Posts Tagged ‘Aaron Judkins’

 

dscf0611-hdr

Skulls on display at the Paracas History Museum

1620794_449562995172725_549031043_n

LA Marzulli & Dr. Aaron Judkins

Back in 2014, I was asked by LA Marzulli of the Watchers Series fame to be a consulting archaeologist regarding the Paracas skulls in Peru. I wasn’t familiar with the elongated skulls so I was not biased towards one side or the other. I agreed to join the team along with Richard Shaw, Chase Kloetzke, Joe Taylor, Ron Moorehead, Jillian Peck, and Brien Forrester as our tourist guide.

10645251_10203266117195947_7979138143883338971_n-1

Chase Kloetzke & Dr. Aaron Judkins in Boliva

When we got to Paracas, we spent five days researching the skulls. I was asked to study four specific elongated skulls. Chase Kloetzke brought her forensic investigative field kit and together with Joe Taylor we got to work.  We were given exclusive permission to unwrap the only known infant elongated skull in Peru. It is estimated at an age of 2,000 years old. The mummy wrapping textile was extremely well preserved displaying colorful sea crabs embroidered into the head wrapping.  We were astonished at the preservation of the skull. In addition to the forensic work, Joe Taylor was given permission by the late Sr. Juan (former director of the Paracas Museum) to mold several of these elongated skulls.

Below is my written report on four elongated skulls from Paracas. This report was originally published in LA Marzulli’s book “On the Trail of the Nephilim Vol. 2”. It is also in my journal the Mystery of the Elongated Skulls.

ea10f2_3a868b0301754e1bb35256c6ce3f215e~mv2

Osteological Evaluation of 4 Elongated Skulls from Paracus, Peru ©

by Aaron Judkins, Ph.D. Consulting Archaeologist

February 18, 2014

 

Specimen Number 1:  Infant, elongated skull (15-22 months)

img_7412-hdr

General observations: 1 intact cranium; intact maxillae; 1 intact mandible

In general, the skull has been remarkably preserved. The general shape of the skull is elongated with red-auburn colored hair still intact. This made evaluation of skull sutures difficult to assess as this obstructed the view.

The general morphology of the individual visible cranial bones is within normal limits. There is the metopic (nasal) and frontal sutures noted which are non-fused. The sagittal suture cannot be assessed e xteriorly via the anterior view due to hair obstruction. However, it is noted via the interior of the skull as seen from the inferior view and is of expected configuration and is non-fused. Sutural bones (Wormian ossicles or Incan Bones) were not possible to visualize due to the hair. The foramina are of expected configuration. The skull is atraumatic with no trepanation noted. Skull measurements were conducted using both straight & elliptical digital calipers. Cranial volume was measured using rice to determine the weight. The weight was then converted from kilograms (kg) to cubit centimeters (cm3) to determine volume. The density of the rice (753 kg/m3) was factored in.

(Cranial capacity is a measure of the volume of the interior of the cranium (also called the brain-case or skull volume). The most commonly used unit of measure is the cubic centimeter or cc. The volume of the cranium is used as a rough indicator of the size of the brain, although this is not an indicator of the potential intelligence of the organism).

img_7421-hdr

Result: 

Cranial volume: 797 cm3. Normal range for age: 369-961 cm3

Conclusion: 

Although the configuration of the skull is elongated, the cranial volume is within normal limits.

Dentition:

All of the fully erupted teeth are deciduous and in good condition. There are no dental restorations or prostheses. There is no significant attrition.

Fontanelles: 

Unable to assess the  anterior, the posterior, sphenoidal (anterolateral), and the mastoidal (posterolateral) fontanelles due to hair obstruction.

Summary:

1. This is an excellent example of an infant elongated skull. It is not currently possible to reliably differentiate between male and female infant and young child skeletal remains or amongst the major racial groups within subadults.

2. Age assessment of skeletal remains is best done in the context of the entire skeleton. It is important to emphasize that when limited to the skull, age assessment of subadult remains is best done through a coordinated evaluation of such features as dentition and fontanelle closure, as well as radiographs and/or computed tomography (CT) scans. This is particularly key for studies of tooth development (calcification, eruption). However, this testing was not readily accessible nor available during the initial on-site examination. It is important to emphasize that the evaluation of a skull without these methods is preliminary. However, the ability to analyze such remains from the strict perspective of osteology is fundamental for evaluation.

3. Dental Age: Likely 15 – 22 months.Non-Dental: No older than 22 months. Evaluation for age was done by a consulting forensic Peruvian Dentist, Dr. Daniel Mendoza Alarcon who used odontological parameters based purely on visible eruption patterns noted.

4.  In the evaluation of subadult skulls, particularly when studying ‘typical’ eruption patterns, it must be stated that statistical data is based on populations, and may not necessarily be reflective of reality in an individual.

5. It is necessary to note the differences between primary and secondary dentition, eruption patterns, and controversies surrounding the timelines that ‘typify’ those eruption patterns.

6. The probability of Cuneiforme modeling [A specific cradle-boarding technique of the skull with pressure applied to the forehead and back of the skull to produce an artificially conical or truncated cone-shape] should not be ruled out. Differential diagnosis should include “cultural practices” by the Paracas culture.

7.  Applying the scientific principle of Ockham’s Razor; while it does not tell us that the simplest explanation is true, may provide the best explanation based on methodological grounds.

img_7426-hdr

 

dscf0606

Senior Juan from the Paracas History Museum holding the infant elongated skull 

 

screen-shot-2016-09-25-at-5-23-40-pm

Specimen Number 2: Adult, elongated skull (unknown age)

img_7432-hdr

General observations: 1 intact cranium; intact maxillae; intact mandible (not shown)

The skull is in good condition. The general shape of the skull is markedly elongated (in the anteroposterior plane), has a very high forehead, and a deeply sloping parieto-occipital region. The ectocranial morphology of the individual cranial bones is within normal limits. The foramen magnum is unusually large and the occipital condyles are very large and somewhat elevated although the general morphology of the individual visible cranial bones is within normal limits. The mandible is robust (not shown). There coronal suture is clearly visible with partial fu  sion noted. The sagittal suture is absent. Skull measurements were conducted using both straight & elliptical digital calipers. The hair is red-auburn colored which is mostly non-intact. This made evaluation of skull very easy to assess. The skull is atraumatic with no trepanation noted. Cranial volume was measured using the technique already described above.

Result: 

Cranial volume: 2,390 cm3. Normal range: 1,350-1,750 cm with 1,450 cm3 being average.    

Conclusion:

The cranial volume is much larger and outside of normal parameters.

Dentition:

The dental condition is poor. There is evidence of severe periodontal disease, and only 9 of 32 teeth remain. Caries and severe abrasion are noted.

Features of Sex:

The supraorbital ridges are bulging, and the supraorbital margins are well-rounded. The mastoid processes are large, and suprameatal crests (zygomatic arch extensions) are present. The nuchal area is large but not significantly ridged.

Summary:

1. Adult; probably male although sex and age are not definitively determined.

2. Cranial volume is much larger than expected and outside of normal parameters; unknown etiology.

3. Absence of the sagittal suture; cannot rule out craniosynostosis with marked dolichocephaly.

4. The skull appears to possibly share a few similar Polynesian traits but this is inconclusive at this time.

5. The probability of Tabulate modeling [The most common type of cradle-boarding practiced by the Paracas Culture] should not be ruled out. Differential diagnosis should include “cultural practices” by the Paracas culture.

