Secondly, within the Aztec tradition, explicit mention is made of different types of pre-existing humanity, a conception well in keeping with modern evolutionary theory concerning the origins of modern Homo sapiens sapiens, with one very important exception, and that is that modern mankind in the Aztec tradition, as in the Mesopotamian, is an engineered creature, and one moreover that is chimerical, i.e., composed of a part from “the gods” and a part from the pre-existing and more primitive “humans.” Even the details of mankind’s creation are eerily parallel with the Kharsag tablets and the interpretation of the O’Briens examined previously, for we have (1) a grinding of the bones to a powder, paralleling the O’Briens’ creation of a culture, and (2) the “donation” of the blood — meaning perhaps the semen emissions — of the “gods” to the hybridized creature. Again, the details of the Aztec creation myth suggestively point to a technological basis and to an engineered, and not to an evolved humanity.
Finally, in yet another odd parallel with the Middle East, the Aztecs believed that some of the giants survived the Flood. In this, there is also general alignment with the traditions of more northern Native American nations which believed that the wars with the giants were a post-flood event.
The tradition extended beyond the Iroquois in North America or the Aztecs in Mexico. For example, as Cortez and his men marched westward into Mexico toward the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan, they encountered the tribe of the Tlaxcaltecs or Tlascala Indians, who recounted for Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of Cortez’s captains, thatA very long time ago, their forefathers found the territory inhabited “by men and women of great size, people with huge bones.” The ancestors had fought and destroyed these “wicked and evil” beings — and “any of the giants who survived eventually died out.” This last detail reveals that the Tlaxcaltecas understood that even if a small number of relict creatures had escaped mass destruction, they would eventually face extinction.414
Again, the legend compels the observation that the Tlaxcalteca account is remarkably parallel with the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews, in that both peoples (1) encounter giant humanoid occupants of the land, and (2) wage war against them because these giants are “wicked and evil.” This observation compels three further questions: Are we looking at a “conquest” that occurred in more than one place but for the same reasons? If so, then we are probably looking at coordinated action and an agenda, namely, a genocidal war for the extinction of a certain race or species of “giants.”
Or alternatively, are we looking at dim memories in either case of one underlying event that occurred in the dim mists of “pre-history,” or are we looking at some combination of both? If the latter two cases be true, then this in turn would perhaps have a wide and profound impact on how the editing of biblical and other Middle Eastern texts is understood to have occurred, and might even suggest possible reasons for why it was undertaken.
Note also that the tradition here is clear: the occupants that the Tlazcalteca encountered were living human-like creatures of large stature. They were not merely fossilized bones that were interpreted in accordance with a pre-existing myth. This will become an important point in a moment.
The Aztecs added to this “giant lore” when, during their migrations into lower Mexico, they encountered ca. 1200 A.D. the abandoned city of Teotihuacan, the famous giant pyramid complex outside of modern Mexico City. Seeing these gigantic structures, they interpreted them as having been built by the giants during the age of the giants.415 The Aztec prince Fernando de Alba Ixtlilxochitl maintained that these giants were “earth-giants,” in a manner recalling the far-distant Iroquois’ “stone giants,” and that they were somehow deformed.416
Even farther south in Latin America, the Incas had similar traditions of giants, monsters, and wars, and explained “colossal skeletons as the vestiges of dangerous giants of antiquity.”417 Cieza de Leon conducted interviews with local Manta Indians in Ecuador, and they had traditions that “Had been received from their ancestors from very remote times”418 that a race of giants had arrived on the coast of such stature that ordinary men came up only to the knees.419
Here again one encounters a story with odd and out-of-place resemblances to yet another biblical story, from an entirely different tradition an ocean away. De Leon, in his recounting of the Native traditions, insistedthat because of their vile sexual habits, the giants were “detested by the natives,” who made war against the invaders in vain. At last God intervened, and while the giants “were all together engaged in their accursed [words omitted], a fearsome and terrible fire came down from heaven with a great noise. At one blow, they were all killed, and the fire consumed them.”420
While one is left guessing what the “vile sexual habits” might be, the resemblance to the biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is quite strong, and this suggests a rather unique twist to the latter, for if both traditions come from some common underlying source and represent fragments of a once-unified story or legend, then perhaps the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah has less to do with the conventional religious and moral explanations and more to do with the presence of giants, or conversely, perhaps the destruction of the giants in the Americas had something to do with the morality of Sodom and Gomorrah.
