get back to sleep afterwards. 

I got several offers of guest participation that I won't be able to fully capitalize this time around. If you emailed me about the class and I haven't gotten back to you yet, I sincerely apologize. As I've mentioned before, the students will be writing several blog posts. I hope that several of you that I was not able to include as formal "guests" of the class will perhaps be willing to work with one or more students individually. I'll be in touch!

Finally, I'm sure some of you out there will, for whatever reasons, be unhappy with what the students will be reading. And I'm sure some of you will tell me about it. Keep in mind that I did not chose readings to provide "answers." I chose them to illustrate points, show contrasts, spark questions, and provoke arguments. While we will be discussing and dissecting some of the readings quite closely in class, others are there simply for background. I'll learn a lot about what works well and what doesn't as I get to know the students and we work our way through the course.  

Stay tuned!

I've got a blogging backlog.  It's the usual story of more things to write about than time to write about them. Before #Swordgate took the air out of the room, I was working on understanding how modern belief in giants was tied to Young Earth Creationism and indigenous American religious movements (see this post on Seventh Day Adventists and the Deluge Society).  Tied to my interest in giants, I had started dabbling in understanding how the remains of Gigantopithecus (an actual animal that lived in east Asia) are incorporated into narratives about giants and Bigfoot (see this post about the lack of postcranial remains and this post about tooth size). I've been spending more of my blogging time writing about my Archaic research (i.e., the Kirk Project and, lately, an effort to compile a massive Eastern Woodlands radiocarbon database) than fringe stuff lately.  There isn't time to keep all the balls in the air at once, but I intend to keep talking about all these things and more as I have the opportunity over the summer.

This post about Ernst Haeckel and the lost continent of Lemuria is one I started a long time ago. I'm going to wrap it up and post it to get it out of my "draft" box.

Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) would easily make any reasonable list of the Top Ten Most Racist Anthropologists. A biologist by training, Haeckel regarded the various "races" of humans as being distinct species that evolved from some hypothetical, pre-language "primaeval ape-man" (Homo primeginius). He arranged his twelve living species of humans hierarchically. Unsurprisingly, Caucasians (including Indo-Germans) were at the top of the heap.  While Haeckel was clearly a racist, it is not clear exactly how his ideas contributed to the rise of Nazism (see this essay for one treatment).

In Volume II of the 1887 English edition of The History of Creation  (a German version is here) Haeckel laid out his evolutionary taxonomy of humans. He proposed a basic division between "straight-haired men" and "woolly-haired men,' the common ancestor of which was speechless "ape-like men," or Pithecanthrops. In other words, Haeckel thought the languages of "straight-haired men" and "woolly-haired men" emerged independently after these different species of humans diverged. While he was clearly thinking in evolutionary rather than creationist terms, Haeckel's (1887:293-294) description of the pre-language divergence of difference "species" of humans resonates with a polygenist perspective on human variation:

"These Ape-like men, or Pithecanthropi, very probably existed towards the end of the Tertiary period. They originated out of the Man-like Apes, or Anthropoides, by becoming completely habituated to an upright walk, and by the corresponding stronger differentiation of both pairs of legs. The fore hand of the Anthropoides became the human hand, their hinder hand became a foot for walking. Although these Ape-like Men must not merely by the external formation of their bodies, but also by their internal mental development, have been much more akin to real Men than the Man-like Apes could have been, yet they did not possess the real and chief characteristic of man, namely, the articulate human language of words, the corresponding development of a higher consciousness, and the formation of ideas. The certain proof that such Primaeval Men without the power of speech, or Ape-like Men, must have preceded men possessing speech, is the result arrived at by an inquiring mind from comparative philology (from the "comparative anatomy "of language), and especially from the history of the development of language In every child ("glottal ontogenesis ") as well as in every nation ("glottal phylogenesis ").
     . . . As, according to the unanimous opinion of most eminent philologists, all human languages are not derived from a common primaeval language, we must assume a polyphyletic origin of language, and in accordance with this a polyphyletic transition from speechless Ape-like Men to Genuine Men."

Notice that Haeckel's family tree classifies the ancestor of humans as an Asian ape closely related to gibbons and orangutans. Haeckel was writing at a time when fossil evidence of human evolution was still incredibly thin: the few Neanderthal remains that had been found in Europe were not well understood, and Eugene Dubois' (1891) discovery of fossils in Java (now classified as Homo erectus) was still in the future. In short, there was no consensus about what the fossils of a human ancestor would look like or where in the world they should be found. In this vacuum of fossil evidence, Haeckel relied on the study of linguistics of living peoples to reconstruct human evolution.

If all of this sounds rather quaint and harmless, read on in Haeckel's treatise to understand the implications of his understanding of linguistic and physical variation among human populations (1887:307-310): 

"[The Ulotrichi, or woolly-haired men] are on the whole at a much lower stage of development, and more like apes, than most of the Lissotrichi, or straight-haired men. The Ulotrichi are incapable of a true inner culture and of a higher mental development, even under the favourable conditions of adaptation now offered to them in the United States of North America. No woolly-haired nation has ever had an important " history.""

In Haeckel's view, differences in language clearly reflect innate biological differences in the cognitive capacities of different human groups, and, therefore, their actual degree of humanity. That is just about as racist as it gets.

