Was there a Gap?  The last British Neanderthals? Catastrophism 
and Cave Men
Cave Men in Historic Times The giant race 
of the Formorians
Miscellaneous Links Division in the days of Peleg 2247 BC
Building Stonehenge Neanderthal origins? A stone age find by the Author.




By: Jonathan Amos - News BBC News Online December 1, 2003 11:57 am ET
Fossils picked up in a Romanian bear cave are the oldest specimens yet
found of modern humans in Europe, scientists say. One of the items - a
male, adult jawbone - has been dated to be between 34,000 and 36,000
years old.
The other pieces, which include the facial bone of an adolescent, are
still being tested but are thought to be of a similar age.
This puts the fossils - from three different individuals - in a period in
history when modern humans are believed to have shared the continent with
Neanderthals, their now extinct hominid cousins.
Indeed, the researchers reporting the discoveries go so far as to suggest
the fossils show some degree of hybridisation - they are possibly the
result of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals, they
argue. This is a position that drives a heated debate among scientists, many of
whom doubt there was much mixing of the species.


Is'nt this the usual sought of evolutionary uniformitarian rubbish and
nonsense we get from the BBC trying to force evonutionism on to people who
dont want it. I can tell you that neanderthals were here in Britain 3500
years ago and were fully human. I challenge you to prove me wrong. Yours

I don't know who wants who to prove who wrong here. I posted the article
because it mentions the possibility of Neanderthal-homo sapiens
hybridization. I certainly wasn't arguing against it. I believe Neanderthal
was fully human and capable of reproduction with any other race of humans.

Here is another something interesting:
This guy Stephen Wells--check him out.  We can do something like this also. 
In fact he and others have done much of the work for us.  All we need to do
is reinterpret the data without the evolutionary bias.  Now doesn't this
look like fun work and it has a chronological side to it as well.  Notice
how Eve goes back so much further than Adam.  Many creation scientists feel
that the reason why this is so is that when we go back we run right into
Noah instead of Adam.  Noah is the progenator of the male side of the human
race.  Not true with the female side of the human race.  Wouldn't you like
to have this extra data to back up our migration studies.  This is a
wonderful new source of data just ripe for the taking.

He says that the Neanderthals are not our ancestors.  I believe he is wrong
as other studies have shown that later Europeans decended from Neanderthals.

Dan I gave this BBC guy a bit of a harsh response for the simple reason we
are always being indocrinated by their evolutionary propaganda of tens of
thousands and milions of years so perhaps I over reacted here and jumped in
"feat first " John

No worries.  Teno will overlook it.  You didn't realize why I copied the
article to you so perhaps it is my fault that you directed your attack at
Teno.  Teno probably figured out what happened, hence his response.

Dan I'll try to make my question a bit clearer. "Do Genesis chapters 9 and 10 imply that there was a prebabel migration before Babel because it says " the whole earth was of one language and speech. What is your interpretation of these verses? By the way to answer your question on my date for Babel. It is in Ussher's Annals of the world dated under 2242 BC and the author respectfully insists that the devision was at the birth of Peleg in 2247 BC (again i8n Ussher's Annals). These two dates should not be confused . John

Sure there probably was some migration prior to Babel.  I think it is possible that the Japethites may have already been exploring and settling some of the coastal areas since there would have been a need for supply of minerals & raw materials, furs, ivory, preciious stones, spices, etc.  We can only speculate.  Also you can look at Craig Whites work and see that there seems to be an absense of decendants of Japeph in the region of the Fertile Cresent.  I do not derive this from chap. 9 & 10 but from Craig's work, and common sense.  You need to show exactly why you believe that the passages indicate an early migration.  Nimrod would have needed a trade network to supply his empire and the sea is the best means for moving trade goods from more distant regions.  There is some evidence that a Sumerian presence reached clear to South America--possibly ancient Ophir and gold prospectin--who can know.  Brasil/ Brazil is a name associated with iron and it was known from very early times.

Dan; Yes is'nt that intersting. I will however apologise to Teno for being
a bit abrupt as I did'nt realize he was a creationist. There is something I
Think I can contribute to nailing the earliest neanderthals to 2247 BC and
that is the great age that Dr Cuozzo ascribes to them ; namely 200 plus
years so if they settled the isles (note I only say if) early post flood
then this would give us something posetive to go on. By the way Dan I'm not
the first person and by no means least the last to have this idea about
Genesis chapters 9 and 10. Dr JH John Peet in his book "In the Beginning
God created" is just one of them and I believe even Michael Oard placed the
neanderthal 101 after the flood and Philip Bell at Answers in Genesis says
that most neanderthal /cromagnon date from this period so you see it is'nt
just me. So if we have in mind that the earth was of one speach and
language and culture we need'nt worry about a catastrophe until we get to Babel
itself 5 years later and then the language confusion and dIvision. I
propose That in the date of 2247 BC we have cultural dIvision and nationhood
dIvision ownly. This is why I think I have something to contribute to
creation science research as I am of the opinion that this would be very
helpful to Dr Cuozzo. In my table for Britain and Ireland it is enough that
I have shown the devision in the days of Pelleg but not mentioned
neanderthals at this date so I think in those circumstances the table is
best left as it is. But what I would like to do is to print off an
introduction to chapter one of my Guildhall History of Britain and Ireland
and propose this as a chronology for the earliest neanderthals ie in what
might be called the "Prehistoric period". I personally think that this is a
good idea without being presumptive . What do you reckon Dan? John. Post
Script: I now have the picture of the stone artifact that I found (either
an arrow shaft straightner or a fishing net weight. I will send this to you
from my brother's email address.


 Personally think you should stick with your recent decision to not be so
sure on exact dates beyond 1500 BC. The British and Irish had their own
chronological system and Bill Cooper drew from that but how are you
establishing your dates. You need to stick with date ranges. Yes CroMagnon
and Neanderthals were probably right after the flood but if you were in a
debate with someone would you be able to convince the audience about the
accuracy of your dates. I don't think so. I would not be convinced unless
they were date ranges. Arch Bishop Usher provides us with dates that should
serve as date ranges since there is not enough agreement between the
ancient texts to be sure of one date or another. We can guess and that is
what Arch Bishop Usher did. Is he right--highly unlikely he has the exact
date correct.

So lets find more information from historical accounts and archeological
finds and see if we can piece together the puzzle and establish a
chronology. We need to have a team effort and if people are thinking that
you are picking dates instead of date ranges they are not going to look at
you very credibly. It is one thing to find someone that endorses your
chronology but quite another to convince the whole group. You have to do
what Bill has done and do a whole lot of research and be able to docthat you have done the research.

I am still trying to figure out what you are seeing in Gen. 9 &10.


 Dan if this guy says neanderthals were not our
ancestors; then what he is saying is that they were not human. So who or what does he suppose the
neanderthals to have been? Sounds to me as though he has similar views to
Gaines Johnson at www.kjvbible.org. The only other thing he can suppose is
that they were angels of Satan or Satan's fallen angels who were supposedly
destroyed in the socalled "Preadamic Lucifer's flood" which I would have
great difficulty in believing and quite unacceptable. I sent you Craig's
reply on Neanderthal by the way Dan. I guess Craig must have similar views
because when challenged about it; "He dosent know whom they might have been
racially". John


I could be wrong but what I believe he is saying is that this group
migrated out of Africa and arrived before the Europeans. He says that the
genetic studies show that they had little to no interbreeding with the
latter Europeans for any number of reasons (we will never know exactly
why). I do not know how he backs this up. Has he analyzed Neanderthal DNA?
This research disagees with other studies which say that they are the
progenators of the Europeans. Here is what I think for whatever it is
worth. If the Neanderthals were one of the first waves of migrants that
went out then when we are tracing the genetics we may not encounter them
because they were very early and very isolated and mutated at a high rate
and there is little genetic evidence of the interbreeding because they were
so much earlier and so few in number that they are not well represented in
the genetic studies. Plus as you suggest that if they went out before the
Tower of Babel they would have spoken a
different language and therefore may have had little interaction with later


What you say Dan sure makes good sense; and you know I get the feeling that
we're headed in the right direction and one thing I can say for sure is that
you and I make a good team and we can really work together at this. What I'd
like to do now is to conCentrate on the writings of
http://www.consciousevolution.com/Rennes/arthurchapter7.htm when they figure
that the milisians came to Ireland in 800 BC when Bill Cooper has am 3500
and 504 BC. Would not the Phoenicians have come at the time of Brutus? say
1104 BC? John


You will like this--kind of interesting but from a website that embellishes
every report.  You could check this out.

"Gigantic" Newcomers to the Prehistoric St. Lawrence River Valley
by G. Iudhael Jewell
Right: Adena skull from the Ohio State Archaeological Museum, Columbus,
Ohio. Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source
A strange people intruded into the St. Lawrence Valley around 2,000 BC,
huge, rugged, very tall, with massive skulls, very roundbroad heads.
They were physically different than the long-narrow headed native "Archaic"
peoples. The big, roundheaded newcomers brought D-shaped 11-inch celts.
There appears to have been a link between their society and the isolated
Meadowood Culture of 800 to 500 BC on the border of the lower St. Lawrence
river at Quebec- New York-Ontario.
They also formed a nexus with the Adena culture of huge round-heads. Prufer
and Dragoo always insisted that Adena came from eastern Lake Ontario, via
upper New York to West Virginia and the Ohio River.
Now the Canadian Museum of Civilization (a citadel of conservative
isolationism and liberal political-correctness) admits that in the Terminal
phase (2,000 to 1,000 BC) of the "Middle Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Culture"
(previously called "Laurentian Late Archaic") a tall people (women 170 cm
and men 180.7 cm) with "hyperdontia, or extra teeth... a genetic trait...
biological...", dwelt in the St. Lawrence-Ottawa Valley (J.V. Wright,
History Native Peoples of Canada: 10,000 to 1000 BC).
Strangely, the skeletal remains of children were very rare. Plenty of
cremations, though, in glaring contrast to the Red Paint People, wether
Maritime or Laurentian Archaic, who had elaborate burials for kids.
The Brook Street Burial Below: On December 6, 1960, the skeletal remains of
a man who lived in the area about 700 BC were discovered by Douglas Yaxley
of Peterborough, Canada.
Buried with the man were twenty-nine artifacts attributed to the Point
Peninsula Culture, which occupied the Trent River system before the
Christian era. Click and drag photo to resize.
Irish tradition recounts that the brutal, warlike Fomorians were "giants"
who invaded in ships from Africa, and demanded children at Halloween time.
Pict tradition held the same.
They were finally driven north to the Hebrides Isles off northwest Scotland
and to Tory Island off northwest Ireland in the deep Atlantic. From there,
they preyed on the people of Ulster. The Formorian giants were supposedly
endowed with double-rows of teeth.
Interestingly, Anglo-American settlers in the upper Ohio were told Native
traditions of "giants," and early settlers claimed they were digging up
(from Lake Erie-to the Ohio River) the skeletons of "giants' with massive
skulls and double rows of teeth.
The skeletal remains of pygmies (often of Australoid type), especially in
the Tennessee Valley have been excavated, confirming Native traditions.
The Mandarins of the Canadian Museum of Civilization (Hull/Ottawa) also at
long last admit: "Historically documented native beliefs in Canada appear to
have been quite similar to those of the pre- Christian Celtic, Germanic and
old Scandinavian peoples of northwestern Europe" ... (Old Scandinavian means
Lapps and Finns). ¡

Thought you might find this interesting also.  You see there are a number of
different possibilities for the creation date.  We have a lot of work to do.
  You should not be stuck on Arch Bishop Ussher but keep an open mind.  The
important part is that you use good hermeneutics in interpreting the Bible.