2. The Consistency of Native American Explanations
What emerges from all this is the amazing consistency of Native American traditions concerning the age of giants and monsters, for with the exception of the Tlaxcaltecas noted previously, “Native American traditions about giants and immense land animals indicated that such creatures had never been seen alive in the present age, that the huge beasts had disappeared long ago...”421 Moreover, “The Natives’ story was consistent: (fossilized bones) were the vestiges of a giant race, now extinct owing to natural catastrophe or battles with humans of the distant past.”422 In this respect, Native Americans had a tradition that interpreted the evidence they encountered in a manner remarkably similar to the Greeks, who had their own traditions of giants, monsters, and ancient wars against both.
3. Mayor’s Explanation
Mayor’s scholarly credentials and the caliber of her research are impeccable. Not surprisingly, she follows a standard academic interpretation of the Native American traditions. Citing again the case of the Tlaxcaltecas who recounted tales of giants pulling down trees “as if they had beene stalkes [sic] of lettices [sic],” she notes that such behavior is similar to that of elephants, and that such details “may have originated in ancestral memories of Columbian mammoths and may have been later confirmed by discoveries of fossils.”423 Similarly, all such tales of giants’ remains might simply be explicable as misinterpreted fossilized bones of “monsters” or dinosaurs.424 For Mayor, the bottom line seems to be that the myths were created to explain the evidence.
But the problem, as we saw — at least in the case of the Tlaxacaltecas (if not others) — was that the legend explicitly stated that their ancestors first encountered humanoid giants as living creatures, and the Tlaxcaltecas were no less rational than anyone else, and would hardly be prone to confuse humanoid beings with mammoths.
The other problem is that if the myths were created to explain the evidence, then why did cultures as diverse as the Greeks, Iroquois, Aztecs and so on, creates myths remarkably similar in their details?
4. The Ancient Traditions and the Alternative Explanation
Thus, there are certain factors that suggest that an alternative view of these traditions, myths, and legends is necessary, one in which it is assumed that they contain kernels of historical and scientific truth:1. The belief among some Indian tribes and nations that different ages were exhibited and inhabited by different types of creatures, including different types of humanity;
2. The consistency with which Native Americans pointed to fossils as evidence of the truth of their traditions and myths concerning the age of giants and monsters (a fact that, again, would indicate that the myths predate the cultures encoun
tering the evidence);
3. The belief of different ages being typified by different kinds of creatures and humans, coupled with the consistency of their understanding of fossils as coming from antiquity and a war of giants and monsters, suggests not that the Indians invented the myths to explain the bones, but rather that the origin of those myths and traditions stems from the time of the dinosaurs themselves, for if such myths contained any kernel of truth, then at some point they had to be based on contemporaneous observation.
Why is this so? Why must one entertain the possibility that these myths and traditions stem from the time of the dinosaurs themselves?
Look carefully at point number one above, for such a viewpoint is remarkably similar to the ideas of modern evolutionary theory and modern anthropology. Indeed, there is little if anything to distinguish the American Indian views, when reduced to the barest elements, from the views of modern science. The legends and myths, in other words, suggest an origin within a culture far more scientifically sophisticated than those Indian tribes which preserved them, and that means in turn that the origin of these traditions is very, very ancient, or, to put it in the terms I have used elsewhere, “paleoancient.” Indeed, if they originate from such a culture and more or less contemporaneously with the events described, then they antedate modern mankind himself.
To put it as succinctly and nakedly as possible, the Native American Indian traditions are older than modern mankind himself and thus predate the tribes that preserved them. And this act must be considered to be an act of “preservation” and not “creation” simply because the scientific sophistication they suggest could not have originated within those tribes and cultures.425
This observation, plus the observations of all previous chapters, now suggests that two stunning and mutually opposed agendas might be in play “from high antiquity”:1. On the one hand, there is a body of lore, myths, traditions, and legends, spanning the globe from ancient Mesopotamia to North and Meso-America, which, taken together, suggest that modern mankind is the deliberately engineered product of some genetic “cousins” who were here long before modern man emerged. Additionally, both Mesopotamian, ancient Hellenic, and Native American Indian traditions speak of a war with “giants and monsters” occurring at some point in “high antiquity” prior to the emergence of modern man, and yet with whom at some later point modern man is contemporaneous. In some Native American Indian traditions, this view is codified into the belief that there were different ages of humanity and that these ages were also typified by different types of creatures that populated them. Thus, one agenda suggested by these observations is that someone from high antiquity wished modern mankind to know his true origins, and how these fit into a larger picture involving wars, giants, and “monsters.” Furthermore, the presence within ancient texts of details suggestive of an ancient high technology of genetic engineering also suggests that the “monsters” themselves — i.e., the chimeras of myth and the dinosaurs of science — might themselves be the deliberate products of engineering.