Wile Haeckel saw linguistic variation in human populations as polyphyletic (marking development since the divergence of humans species from a common ancestor), he recognized that the human lineage must ultimately be monophyletic (descended from a common ancestor) and therefore have some geographic place of origin. Turning to the question of where in the world the common ancestor of humans originated, Haeckel (1887:326) rejects the existing continents as the location of "Paradise" (i.e. "the cradle of the human race") and proposes that the lost continent of Lemuria makes the most sense: 

"But there are a number of circumstances (especially chorological facts) which suggest that the primaeval home of man was a continent now sunk below the surface of the Indian Ocean, which extended along the south of Asia, as it is at present (and probably in direct connection with it), towards the east, as far as further India and the Sunda Islands; towards the west, as far as Madagascar and the south-eastern shores of Africa. We have already mentioned that many facts in animal and vegetable geography render the former existence of such a south Indian continent very probable. (Compare vol i. p. 361.) Sclater has given this continent the name of Lemuria, from the Semi-apes which were characteristic of it. By assuming this Lemuria to have been man's primaeval home, we greatly facilitate the explanation of the geographical distribution of the human species by migration." 

At the time Haeckel was writing, the idea that there was a lost continent beneath the Indian Ocean made a lot of sense.  While the 19th century concept of Lemuria (named after the lemurs of Madagascar) usefully explained the discontinuous distributions of some plants and animals, 20th century seafloor exploration and knowledge of plate tectonics showed that no such sunken landmass exists.  There was no Lemuria, and the existence of such a place cannot be used to credibly frame ideas about human evolution and, consequently, the meanings of biological and linguistic variability among human populations.

This falsification of the idea of Lemuria is science in action. As racist as Haeckel was, I bet that he still would have adjusted his ideas about human evolution in the face of direct fossil evidence or the knowledge that there was no such thing as Lemuria. In regards the "paradise" of Lemuria, Haeckel (1887:325) acknowledged that

"I must premise the remark that, in the present state of our anthropological knowledge, any answer to this question must be regarded only as a provisional hypothesis."   

In the absence of direct evidence, it is possible to construct multiple narratives to explain the past and what it has to do with the present. The lack of direct evidence allows many mutually-exclusive ideas to be simultaneously regarded as credible.  Science works by developing lines of evidence that allows some of those ideas to be tested and potentially falsified. This is why Lemuria was a fine idea in the late 1800's but is a nonsense one now.  And this is why what we now know about human evolution and variation shows Haeckel's ideas about different human "species" as the inherently racist constructs that they are.  

Science works by letting facts kill ideas. Lemuria went down in smoke a long time ago, as did the idea that there are deep biological/cognitive differences between modern human populations. If you are holding on to either of these ideas, you should ask yourself why.

As I mentioned in yesterday's post about the "ancient relic of Mu" (a modern copper alloy pot from India), I have just come across Oahspe (pronounced O as in o'clock, AH as in father, SPE as in speak) for the first time. I'm not sure how I never heard of this before, but I'm finding it fascinating. For those of you ignorant of Oahspe, it is an 1882 book of spiritual revelations reportedly produced by John Ballou Newbrough (1828–1891) through automatic writing. The title page contains this description:

Here it is on Google Books.

Several things interest me about Oahspe.  

First, it contains a tale of human racial history and dispersal from a "lost continent" in the Pacific. I'm interested in how the ideas in Oahspe articulate with political and scientific thinking in late 1800's America. 

Second, it's one of several nineteenth century American religious developments based on received revelations. Unlike the Book of Mormon (1830) and the prophecies of Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA) Ellen G. White (experienced from 1844-1863), however, the writings in Oahspe did not develop a large following (I don't know how many Faithists there are today, but certainly many fewer than there are Mormons or Seventh-Day Adventists).

Third, I'm interested in the person and the process. Newbrough was born near where I grew up (Wikipedia says Mohicanville, Ohio, while I've seen other sources online specify Wooster, Ohio, and Springfield, Ohio) and apparently used a typewriter for his "automatic writing." And there are apparently connections between his dental practice and his spirituality.

Anyway, the first thing I did was look for giants in Oahspe.  They're pretty much absent from the Book of Mormon. In SDA and Young Earth Creationist traditions, humans closer to creation were "bigger, better, and smarter" than the degenerated humans of today. What does Oahspe have to say?

Here are the passages from "First Book of the First Lords" (Chapters 1-3) that describe the various interbreedings among animal, human, and spiritual beings:

That's a whole lot of inter-breeding going on.  I made a chart so I could keep it straight:

It appears to me that you can arrange these "races" described in Oahspe on a continuum from "spiritual/angelic" to "animal."  The "sacred beings" that are the products of matings between angels and Asu (apparently some kind of non-spiritual biped) are the I'hin.  The I'hin are rather small, light-skinned people.

In the Oahspe version of prehistory, it's the crossing of spiritual and animal beings that produces "true" humans that are apparently rather small.  This contrasts sharply with the Nephilim-centric view of the past wherein such matings produced corrupt, giant, evil beings.  

When humans (I'hin) go against instructions and mate with the non-human hominds (Asu), they produce something called a druk (druk is equated with "giant" only once that I see in Oahspe -- The Lord's First Book, chapter 1, verse 29). Druks are not fully human. Yaks, the products of matings between druks and the animal Asu, are even worse off. Matings between the not-fully-human druks and the I'hin produce the tall, strong, red-skinned, "half-breed" I'huan, which Faithists apparently take as Native Americans.

I've stumbled across several online attempts to reconcile the racial scheme of Oahspe with the fossil record (druks as Neanderthals, I'hin as Homo floriensis, Asu as Ardipithecus ramidus, etc.). The timing of Oahspe is particularly interesting in that regard. It was written decades after publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) but just prior to the discovery and/or recognition of human fossil remains in Indonesia and Europe in the late 1880's and 1890's. The idea of a sunken continent in the Pacific seemed plausible at the time, and was proposed as a way to account for the geographic distribution of plants and animals as well as the lack of a human fossil record.