6. Applying the scientific principle of Ockham’s Razor; while it does not tell us that the simplest explanation is true, may provide the best explanation based on methodological grounds.

screen-shot-2016-09-25-at-5-24-11-pm

Specimen Number 3: Adult skull (unknown age)

img_7541-hdr

General observations: 1 intact cranium; intact maxillae; no mandible

The skull is in overall good condition with no hair. The coronal suture is clearly visible with partial fusion noted. The skull is atraumatic with no trepanation noted. The sagittal suture is absent. Two markedly elongated parietal bones are possibly fused at the midline, and a small ridge/elevation sits at what would have been the site of the sagittal suture. The skull exhibits a mild sagittal keel and parietal bossing. The cranial s  utures are otherwise normally configured. The individual visible cranial bones is within normal limits.

Skull measurements were conducted using both straight & elliptical digital calipers.

Cranial volume was measured using the technique already described above.

Result: 

Cranial volume: 1,726 cm3. Normal range: 1,350-1,750 cm with 1,450 cm3 being average.    

Conclusion:

The cranial volume is within normal parameters.

Dentition:

Absence of most of the teeth in the maxillae.

Features of Sex:

Probably male with bulging supraorbital ridges.

img_7538-hdr

Summary:

1.  Adult; most likely greater than 30 years of age.

2.  Cranial volume is within normal parameters.

3.  Absence of s agittal suture with a mild sagittal keel and parietal bossing. Cannot rule out craniosynostosis with moderate dolichocephaly.

screen-shot-2016-09-25-at-5-24-31-pm

Specimen Number 4 Adult skull (20-24 yrs of age)

dscf0739

img_7551-hdr

General observations: 1 intact cranium; intact maxillae; no mandible; Paracas, Peru

The skull is small and in overall good condition. There is no hair. The skull is atraumatic with no trepanation noted. The forehead is somewhat sloping. This specimen has a deviated septum and flattened nasals. The coronal suture is clearly visible. The sagittal suture is absent. In the left temporal suture there are four extra bones. The occipital profile is markedly flat. A large sutural bone (Wormian ossicles or Incan Bones) is noted in the lambdoid suture. The skull has an appearance of having been flattened in the anteroposterior plane.

Skull measurements were conducted usin  g both straight & elliptical digital calipers. Cranial volume was measured using the technique already described above.

Result: 

Cranial volume:  929 cm3. Normal range: 1,350-1,750 cm with 1,450 cm3 being average.

Conclusion: The cranial volume is smaller than normal parameters for an adult skull. Unknown etiology.

Dentition:

Absence of the teeth in the maxillae. There is a one-half inch separation between where the front teeth were. Without the mandible, it is difficult to assess the degree of alveolar prognathism; however, the maxilla suggests at least a mild      degree of prominence.

Features of Sex:

Assessment of sex indicates female characteristics as there is a generalized gracility of the cranium.

Summary:

  1. Adult female; most likely between 20-24 years of age.
  2. Cranial volume much smaller than anticipated for suspected age.
  3. Absence of sagittal suture. Cannot rule out craniosynostosis with marked scaphocephaly.
  4. The nasal appears to possibly share similar Polynesian traits of flattened nasals with a deviated septum.

5. Prominent cranial sha pe anomalies. The probability of Annular modeling should not be ruled out. Differential diagnosis should include “cultural practices” by the Paracas culture.

6.  Applying the scientific principle of Ockham’s Razor; while it does not tell us that the simplest explanation is true, may provide the best explanation based on methodological grounds.

screen-shot-2016-09-25-at-5-24-52-pm

 

DISCLAIMER:

This report is meant only as a preliminary examination of the anatomical, anthropology and forensic sciences to learn more about its forensic osteology. Although my evaluation has been done with the original specimens, my evaluation is based solely upon the osteologic material and my opinions are based solely upon the material presented to me.

Cranial capacity was measured using rice to determine the weight. The weight was then converted from kilograms (kg) to cubit centimeters (cm3) to determine volume. Using this method was the only viable method available in the field and can only estimate cranial capacity.

Forensic investigations should also include additional studies that would be undertaken to formulate a basis of accumulated knowledge by forensic anthropologist &/or pathologist and the publishing of a peer-reviewed report. Definitive analysis should include laser scanning, function analysis by FORDISC 3.0 &/or 3D modeling.

My opinions regarding these skulls were made without access to the entire skeletons. This should not be considered a final report or definitive analysis of the specimens.

Aaron Judkins, Ph.D. http://www.AARONJUDKINS.com

REFERENCES:

1. Aufderheide, A. and Rodriguez-Martin, C. (1998). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

2. Krogman, W. and Iscan, M. (1986). The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine. 2 ed. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

3. Matisoo-Smith, E. & Ramirez, J. (2010). Human Skeletal Evidence of Polynesian Presence in South America? Journal of Pacific Archaeology. Vol.1, No.1.

4. Matshes, E. and Lew, E. (2006). Forensic osteology. In Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice, D. Dolinak, E. Matshes, and E. Lew, Editors. San Diego, CA: Elsevier (Academic Press). 

5. Milner, Richard. “Cranial Capacity.” The Encyclopedia of Evolution: Humanity’s Search For Its Origins. New York: Holt, 1990: 98.

6. Powell, T.V. and Brodie, A.G. (1963). Closure of the Spheno-Occipital Synchondrosis. Anatomical Record, 147: 15-23.

7. Raven, Peter H. & Johnson, George B. Biology. Iowa: Brown, 1995: 443.

8. Scheuer, L. and Black, S. (2000). Developmental Juvenile Osteology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier (Academic Press).

9. Standring, S., Ed. (2005). Gray’s Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice. 39 ed. London: Elsevier (Churchill Livingstone).

10. Walker, Alan & Shipman, Pat. The Wisdom of the Bones. New York: Knopf, 1996.

11. Weber, J., et al. (2007). Morphometric analysis of untreated adult skulls in syndromic and nonsyndromic craniosynostosis. Neurosurgical Review, 31(2): 179-188.

Also see: 

Another Bone to Pick…With Peruvian Nephilim/Alien Hybrids

Ancient Elongated Skulls: Alien Remains?

Star Child Skull report here: 

Advertisements

I was asked to examine the “Star Child” skull from Mexico by lead investigator Chase Kloetzke. My prior work with Chase on the elongated Paracas skulls in 2014 for LA Marzulli was published in my journal “The Mystery of the Elongated Skulls“.

ea10f2_3a868b0301754e1bb35256c6ce3f215e~mv2

The purpose of my review was to catalog osteological craniofacial features by using visual/objective assessment. The purpose of the second study was to establish the cranial capacity by volume. I had no knowledge of this particular specimen nor its history with prior researchers.

I met Melanie Young the owner of the specimen in Lubbock, TX  of August 2016 where I was speaking at a conference. I was able to examine the skull first hand and noticed immediately the display of the head demonstrates craniofacial disproportion with a large cranium relative to the facial size was very prominent, shallow eye sockets, narrow nasal bridge, and a small face showing prominent aberrant morphology. Below is my professional evaluation of the skull with the osteology report.

 

General observations:

The skull is symmetrical but abnormally shaped with the basic components of a human skull: i.e., a frontal bone, two temporals, two parietals, and an occipital. However, both maxilla and mandible bones are missing and the zygomatic arches are broken.