2. On the other hand, there is a body of lore, myths, traditions and legends embodied in some texts that suggest that others, at a later period, wished to obscure and hide those origins from a segment of humanity, and did so via the technique of “religifying” them in ancient times, and in modern times, ruling such possibilities out of court in the name of “science.” In the service of this possible agenda, ancient texts and legends have perhaps been deliberately mistranslated to obscure the possible technological references. Viewed a certain way and from this perspective, both classical Judeo-Christian texts and modern evolutionary dogma each serve to obscure these origins if one grants the proposition that there is any truth to such ancient myths that suggest that humanity is an engineered product, and that it had “cousins out there” that did the engineering. The very fragmentation of the story into so many disparate traditions with conflicting details over the basic storyline also suggests that the fragmentation itself may have been an attempt to obscure the story.
The astute reader will now have noticed an acute problem: if the legends concerning giants and monsters are true on the one hand, and if they are to be taken as indicative of something peculiar going on in the age of the dinosaurs on the other (as one implication of the standard academic view would have it), then who is doing the “remembering” here and creating the myths to begin with? If some Indian traditions are sophisticated enough to suggest different ages populated by different creatures, including different “humanities,” then this is a view every bit as sophisticated and “scientific” as modern theories of the origins and evolution of mankind.
But clearly, sophisticated as these Native American traditions and cultures were, they were not sophisticated enough to have such a scientific view.
In short, they did not create their myths, they inherited them.
So once again, who is creating these stories, and why?
The answer to that question requires, once again, a foray into current scientific and genetic findings on the origins of man, and a careful combination of that science with the views of the ancient texts that I have advanced here and elsewhere...
Eight
A MEMORY OF MAN PAST:
GENETIC CLANS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANOMALIES, EVOLUTIONARY ENIGMAS, AND SPECULATIVE SOLUTIONS
“Thus ‘facts’ turn out to be networks of arguments and observational claims.”
— Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson426
EUROPE IS POPULATED by approximately six hundred and fifty million Caucasians, as of this writing. No news there. The news is that all of them, along with their American, Canadian, and Australian descendents across the seas, are “cousins.” The reason is that Bryan Sykes, a geneticist at the University of Oxford,427 discovered an amazing thing: all Europeans come from only seven different clan mothers, or The Seven Daughters of Eve as he calls them, which is the title of his fascinating book surveying his research and conclusions. Those seven different clan mothers all in turn come from one common mother, “mitochondrial Eve” as the geneticists call her, as indeed, do all humans now alive on the planet.
If this sounds like good news to the biblical literalist, it isn’t, but we’ll get to that later. The real news, here as elsewhere, is in the genes, and what they tell us about human origins and prehistory. Sykes, with much more eloquence and elegance than most scientists, puts it this way:
...(Each) of us carries a message from our ancestors in every cell of our body. It is in our DNA, the genetic material that is handed down from generation to generation. Within the DNA is written not only our histories as individuals but the whole history of the human race. With the aid of recent advances in genetic technology, this history is now being revealed. We are at last able to begin to decipher the messages from the past. Our DNA does not fade like an ancient parchment; it does not rust in the ground like the sword of a warrior long dead. It is not eroded by wind or rain, nor reduced to ruin by fire and earthquake. It is the traveller from an ancient land who lives within us all.428
Sykes’ book is the record of his research efforts to trace that history back into “the deep past” of high antiquity, utterly “beyond the reach of written record or stone inscriptions.”429 That research revealed that Caucasian Europeans and their descendents were traceable to “only a handful of women living tens of thousands of years ago.”430
A. MITOCHONDRIAL EVE AND HER SEVEN EUROPEAN DAUGHTERS
1. Early Attempts to Distinguish Racial Groups by Blood-Typing
This “handful of women” were in fact seven women, seven “genetic clan mothers” to whom Sykes gave the names Ursula, Xenia, Helena, Velda, Tara, Katrine, and Jasmine.431 But the quest for science to find and identify these seven genetic clan mothers of Europe was no easy matter.
It began with the first blood transfusions in Italy in the seventeenth century. 432 Many people died from reactions to these early attempts and the practice was discontinued for two more centuries until it was resumed
again in the nineteenth century to try to save the lives of women hemorrhaging during childbirth. It was the practice of transfusions, in other words, that led to the discovery of the different blood types of humanity by the biologist Karl Landsteiner in 1900.433
Blood-typing quickly became an acceptable way of determining paternity and, ultimately, of the attempt to trace the genetic and evolutionary origins of different groups of humanity. According to Sykes, the attempt began in earnest during World War I, and “to a scientific paper delivered to the Salonika Medical Society on 5 June 1918.”434
Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men: The Surviving Elites of the Cosmic War and Their Hidden Agenda Page 23