Creation dates
Different historical cultures put the creation of the world at different
dates. Many historical calendars were based on these dates.
Maya civilization - August 11 or August 13, 3114 BCE
Judaism - 25 September or March 29 3760 BCE
Western Christianity - September or October 4004 BC
Byzantine Empire - September 1, 5509 BC
Hinduism - 155 trillion BCE (cyclic) - 3893102 BCE (beginning of current
mahayuga); 2165102 BCE (end of Crita Yuga); 867102 BCE (end of Treta Yuga);
3102 BCE (end of Dwapara Yuga); 428899 (end of Kali Yuga)
Big Bang theory - 13.7 ± 0.2 billion BCE
Eternity - Postulate made by a number of groups including historical and
contemporary scientists, Buddhists, and certain New Age idealizations that
the universe has always existed, so there is no "beginning" of the universe
(though the Earth and other celestial objects may have come into being
closer to the current day). One such former scientific theory is the steady
state theory.
[edit]Date of Creation according to the Mayan calendar
The Mayan calendar dates the creation of the Earth to August 11 or August
13, 3114 BC (establishing that date as the zeroth day of the Long Count
[edit]Date of Creation according to the Old Testament
The Bible begins with the Book of Genesis, in which God creates the world,
including the first human, a man named Adam, in six days (or ages). Genesis
goes on to list many of Adam's descendants, in many cases giving the ages at
which they had children and died. If these events and ages are interpreted
literally throughout, it is possible to build up a chronology in which many
of the events of the Old Testament are dated to an estimated number of years
after the Creation.
Some scholars have gone further, and have attempted to tie in this Biblical
chronology with that of recorded history, thus establishing a date for the
Creation in a modern calendar. Since there are periods in the Biblical story
where dates are not given, the chronology has been subject to interpretation
in many different ways, resulting in a variety of estimates of the date of
Two dominant dates for Biblical Creation using such models exist, about 5500
BC and about 4000 BC. These were calculated from the genealogies in two
versions of the Bible, with most of the difference arising from two versions
of Genesis. The older dates are based on the Septuagint. This translation
was used by some Jews until about 100, then by all Christians until 405,
then by the Byzantines until 1453, and is still used by the various Orthodox
churches. The later dates are based on the Hebrew text of the Torah (the
precursor of the Masoretic text), which is still used by all Jews. Jerome
translated it into Latin as the first book of the Vulgate in 405, then it
was used by all Western Christians, who split into Roman Catholics and
Protestants beginning in 1517. Basically, the patriarchs from Adam to
Terach, the father of Abraham, were often 100 years older when they begat
their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Hebrew or the
Vulgate (Genesis 5, 11). The net difference between the two genealogies was
1466 years (ignoring the "second year after the flood" ambiguity), which is
virtually all of the 1500-year difference between 5500 BC and 4000 BC.
Jewish scholars subscribing to similar interpretations (mainly as given in a
pre-Talmudic work, the Seder Olam) give two dates for Creation according to
the Talmud. They state that the first day of Creation week was either Elul
25, AM 1 or Adar 25, AM 1, almost twelve or six months, respectively, after
the modern epoch of the Hebrew calendar. Most prefer Elul 25 whereas a few
prefer Adar 25. The seventh day of Creation week, the first Sabbath, was the
first day of the following month, either Tishri or Nisan, the first month of
either the civil or biblical year, respectively. In both cases, the epoch of
the modern calendar was called the molad tohu or mean new moon of chaos,
because it occurred before Creation. This epoch was Tishri 1, AM 1 or
October 7, 3761 BC, the latter being the corresponding tabular date (same
daylight period) in the proleptic Julian calendar.
According to the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar, the world was created on
September 1, 5509 BC.
One of the most well known estimates in modern times is that of Archbishop
James Ussher (1581-1656), who proposed a date of Sunday, October 23, 4004
BC, in the Julian calendar. He placed the beginning of this first day of
Creation, and hence the exact time of Creation, at the previous nightfall.
See the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar.


Thank you for giving me a preview of the artifact
picture on your website, and for letting me in on
some of the discussions you have had with Dan
Janzen et al.  Dan does seem to be a competent
researcher and an able ally in your quest.  It was
less than a year ago that I read a report on an
analysis of Neandertal DNA.  It concluded that
there had been very little interbreeding with modern
humans.  That of course implies that Neandertals
are considered human by mainstream scientists.
But it may be that the study was done only on
mitochondrial DNA, which, according to another
report I read on elephants last week, may not be
conclusive regarding lineage.  A possible way for
you to deal with issues in the "forbidden" time
before 1500 BC could be for you to have two
separate files.  One would be the "historical" file,
holding most of your work, and the second would
be for the "deep mist" of time before 1500 BC.
You would leave material in the second file off of
your timeline, allowing you to speculate more
freely without having to draw contentious conclusions.
A lead you can continue to follow is the mention of
giants in the traditions of ancient people worldwide.
Also, you could see if there is more to the story of
Babel; that is, was there some large-scale catastrophe
that sent populations to the four corners of the Earth?
Anyway, you are in the thick of it now, and there is no
turning back.  Good hunting.

Subject :  RE: Neanderthal 2200 BC Europe to 1500 BC

JXF to Bryce C Clarke:

Dear Mr Clark if you have'nt got time at themoment to research "King Errick
" in Scandinavia 62 after Babel or am 1824 and 2180 BC don't worry about it.
However what I would ask you is "Is when did the Japethites leave the
Arrarat mountains ? Was it 2300 BC or 2347 BC allowing for the neanderthal 5
years before the start of the post flood rappid ice age or may be 2242 BC or
do you think maybe 2200 is the tightest chronology for Neanderthal we're
ever going to get? This is why I figured that maybe 2180 is also one
generation after the flood and could likely be a good candidate for
Neanderthal. Coicidentally this is also nearly 700 years to my timeline for
Britain and Ireland to annomundi 2520 and 1484 BC as perBill Cooper which is
infact ownly 696 years. Maybe this is a strange coincidence one might say.
Yours very respectfully:- John

 Postscript Down below is an interesting idea
from Tenno Groppi. Once again Sir :- Many thanks for your time John.

 From Bryce C Clarke: extracts from the work of the late Dr. Herman Hoeh:

                          SINCE THE FIRST MAN

     Never has there been an age like this one. An avalanche of
scientific information is pouring down upon specialist and layman
     No one is able to keep up with the torrent of new knowledge.
     But is man the wiser for all this new knowledge?
     Are the latest conclusions of geology, of archaeology, or history
any nearer the truth? Or are we being crushed by the sheer weight of
new ignorance -- new superstitions, this time garbed in the respectable
clothes of Scientific Knowledge?

                         SCIENTIFIC CONFUSION

     It would seem this ought to be the wisest, most knowledgeable
generation that has ever lived. But it is not!
     And there is a reason.
     Never in the history of the world have so many been speculating so
much. Speculation, hypothesizing, intellectual guessing have become the
lifeblood of the sciences -- especially the social sciences. The result
is an age typified by a chaos of ideas.
     Professor Mendenhall labels the present confused state of human
knowledge thus: it "may with perhaps less courtesy but more accuracy be
called chaos" ("Biblical History in Transition").
     The reason? Only those facts which fit an hypothesis are
concerned! The purpose of hypothesis is not eternal truth -- only
intellectual curiosity to see whether the hypothesis be so!
     Is it any wonder that the scholarly world is in confusion? That
the genuine history of man has been rejected and forgotten? That
Scripture is labeled "unscientific" and "myth"?
     This second volume of the "Compendium" is devoted to that
forgotten history of man.

                            WHY HYPOTHESES?

     Can the facts of geology, of archaeology, of human history and the
Bible be reconciled? Not if the method of study now in vogue in the
educational world is used! Crowning the heap of discarded theories with
another hypothesis will not resolve the problems.
     Yet a solution is possible. The facts of geology, of archaeology,
of human history and the Bible are reconcilable. It is the hypotheses
and theories of Science and Theology that are not! No one, caught up in
the vicious cycle of intellectual guessing, finds it easy to divorce
facts from hypotheses.
     But once one is willing to do that, the gnawing questions of
science and history find answers.
     Why haven't men been willing to face facts, and forget
hypothesizing? The answer is simple. Facts do not automatically
organize themselves into clear and unmistakable answers.
     There is always the need of some kind of yardstick, some standard,
to guide man in organizing the myriads of facts lying mutely before
him. A geological stratum by itself does not answer when? or why? A
potsherd by itself does not reveal who? or when? Even a written record
by itself often fails to convey motive, proof of accuracy, or history
of transmission.
     Scholars and scientists must of necessity resort to some external
framework or yardstick by which the recovered facts may be judged. Only
two choices are available -- hypothesis or Divine Revelation.
     The educated world has chosen the former. It has, without proof,
rejected the latter. Hypotheses appeal to human vanity, to intellectual
curiosity, to the desire to hear of something new. Divine Revelation
requires acknowledgement of a Higher Power, the subjection of human
reason to the revealed Mind of the Creator. But human reason revels in
its own superiority. By nature it opposes and exalts itself against
Higher Authority.
     No wonder educators take for granted that the facts of geology, of
archaeology, or human history contradict the Bible.
     Not until human beings are willing to acknowledge God, to
acknowledge His Authority, His Revelation, will they ever come to a
satisfactory -- and satisfying -- explanation of Man and the Universe.
     Not until human reason is conquered will the scholarly world enjoy
the privilege of understanding the meaning of geology, of archaeology,
of history and the Bible.