The skull is atraumatic with no trepanation noted. However, one large irregular shaped square area on the right parietal has been removed by a modern saw tool apparently for past testing (post-mortem). A large area of 109 mm has been removed or broken from the inferior skull completely obliterating the foramen magnum and the occipital condiles. The extensive loss of bone has irreversibly damaged any further examination of this area.

Morphology of this skull is highly aberrant with significant “ballooning” of the cranium noted. Skull thickness is 3.10 mm. There is no evidence of brow ridges. The orbital sockets are unusually shallow measuring a depth of only 0.5 inches. Both parietals are bulged.  All sutures present; non-fused & open. No abnormal widening of the sutures are noted. Atypical fossa in the sagittal suture is noted down to where the foramen magnum should be. Fontanelles are closed. The occipital is abnormally flattened. Two wormian ossicles are noted. The external occipital protuberance is absent from the center of the occipital bone.

Cranial volume:

Skull measurements were conducted using both straight & elliptical digital calipers. Cranial volume was measured using rice to determine the weight. The weight was then converted from kilograms (kg) to cubit centimeters (cm3) to determine volume. The density of the rice (753 kg/m3) was factored in.

Result: Cranial volume: 1640 cm3. Cranial capacity is outside of normal accepted parameters. Etiology unknown.

Summary:

Unable to determine age or sex for this study. No teeth or mandible were present with this specimen at the time of examination. No evidence of artificial or external cradle-boarding is noted. Hydrocephaly should be ruled out. Differential diagnosis should include congenital deformations and/or pathology such as Progeria or Down Syndrome with Brachycephaly which cannot be ruled out. When this specimen is compared to sketches of Brachycephaly, striking similarities in skull shape are notedly apparent. The skull fits the description of Brachycephaly in my professional opinion.

  • This report is an independent, scientific study of the skull based on my assessment of this specimen from a strict forensic and osteological evaluation only.

Copyright 2016 Aaron Judkins, Ph.D.

 

StarChild Skull Drawing

 

References: 

Ali FE, Al-Bustan MA, Al-Busairi WA, Al-Mulla FA, Esbaita EY. (2002). Cervical spine abnormalities associated with Down syndrome. Pubmed.

Altintas AG, Gul Aksoy FG, Altintas CS, Midillioglu IK, Duman S. (1999). Evaluation of findings in Crouzon’s syndrome. Pubmed.

Dihaj S, Abada A, Baha Ali T, Benhaddou M, Rais L, Hamdani M, Amraoui A, Zaghloul K. (2005). Apert syndrome: a reported observation. Pubmed.

E. H. Aylward, PhD, N. J. Minshew, MD, K. Field, BA, B. F. Sparks, BS and N. Singh, BS. (2002). Effects of age on brain volume and head circumference in autism. Pubmed.

Graham JM Jr, Kreutzman J, Earl D, Halberg A, Samayoa C, Guo, X. (2005). Deformational brachycephaly in supine-sleeping infants. Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.

Hutchison BL, Hutchison LA, Thompson JM, Mitchell EA. (2004). Quantification of plagiocephaly and brachycephaly in infants using a digital photographic technique. Department of Pediatrics, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Pubmed.

Matshes, E. and Lew, E. (2006). Forensic osteology. In Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice, D. Dolinak, E. Matshes, and E. Lew, Editors. San Diego, CA: Elsevier (Academic Press).

Med-Policy. (2006). Cranial Orthosis. [on line]. Available:  http://www.bluecrosswisconsin.com/provider/medpolicy/policies/OR-PR/cranial_orthosis.html>

McDonald, W. (1999) Forensic Faces. [on line]. Available: http://www.alienufoart.com/ForensicFaces.htm>

Plastic and Craniofacial Surgery. (2006). Craniosynostosis. [on line]. Available: http://www.kidsplastsurg.com/craniosynostosis.html

Venes, D. Thomas, C. Taber, C. (2005). Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. The F.A. Davis Company.

www.utmb.edu/otoref/grnds/congenital-abnormal-101122/congen-abnorm-slides-101122.pdf

Walker, Alan & Shipman, Pat. The Wisdom of the Bones. New York: Knopf, 1996.

 

Also see:

  1. A Bone to Pick with the Starchild Skull
  2. https://manvsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/the-paracas-skulls-an-osteological-evaluation/

movie-poster

The latest film documentary in the search for Noah’s Ark. Finding Noah coming to theaters one night only on Oct. 8th, 2015

Go here to find where the film is playing near you & watch the film trailers!

http://www.FindingNoah.com

Pyramid of the Eye

pyramid with normal light
I recently interviewed Klaus Dona on my radio show EPIC Voyages Radio on the Inception Radio Network. I’ve known about Klaus’s work now for about 15 yrs now. We have similar interests in the field of forbidden archaeology. After a long 2 years, I was finally able to make contact with Klaus & get him on my show. We discussed his work and a very intriguing find in Ecuador.

One very interesting artifact found is the so-called Pyramid of the Eye. This artifact along with 350 others were found in 1984 while digging for gold in Ecuador in an underground tunnel system. The eye is an inlay. The stone is grey and white and you have thirteen steps. It looks exactly like the Pyramid with the Shining Eye on the One US Dollar!  Not any of these artifacts do not fit any known and existing South American pre-Columbian culture.

If you put this pyramid under black light, the eye is shining very strongly and it looks really like an eye, but not really like a human eye and takes on an interesting hue. Here you have a close-up of the eye and you can see the colors of the inlay. On the bottom of this pyramid, you have the inlay in little gold plates showing the Orion star constellation, and you have unknown writing. You can see a star map of Orion’s Belt along with writing that is older than any known writing on this planet.
Pyramid under black light
The translation of Professor Kurt Schildmann, who was the President of the German Linguistic Association and he was perfect in more than forty languages… he was able to translate this writing. He called it pre-Sanskrit because it is older than the oldest writing and that it has similarity to the Indus writing and also to the Easter Island writing. The translation of these four letters you can see here, his translation is: “The son of the creator comes.”

Pyramid bottom with Orion conctellation in gold and unknown writing, THE SON  OF THE CREATOR COMESAccording to the research of Klaus Dona, the same writing has been found all over the world, proving that there was a pre-existing GLOBAL civilization that is much older than any Sanskrit writings. Klaus informed me that similar writing has been found on stones in certain countries like Ecuador, Colombia, Illinois, Glozel, France; Malta in the Mediterranean; Turkmenistan, Australia, and in Southern Calabria, and Italy just a few years ago. There are stones and ceramics – terracotta – with the same writing. Klaus believes this writing existed once worldwide, and that means there must have been a global civilization older than Sanskrit- older than 6,000 years.

We are seeing a continuing theme involving Orion’s Belt. The pyramids on the Giza Plateau also reflect the exact same alignment as the “3 Kings” of Orion’s Belt. What is the significance of the Orion’s Belt constellation?

To understand this mystery is to understand that God has placed constellations in the heavens that reveal his plan & purpose- the Gospel in the Stars. To briefly recap: There are twelve major constellations along with their decans (side constellations) in the form of a Three-Act play.

Act One is presented through the first four constellations — Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, and Sagittarius. It begins in Bethlehem with the birth of the “Seed” of the woman, and establishes His conflict with and victory over Scorpio — the “seed” of the serpent.

Act Two is presented through four constellations — Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces and Aries. They represent the Church Age and New Testament Christianity, whose astronomical symbol is a fish.

Act Three is the last four constellations, along with their decans, representing the concluding act in the great drama of the ages — The Tribulation Period followed by the Second Coming of Christ. It is presented through the constellations Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, and Leo. For the purposes of this writing, we will skip all except Taurus- for that is where the minor constellation of Orion comes into play.

