Forbidden Archeology

This is the title of a book by Michael Cremo. If any of you want to read through some and discuss, it should be fun. I will add more later.

Abridged (PDF) 209 pg

Unabridged (Web based FlashPaper) 390 pg

More suited to the Off-Topic forum?

No, feel free to delete your post.

Well, it does sound like it’d be interesting discussion, but I’m afraid I’m a slow reader and chugging through 200+ pages would be more of a chore than I’m willing to participate in right now. :/ Hope you can find some other people to join you though.

Heck, it’d be fun to do a book club of sorts on here, no? Or, as I think AlisonClaire once suggested, maybe a movie discussion club?

I could use a good book/movie discussion club.

In fact, if it’s OK with you, I will make a movie discussion club (either here or in off topic) today.

Well, that AlisonClaire is pretty smart. Maybe we should listen to her. Sounds like fun.

Yeah, I kind of intended it like a book club sort of thing but I don’t know how many will be interested. I wish Kong had another forum somewhere in between deontological libertarianism and “rate the poster above yous avatar” as subjects. Anyhow it ought to generate discussion. I think both versions I found are really abridged and the real thing is 900+ pages. The “abridged” has little half page subjects on each individual interesting find, so there is no real need to read 200 pages. We can just find little parts and delve deeper into them. I can’t explain this part from the intro…

In 1979, researchers at the Laetoli, Tanzania, site in East Africa discovered footprints in volcanic ash deposits over 3.6 million years old. Mary Leakey and others said the prints were indistinguishable from those of modern humans. To these scientists, this meant only that the human ancestors of 3.6 million years ago had remarkably modern feet. But according to other scientists, such as physical anthropologist R. H. Tuttle of the University of Chicago, fossil foot bones of the known australopithecines of 3.6 million years ago show they had feet that were distinctly apelike. Hence they were incompatible with the Laetoli prints. In an article in the March 1990 issue of Natural History, Tuttle confessed that “we are left with somewhat of a mystery.” It seems permissible, therefore, to consider a possibility neither Tuttle nor Leakey mentioned—that creatures with anatomically modern human bodies to match their anatomically modern human feet existed some 3.6 million years ago in East Africa. Perhaps, as suggested in the illustration on the opposite page, they coexisted with more apelike creatures. As intriguing as this archeological possibility may be, current ideas about human evolution forbid it.

Talk Origins review of Forbidden Archeology

Talk Origins review of Hidden History

Are you a creationist? Because Cremo has absolutely no credibility in academic spheres, he doesn’t even have a degree in archeology. LOL, actually I just checked Wikipedia, in 2007 he was given an “Honourary Doctorate Degree in Science and Theology” by the Hungarian Bhaktivedanta College for Religious Science of Budapest. Boy, that sounds totally credible and legit. He is funded by religious groups to throw evolution into question by bringing up seemingly unexplainable evidence.

No, I am not a creationist at all, the book just seemed interesting. What sort of proof from the book or otherwise do you have that the archeology points to creationism? The one review from Redem seems to say it is Hindu creationist propaganda, but I had never heard of such a thing. Why is saying that homo sapiens lived 3 million years ago vs 200,000 creationism? Hopefully you can do a better job than Redem’s review in debunking the footprint.

Cremo and Thompson discuss the three to four million year old fossilized footprints discovered at Laetoli, and note that scholars have observed “close similarities with the anatomy of the feet of modern humans” (p. 262). Cremo and Thompson conclude that these footprints actually are the tracks of anatomically modern humans, but they offer no explanation for why these individuals were not wearing the shoes which supposedly had been invented more than 296 million years earlier.

300 and 3 million years are quite different times and I walk around without shoes all the time. If there is no good evidence for that shoe they claim to have found, like say a surviving fossil and better photos, I would discount it. Still, the footprint was found by Leakey not Cremo and there seems to be no issue with her credibility.

I think that he is a propagandist because he has a degree in a field unrelated to the topic of his book. Cremo is trying to make the point that Homo Sapiens were around back then, which means we aren’t the product of evolution. Unfortunately, there is no evidence other than this footprint to substantiate the idea that there were modern humans back then. There is no evolutionist conspiracy to suppress this information, the Laetoli footprints are well known and not particularly controversial.