                         UNCOVERING THE FACTS

     Scientific and historical journals are filled with "learned"
conflicts and controversies. These conflicts are not due to a lack of
factual material. There are often "too many" facts.
     Controversies in philosophy, in science, in education are the
direct result of hypothesizing. Theories and hypotheses by their very
nature breed controversy. What is needed is a true view of the factual
material already available. Present material is more than sufficient to
solve every one of the primary questions regarding Man, his origin in
time, and the record of his experiences.
     Why don't today's educators know the answers to these problems?
Because they have discarded the key that would unlock the answers. That
key is God's revelation of essential knowledge for man -- the Bible.
But men don't want God telling them anything authoritatively. They
therefore refuse even to test whether the Bible is authoritative.
     It's time we examined the facts of science. Examined, in brief
outline, the beginnings of human society -- the relationship of geology
and archaeology to human history and the Bible. It is possible, if we
divorce theory from the facts, to discover the answers to every one of
the following basic questions:
     Do the facts of geology confirm the Bible? Was the earth inhabited
before the creation of man -- before creation week recorded in Genesis
     Where in geologic strata, does Creation Week of Genesis 1 occur?
Is the geographical description of the Garden of Eden and of the great
river that went out of it toward the east (Gen. 2:10) confirmed by
     What happened to the earth as a result of the sin of Cain?
     Why did his descendants wander over the earth, hunting instead of
     What is the relationship between pre-Flood Man and fossil Man?
What does archaeology reveal about the first sixteen centuries of human
existence? Where do the so-called "Ice Ages" fit in Bible history? Why
did so many forms of animal and human life disappear at the close of
the geologic period labeled "Pleistocene" by scientists?
     Is this the Biblical Flood?
     Every one of these questions has an answer. The answers are so
plain even a child can understand them -- if unprejudiced. The factual
material has already been recorded for us by generations of historians,
scientists and archaeologists. Yet they don't understand what they have
discovered. They view everything from the evolutionary standpoint. It
has simply never occurred to them that what they uncovered confirmed
the Bible, and not evolution!

                         HOW GEOLOGISTS THINK

     Most people do not know how a geologist reaches his conclusions. A
geologist, of course, is one who makes a study of earth history. He
investigates the rock structure of the surface of the earth. Let's
accompany a geologist on one of his field trips.
     A geologist working in the field discovers strata of sandstone, or
limestone, or silt. Perhaps in them are fossils. He wants to know when
the strata were deposited. How does he decide? The answer is: HE
     Being a very careful man -- a scientific man -- he will go to a
paleontologist for the answer. And who is a paleontologist? He is a
scientist who makes a special study of fossils. It is his function to
explain to the geologist the apparent age of the fossils.
     And how does the paleontologist know the apparent age of the
fossils? From geology? No! How can he learn it from geology when even
the geologist does not know the age of fossil strata until he goes to
the paleontologist who studies the fossils!! Then how does the
paleontologist discover how old fossils are?
     Simple! He turns to the evolution theory!
     Life, the paleontologist tells the geologist, developed from the
very simplest cell into the varied complex creatures that inhabit the
earth today. "But what is the age of the fossils?" asks the geologist.
     "Let me explain that," replies the paleontologist. "Evolution is a
very slow process. It may take millions of years for one species of
life to slowly develop into another totally different species. The age
of your strata are determined by how long we think it took that
particular species of fossils to develop. of course, we paleontologists
don't all agree on these details. You might get a different answer from
another paleontologist! After all, even though we all believe evolution
is a fact, we do not know exactly how it occurs -- or even the exact
order in which various species of life evolved."
     And that, in simple language, is what happens!
     The age of the fossils is guessed at by the paleontologist. The
source of his knowledge (or misknowledge) is not geology, but the
evolution theory. He takes it for granted. He assumes the theory is a
fact -- or reasons as if it were a fact. The geologist then deduces the
age of the strata from the assumed age of the fossils.

                         DISCARDING THE FACTS

     All too often the geologist discovers that, according to the
assumed age of the fossils, "younger strata" are below "older strata"
-- in the wrong order -- reversed! "Oh, that's all right," the
paleontologist will conclude. "just consider that the strata were laid
in the right order and that later a fracture in the earth's crust
occurred which placed them in the wrong order."
     "But there was no fracture or fault line in the deposits. The
strata were laid down exactly as I found them."
     "Don't let that concern you," the paleontologist might tell the
geologist. "You are at liberty to insert fracture or fault lines where
there were none, and to remove them where you plainly saw them. After
all, the evolution theory explains what happened even if you did not
find the evidence!"
     That is THE WAY evolutionary science is practiced.
     This illustration was in fact presented in a public lecture in one
of the most famous institutions of higher learning in Southern
     The geologist giving the lecture added this word of advice: "It is
better not to go to different paleontologists. Otherwise there will be
no consistency in the dating of fossils. It is much better to consult
the same paleontologist, for then, at least, one will be CONSISTENT IN
     It is this kind of foolish scientific thinking -- if it can be
called thinking -- that masquerades as intellectual. This is the kind
of thinking that has been used to ridicule and reject the authority of
     This is the trunk of the evolutionary tree. Once it is chopped
down all the twiggy side arguments fall with it!
     Evolution is based on deceptive, circular reasoning. It is an
unproved and unprovable hypothesis. It is made to seem rational by a
fantastic use of hundreds of millions -- even billions -- of years. But
no evolving fossil -- bridging the gaps from one Genesis kind to
another -- has ever been found. No half-evolved living species, has
ever been seen by man. God-ordained varieties of each kind -- yes! But
no evolution from one Genesis kind to another!
     It is time we opened our eyes to the falsehoods in modern
     Naturally, geologists have found many important and true facts.
Once we divorce the facts from the theories and hypotheses, true earth
history becomes plain. Now take a look at the facts as they are found.
See how they fit the Bible account.

                         THE FACTS OF GEOLOGY

     First, look at the recent astounding discoveries of geology. They
are of such magnitude as to revolutionize the whole field of scientific
studies. They tell an incredible story.
     Geologists, like all scientists, are noted for the care which they
take in exact observations and measurements -- though in theorizing
they know no bounds to their wildest speculations.
     After decades of careful firsthand observation, geologists came to
recognize a definite, worldwide break in the geological strata. They
didn't understand its meaning. They never looked into the Bible to see
if an answer were there.
     The strata below the break revealed a world entirely different
from the one we see around us today. Nowhere in the lower strata does
one find fossil Man, or remains warm-blooded creatures so
characteristic of our world. Missing, too, are the angiosperms --
plants having their seeds enclosed in an ovary.
     Evolutionary geologists immediately jumped to the conclusion that
this was a "proof" of evolution. They couldn't have been more mistaken.
     Above the break, the strata reveal forms of life vividly described
in Genesis 1. There are human remains, many varieties of mammals, birds
and flowering trees. Why the sudden appearance of new kinds of life?
What is the meaning of this break in the geological horizon? Is it
mentioned in the Bible?
     Most scientists and historians never looked to see. The
theologians never stopped to investigate. But the facts are plain for
all to see. There has been no past evolution of living matter.

                      CONFIRMATION OF GENESIS ONE

     Genesis 1 has been woefully misunderstood. "Creation Week" is not
the record of the original creation of matter, but an account of
     The first chapter of Genesis contains two distinct accounts.
     The first two verses are a brief account of the creation of matter
and physical energy -- of a beautiful earth fit for habitation -- "in
the beginning." The second account is about the work of re-creation
following a frightful catastrophe which befell the first world. That
catastrophe is briefly summarized in verse 2 of Genesis 1. These
verses, according to the original inspired Hebrew text, read: "In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth had
become without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the
     God created the world fit for habitation. It was not created a
waste. Isaiah 45:18 reveals: "... God himself that formed the earth ...
he created it not in vain (the original Hebrew is the same as in
Genesis 1:2 -- meaning "not a waste"), he formed it to be inhabited."
     The first or pre-Adamic creation was turned into a chaotic wreck.
Virtually all life perished. (Psalm 104: 28-29.) The whole face of the
earth was covered with water.
     The Biblical record of Genesis 1:2 is confirmed by the enigmatic
break which scientists have found in the geological strata. The strata
below the break are the remains of the pre-Adamic world!


     For scores of years geologists assumed the ocean floors were the
quiet resting places of thousands of feet of mud and slime. Then came
the shocking truth. Those thousands of feet of mud were not there. The
geologists could hardly believe their eyes.
     An immense catastrophe had befallen the earth.
     Everywhere men sent down into the oceans their coring devices they
discovered the ocean depths had suffered a tremendous volcanic
     To heighten the shock of the discovery, scientists found the
catastrophe had struck the ocean depths at the same moment in
geological history that it had struck the land masses. On land it had
been recognized as a worldwide break in the geological strata. To this
upheaval geologists assign the label "Cretaceous" -- meaning "chalky"
-- because of the nature of the chalky deposits in England where the
strata were first studied.
     Geologists thought they would find strata in the sea below the
so-called "Cretaceous" deposits -- just as they find them on the
continents. They didn't. Reported Ericson and Wollin: "... no sediment
older than Upper Cretaceous time has been found in the ocean basins
because there is none there to find" ("The Deep and the Past", p. 266).
     None to find? of course! On the ocean floors the world before man
has been buried under tremendous volcanic eruptions.
     The authors continue:
     "The paleontological and geophysical evidence tells in clear
enough language that some sort of drastic reorganization of the floors
of the oceans must have taken place toward the end of the Lower
Cretaceous Period .... We can be sure (that is usually a sure sign that
scholars, historians, and scientists are guessing) that this volcanic
transformation did not take place within the span of a few years; if it
had, all marine life would have come to a sudden end as a gargantuan
bouillabaisse of boiled fish. To avoid catastrophe of this sort, we
need only be more liberal with time; we have plenty of it at our
disposal ....
     "Whence came the energy and why should its effect have been
concentrated at the beginning of the Upper Cretaceous?" (Pages
     Read that astounding quote again!
     The facts are plain! There was a singular catastrophe which
virtually ended all life between what geologists call the "Lower" and
"Upper Cretaceous" -- that is, the dividing line between the world
before Adam and the world since the creation of man.
     Geologists throw around time as though it were a mere toy! By
giving themselves time enough they hope to alleviate the necessity of
accepting the truth of Genesis 1:2.