Taurus

The sign of Taurus opens Act Three, and is the sign of coming judgment. Taurus is pictured as a raging bull, coming furiously. Taurus means “governer, captain, or leader.” In the shoulder of Taurus is a group of stars known as the Pleiades, meaning “congregation of the judge.”
Only the front half of the bull is depicted in the constellation. Where the back end of the bull would normally be drawn stands the constellation Aries, the Lamb — as if the bull is coming out of Aires. It is a magnificent picture of Christ who came the first time as the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world, but will return one day bringing judgment upon the wicked showing us the coming of the Judge of all the earth.

Orion
Orion is the second of three deans of Taurus, which is said to be the most spectacular in the night sky and helps to tell the story of Taurus. We will skip Auriga and Eridanus, Taurus’s other two decans.

Orion means “coming forth as light.” Orion is pictured as a mighty hunter with a club in his right hand. In his left hand, he holds the skin of a lion that he has killed. Orion is mentioned twice in the book of Job and once in the prophecy of Amos.

The brightest star in the constellation is Betelgeuse, meaning “the coming of the branch.” Another star in his foot is Rigel, meaning “the foot that crushes.” In the shoulder of the constellation is a star called Bellatrix, meaning “quickly coming.” In his leg is a star called Saiph meaning, “bruised.” Again, as in every other case, we are reminded of Christ crushing the head of the seed of the serpent. Orion is obviously a picture of Christ coming in power and great glory.

In short, the constellations were named by our great Creator to tell the story of redemption for fallen humanity. The message was given to Seth, the son of Adam. For 2,500 years, before the writing of Genesis, those early civilizations were able to study the message of God’s love and redemption. That is the message of those mysterious signs in the heavens.

So does “the son of the creator comes” refer to Jesus Christ & His return? According to the study we just learned about the importance of Orion’s constellation, I think the answer is clear.

Jesus is the son of The Creator. He is also the Creator as part of the Trinity. And He is “coming forth as light” in Orion & as “the Judge” of Taurus.

Are you ready?

http://www.AaronJudkins.com

Unknown

Extraterrestrial connections were first suggested by Eric von Danken and have been perpetuated by the show Ancient Aliens on the History Channel. I do believe that Tiahuanacan engineers seemed to possess advanced knowledge thousands of years ahead of other cultures. But this does mean ancient aliens built Pumapunka. Let’s examine the claims of Ancient Aliens. 

Ancient Aliens: “Pumapunku is so unique in the way it was constructed and shaped and positioned that it is the most intriguing ancient site on the planet.”

AA: “While the pyramids at Giza are an incredible feat of achieved, compared to Pumapunku, the pyramids are child’s play.”

AA: “In my opinion, the most significant piece of evidence that we have in this entire ancient alien astronaut puzzle is Pumapunku in the highland of Bolivia.”

Well, if Pumapunku is considered such good evidence for the Ancient Astronaut theory, we should probably start by looking at it. After all, it’s the one that they say was built directly by extra-terrestrials.

AA: “Pumapunku is the only site on planet Earth that, in my opinion, was built directly by extraterrestrials.”

Ancient Aliens starts off with a false dilemma by making people think that it was absolutely impossible for ancient people to construct Pumapunku, even to the point of making outright false claims.

AA: “One of the most intriguing thing there is it that the stones that were used there weren’t sandstone, they’re granite and diorite. The only stone that is harder than diorite is diamond, so the only way this could have been achieved is if the tools were tipped with diamonds.”

This is funny because it’s totally wrong, the stones are not granite or diorite at Pumapunku, they are Red Sandstone and Andesite, but this is also funny because of the way he says it.

AA: “The stones that were used there weren’t sandstone, they’re granite and diorite.”

Well yeah, actually there is sandstone & andesite. You can’t blame him though for it becomes obvious that throughout the series he often just repeats things he has heard in Eric Von Daniken’s books. Von Daniken’s books are what the Ancient Aliens series is based on. Later we see Eric Von Daniken himself make the exact same, totally wrong claim.

AA: “Of course [Pumapunku was] made out of stones found on Earth, because you don’t transport granite or diorite from another solar system.”

Von Daniken continues building up this false dilemma:

AA: “One of these platforms is 800 tons.”

That is very incorrect, the heaviest block at Pumapunku is 130 tons, and most of the stones are much smaller than that. So he is off by a whopping 670 tons! Unfortunately we will come to expect this kind of thing from Von Daniken as we progress.

Ancient Aliens spends a lot of time pointing out the various features in the stone masonry at Pumapunku before declaring it impossible to do without power tools. 

AA: “Each of these small drills holes are basically evenly spaced along this routed groove. To me it’s clear that power tools have been used on this unusual block of stone here.”

AA: “This surface is as smooth as a table top, like in your kitchen. There’s no wave to it. This was machined.”

The sandstone and andesite stones at Pumapunku would have been easily worked with the most basic stone working tools, the idea that diamond tipped power saws were needed is ridiculous. The red sandstone was relatively soft and easy to work with, and even though andesite is pretty hard, because of the way it cooled it could be easily flaked off using stones as soft as 5.5 on the Mohs scale. Such pounding stones were found all over andesite quarries in the area.

Contrary to Ancient Aliens’ claims that archeologists are baffled by Pumapunku, Archeologists know the basics about how Pumapunku’s stones were cut and shaped. This is partly because there is evidence for this all over the site itself.

They actually used a method that almost all ancient stone workers used. They used hard -pounding stones to pound out troth like depressions; later on they used flat stones and sand to grind the stone to make a polished surface. This is also how the Egyptians, 1000’s of years before this, made their flat surfaced granite monuments like obelisks.

Sand has extremely hard particles in it and, if placed between a flat surface and a rock, can polish even the hardest stones known to man. In fact, the harder the stone is the better it can be polished using sand. We know that’s how sand can turn a piece of copper into a very efficient granite saw or drill- a method the Egyptians utilized well. 

Some stones at Pumapunku that Ancient Aliens would never show the cameras are the ones that were in the middle of this process. They show that at the same time a stone was being pounded by stone hammers, which created these troth like depressions, the grinding and polishing was taking place on the other end of the stone. Unfinished stones clearly show how they were shaped – and it wasn’t with lasers.

There is also unmistakable evidence of stone hammers having been used in the places that were never meant to be visible, like where certain stones would be connected with one another. And because of that, it’s hard for me to believe Eric Von Daniken’s next claim, because it would mean that the alien tool box had a laser gun right next to a stone hammer.

AA: “Extraterrestrials arrive; the spaceship stands in orbit. Only a small spaceship can stand, like a space shuttle. So, to protect their instruments they (the aliens) make, overnight, with their technology, what we call a base camp. Of course [this was] made out of stones found on Earth, because you don’t transport granite or diorite from another solar system. Then they disappeared, but the wall of their base camp is still there.”

It is true that stone tools would not be enough to construct Pumapunku, especially for some of the finer points. For those they would need metal chisels, and the equivalent of a carpenter’s square. Entire studies have detailed how these cuts were made and nothing spectacular is required except some metal tools like chisels. The arguments against this are usually either that a particular culture did not yet know how to cast metals or that copper chisels would have been too weak. 

On the first point, we know that the Pre-Incan Andean culture was very skilled at fashioning metals and creating metal alloys. In fact, the people who built Pumapunku were even pouring copper alloys into molds right on site, showing that they had more than enough capability to form all kinds of metal tools. The question then becomes: what about the tools strength? 

