We are continuing to pursue the first people in our area from pre-historic time. The history of these Original Americans is just now being written.
What do ancient maps have to do with Original Americans? 3750 BCE.
In 1961, Professor Charles Hapgood analyzed the 1513 map by Re’is, the 1531 Fineaus map, and many others. Among other things, these maps illustrated Antarctica without an ice-cap. In 1966, he wrote his analysis in Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, which is still in print over fifty-years after original release. The detailed work anticipated and answers virtually every challenge of detractors, who clearly show a lack of research by the contrarians.
Have you heard of the research?
Have your read it?
Has our education system presented it as a hypothesis?
From the maps the following observations appear.
- The maps include information that was unknown in the 1500s, according to our understanding.
- The maps were remarkably accurate relevant to longitude using a spherical trigonometry which developed two centuries later, according to our understanding.
- A culture mapped the Americas, China, Greenland, and Antarctica without ice covered poles, at a time long after the Ice Age, according to our understanding.
- The culture comprehended geometry and trigonometry and developed instruments for astronomy, navigation, and time, thousands of years earlier than our understanding.
- The cartographic knowledge passed along in fragments which survived the rogue destruction of the great libraries at Alexandria, Egypt and Constantinople, Turkey.
The data and notes on the maps indicate knowledge that has passed down erratically. The implications are there were ancient peoples who travelled the seas circa 3750 BCE. The mathematics indicate a science, astronomy, and trigonometry understanding, well before the Greeks of 700 BCE.
U.S. Navy cartographers validated the maps. U.S. Air Force Reconnaissance cartographers validated the maps and ice-free hypothesis. Multiple academics, including Einstein accepted the hypotheses as earth changing. The director of American Geographical Society, John Wright, promoted more work and testing. Even some who disagree with Hapgood on pre-ice conclusions, stated the work was “… a model of thoroughness and meticulous engagement with a complex and elusive subject.” He undeniably followed the requirements of the scientific method.
Nevertheless, these radical ideas quickly stirred opposition. Any hypotheses that challenge conventional ideas and entrenched interests provoke predictable responses. The propositions promote three different positions: reactionary specialist, whatever, polymathic researcher.
The “reactionary specialist” responses basically challenge each researcher’s credentials arguing he is not an archaeologist, cartographer, historian, scientist, or “something”. In the epitome of misunderstanding, some argue that engineers, such as Captain Mallery, USN, are not scientists. What is an engineer? Engineers are application scientists educated in the sciences, mathematics, and analytics, who use interdisciplinary skills with the scientific method to synthesize answers and solutions to real-world problems.
Without any viable research, alternate hypothesis, or invoking the scientific method, these spurious attacks were against the researchers’ credibility.
The “whatever” responses are the man-on-the street reaction of that does not impact or interest me. No one has made music to that tune.
The “polymathic researcher” responses understand that any thorough incident analysis requires interdisciplinary integration of ideas to arrive at a conclusion different from what has been. It is this mindset that develops new concepts, new technology, and more-accurate history.
In reading numerous opinions and discussing with many academics, it is the more broadly learned who embrace the idea that our understanding of history, human development, and environmental processes are erroneous often because of entrenched interests.
Every culture, by definition, is self-centric. Notably Western pre-Columbian history is Euro-centric with little appreciation of prior civilizations and their contributions.
A related issue, beginning with the Inquisition, is that pseudo-science is defined by government to be “acceptable science”. Particularly during the present century, for societal acceptance, feelings and emotions are on par or above logic and rational reasoning.
Charles Hapgood’s hypotheses of 1961, according to his detractors, could only be by inference. They argue there were no artifacts. In this perception, the entire idea of Antarctica maps becomes necessarily predicated on an ancient culture of seafarers. Challengers to these analyses stipulated an ancient culture must be found.
Then came Watson Brake. A mere fifteen years after the book, in 1981 the Watson Brake discovery was by local resident Reca Jones. She reported the site to archaeologists. Archaeologist John Belmont with Jones, who had become a practical archaeologist, wrote of the discovery in 1982. A publication of rigorous scientific analysis came in a 1997 article.
The results of Watson Brake changed the opinion about ancient people, time of civilization in the Americas, how civilization developed, understanding of ancient mathematics, knowledge of astronomy, and artistry of local materials.
The questioners of the Re’is and Fineaus maps and the conclusions of Professor Hapgood had their validation in the Watson Brake and later Poverty Point artifacts. But did that change their opposition?
Think about: How does seemingly unrelated research fit together in a coherent history? How do global seafarers circa 3750 BCE influence your opinion of history or religion? Is the era of 4000 – 3750 BCE indicating a cataclysmic global disruption?