                           THE WORLD OF ADAM

     To continue picking up the highlights of geology which confirm the
Biblical record --
     The second chapter of Genesis, verses 8 to 15, preserves a
remarkable account of the geography of the land of Eden where Man first
dwelt. Many Scripture passages indicate it was the land of Palestine,
with the Garden lying eastward in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Josephus,
the Jewish historian, confirms this picture in "Antiquities of the
Jews," I, i, 3.
     In Eden sprang forth a vast stream of water that flowed eastward
through the Garden. It divided into four parts, three of which flowed
toward the north and east -- the other southward.
     Where, in geological history, would one find this geographical
description of the river system of Palestine and the environs of
     In the strata that geologists label "Upper Cretaceous"! In
Palestine it is the next geological event which follows the geological
break previously referred to. Jewish geologists, unaware of what they
have discovered, have even presented a simple sketch of this astounding
evidence. On page 35 of E. A. Speiser's "At the Dawn of Civilization"
is a geologic map of Palestine in the so-called "Upper Cretaceous."
Immediately to the east of Jerusalem may be seen in outline the area
through which the waters from the Garden flowed. The present Jordan
Valley and Dead Sea were not then formed.
     With these geological points established in brief, it is not
difficult to place the subsequent geological and archaeological
deposits in their Biblical background.
     The first few centuries of human life on earth are consequently
parallel with the "Upper Cretaceous" and "Tertiary" deposits of
geological science. These deposits are of course dated by evolutionary
scientists as millions of years old. Time, to them, means nothing.
Geologists have no means of dating accurately these deposits. They
assume their extreme antiquity because they first assumed the
evolutionary hypothesis to be a fact!
     The Evolutionary hypothesis is not a fact. It has never been
proven and by its very nature can never be proven. Once evolution is
recognized for what it is -- a mere figment of human imagination -- the
whole geological timetable collapses!

                      THE SIN OF CAIN AND GEOLOGY

     Cain is an important figure in theology. He is equally important
to history and geology. Geology? Indeed! As a result of the sin of Cain
the entire history of human society -- and the earth's surface --
changed. Notice the Biblical record: "And now art thou cursed from the
earth ... when thou tillest the ground" -- Cain, says Josephus, sought
to gain his livelihood by farming methods which depleted the soil --
"It shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive (or
wanderer) and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth" (Gen. 4:11-12).
     God put a stop to Cain's way -- the way of getting. If Cain and
his heirs had been allowed to continue their agricultural pursuits,
soils all over the world would long ago have been rendered unfit for
cultivation. Human life might well have been snuffed out by mass
     The geological record tells us what God did to save the soil from
utter depletion. Mountain chains arose where there were none before.
Seas dried up. The balmy semi-tropical climate of the world rapidly
shifted into torrid and frigid zones. Wherever Cain wandered his
agricultural pursuits came to naught. When it should have rained, the
weather turned dry. Just as he was about to reap the ripening crop, a
storm blew in. Nothing turned out right. Cain was forced to turn to
hunting and gathering the sparse wild fruits and berries. He and the
generations who followed him eked out a wretched living. All this is
recorded in geology and archaeology.
     In the so-called "Tertiary" geological deposits, which follow the
"Upper Cretaceous," immense surface changes are recorded. The climate
began to turn cooler. Desert regions developed in the wake of mountain
building. Pluvial and arid periods fluctuated.
     "Tertiary" deposits are overlain by what geologists call
"Quarternary" or "Pleistocene" deposits. The climate in the northern
hemisphere became even colder. Vast snowfalls engulfed the regions now
labeled Canada and Europe on our maps. The Arctic zone expanded.
Fluctuations in sea level occurred. All along the continental shore
lines the changing beach levels left their mark. Many may still be seen
today. Geologists mislabel this pre-Flood period "Ice Ages."
     This period witnessed the spread of human habitation around the
world. Giants appeared according to Genesis. Fossil remains of giant
human beings of this period have been found by geologists. This is the
time of so-called "Paleolithic Man," or "Neanderthal Man" and the
"Mousterian Culture," of the mammoth and reindeer hunters of the "Upper
Paleolithic." Their culture exactly fits the curse that befell Cain.
Cain and his descendants became wanderers and vagabonds over the face
of their earth. They were reduced to hunting and gathering because the
soil would not yield normal crops. These ancient changes in the weather
are a type of the changes of the weather now beginning to hit the earth
in this twentieth century!
     With an increase in human population over the centuries, Cain saw
a way around his punishment. He reasoned that if he could monopolize
the salt trade, he could become rich. Every human being needs salt to
live. He headed for the region of the Dead Sea. There he built an
important city and surrounded it with walls. Josephus describes it in
detail. The Bible refers to it as the city of Enoch, which Cain built
and named in honor of his son (Gen. 4:17). Archaeologists have found it
-- the first walled city built before the Flood. On its site was later
built the post-Flood city of Jericho. The British archaeologist Miss
Kenyon has devoted much time and patience to the excavation of this
important discovery (see her book Digging Up Jericho).
     At Jericho and all over the eastern Mediterranean lands rapid
changes in culture developed. Population increased. Many village sites
dot the countryside. Intermarriage of races was a consequence of the
family of Cain settling among the family of Seth in the Middle East.
Numerous fossil skeletons attest to this fact mentioned in Gen. 6:1-2.
     The complete story of culture changes before the Flood may be
easily pieced together from Emmanuel Anati's "Palestine Before the
Hebrews," F. C. Hibben's "Prehistoric Man in Europe" and Speiser's
afore-quoted book. "The Bible and the Ancient Near East" provides the
proper sequence of cultures in its fourth chapter, "The Archaeology of
Palestine," by G. E. Wright. These and other studies make it clear that
the Flood occurred at the end of the geological epoch called the
"Pleistocene." The "Recent" which follows geologically is the
post-Flood world. This event is also marked in geological records by
the sudden disappearance of many forms of animal life -- especially the

                        EARLY POST-FLOOD WORLD

     In archaeological parlance the pre-Flood world in the Middle East
drew to a close with the "Natufian," the "Tahunian," pre-pottery and
pottery Neolithic and related cultures.
     As this dissertation is being written, important new discoveries
in Anatolia and Southeast Europe are adding to our knowledge of
so-called "Neolithic" culture just prior to the Flood. Already
archaeologists are aware that their designation "Neolithic" is a
misnomer. It was not a complex of cultures based on polished stone
without metals. Everywhere copper artifacts are, turning up in the
Middle East -- in Persia, in Greece and along the Danube, in Anatolia
and the fringes of Mesopotamian plains. Scripture makes plain that the
knowledge and use of copper alloys and iron characterized the closing
stages of the pre-Flood world (see Genesis 4:22).
     These so-called Early Neolithic cultures are mistakenly dated (by
radio-carbon) to the last half of the sixth millennium and to the
fifth. Radio-carbon dates that are earlier than the 4300's ± 300 B.C.
generally belong to Pre-Flood societies. Those sites and artifacts
dated by archaeologists to the 4300's ± 300 and later appear in every
known instance to be of the post-Flood world. This indicates that
radio-carbon dates for the time of the Flood are about 2000 ± 300 years
     The immediate post-Flood world is, in Mesopotamia and Palestine,
labeled by archeologists as a transitional "Neolithic-Chalcolithic"
culture stage. It is rather a senseless term! The term is meant to
imply a general but limited use of metal. In short order Palestinian
society developed into a so-called "Early Chaleolithic" period.
     Wherever these two cultural phases appear in the Middle East,
there is evidence of a break with the past. The world population
suddenly appears to have shrunk to almost nothing. Migrations are on
miniature scale. Areas of human habitation are limited, compared with
the evidences of tremendous population in the Early Neolithic which
ended in the Flood.
     Of the pre-Flood world we have this startling quote from Anati in
"Palestine Before the Hebrews": "... the density of population must
have been then one of the greatest in Palestine. Frequently the
distance from one settled spot to another is no more than a thousand
feet" (p. 231).
     Post-Flood Palestine was, by contrast, sparsely settled. Human
habitation, springing out of Syria and Mesopotamia, was limited in the
Early Chalcolithic to sites along the coast, in the mountains and along
the Jordan plain. An increase in population is noted in the succeeding
cultural phase -- the Ghassulian of archaeological parlance. This is
the period in which Abraham appeared in Palestine. Abraham generally
made southern Palestine, headquarters. Its chief town was Beersheba. It
is not surprising that during this period Beersheba was the cultural
center of Palestine, rather than the more populous north. It was at
Beersheba that the remains of the earliest known domesticated horse was
found by archaeologists ("Palestine before the Hebrews", p. 241).
Abraham's descendants ever since have been famous breeders of horses.
     The lush Jordan Valley became desolate during the Ghassulian. When
Tell el-Ghassul was excavated by the Pontifical Institute immense
quantities of ash were found. It was immediately recognized as the time
of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. Later, archaeologists --
confronted with this plain evidence of Scripture -- rejected the
identification and placed the Ghassulian culture 1500 years too early!
     And with that the evidence of geology and archaeology missing from
Volume I is completed. Geology, archaeology, history and the Bible
stand reconciled.

JXF to Tenno Gruppi
Hi  Tenno do you reckon the Neanderthal were here in 2200 BC. I have some
info saying that King Errick and his Goths arrived In Northen Europe 62
after Babel . Could the neanderthal infact have been the Indo Germaniic
race? and Could Errick have beena Neanderthal Kinf of Scandinavia? My
other point is that Bill Cooper gave me a cursery endorsement of the date
of 2247 BC 101 after theflood (Flood date 1656 annomundi and 2348 BC
Ussher) at the devision in the days of Peleg or do you think given the
date for Babel 2242 BC and the post flood ice age the neanderthal would
have been in britain at this time or would you think that Dan Janzen's
date 2200 BC is a better bet? John

 From Tenno Gruppi:
No doubt Neanderthals were around in 2200 B.C. That's only a
generation after the flood. I don't know which race they were.

         2247 vs. 2242 vs. 2200? That's only 47 years difference total. I
don't know if we can get much more precise with any certainty. I've never
>un the numbers that tightly myself.

  |  |  | Inbox

We do not know when the Neanderthals were around only can guess at a likely
date range.

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
Sounds great to me. You know I feel a lot happier now about Neanderthals in
1500 BC and at least it puts my mind at rest. John

From: Dan Janzen To: John Hext-Fremlin Subject: Re: Neanderthal Europe
(1500 BC)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:26:16 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks, I have been on his site in the past and when I get a chance I will

John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
Tell you what Dan this guy is worth emailing and he has some interesting
links down below. Cheers John

From: Scott
To: John Hext-Fremlin
Subject: Re: Neanderthal Europe (1500 BC)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:55:14 -0700 (PDT)

It would not surprise me if neanderthals were
traced historically to a young age.