Even if they were pouring pure copper into the mold it would still work, but it would need sharpening often but, because archeologist actually found a few of these metal cramps used by them on site, we now know that they were using a very strong copper arsenic nickel alloy, which made a much stronger final product. Arsenic acts as a de-oxidant preventing the metal from becoming too brittle, and nickel was used in copper alloys specifically to make stronger chisels. Once you understand that they had the ability to make strong metal tools in a huge variety of shapes, there is no part of Pumapunku’s stone work that would have been too difficult for them. 

Notable features at Puma Punku are I-shaped architectural cramps, which are composed of the unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy. These I-shaped cramps were also used on a section of canal found at the base of the Akapana pyramid at Tiwanaku. These cramps were used to hold the blocks comprising the walls and bottom of stone-line canals that drain sunken courts. In the south canal of the Puma Punku, the I-shaped cramps were cast in place. The unique copper-arsenic-nickel bronze alloy is also found in metal artifacts within the region. Here’s one that our team found still holding one of the stone blocks in place! 

Unknown-1

Well what about these 90-degree right angles that Ancient Aliens’ makes such a fuss about?

AA: “One of the amazing things here at Pumapunku is the precision of the blocks. You can see with this block of granite that it’s really been cut at very accurate 90-degree angles.”

To make flat surfaces with right angles you don’t need alien technology, you only need a square or a simple equivalent. It’s important to keep in mind that Pumapunku would have been built 1000’s of years after the Egyptians, who had all kinds of squares and plumb bobs and levels and so on, it’s a pretty basic stone working tool.

That being said, despite what Ancient Aliens says, Pumapunku is not all perfect right angles. You can even see this, ironically enough, as the Ancient Aliens crew goes around with carpenters squares. You can see some of them simply are not square.

Unknown-2

 

Unknown-3

 

Also they make claims like all the H blocks are the same dimensions, which they say suggest they were made by a big machine, but not only would that not be the only conclusion if it were true, it’s not even true. The dimensions of the H blocks are not all the same, though they are close. It is probably the case that there were made using the same plans. Another thing that astonished me was their height. I was initially looking for 7-8 ft. H blocks. Anciet Aliens depicts these blocks as huge. It was then I realized that they are only about waist-high! 

 

 Unknown-4

Speaking of plans…

AA: “Mainstream archaeologists say that Pumapunku was built by Amara Indians. [However] we would all have to agree that, in order to build something like Pumapunku, you need writing; you need planning, and you also need some sort of idea where which piece goes and how it ultimately all fits together. But there is one thing that mainstream archaeologists agree upon [and that is] that the Amara didn’t have any writing. How is it possible that the Amara built all this without any plans?”

The builders of Pumapunku may not have had an alphabet, but they did use the common iconography or artwork of their culture called Yaya Mama. All the icons on the site are Yaya Mama, not secret alien code, and this is but one of the many indications of the culture and time that it was built.

But my point is that, like many cultures, they used pictures instead of an alphabet and, like most building plans, they used pictures like blueprints. So saying that no alphabet means no planning is, in my opinion, pretty ridiculous.

Well, what about moving the stones and lifting them into place? Surely that would have required levitation…

AA: “How these massive blocks of granite were moved from their quarries and brought here to Pumapunku would have required some kind of super technology. Levitation; anti-gravity, huge lifting vehicles…something that ancient aliens would have had.”

If they did know how to levitate these stones then they put far too much effort in creating places in the stones to attach ropes to. Many stones have grooves several centimeters in width and depth on two adjacent faces for holding ropes. They even had special places cut into the stones that Pumapunku scholars call “hoisting grips”. These are all very strange things to do if they could simply levitate these blocks of stone. 

To make matters worse for the Ancient Astronaut theory, according to archeologist Jean-Pierre Protzen, an expert on Pumapunku, there is almost no stone at the Pumapunku site that does not have what he calls “drag marks” on one of its faces, where it has been…well dragged to the site.

Ancient Aliens throws another false dilemma here:

AA: “What nobody talks about is the irrefutable fact that we are at an altitude of 12,800 feet which means we are above the natural tree line. No trees ever grew in that area, meaning that no trees were cut down in order to use wooden rollers. The wooden roller theory falls by the wayside.”

This is like saying that there is no way that the Egyptians used wood because trees didn’t grow in Egypt. The difference is that while the Egyptians had to import wood from places like Lebanon, it would have been far easier for those at Pumapunku to solve this problem for all they would have had to do is walk down the hill a little bit.

Ok well what about this claim:

AA: “Logic does not exist at Pumapunku because there we have megalithic structures which just lie around this entire site as if ripped apart by some great force.”

I propose that logic still exists at Pumapunku, and that the scattered state of the complex can be easily explained. To quote from archeologist Alexi Vranich: “the high quality of the stones made it attractive building material for houses, churches, plazas, bridges, even railways.”

In other words, the stones were pulled down and hauled off by locals for building material. In fact, we even have the 400 year old writings of a visitor to Pumapunku who said that the looting was in full swing even back then. He wrote that if the site was closer to town, he didn’t think there would have been any stones left at all.

Ancient Aliens says that Pumapunku is 17,000 years old!

This is what Vranich said of this claim:

“The idea that Tiwanaku is 14,000 years old is based on a rather faulty study done in 1926. Since then, there has been a huge quantity of work both on the archaeology and geology of the area, and all data indicates that Tiwanaku existed from around A.D. 300-500.”

For more information on the faulty study he is referring to here I will quote at length from Jason Colavito, who has been debunking ancient astronaut theories for years in his books and blogs. He said the following about this claim.

“Tiwanaku is not 17,000 years old. This date derives from the work of Arthur Posnansky, who tried to apply archaeoastronomy to the site but did so in ways that modern scholars do not recognize as legitimate. Posnansky proposed a date of 15,000 B.P. (before present, i.e. 13,000 BCE), which the geniuses on Ancient Aliens misread as 15,000 BCE, adding an extra 2,000 years to Posnansky’s already flawed dates.

Here’s what he did wrong. Posnansky assumed that the Kalasasaya temple at Tiwanaku was laid out with perfect accuracy to align to the equinoxes and solstices that he felt (but could not prove) were important to the Tiwanaku people.

Thus, on a certain day the sun was supposed to rise above one rock at the temple and set behind another – ah, but which rock should we choose? Since the current ruins do not align with these celestial events accurately, he concluded that the ruins must have been built at a time when they would have aligned with that event.

Since the sun and sky change positions at a predictable rate due to gradual changes in the angle of the earth’s axis, he concluded that Kalasasaya was built in 13,000 BCE as a solar observatory, despite no other evidence of solar astronomy at the site.

The long and short of it is that Posnansky assumed celestial alignments and assumed flawless construction and then used his assumptions to “prove” that his assumptions were correct.

Colavito also has this picture of the site with the caption: “Pick a rock, any rock. One of them must align with something”.

This site has been dated using a huge variety of methods. Things like carbon dating; the type of metals they used, the debris found in certain places, the type of iconography they used. Literally every kind of dating method applied comes to the same conclusion: It was constructed in the early middle ages.

Before I conclude this entry on Pumapunku there are two other claims I wanted to address:

AA: “The Spanish asked the Inca, the people living there, including the king of the Inca ‘What is this Pumapunku?’ and they all said ‘It’s not us. It’s not our forefathers that made this. This was made by the gods in one, single night.’ Usually a king is proud of what his people did, about the precision. [However] in this case the chief of the people said ‘No. It was not us. It was the gods who made it’.