Cremo is just playing fast and loose with the facts; the Laetoli footprints are not modern human footprints, they show a couple of hominids walking upright (no knuckle-dragging) with an arched foot (as opposed to monkey feet). The prints were dated as being over 3 million years old, so it was concluded that that type of foot is at least that old. It’s not identical to our feet and there is no reason to assume there were modern men at that time.

I never said anything about conspiracy or that the book was totally accurate. The book interested me and I wanted to investigate it. Why does the evidence necessitate creationist theory though? I don’t disagree that all the footprint really means is that that type of foot existed. It still turns our theory of evolution on its head a little though doesn’t it? How do other scientists account for that type of foot existing at that time then?

There are many finds listed in the book and they may range in authenticity greatly. I have no problem cross checking the evidence. If in some way Cremo uses the evidence to support creationism (and I haven’t gotten to that part), it doesn’t mean that we have to.

The one review from Redem seems to say it is Hindu creationist propaganda, but I had never heard of such a thing

You don’t live in an area where Hindus are a major public figure. So that’s not surprising. The guy in question belongs to a fundamentalist Hindu sect, and they operate in much the same way as Christian Creationists do.

Why is saying that homo sapiens lived 3 million years ago vs 200,000 creationism?

Some hindu fundamentalists hold that humans are ancient.

Hopefully you can do a better job than Redem’s review in debunking the footprint.

The point with the footprint is that it is a vague blob shape. There are claims from some that you can see stitching if you look closely, yet the book never bothers to show you these close ups. Why?

If there is no good evidence for that shoe they claim to have found, like say a surviving fossil and better photos, I would discount it. Still, the footprint was found by Leakey not Cremo and there seems to be no issue with her credibility.

The two claims are separate. Leaky’s discovery is not a “modern human footprint” as is often claimed. It is far too small for that. They are similar to human footprints, but not identical. The one source creationists cite for this is not Leaky herself, but Tuttle, who’s view is most useful to them. He believes they cannot be A. afarensis, and things they might belong to another species of australopithecine. As it stands now, no one (no reputable people anyway) is entirely sure what made the prints. It is assumed to be some form of hominid, but we don’t know which.

The point with the footprint shoe is that it is a vague blob shape. There are claims from some that you can see stitching if you look closely, yet the book never bothers to show you these close ups. Why?

I think that you mean the shoe. I didn’t even spend any time reading the book yesterday so I haven’t gotten to the shoe, unless it is towards the beginning. Maybe the shoe is not accurate but the footprint seems to be legit you guys say. I wonder what has become of a lot of these rocks they claim to have found shoes or gold chains in…

Some hindu fundamentalists hold that humans are ancient.

Do you have more information on that? I will look into it. Still, It is impossible for you to say that considering the evidence necessitates creationist theory. Evolution is a theory too and I don’t think that it is fair for you to just write off anything by marking it as creationism. Have you actually read this book at all and can point me to this “creationist propaganda” or are you just going off of your book review?

The two claims are separate.

Correct. That is why it isn’t valid for you or your book review to debunk the footprint by saying “Well, why wasn’t this ancient man wearing his shoe?” The time frame of 300 vs 3 million years is quite different. The actual evidence for the footprint, whatever it means, seems to be legit based on what you guys were saying. If the shoe’s rock has been lost and whatever photographs are blurry then we can ignore it.

Leaky’s discovery is not a “modern human footprint” as is often claimed. It is far too small for that. They are similar to human footprints, but not identical. The one source creationists cite for this is not Leaky herself, but Tuttle, who’s view is most useful to them. He believes they cannot be A. afarensis, and things they might belong to another species of australopithecine. As it stands now, no one (no reputable people anyway) is entirely sure what made the prints. It is assumed to be some form of hominid, but we don’t know which.

Please give references for all of this. I know how notorious you are for lying or making claims you can’t cite facts for on other subjects. Again, I am not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn’t seem that this book is completely inaccurate and I can always change the topic to ancient man in general if it is. Please stop with the creationist garbage.. How did this ancient “modern” foot exist at this time? A few hominids were maybe more evolved at the time but lived within the more prehistoric society or what?

I think that you mean the shoe.

Yup, sorry.

Maybe the shoe is not accurate but the footprint seems to be legit you guys say.

That there is a footprint, yes. That is legit. That it indicates modern humans existed 4 million years ago? No, that’s not a legit interpretation of the data.