My site "Jesus, Dinosaurs and More" has a new address:
http://www.dinosaursinthebible.com please forward this addrfriends and family.
 I have been getting a lot of questions lately about carbon dating, so I'm
sending everyone this link to another site that points out some ofproblems with it: http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp
You can also read: http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
for more information on creation vs evolution.

And finally here is a great website on ancient man showing Neanderthals
were 100% human http://www.jackcuozzo.com

I've been behind on answering email lately, and am sorry for the delay.

thanks, Scott

An older Earth dating for Neanderthals?

from Charles Trotter (Not the view of the Author)


FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) - German and U.S. scientists have launched a project
to reconstruct the Neanderthal genome, the Max-Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology said Wednesday.
The project, which involves isolating genetic fragments from fossils of the
prehistoric beings who originally inhabited Europe to map their complete
DNA, is being carried out at the Leipzig-based institute.
"The project is very new and is just at its beginning,'' said Sandra Jacob,
a spokeswoman for the institute.
U.S. geneticist Edward Rubin, from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
in Berkeley, Calif. is also participating in the project.
In an interview with the German weekly Die Zeit, Rubin said the research
would amount to more than just a spectacular display of science.
"Firstly, we will learn a lot about the Neanderthals. Secondly, we will
learn a lot about the uniqueness of human beings. And thirdly, it's simply
cool,'' Rubin said.
While Svante Paabo, the director of the Max-Planck Institute told Die Zeit
the information gleaned will not be enough to recreate the beings,
scientists hope it will help reveal the molecular evolution of human beings.
Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans in Europe only between 40,000
and 30,000 years ago.


Charles L. Trotter

JXF and DJ - Neanderthals and the "Deep mists of Time"
(email sequence: read from bottom - ie next line break -  to top)

Just continue to be careful about dating Neanderthals as we have too little
data--I have not seen anything convincing yet so we might as well admitt
that we are completely stumped until something new gives convincing

John Hext-Fremlin <johnhextfremlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes Dan Iwould very musch like to participate in this venture. sounds like
very exiting stuff. I could'nt be too sure about the formorians but for my
money I'd back Charles Kimball's inferences that they might well be
neanderthals. From the research paper by Dr Hoe on Brutus which by the way
is about the ownly one I could honestly say that I just about trusted is the
confirmation of written history and the archaeological evidence That Brutus
and his people can indeed be identified with the early Bronze culture of
Britain which gives credence to my industry table for Britain and Ireland.
Perhaps you would like to ask this gentleman whom you reckon is about five
years ahead on chronology whether he'd like to see my table for Britain and
Ireland. If so please let me know and let me have his emailing address so I
can send him one of my tables. Looks like the hunt is finally under way.
Good hunting John

>From: Dan Janzen To: John Hext-Fremlin Subject: Re: My Report and verdict
>on Deep"Mist" Dates" in light of Dr Herman Hoe
>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
>The Beaker people and the Formosians: I do not have the expertise to
>comment on who they were.
>Yes, you have made a good point about Charles Kimball and White and others.
>However, I would not base not going back past 1500 "mists" based on Gunnars
>work which is not intended for that purpose. Gunnars work is not all that
>applicable to chronology but more to the fact that the stone tool counts do
>not support millions of years of humans living in caves.
>You may be interested to know that I have teamed up with a gentleman who is
>5 years ahead of me in a vision of putting the history of the world on the
>web with an interactive databased organized by subject and chronology. Do
>you want to participate?
>John Hext-Fremlin wrote:
>Dan having had a dabble with the deep mist dates of circa 2200 BC; I have
>found that the "Compendia of World History has a lot of very misleading
>dates" which is why this author refuses to go beyond the date of 1500 BC in
>Europe for Neanderthals' arrival here on the historic time line consistent
>with Bill Cooper and Prof Gunnar Heinsohn. I also believe that to extend
>this date of 1500 BC would be to defy statistics especially in this
>connection with regard to Gunnar's stone tool "count" As you have allready
>seen in regard to the date of 62 after Babel "I would be very choozey
>about this date for the goths iin Scandenavia at this time as it would seem
>somewhat early arrival in that part of Europe for the Goths and as Craig
>White has just said "has nothing to do with theneanderthals. I think that
>Craigfrom what Ican make of the situation goes with the
>idea which as you know is not the idea of this author allthough an
>interesting one. Is not DW Pattern another "gap theorist" and is not the
>creation or young earth creation movement under threat from another
>"Creationist" Movement called http://www.answersincreation.org who are all
>gap theorists and what they have to say about neanderthals being supposedly
>pre Adamite hominids. Quite Absurtd! By the way I do aggree that up to a
>point that Charles S Kimball has a little bit of the secularist
>uniformitarian idea of dates for the flood and cration being pushed back
>further than for what the bible will allow for creation namely 6000 years.
>In my view and keeping an open mind about the gap or supposed gap of
>1v1 and 1v2 It would be the dinosaur kt Boundery extinction if it had any
>"validity" (which indeed it does not!) that I would go for accept that we
>have cavepaintings of dinosaurs by Ammerindians and the Hoppi of Rock
>Paintings as I pointed out to Craig White which make that idea an invallied
>one for the dinosaurs. Have you and your collegues a "wall chart " of world
>history and if so what progress have you made? and if you have one can you
>send me the link and I'll click on it to have a look at it. I think that
>what I can say about all the deep mist dates before 1500 BC in conclusion
>and summary is:- "That any date before 1500 BC and approaching the flood
>date as Bill Cooper rightly says would argue with and undermine the date
>the flood 2348 BC and would lead to other misleading dates and theories
>as the "Gap theory" and such as the "ins " and Outs of the date of 2200 BC
>being a legit date for the near east but not for Europe for Neanderthals
>is precisely why the author has investigated all of these "ins" and outs
>with a "fine toothcomb" for Neanderthal Man and has found that there canbe
>no justification to date Neanderthal before 1500 BC in Europe and Britain
>thereby making him a contemporary of more civilised members of society and
>Mesolithic neolithic and chalcolithic industries. The ownly justifieble
>piece of evidence in Compendium of World History is the evidence for the
>early Bronze culture of 1104 BC (Dated by this author and indeed Bill
>Cooper) is the evidence for Brutus. The written historicle record places
>Brutus as having cremation erns for the dead apractice which was farmiliar
>to brutus in Asia Minor according to the written record of history. In
>aggreement with this view is the archaeological evidense saying the "Beaker
>People of the "Wessex Culture " carried out such practises . Thus we have a
>name of the king who introduced the early Bronze culture or industry into
>Britain. I am of oppinion that the formores were the "Natives of Britain"
>Perhaps Neanderthals whom as you say had to beconquered and their arrival
>was contemporary in England with Partholan in Ireland. However as you know
>Charles Kimball has them arrive ie the formores of Ireland at the same time
>as Partholan and that is also the view of this author based on some
>research. John


Dan Mike and Darrell; I have a paper here in front of me and it has some maps which are helpfull accept that the print is so small one needs a magnifying glass to read the small tiny print and it's from a cecular paper I' like you all to look at when you get a moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe  Dan and Darrell I also have in front of me some secular radiocarbon dates you requested though I would stress that from this paper it varies from region to region ie Greece from 7000 (Neolithic Industry) to 1700 BC (Reintroduction of Bronze working using the biblical agenda). In Southeastern Europe from approx. 7000 - 3000 BC and from Northwest Europe ca 4500 BC to 1700 BC. Also some Neolithic industry people living in heavily fortified settlements with 3000 to 4000 people; where as these groupe in England and even Scotland were small possibly50 to 100 people ie (On a creationry chronology I am sugesting that this fits very well with "Seven Taking" Scara Brae; Windmill Hill also dated by Piggot to 2000 BC as well as you Darrell which is indeed a very nice fit). The village of Sesklo in Greece apparently had 3000 to 4000 People . Thus I am suggesting if Piggot is right then Ciocal Gricenchos is also responsible for the construction of the villages at Durrrington Walls and also Windmill Hill but certainly not earlier than as you say Darrell on your chronology about 2200 BC. Open settlements of the Cromagnon in Russia are dated back on the evolutionary Time line to 30,000 years ago (Which in fact I am suggesting date back to the time of devision in Peleg's day to 2247 BC.I hope this is of some help to everyone  so please see what you make of it and perhaps you could give me an evaluation Dan and Darrell. John