If you understand a little about the Incan imperial system and religion, you will understand why the Incans didn’t claim the site and why they claimed that it had a supernatural origin.

Part of the Incan state religion was that the Incan empire was the first civilization and was created by God himself. It was a very convenient idea for bolstering the Incan case for the right to rule everyone else.

When the Incans arrived at Pumapunku the site had already been abandoned for at least 100 years. Admitting that there was a pre-Incan culture at all, let alone one with more skill than them, would have been detrimental to the whole scheme.

So they slightly modified their already existing mythology to include Pumapunku. So, instead of Virachoca creating the Incan capital, he also created Pumapunku. Just like that the Incans were still the oldest and greatest civilization, even though everyone probably knew it wasn’t true.

Finally, Ancient Aliens says the following about what the ancient local people believed regarding who constructed Pumapunku:

AA: “Local legend suggests that Tianaka was built as a site of religious pilgrimage to celebrate the arrival of sky gods.”

This is a total lie. According to their legend, Viracocha came from the sea- not the sky! This is a very sneaky move by Ancient Aliens in my opinion.

In conclusion, the stones are not made of Granite and Diorite. It is Andesite; an extrusive igneous rock named after the Andes mountains where it is very abundant. The stones were workable with the tools available to the Andean culture- tools which were know included high-quality metal-alloyed chisels. 

These tools would have been more than sufficient to make the angles seen at Pumapunku. The faces of the rocks have been finished using a polishing technique after being rough cut using stone hammers – evidenced by the unfinished stones and hidden areas of the finished stones.

The moving of the stones was not as difficult as Ancient Aliens makes it seem, especially when you take into account they are telling people that the stones weigh 600 tons more than they actually do. The stones have tell-tale drag marks and hoisting holes for ropes, all showing that they were not levitated as Ancient Aliens would have us believe.

We know the culture which built this monument, and all the iconography and sculptures are consistent with that culture. The various methods of dating that scientist use all point to the same time period. The idea that Pumapunku was from Atlantean times we now know is based on a very transparently flawed presupposition which, with modern equipment, can be easily demonstrated to be false. And I know personally from visiting this site. 

Dr. Aaron Judkins

Peru 2014

Posted: November 27, 2013 by Maverick in Archaeology
Tags: , , , ,

Paracas Skull DNA

I am  headed to Peru in January with LA Marzulli on the Trail of the Nephilim.  I will be one of two American archaeologist as well as one Peruvian archaeologist.  Joe Taylor will also be with us who will do more castings, of the elongated skulls there along with Ron Moorehead will also accompany us.

I could use some prayer support, but there’s another matter which I want to bring up and it is this.  If any of you have some extra dollars and want to “sow” into Man vs Archaeology, now might be a good time to do so.

If you feel compelled to do so, you will get The Los Lunas Mystery Stone DVD, as well as my book, “Alien Agenda: the Return of the Nephilim” which will total a $40.00 value, if you donate $100.00 or more.

We are going to collect DNA samples from various sites and this is what part of your donations will go to.  We’re attempting to find out if these elongated skulls are the remains of a hybrid being, known as the Nephilim. The testing of the samples will reach about $7000.00 per sample!  There are many expenses on this trip, as I have to pay for my hotel & daily expenses such meals.

My airfare is paid so I’m going no matter what.  We will be gone for about three weeks.

If your interested in helping out please go to the donation button at www.AARONJUDKINS.com.   I’m not a 501c3, so your donations will not be tax deductible.

Thank you for investing into this work!

Maverick

Thank you to those who have donated! You make a difference! 

1. Sally Cline

2. Tye Towriss

3. Audrey Robinson – Canada

4. E.E. “Bud” Dallmann

 

My Radio Interview on the Fringe Radio Network

My radio interview on the Fringe Radio Network.

ARCHAEOLOGY NEWSFLASH
This news is from Jonathan Gray -www.beforeus.com 

You’ll be astonished at this news which Lisa has revealed. A young New Zealander on a visit to the USA, Lisa worked for a while with the New Mexico Parks Department. During her term of employment there was a big “washout” in one of the Park regions and I’m assuming it was up in Pueblo country around Taos.

The flash flood scoured out embankments and in doing so a large number of anomalous skeletons were exposed. Lisa and her colleagues were assigned the task of gathering up the remains and placing them into crates. Also in attendance at the site were Smithsonian Institute officials and FBI agents. Each day as Lisa and the other Parks Department employees went onto the site, they were searched for cameras. Similarly they were searched as they left the site each day to make sure they weren’t removing artefacts.

They were also obliged to sign “secrecy documents” ensuring that they would never divulge details of their participation in this undertaking. The reason for this degree of secrecy stems from the fact that the skeletons were of people who were about 8 feet tall. They had six fingers on each hand and six toes per foot. They also had a strange, double row arrangement of teeth. The crates containing the recovered remains, at the termination of work, were taken away by the Smithsonian officials and, undoubtedly, will never be seen again.

Lisa later had official “hassles” when trying to come home to New Zealand and was severely grilled by United States government functionaries as she attempted to depart from the US.

The Testimony of Luigi Muscas on his property near Cagliari, Sardinia on 11/11/2012

By Paola Harris http://paolaharris.com

Luigi told me about the tombs and artifacts of giants (15 foot tall beings) who lived in Sardinia thousands of years ago. He told me that his father and his uncles, who also own land near his land, have dug up many bones and human artifacts. He also mentioned that traditional archeology does not accept this discovery and that his entire family has been threatened. He has been told over and over to keep this secret and NOT talk to the general public. His has written two books on the GIANTS, one called The Giants, Children of the Stars and The Giants and the Culture from the Stars, which has many photographs. He says

“The people who come to my house to heard about the star people, they want a certainty, the proof that this is not a fantasy but the truth. This Reality is hidden, buried until it was discovered and been sold, occulted, destroyed without respect for our Sardinian history. I am hoping we can keep this story safe until we can deal with it with extreme care because it also is the story of all humanity.”

To talk about the Giants stimulates much curiosity but also much skepticism. It is true that is difficult to even imagine another reality different from the one we know. But as of 1997, our Italian media has slowly started to speak about it in their broadcasts. In Sardinia, we began to see this reality in our broadcasts 2003. It is a fact that in all the world enormous bones have been discovered. In Mexico, Athens, Africa and other countries we see the photos.

Some of us in Sardinia believe that our constructions called Nuraghi are the very tombs of these “giants”. But this has not yet been recognized as official.

Paola Harris holds fossilized Giant's tooth
Paola Harris holds fossilized Giant’s tooth.
Giant tooth
Luigi Muscas holds giant tooth.
Giant jawbone
Luigi Muscas holds giant jawbone
Tomb of Giants
Giant skull
Skeleton of Giant
Skeleton of Giant
Tombs of Giants
Books by Luigi Muscas
Luigi Muscas shows Paola Harris giant tooth.
Luigi Muscas shows Paola Harris giant tooth.
Giant bones found in a secret location
Want to read more on Giants? Go here! https://manvsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/giants/

The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is a large boulder on the side of Hidden Mountain, near Los Lunas, New Mexico that bears an ancient inscription carved into a flat panel in the rock. The stone is also known as the Los Lunas Mystery Stone or Commandment Rock. The inscription is interpreted to be an abridged version of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments in a form of Paleo-Hebrew. The tetragrammaton YHWH, or “Yahweh,” is written four times throughout the inscription. The stone is controversial in that some claim the inscription is Pre-Columbian, and therefore proof of early Semitic contact with the Americas.