I wonder what has become of a lot of these rocks they claim to have found shoes or gold chains in…

Almost always they’re things like coal, where coal dust has simply been compressed around an artefact dropped by miners. As for the rest, most are pareidolia, seeing patterns in chaotic things. Such as seeing a face in a tortilla, or on a cheese toastie.

Still, It is impossible for you to say that considering the evidence necessitates creationist theory.

No. But them being creationists justifies saying they are creationists. The Bhaktivedanta Institute is there purely to cherry pick data to support the Hindu fundamentalist ideology. They’re no different in substance to AiG and similar Christian Fundamentalist groups.

Evolution is a theory too and I don’t think that it is fair for you to just write off anything by marking it as creationism.

The difference being that it is a scientific theory. Regardless, this book only touches on evolution a little. Mostly it is arguing against the understanding of the natural history of the world.

i.e. It claims that humanity is ancient.

Have you actually read this book at all and can point me to this “creationist propaganda” or are you just going off of your book review?

Neither, technically. I have not read the book, but I have read some of the claims from the book, and none of them stood up to scrutiny. I consider the pattern of sloppy work to be a good indication that the rest of it is no better.

The review is mostly to give the view of someone who has read it, and has the credentials to research it’s claims in more detail than I can.

That is why it isn’t valid for you or your book review to debunk the footprint by saying “Well, why wasn’t this ancient man wearing his shoe?” The time frame of 300 vs 3 million years is quite different.

The author is pointing out the inconsistency. The book is claiming that a show is 300 million years old, indicating that the “human” from 3 million years ago could reasonably be presumed to be technically proficient at shoe making. If the claim was consistent.

Please give references for all of this.

Wiki covers most of the factual claims well enough. The creatures are a little over 4ft tall, bipedal, the feet are more human-like than ape-like (specifically in terms of the character of the big toe), most widely considered to be A. afarensis.

Nice piccie here

That Tuttle judges the find to be more human-like is cited to be in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, but their website is giving me errors so I can’t search for it on there. I’m taking the word of the creationists who quote him that he claims what they claim he does.

Did I miss anything?

How did this ancient “modern” foot exist at this time? A few hominids were maybe more evolved at the time but lived within the more prehistoric society or what?

The hominids that most scientists believe the tracks were made by existed around that time. This chart shows the standard fossil record in an easy to see format. The bottom of the chart is our last common ancestor with the other modern apes. The white numbers represent the number of identifiable individuals in the fossil record.

This wiki page shows what we know of the species that is believed to have made the tracks.

No. But them being creationists justifies saying they are creationists. The Bhaktivedanta Institute is there purely to cherry pick data to support the Hindu fundamentalist ideology. They’re no different in substance to AiG and similar Christian Fundamentalist groups.

First of all whatever “Hindu creationism” actually is seems quite different than Christian creationism. I don’t know if using the word creationism is even valid if it isn’t like god in the bible saying the earth was made in 7 days and he made humans. The author may well have this background but the book is made up of research from many different people. At some point Cremo may try to say all of this evidence means that homo sapiens were around in the dinosaur age, but I haven’t seen that. If you can actually quote something that points to Hindu creationism, good. Until then let’s not derail the topic with the claims of one reviewer or creationist garbage. When someone’s life’s work or whole system of thinking is on the line, they may well say anything.

The author is pointing out the inconsistency. The book is claiming that a show is 300 million years old, indicating that the “human” from 3 million years ago could reasonably be presumed to be technically proficient at shoe making. If the claim was consistent.

No, the reviewer has horribly failed logic here. I think that we are going to find the evidence for this shoe lacking but I will explain this one last time anyhow. If you can point me to the part of the book that actually talks about the shoe, that would be great too. 297 million years is a long time and the shoe making society could have been destroyed before 3 million years ago. Was this shoe found anywhere near the same location as the footprint? We have modern civilization today alongside primitive tribes and we can walk without shoes. Making the comparison between the two finds to try to debunk them is in no way conclusive. There are mounds of other evidence in the book, so I will get back to the shoe once I actually find and read that part.

This wiki page shows what we know of the species that is believed to have made the tracks.