Hi John,
Hope you had a great Christmas.
I got 2 copies of your long list and many of the SOS.  I am in the process of rewriting a paper on Chronology and since I am quite focus, I will probably not even look at my email for days (as I just did).
Recently, google has digitized many of the books from 1780's to 1890's which have a lot of Christian materials on ancient history with references to orignial sources - Checking these is taking almost all my time right now.  Thanks Dan for yours recent reference.  I have made some incredible breakthroughs recently on the History of the World.
As I have said before, my interest is in doing historical research from the most origninal sources I can find.  This Neanderthal looks like it might make some interesting connections between ethnic characteristics we find in graves and the people groups that dispersed at Babel.  Non-the-less, it is not my primary interest at this time, nor would I be a good judge.  Note: Custance is not original, but fortunately I read him to find his deductions and then try to find his sources.
If you are asking my to review information which will help you make a tighter case for your models, then I really need you to do most of the research and to organize it in a way that I can make sense out of it easily without taking hours to reorganize it.
I am impressed that you found quite a few sources.  I would ask you to organize it in the following way with one piece of information on a line with reference on the next lines.
<Type of Remains> <Site Name> <Location Name - Long Lat> <Dating> <types of remains>
<Web Link or Reference 1>
<Web Link or Reference 2>  etc.
If they found 8 Neanderthals in one grave yard, then we still have 8 lines unless they are all dated to the same time frame.
As creationist we will have quite a time finding a good method for translating evolutionary date to their correct time frames.  Evolutionist seem to use different dating methods depending on when they think the site should be dated. 
For example, Scara Brae, (village on the other island to the East), and Windmill Hill all seem to be dated at about 3,200 BC (Evol. adjusted)  However, Ciocal Gricenchos (about 2200 BC) is the dominate leader of that early date.  It would be reasonable to speculate that he founded the villages in northern Scotland.  But they could have been founded by the next wave.  So just as we have 3200 BC in Egypt translating into 2150 BC, we see the same above.
Now consider the Ice Age model which places large glaciers over the baltic and north sea.  Before the rapid Ice melt about 1500 BC, much of the north sea and baltic sea were just low land with the weight of the Ice ultimately depressing them.  Then the rapid Ice melt cut deep channels which separted land masses.  The English channel was cut, possibly even the channels between England and Ireland.  Thus a trip to establish Windmill Hill was much more difficult than just sailing around the coasts.  Did Ciocal Gricenchos do Windmill Hill also (maybe, but maybe a different survey team did so). It depends on the remains that you would find there.  It will take a lot of data to say much for certain.  But if we find ancient records that are credible, they will shed a lot more light on the subject.
Any other factor to consider is that, at least in the middle east, intermarriage between the groups of Ham, Japeth, and Shem was wider spread early on the I expected.
I still do not have the answer to my question if the remains at these early sites in northern Scotland are neanderthal or not.  I've been looking but did not see an answer.  Maybe the answer was obvious to you, but it was not to me.
It was nice to see the number of Neanderthal in the Canaan area.  That certains meets some objections.
Once I mentioned to Dr. Carl Baugh that he had many wonderful speculations.  This was a compilment from me.  It appeared that he did not take it that way.  To expand on my views on speculation.  I think it is very important to speculate and look for a wide variety of possible hypothesis.  In general, the more different ways we are able to look at things, the more likely we are (given sufficient data) to see the way that thing really fit together.  Creative minds discover more things.
That being said, we must always be clear that such a hypothesis is speculation or are there sufficient corrulations behind it too make it more solid, possibly even certain.  The more facts that corrulate with the hypothesis the more likely it is a solid theory.  In my field of Chronology, one can get enough supportive evidence to be certain of a date plus or minus a certain tolerance.  For other dates, the range can be so wide for a certain event that any guess is mostly speculation off of one or two little fact.  In a different field, so little information might be known, that any support suggests a strong hypothesis.  One's use of the term speculation depends on one's field.
In another place you suggested that Ciocal Gricenchos, by deductive reasoning, was probably the leader of all the people types in that area.  The web sites I have viewed on him certainly suggest he was a powerful leader.  That he lead all people type is certainly one reasonable approach.  Yet it is just a reasonable to believe that the different families of man were distinct with different leaders.  The giants which reach england probably were not under Ciocal Gricenchos authority.
Historically, to the best of my knowledge, Ciocal Gricenchos was the first leader in the area which I suppose is Northern Scotland and Ireland.  It appears he made stops on the coast of france and england.  All other colonies, Asshur in Tier, and the Celts who moved overland through Germany to France would have made it to the area so much latter that I would doubt that they were responsible for any of the 3200 BC (evol) villages or monds.  But one can't discount anything at this time.
Some of my reading is now building a level of support for some early records that, if true, might shed some more light on your research.  Hopefully in the next 6 months or so.
Best get back to writing now - at least for 3 or 4 days until I burn out.
God Bless,
Darrell White


Hi Darrell; Yes I had a great Christmas thanks and I hope you did too and would also like to wish you all the best in your research for the New year 2008 . I am glad you got all my "SOS" mesages regarding campsites etc of the Northern Neanderthal / Cromagnon tribes and have at least tried to research the reviews to the best of my abbility but as yet could not find any thing on Alska norway or Northern Russia. Although there is one question I would ask and that is did the Caananites have "Red Hair"? As you know from my Industries chart based on your chronology for Britain and Ireland i HAVE PLACED CERTAIN HUNTER GATHERER TRIBES PASSING THROUGH bRITAIN in the days of Peleg after thelast world survey of 2260 BC in 2247 without specifying who they were although Genesis 10 verse 5 does give us a clue that they seem to have been Japethites (ie Cromagnon Tribes and perhaps some Neanderthal tribes). Philip Bell at Answere in Genesis at Leicester is of this opinion. Again wehave some later Neanderthal tribes who seem to have come through Britain with respect to their graves or as you say the old men of Genesis 10 in 2035 BC while Partholan was colonising Ireland at this time. I will however look for the folloowing information 1/. Type of Remains>Site Name >Location Name>Longditude and Latitude. 2/. Dating <types of remains> 3/. <Weblink or Reffrence 1> Weblink or Reffrence >2 etc. Thus I think we have made a consierable ammount of progress in placing most of these tribes on the industries table for Britain and Ireland although work still needs to be done to see what ethnic group or groups they all belong to . We have even descovered that Asshur was in Trier or Trbetta son of Ninius founded the city which is a great step forward I've no doubt you'd aggree plus theone of 2194/93 BC in Kolne Deutz Germany HQ for the earliest settlers. ( As it happens at the hotel I was staying at for seven weeks on holiday in Germany (Loef/Mosel) Have seen my "Home Page") and certainly agree with me about Trier being 1300 older than Rome). Another task Dan has asked me to do is to contact the Author of "Ice Age Civilizations" to see if we can work together to establish what ethnic groups the Neanderthals came from though it seems some of them had red hair and pale skin while perhaps others were dark. Philip Bell is of the oppinion they had dark skin . I'll tell you what is interesting Darrell; and that is Sammothes had qite a few slaves as HLH mentions in his text of Compendium of World History; because he says that some of them were a mix of Elamites whoever they might be plus other tribes so this guy must have been just as powerful as Gricenchos although I was'nt there at the time. I have had a very interesting link from Dan which I have to study right now. As for Craig White I think he is a "Gap theorist" and so is Custance or at least he was; so asking Craig about the cromagnon wouldn't serve any useful purposes for this study. Antway I must go now and leave you to compile your books on Russian History &c while I get back to the "Drawing Board" and continue my "Digging " By the way Bill Cooper was pleased to hear from me as I have sent him the full text on Ciocal Gricenchos and the "Taking of Seven " as he wondered where i "Dug all this up from and he was very facinated about the village at Scara Brae. I will also send this text on Seven Taking to Charles Kimball to see what he reckons as well; Meanwhile Darrell good Hunting in the New year (Year of Neanderthal) Happy New Year and God Bless:- John






John you need to visit this website written by James...
John this may be a breakthrough on Neanderthal.  I am curious why James has mentioned the Berbers and Tauregs.  There seems to be a relationship between the Berbers language and the Celto-Iberians of Spain and the Phonecians.  I do not know about the Tauregs but they seem to be of Hamitic stock as were the Phonecians.
So are we to suppose that the Neanderthals migrated there by ship and were the early protoPhonecians? I am curious if this is possible or perhaps this is a very bad guess.  I don't feel like I have done near enough research to venture a proper guess but the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction.  Or perhaps the Neanderthals are from an early migration from North Africa and preceeded Phonecian influence but then why no Neanderthals in North Africa?
Lets suppose we have a group of Canaanites that settle in Lebanon and then migrate by ship to North Africa, Spain, and to the British Isles.  This would have occurred at the beginning or middle of the Ice Age.  And that would explain the locations of the Neanderthals.  Their decendants may have become the Formores, Picts and protoCelts.  I found an interesting reference to the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands existing as a stone age culture and what some researchers thought were a parallel to the Neanderthals.  Not sure what to make of that.

Dan and Darrell I have made contact with James and he's encouraging
me to keep up the good work. The other email I mentioned from JNo
informs me that the "Palaeolithic" Industries ie Neanderthal etc were
Northwest Europe while Cromagnon is confind to the South thus it seems
to confirm what I have already sugested but I am reading the link
right now from Jim author of Ice age Civilizations and will get back
to you when I have something alittle more solid evidense. John

On 12/30/07, john hext-fremlin wrote:
> Dear Jim I have the link you have given me in front of me right now
> and if it does'nt answer my questions on ethnic origins of Neanderthal
> I'll Get back to you and thanks for what you do for me . John
> On 12/30/07, James Nienhuis wrote:
> >
> > Just read http://www.DancingFromGenesis.com, as apparently you haven't,
> > 'cause if you had you wouldn't be asking me alot of those questions. Yes,
> I
> > was aware of Tuitsch too, and keep up the good work. Look under the
> various
> > categories at my blog, I think Black Sea Research will be helpful to you,
> > and Ancient Navigation. Get back to me with any questions after you read
> > that stuff, much of which I'm pretty sure will be brand new to you. Jim
> >
> >
> > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:43:56 +0000From:
> j

Re: Neanderthal. (Were they
> > Caananites)Thanks for letting me know Jim .And yes I quite realise that
> > theNeanderthals were longlived because of cloud cover during the ice age.
> I
> > do not however aggree with Mike Oard's date for the Ice age . Darrell
> > aggrees with me that itstarted about 101 after theflood in Peleg's day and
> > should'nt br confused withthe despersion. Thus I have dated the earliest
> > neanderthals from 2247 BC asit would have taken at least that long in my
> > estimation for them to develop the typical Neanderthal features and I also
> > sugest that the Australian abouriginals have the Neanderthal
> > Characteristics. What Dan Janzen myself and Darrell are interestedin and
> > that includes Mike Fischer ( mike@newgeology.us ) are the ethnic origins
> of
> > Neanderthal ie which people group are they decended from that is to say
> sons
> > of Noah? I still get the feeling that as a historic people group they are
> > ethnicly connected with the caananites and the formorei. Ciocal Gricenchos
> > was the earliest formorian leader and were hunter gatherers so Darrell
> > informs me.From another source I read that the Cromagnon were to the South
> > of Europe. and Ciocal Gricenchos and his men were inIreland 140 after the
> > flood in 2208 BC and that there were huntergatherers in Northwest Europe
> at
> > this time. Thus I am sugesting that Gricenchos was the overall chieften of
> > the formorei and Neanderthal put together. You do aggree do you not that
> > this is more than a match besides the building of the village of Scara
> Brae
> > which coincidently Darrell has informed me that they were responsible for.
> > So we have Asshur in Germany upon which I am willing to testify in any
> cour
> > of enquirey into prehistoric Europe. Note I am not an Anglo Israelist but
> > they have done some pretty good research in my estimation. Thus I am also
> > sugesting that the Cromagnon were in the South of Europe while Neanderthal
> > in Northwest Europe thus making them distsnt conyemporaries. What do you
> > reckon Jim? John
> > On 12/30/07, James Nienhuis wrote:
> >
> > Yes, thanks, that's about what I have. Jim
> >
> >
> > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:41:14 +0000

> Re:
> > Neanderthal. (Were they Caananites)

Jim thanks for that Did you get my
> > combined tables and the history document. John
> > On 12/30/07, James Nienhuis wrote:
> >
> > Neanderthals were those who lived long, 200 to 400 years, and who suffered
> > from rickets because poor diet and cloudcover during the Ice Age, which
> > began with the end of the Deluge. Jim



On 12/31/07, Darrell White wrote:

Dan, John,
I have also been research this topic and coming to the conclusions expressed by Dan below.
Atlas or Antaeus ruled North West Africa at the time of Osiris and Isis in Egypt.  He revolted against Osiris (estimate 2067 BC) and was killed.  Some web sites suggest that Cichol Grincenches came north from this group.
Isaac Newton (p. 232) claims that the Greek authors state that Japetus was the father of Atlas and it was Japetus and Atlas that made war on the Gods of Egypt (Osiris and Isis).  <I tend to put little trust in the greek writers - the downfall of Newton in my opinion>
Yet the web sites I have visit all claim that Poseidon (Sidon, first born son of Canaan Gen10:15, 18-"afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad") was Atlas' father. If so, then Atlas was a Canaanite (family of Ham) which would explain (historically) why Nimrod (Osirius) would place him, Antaeus, as ruler of all West Africa while Osirius was on his expedition around the world.