The first recorded mention of the stone is in 1933, when professor Frank Hibben, an archaeologist from the University of New Mexico, saw it. Hibben was led to the stone by an unnamed Indian guide who claimed to have found it as a boy in the 1880s. The 1880s date of discovery is important to those who believe that the stone was inscribed by a lost tribe of Israel. However, Florencio Chavez, a former Los Lunas resident, reported being shown the rock by his grandfather, Simon Serna. Serna was born in 1829 and his father had claimed to seen the rock in 1800.

The Paleo-Hebrew script is practically identical to the Phoenician script, which was known at the time, thus not precluding the possibility of fraud. One argument against the stone’s antiquity is its apparent use of modern Hebrew punctuation, though amateur epigrapher Barry Fell argued that the punctuation is consistent with antiquity.[1] Other researchers dismiss the inscription based on the numerous stylistic and grammatical errors that appear in the inscription.

In 1948, William H. McCart an Albuquerque resident took an interest in the rock and sent photographs to Dr. Robert H. Pfeiffer of the Semitic Museum at Harvard University. But in doing so, in order to get a better picture, he purposely scratched out the natural patina over the inscription thus effectively destroying the most valuable information & context on the stone! Dr. Hibben had stated first hand to an archaeologist friend of mine in the 1960’s that he did see not only patina covering the inscription in the 1930’s but also lichen growing on the stone! What a tragedy that this important information was removed by an amature wanting to get photographs.

In 1949, Dr. Pfeiffer made a first known translation of the strange writing. Being an authority on the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible) he concluded that the inscription was a copy of the Ten Commandments. He thought that the inscription was written in the Phoenician, the Moabite, and the Greek languages. Indeed, some local native American Indians, as a result of his work, have been referring to this rock as the Phoenician Inscription Rock. Professor Pfeiffer never stated at that time whom he thought carved the message. Many locals have been calling this site the “Ten Commandments Rock” ever since. Further speculation involved the authorship of that rock inscription. Some even considered it to be an inscription from a member of one of the lost tribes of Israel.

However, Robert L. Pfeiffers translation has not remained unchallenged. Notably two translators rejected the idea that the rock inscription had something to do with the Ten Commandments. In 1964, Robert L. LaFollete wrote a translation which resulted in a travelers story carved on the rock using Phoenician as well as some Hebrew, Cyrillic and Etruscan letters. LaFollete translated this story in English as well as in the Navajo language. Dixie L. Perkins published another translation in 1979. This time under the assumption that the writer was of Greek origin and that he was using old-Greek and Phoenician letters. Perkins translation, too, challenges the Ten Commandment version, again resulting in another travelers story. (1) However, Mrs Perkins stated in her foreword to her translation that she only studied Latin and Greek, not however Hebrew. It remains clear that Dr. Pfeiffer’s translation is the correct one and has been verified by other scholars.

The writings on the Los Lunas stone use a combination of Samaritan and Greek letters. Greek? That’s interesting. The Book of Mormon says nothing about Greek. The Greeks didn’t conquer Palestine until more than 200 years after Lehi and Mulek left Jerusalem. But the language of the stone uses good Greek grammar, and makes Samaritan mistakes that would be natural grammatical mistakes for a person of Greek learning, and unthinkable for a Hebrew. But what of the language? The particular combination of characters matches perfectly a Samaritan-Greek dialect that has been discovered in Alexandria. Doesn’t this mean the person who wrote it was most likely not a Hebrew? No, on the contrary. It could be a Phoenician influence.

Other Phoenician and old-Hebrew inscription samples
Another way to narrow down the problem of the age is to compare the Los Lunas inscription with other Phoenician and Paleo-Hebrew inscription samples from the Mediterranean Middle East. In general, if the Los Lunas inscription is old-Hebrew, it is no younger than 600 B.C.E. because after that old-Hebrew came to be gradually replaced by the square-Hebrew alphabet. The old-Hebrew and Phoenician characters used to be almost identical from 1100 B.C.E. to 600 B.C.E. Thereafter, mainly the Phoenicians continued to use this old alphabet, until their Mediterranean colonies were destroyed by the Romans during the Punic wars of the 2nd century B.C.E.  As mentioned in the Epigraphy section, the closest matching Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew writing samples are those from the Eshmunazar Sarcophagus (4th century B.C.E.) or those of the Bar Rakab Inscription and the Nerab Stelae.

What about Mormon Influence?

There is further speculation involving the authorship of the rock inscription. There are some that claim that the stone was carved by someone in the Mormon Battalion as they may have passed through that area. It is claimed that some of the members of the Mormon Battalion participated in the school of the prophets where ancient Semitic languages were studied. The stone could have been just the etchings of a bored solider, which would explain some of the typos and errors in the text. Others have expressed the thought that perhaps some Mormons may have carved this message in an attempt to support their views of an ancient pre-Columbian semitic history in North America. However, a simple research on Mormon Web sites reveals absolutely nothing about this rock inscription. It is not used by their church as a proof for the existence of ancient Nephites in America. For a certainty it is not written in so-called “reformed Egyptian” language.

The overwhelming number of Phoenician and Greek letters and words found in Los Lunas are more of a direct link to Old World (Bronze Age) employ. Again, though there are some dating overlaps seen between Los Lunas and Mormon Brigade, from the 1840’s to the end of the 1850’s, the concentration was on the Great Utah Basin and their early establishment in the area. Finally, I do not see a strong connection in the Mystery Stone and the Mormon community for the simple reason, there is not the faintest hint to any Christian Confession. The Mormon faith, nor any of the array of Christian denominations; especially, of early American age would omit such an opportunity for Christological profession. In addition, no names of individuals mentioned in the Book of Mormon have every been found in ancient inscriptions.

Nevertheless, the Mormons examined the stone in the 1950’s to see if it was theirs. They sent out the Archaeological Society of Brigham Young University from Provo, Utah. The Mormon team critically examined the stone and in 1954 published an article which concluded the inscription was quite recent because of the lack of patina in the letters. Consequently, they dismissed it altogether. I had one person email me who was interested in the Los Lunas Mystery Stone. He stated that he was Mormon & had been so all of his life. He had never heard of the stone within the Mormon community and was intrigued by those claiming that it was of Mormon influence. He personally visited the site & concluded that this indeed had nothing to do with the Mormons- independently verifying the 1950’s expedition!

In the Mormon community, I would love to see someone pursue that; someone like the wonderful scholarship provided by Dr. Brian Stubbs. What Dr. Stubbs has contributed to is the awesome connection between Hebrew consonal roots (and Hebrew plural construction) to languages of both ancient America; especially Indian languages squarely in the Los Lunas matrix. Another scholarly contribution in this area of Hebrew root connections and Ancient Americas is David Deal’s work in Mayan syllabary and words.

There is no evidence that supports the existence of the Nephites in Mormon archaeology. FARMS, a scholarly group associated with BYU, has no scholarship dealing with the site and does not make any evidentiary use of it. The stone is simply not connected to Mormon influence. The connection between the Stone and the Mormon community is circumstantial from both an alphabetical and historical perspectives.

“It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon. There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon, hence the book cannot be regarded as having any historical value from the standpoint of the aboriginal peoples of the New World.” F.H.H. Roberts, Jr, Smithsonian Institution, 1951

The first step in deciphering the Los Lunas Inscription was to identify the letters.  Native American Indians in the New Mexico area never developed a character-based alphabet. They were mainly carving petroglyphs on rock surfaces. These are quite different and are more like little pictographic drawings than writings. The inscription itself was done in old-Hebrew or Phoenician letters, as can be seen from the following (to the right)  character chart:

Many modern scholars now seem to agree that the rock inscription is indeed an abridged version of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments. Among others, these include: Cline 1982 (2), Deal 1992 (3), Stonebreaker 1982 (4), Underwood 1982 (5), Cyrus Gordon 1995 (6), and Skupin 1989 (7). In 1996, Prof James D. Tabor of the Dept. of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, interviewed Professor Frank Hibben who is a local historian and retired archaeologist from the University of New Mexico. Hibben is convinced that the inscription is ancient and thus authentic. He also stated in the interview that he first saw the text in 1933. (see Tabor 1996: An Ancient Hebrew Inscription in New Mexico: Fact or Fraud” (8), see also J.Huston McCulloch 1997: “The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone” (9) ).

Dr. Cyrus Gordon, a historian of ancient Near Eastern civilizations, has promoted the idea that such people’s reached the New World for the past several decades. The historical and archaeological evidence is not unimpressive and has been well documented by Barry Fell in his major study entitled “America B.C.” (10)

Is there a Crypto-Jewish Connection?

Given the long history of crypto-Judaism in Spain, it seems logical to consider the question whether there is a connection between the native New Mexicans and those of the 15th-16th century Iberia. In the 1490’s, Spain & Portugal began the forced conversion of Jews which became increasingly violent. Approximately 100,000 Jews converted at the point of the sword. This resulted in about one-third of converts; but insincere converts at that. A significant portion of these so-called converts continued to practice the ancestral Jewish faith illegally & in secret. Another 100,000 refused & were killed, while another 100,000 escaped.  (11) What started as a campaign for religious conformity evolved into the establishment of racial and ethnic discrimination. At the end of the 14th century began the expulsion of the Jews driving them into Germany, Russia and Central, South, & North America.

The timing of Columbus’s expedition, which coincides with the expulsion of the Jews, begs the question whether Columbus himself was a Jew. What we do know is that at least one of these converts can be found among the crew of Columbus first voyage to the New World. His name was Luis de Torres and was specifically recruited because of his knowledge of Hebrew. (12)

While there is ample evidence beginning in the 1580’s of increasing crypto-Jewish immigration into New Spain, there is little evidence of settlement into New Mexico under Luis de Carvajal and the Failed Colony of Gaspar Castano de Sosa in 1579-1591, Juan de Onate in 1595-1607, or by Diego de Vargas in 1692.  Later during periods of persecution by the Mexican Inquisition in 1591, crypto-Jews migrated to frontier areas of northern New Spain to look for safe haven elsewhere.  So the question remains. Were there any Jews living in New Mexico under Spanish rule? Rabbi Floyd S. Fierman, a dedicated investigator of Jewish history in the Southwest US, faced this question in 1960. He turned to France V. Scholes, a leading historian of colonial New Mexico. Fierman reported the Scholes’s view that “there appears, in fact, to be very little positive evidence regarding Jews in 17th century New Mexico and Arizona.” (13)  The only circumstantial evidence for the first Anglo-Jew in New Mexico seems to be a person named Paul Levi, presumably of French background, who lived in Spanish colonial Santa Fe as early as 1773.

There is abundant evidence however for the migration & settlement of German Jews in the 18th century; specifically between 1840-1860.  One estimated places 15,000 Jews in the US in 1840 but only about 16 of them on the census in New Mexico by 1850.  However, the census was probably incomplete & thus would not accurately reflect the correct number. By 1860, a figure of 43 were numbered. The census for Los Lunas was very small showing only 12-16 residents there including one Moses Sachs. A survey by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations in 1877 estimated the total number of Jews in the US at 190,000 and assumed that the great majority came from Germany. (14) What is known currently is that German-Jewish immigrants made up the entire Jewish population of New Mexico in 1850. (15) Jews still only accounted for only two-tenths of one percent in 1860 with New Mexico ranked at the bottom of the population census. Clearly, Jews did not come to New Mexico in large numbers before the Civil War.

The main residence of the Jewish community centered around Santa Fe in 1860 with the census reflecting other areas such as Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Taos, & Los Lunas. One district in Santa Fe even became known as “Little Jerusalem”.  It is clear that the German-Jews in New Mexico did not hide their Jewishness nor seek to forget it although prior to 1860 there is no evidence or sign of public religious expression or that they sought to follow the Mosaic Law.The first clear indication that they had not abandon their belief systems & customs was in 1860. An article written in The American Israelite in 1881 recalled the first “Yom Kippur” held at Santa Fe at the home of Levi Spiegelberg in 1860. One family who migrated to New Mexico from Old Mexico in the late 1890’s and with a clear memory of their Jewish traditions, closed their curtains every Shabbat & still lit candles to Moses as a saint. Eventually with its continued growth,  the first bar mitzvah ceremony in New Mexico took place in Santa Fe in 1876 and the first synagogue was built in Las Vegas, NM in 1886- the Temple Montefiore.

So is the Los Lunas Mystery Stone connected to the crypto-Jews of New Mexico? There is very good evidence that the Mystery Stone was made by  the Crypto-Jews migrating out of Germany from 1840-1860. Hidden Mt. may have reminded them of Mt. Sinai and therefore they depicted the abridged version of the Ten Commandments in Paleo-Hebrew in remembrance of the Mosaic Law.

To obtain a copy of the documentary on DVD, go to www.AARONJUDKINS.com for details.

Like Aaron’s Blog? Click to Tweet! http://clicktotweet.com/4dM9t

References:

  1. Dixie L. Perkins, “The Meaning of the New Mexico Mystery Stone”, Sun Publishing Company, Albuquerque 1979
  2. Donald Cline, “The Los Lunas Stone”, Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications 10 (1982 part 10)
  3. David Allen Deal, “Discovery of Ancient America”, Kherem La Yah Press, Irvine CA, first published in 1984. 1999 3rd Edition available from David Deal (davebigdeal@cox.net).
  4. Jay Stonebreaker, “A Decipherment of the Los Lunas Decalogue Inscription”, Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications 18 (1989)
  5. L. Lyle Underwood, “The Los Lunas Inscription”, Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications 10 (1982, part 1)
  6. Cyrus Gordon, “Diffusion of Near East Culture in Antiquity and in Byzantine Times”, Orient 30-31, 1995
  7. Michael Skupin, “The Los Lunas Errata”, Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications 18 (1989)
  8. James D. Tabor, “An Ancient Hebrew Inscription in New Mexico: Fact or Fraud”, United Israel Bulletin Vol. 52, Summer 1997
  9. J.Huston McCulloch “The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone”, 1997, mcculloch.2@osu.edu
  10. Fell, Barry; “Ancient Punctuation and the Los Lunas Text,” Epigraphic Society, Occasional Publications, 13:35, 1985.
  11. Hordes, Stanley, “To the End of the Earth”, 2005, Columbia University Press, New York. pg. 18
  12. Ibid. pg 25
  13. Tobias, Henry, “A History of the Jews in New Mexico”, 1990, University of New Mexico Press, Albuqueque. pg. 7
  14. Ibid. pgs. 27- 28
  15. Ibid. pg. 29