Speculation: If Atlas was a son of Sidon (born about 2280BC) then this region of north africa would have been from the earliest times a launching point for the "spread[ing] abroad" of Canaanites.  A natural staging point for Cichol Grincenches.  See how this fits with Dan's idea.
Request:  Do you have any evidence that Atlas was the son of Poseidon?  If you come across any, please let me know.
God Bless,
Darrell White


Subject: Re: Help: Who was Atlas

Darrell that's most interesting that you should mentionyou should mention Atlas. I seem to remember something from Mike Gascoigne's book "Forgotten History of the WesternPeople that Niel was infact Nimrod and a website I visited said that Ciocal was son of Niel (although at this point it's getting a little confused. However I must admit that Ihave herd and yes that Poseiden or I should say Atlas was the son of Posiden (Sidon=Sidonians which I think I remember mentioning soe while back or many emails ago giving a rounded figure date for the Sidonians at 2300 BC and you 2280 so I was'nt all that far out on my estimate and I also seem to remeber reading about Sidon as you say in Genesis 10 verse 15 and if we furthur speculate that Nimrod was arround say 2260 BC then he would have been on his expoditions arround the world and then Cichol Gricenchos and his band would have used North Africa as a staging point to spread abroad the Caananites thus say touching on the coast of England by 2247 BCmaybe via Gibralta and Spain and then maybe France. As a matter of themost profound interest in this connection is the fact that even today there are ilegal immigrants from Moroco who use exactly this same passage and my brother who does my publishing on my website pointed this out to me not more than a few minutes ago. Meanwhile I'll look at email number four and then browse those links pages Dan has given me for Jame's Blogs. That word Blog is an unusual one is'nt it? God Bless Darrell and many thanks and you work absolute mirricles for me . John 

Thanks John,
I did quite a few search on Ciocal and thought I would share some of the information:
1) Generally from Keating:

"a youth of the family of Nin son of Bel (whose name was Adhna son of Bioth) to spy Ireland about seven score years after the deluge."
[2348 BC - 140 = 2208 BC  -- Bel would be Belus or Cush, most agree that Nin was Nimrod.]
2) For Ciocal, I did not give the full linage in my previous email

 "Cíocal, son of Nel, son of Garbh, son of Ughmhóir, from Sliabh Ughmhóir"
[Nil in another translation] This is place much further into Keating narrative.
Ciocal who was mature 200 years before Partholon could not have a long linage connected to no one we have heard of.  2235 BC is 200 years before.  If he was 40 years old, then born 2275 BC.  So I think Keating's source got the wrong geneology.
"one hundred years after the Flood" [then 2248 BC - which is more difficult than above info.]
"they (were) two hundred years (living) on fish and fowl till the coming of Partholón into Ireland,"
3) Thus his linage must be the same as the Formorians. (best we can say)
British Identities Before Nationalism .. By Colin Kidd - 1999
p.65 All Irish were Japhetan " Only the conquered aborigines of Ireland, the followers of Ciocal, had a distinct Noachic genealogy, being 'descended from the accursed Ham,and come out of Africa'."
Partholonians [Caledonians], under Partholan, are said to have fought the Irish aborigines, the Fomorians, called "giants", that is, the "Picts" [Gaelic: "Cruithni"] of British History, under Cichol Gricenchos, their king;
But neither of these are old sources.
This on quoted on web about 5 times
"They were demons, according to the chroniclers, and descendants of the luckless Ham."
"Fomorians, a race of evil seafarers"

http://www.exclassics.com/ceitinn/for8.htm (earlier section)
Book I, Section 1 - Keating
"The second name [for Ireland] was 'Crioch na bhfuineadhach from its being at the limit or end of the three divisions of the world which had then been discovered; 'fuin' indeed, from the Latin word 'finis,' being equivalent to 'end.'"
[If 100 years after the flood - 2248 BC : The end of the three divisions of territory would have been 1 year before Peleg in 2247 BC.]
http://www.biblefacts.org/myth/Ireland.html Magog, Scythians, and Ireland
Geoffrey Keating
The Fomorians (Pirates)
Cíocal, son of Nel, son of Garbh, son of Ughmhóir, from Sliabh Ughmhóir came to Ireland in 6 ships with 300 men and 300 women. The name fomorian means pirate or sea thief. Being descendants of Ham,

The Origin of Culture and Civilization by Thomas Dietrich - 2005
Nemedius battled with Formorians -- "These Formorians came from Africa ..."
Not much infomation.  General thought of as descendants of Ham (Cush, Canaan, Mizraim ?)
Sea people - fits Canaan the best, but others possible.
giants - fits Canaan the best.
from Africa - Sidon had colony at tip of North Africa - fits Canaan the best again.
But we still do not know.
Dan said Posideon had 10 sons and 10 kingdom.  Speculation would suggest Ciohol might have been one of his sons and the Northern Kingdom his.
God Bless,


I must say that this is getting rather exciting.  This info. needs to go in a book at some point.  It is exciting because we are now back into the very dawn of history and things are starting to make sense.

http://www.skepticssa.org.au/html/atlantis.html  This is the source for the 10 sons of Poseidon.  By the way I really like this site's conclusions on Atlantis concerning its mythical nature.  I tend to agree that it did not exist and that the Atlas mountains are the focal point of our historical investigation.  Plato was making up much of the story.  Notice how the timing is all off as well and promoting the egotistical view of an inflated date for historical Greeks.  And notice it is the Athenians who defeated the Atlanteans.  I think there was a general awareness of a huge land beyond the sea (a ring continent) and that somehow got mixed up in the story.  Perhaps even some of the details of Atlantis came from knowledge of the Americas or a city in the Americas who really knows.  The fact is that this is one story that has nothing substantial from other historical evidence to back it up so why should we pay much attention to the story of Atlantis.  Rather we need to go to stories with multiple sources all pointing to the same facts.  The Atlas mountains were in Northern Africa and there probably was an individual named Atlas who was a son of Sidon (Poseidon) and obviously some of the North American Indians descended from North Africans since America was known from early times by the Phoenicians and Carthaginians,  Who knows, the Aztec reference to having come from Azlan may be a reference to having come from North Africa (Atlas mountain region).  This makes more sense than hypothesizing that Atlantis is a now extinct continent in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.  There is no evidence for that.  So Plato may have had a few of his facts straight but obviously it is embellished to a high degree.
Also at this site Darrell you will find support for your idea that the isthmus broke and the water overflowed from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean swamping islands in the Aegean, etc.  Wouldn't this be more likely if the waters were inundating from the direction of the Black Sea?  I think so.  This is what the site says..."The explosion and the deluge, as the waters of the Mediterranean rushed in to fill this enormous chasm, caused enormous tsunamis that radiated out from the former island, swamping islands throughout the Mediterranean. The ensuing disaster when these waves hit islands such as Crete, then the center of the Minoan Empire, would have had an enormous impact on their economy. It seems very likely that most of their huge mercantile fleet would have been destroyed at this time, and what is known is that the Minoans’ power declined rapidly from that time and, within 50 years they disappeared from history."
John you have a lot of work to do to get this together and get it properly organized on your web site.
This site is wrong about Hyborgea because this is a well known reference to the new world according to the excellent work of Gunnar Thompson. 
A few mysteries.
The Picts were in existence at the time of the Romans.  Since there were several invasions it would seem that the Pict lineage was not exclusively Formorian but perhaps a mix of the peoples who lost at each invasion (obviously they would have interbred and at times banded together to fight the invaders) (a mix of a Nemedius's descendants and the Formores).  Two sources say different things about the Formores.  Once source says they defeated Nemedius which seems to make more sense than Cooper's idea that they repulsed them even in low numbers after suffering a plague.  That would explain why Nemedius' grandchildren started their colonies in Greece, Belgium, Scotland and then the first two came back after they consolidated their numbers and reconquered Ireland defeating the Formores. http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p294.html  I think the Picts had some Hamitic ancestory (Neanderthals possibly) and also some Cro Magnon which may be the predecessors of the Celtic stock. This is the mystery.  It is also possible that the Formores may have been wiped out but I doubt that.  I think they integrated with Nemedius' decendants to become the Celts.



Isaac Newton (as quoted by Larry P.) came to some very bad conclusions on Ancient History because he tried to use name matching as a primary technique to reconstruct History.  Very bad stuff - none-sense.  In fact many of his assumptions were based on bad information.  If Larry P. holds to Newton Ancient History, then I assure you it is really off.
Never-the-less, Newton used a technique of generations to try to correct some of the Greek History which his bad assumptions suggested was in error.  This is a valid approach to a general spacing of generations. 
Using the Bible generations as a guide, from 1000 BC to Christ, one of his lineages averaged about 25 years per generation and the other about 35+ years per generation.  Biblically, it seems that a generation was about 40 years from 2000 BC to 1000 BC.  From Christ on, about 30 years per generation is very good.  Nevertheless theses are just approximations.
The list of generations from Nimrod to Sargon suggests about 38 years per generation.  I have used 38 years per generation as a rule of thumb from 2300 BC to 1200 BC.  Obviously it can be off quite a bit, but since we do not know better, it gives us a ball park to play in.  Speculation is usefull as long as it is identified as speculation.
Using 38 years per generation does not allow me to round off to the nearest 10 years and keep the generation spacing reasonable.  Thus I used exact dates knowing they can be off by quite a bit in the hope that I will find more information that allows the date to be refined.



Dan do you reckon the Neanderthals found in a cave in Israel match Dr Cuozzo's concepts of the Old Men of Genesis Ten as Proto Semite /Neanderthals? Question:- How do we work out the years in the Genealogies of Ham and Japeth from the flood when the scriptures are silent about this? John .


Donalds ideas seem quite wrong.  Neanderthals originally had sailing technology in all probability and then were decultured over time.  They would not have had to have a land bridge as they probably migrated from Canaan to Spain by ship as there is a vast distance between that lacks Neanderthal remains.  But we can not be certain of this.

JXF to MF and DW

Dan Mike and Darrell;, I am revising "Ancient Man in Britain " by Donald A Macenzie who has also written mythology on Crete and Helenic Europe and he's a good author. He is of oppinion that the Neanderthals crossed the "Italian "Landbridge"" from North Africa. It is interesting to note Darrell that there seems to be a direct link between Atlas and the Gibraltarian red haired Neanderthal child. If so it poses the question "Was Atlas a Neanderthal" hence the "Atlas Mountains" I have also suggested to Dr Cuozzo that his "Old Men of Genesis" were in fact the "Advanced Guard of the sons of Shem " and also put it to him that the caananites were also long lived people hence Ciocal Gricenchos being just one example and that the neanderthals could well be a mix of caananites and shemites as I did the genealogy of the sons of Shem etc from Genesis chapter 11 and sugested that this would be more than a match to which Dr Cuozzo agreed. Thus we have a historic people group as with Ciocal Gricenchos and Skara Brae and seems to correrlate with Dr Cuozzo's concept of the neanderthals having superior teeth &c. I also put it to everyone that we should come to some sort of conclusion about these ideas. John   


Science News magazine came out with an article
on Neanderthal DNA in the latest issue.  About
2/3 of the DNA from a female bone has been
scanned thus far; mitochondrial DNA is apparently
also present.  The article mentions the FOXP2
gene, which is associated with human speech.
Consequently, Neanderthals spoke too.  Almost
all Neanderthal DNA seems to match our DNA
in the study at this point, but the researchers
still believe there was little or no interbreeding.

A new book in the geology library here, Fossil
Detectives, mentions Neanderthal in England.
They of course say the Swanscombe find in
Kent by Alvin Marston in 1933 is now thought
to be early Neanderthal.  They also say hand
axes dredged offshore East Anglia show that
Neanderthals occupied the Doggerland connection
to mainland Europe.

I am attaching 2 pictures.  They illustrate how
"humanized" Neanderthal has become in the
minds of anthropologists.  There is a more complete
version of the female picture in Science News.
She looks like women I have met (though not
dated).  And don't forget the presence of the
gene for red hair.  Maybe we should be looking
in Ireland for the descendants.

Good hunting,
Mike Fischer

Dear Mike many thanks for these new pictures of Neanderthal and how very human indeed they look. It's indeed most interesting that they seem to meet all of my aspirations and inferences on them. Thus Darrell and myself have rejected and dropped the use of the label "Mesolithic" and as indeed I believe and think that this word embraces a so called "Transitional" preiod between Palaeolithic and Neolithic industries (Palaeolithic and Neolithic thus being usefull labels for Early and Late stone age cultures) Thus the reason Neanderthals probably did'nt interbreed is because Dr Cuozzo sugests (as indeed I do that they were responsible for all of the socalled "Upper" Palaeolithic art and cavewall paintings & c. Thus I am sugesting that the use of the word "Mesolithic" should be termed "End" or Eppi-Palaeolithic as they were all of them Hunter-Gatherers.What is most interesting are the finds in East Anglia in River Gravels and as you say Mike the "Dogger Lands" connection to mainland Europe. Most interesrting about the red hairs Gene; This seems to imply that they were the original "Picts" who were of course Formor Warriors who built the city or village of Skara Brae in 2189/2188 BC contemporary with the founding of Egypt by Misraem (Menes) which also means the Neanderthals were capable also of Neolithic civilization which happened after the despersion at Babel. Thus Skara Brae would have been a base for opperations between Scotland and Scandenavia; which in conclusion is very contrary to what the evolutionist would have us believe  and in further conclusion Yes I think we should also be looking to Ireland for decendents of Neanderthal; Meanwhile Mike "Very good Hunting" into the "Deep Mist" indeed. John 


Dear Dr Cuozzo according to HLH (Dr Herman L Hoe) Shem and one of his sons colonized Germany in 2192 BC (Industries chart for Spain; Germany ; Skandenavia Northwest Europe Britain

Neanderthals or ancient Homo sapiens were capable of neolithic or more as my evidence shows.  But the "ice-man" was no neanderthal. I have looked closely at his photos. He doesn't fit the neanderthal facial characters. I have never examined it in person.
Dr. C

Most interesting indeed Dr Cuozzo; and indeed in conclusion you and I think on very similar if not the same lines as far as Neanderrthal is concerned. You know it would'nt surprise me if they did indeed errect Stonehenge; But I don't think Bill Cooper would aggree with me. John

Dear Dr Cuozzo according to HLH (Dr Herman L Hoe) Shem and one of his sons colonized Germany in 2192 BC (Industries chart for Spain; Germany ; Skandenavia Northwest Europe Britain and Ireland; at www.johnhextfremlin.com  and please click the icon "Chronology of "Neolithic Man"" for more details) who reckons they were a "Neolithic" Coloney; who made their HQ; Koelne Deutz. Conventionally dating this is placed somewhere in the 3215 BC range which I sugest is about the 2192 BC range of Ussherian dates. The "Burning Question" would appear to be:- "Were the remains of the people's skulls Dolichsephalic?" Thus this is what one would expect if they were proto-Israelites. And/or would Ootzy the Ice Man also qualify as a Neanderthal in the line of Shem. You will also probably note Dr Cuozz that Ootzy was found with a copper Axe and Flint arrowheads and was thus a "Neolithic Culture. However that may or may not well be the case; and indeed as I have shown on my website; I do seriously believe that the Neanderthals were indeed capable of Neolithic civilization as will be noted with the village or as Darrell likes to call it :- "The City of Skara Brae." I further maintain that the Neanderthals were responsible for the "Upper" Palaeolithic Cave art as well as the socalled "Mesolithic" Transition Period which Darrell and myself consider to be an Evolutionary term and therefore evolutionary nonsense. The Terms therefore for Huntergatherers "Palaeolithic" and "Neolithic" are the best convenient Labels for huntergatherers of whatever description and also the Agricculturists. It would indeed be most interesting to know whether Ootzy has the dolichsephalic characteristics plus the typicle Northwest European Neanderthal Features. John

The Phoenicians were in Britain mining for tin and copper arroud 2252 BC untill the despersion in 2191 BC. Cichol Gricenchos was a son of Sidon which would make the Neanderthals have Caananite origens. Medai son of Japeth saw his land Britain (The Ilses of the Sea covered in Ice arround 2247 but did'nt want it so  traded it with land in the Middle East. King Eric of Denmark came with his Neolithic coloney in 2129 BC 62 after the despersion from Babel. Thus we would also expect to find artifacts from this coloney also from the North Sea.

Dear Dr Cuozzo I have been examining the Neanderthal skelletons from your book "Burried Alive" and indeed some of the text which describes a Neanderthal Burial with the "Jawbone of a Donkey". Of particular interest inthis connection is the fact that Samson used one of these type of weopens against the Philistines and or a wild animal of some description. It has been said that the philistines deprived the Israelites of "Weopens Smiths" so reducing them (ie the Israelites) to a temporary "Stoneage " Technology; especially with the use of Wooden "Ox Goads" (Could these be wooden spears with fire hardened points?) It certainly seems to imply that type of temporay technology; if such be the case in this connection. However I'd like to quote a passage from S Gusten Olsen's Book "The Incredible Nordic Origins" on page 30 (Second Paragragh) "Skulls from Borreby":- "In 1895, Arbo expresses the oppinion that the predominance of the dolichichocephalic people increases continuously with the latter archaeological periods. Arbo who descovered the light  brachycephalic race was the tribe which orriginally inhabitted Norway (2225 - 2129 BC emphasis Mine), and also that it was gradually forced back to the coastal regions by a later immigrating; tall, blonde and dolichocephalous race (Rasfragor Det avenska folkets ursprung ochrasbeskkaffenhet enligt antropologiens vittnessbord page16 empahasis to author added)". "The Stone Age crania  of Denmark and Scania are divided into three groups; and the cephalic indices are as follows:-  23% dolichsophalic; 29% brahycephalic; 48% mesocephalic."  Thus I am sugesting that the taller ones were King Erric's (Neolithic/chalcolithic industries) which reached Scandenavia 62 after Babel in 2129 BC and were thus contemporay with Saruch. If you have a coppy of this book Dr Cuozzo; I would highly recomend you to please turn to page 30 of this book (The Incredible Nordic Origins by S Gusten Olsen) where there is an illistation of the Borreby Sculls. The book continues to say that the original inhabitents had a "Bended Gate" at the Knees> I thus am sugesting in conclusion that this is a very "Neanderthal" Characteristic of the European Neanderthal types and thus conforms in some ways to the "Moustier Scull". I think Dr Cuozzo you will find this most helpfull. John



>> Hi Darrell on the BBC TV News last night was the oldest wooden house

>> that dates from the "stone age" and when Britain was still joined to

>> the continent. We know that Cichol spent some time Norfolk and the

>> "Dogger Lands" Don,t we.

>> The type of tools etc that have been found are made from Bone and

>> "Pygmy Flints ". Another point is that we also know when Albion came

>> after Samothes (2135 to 2088 BC) Hunter gatherers we know from our

>> researches that Albion was here 2082-2038 BC. Now would these tools

>> correspond with Bergeon the Giant who occupied the North and Ireland

>> or would the sight at Starcar correspond with Cichol sp Neanderthal

>> groups? John

Good Question John - but what additional information do we need in

> order to make an educated guess.


Hi Darrell to make an educated guess; the site is dated to about 11000 BC (That is what some archarologists call "Mesolithic" but that what you and I would still define as Huntergatherer or Palaeolithic or perhaps end-palaeolithic or eppi-palaeolithic).Indeed a good question.The ownly other thing that might tie them to the time of Bergeon (Northern Britain as he also occupied Shetland Isles and

Ireland) is that this type of industry is also known as Maglemose culture from a place in Denmark or Scandenavia. So in conclusion which one is it? Cichol Gricenchos or Bergeon (2082 to 2038 BC? Or 2225 BC at the time of Cicchol) Although ofcourse Cichol would still be alive at this time before Battle of Magithe with Partholan? Thats the Burning question. John