I found another source besides Tuttle that says it is unlikely for Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”) to have made these footprints…

For their part, Harcourt-Smith and Hilton note that a new reconstruction of the A. afarensis foot built exclusively from A. afarensis remains is needed to confirm these preliminary findings. As for identifying the real culprit, if A. afarensis did not make the prints, that would put the poorly known A. anamensis in the running. But just as likely, speculates Harcourt-Smith, an as yet undiscovered species left the prints. That is to say, consider the world’s oldest whodunit an unsolved mystery.

Kate Wong, Scientific American

Almost always they’re things like coal, where coal dust has simply been compressed around an artefact dropped by miners. As for the rest, most are pareidolia, seeing patterns in chaotic things. Such as seeing a face in a tortilla, or on a cheese toastie.

Please take the time to actually read the book before making absurd claims like this. Read from the unabridged version from the bottom of page 109 to the beginning of 124. A skeptic himself unexpectedly found human artifacts dating to ~3 million years.

I am going to add a couple pictures to help us understand the issues, thanks for the one pic.

First of all whatever “Hindu creationism” actually is seems quite different than Christian creationism.

Well obviously. It has a very different mythology it seeks to prove.

I don’t know if using the word creationism is even valid if it isn’t like god in the bible saying the earth was made in 7 days and he made humans.

Debatable, the vedic scripts are less dogmatic in terms of the origins of life or the universe, but they make it clear regardless. I think the term applies well enough, because they are not merely fundamentalists, but fundamentalists that insist that their interpretation of the creation myths is absolutely true. But we can use some other term if you like.

When someone’s life’s work or whole system of thinking is on the line, they may well say anything.

Indeed. Stares pointedly at Cremo

I found another source besides Tuttle that says it is unlikely for Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”) to have made these footprints…

There are many, as I said it is a matter of some debate, and no one is certain yet. I mentioned Tuttle purely because he is the source most cited by creationists, because he strongly disagreed with it, and because he was a credible source.

Please take the time to actually read the book before making absurd claims like this. Read from the unabridged version from the bottom of page 109 to the beginning of 124. A skeptic himself unexpectedly found human artifacts dating to ~3 million years.

Not absurd in the least. I was talking about a general theme of modern artefacts found in old materials. They’re from things like coal dust that has been compressed around an object, or from areas where limestone has been deposited on an object. It can happen fairly rapidly in some cases.

These examples are trotted out every so often by creationists of all stripes. I’m not saying that this is what he was talking about, but explaining how easily many people mistake the age of things because they don’t understand how such things can be made.

Stop posting accusations without proof. I just gave you another source questioning that Lucy made the Laetoli prints and none of those scientists are “Hindu creationists”.

Take the time to read pages 109-124….. A skeptic found stone balls and other tools similar to the more recent ancient Indian finds in stone that was 3-4 million years old. It was solid stone and they had to use cutting tools to extract them.

Stop posting accusations without proof. I just gave you another source questioning that Lucy made the Laetoli prints and none of those scientists are “Hindu creationists”.

I’m well aware of that. I said as much myself. However only Cremo and those like him and suggesting it was made by modern humans. All the ligitimate sources are thinking it was another species from the same time frame, possible one unknown to use from the fossil record.

Take the time to read pages 109-124

Much as I expected, it’s laced with accusations of “omg they’re suppressing this” and other similarly bad scholarship.

Among the fossils recovered from Monte Hermoso was a hominid atlas (the first bone of the spinal column, at the base of the skull). Ameghino thought it displayed primitive features, but A. Hrdlicka judged it to be fully human. This strongly suggests that beings of the modern human type were responsible for the artifacts and signs of fire discovered in the Montehermosan formation

His “strongly suggests” is based of picking the opinion he likes the most.

He also seems to be obsessed with obsolete sources. The field has moved on since the 19th century.

It’s difficult to go into more detail refuting anything because names like “carlos ameghino” generate mostly Spanish sites, or links to the same book I am discussing.

At base the issue is this. Do you buy his tales of academic suppression? I do not.

Much as I expected, it’s laced with accusations of “omg they’re suppressing this” and other similarly bad scholarship.

Is that really the best that you can do? I would expect something so pitiful from you. Some bolas (stone balls) and other objects were found independently and photographed in situ by a skeptic of Ameghino’s work. Ameghino had a team of at least 4 prominent geologists confirm the date for the rock these things were found in. The opponents used only 1 or 2 at most and made accusations of a museum curator planting the objects. The archaeologist that found Java Man didn’t even live on site. He had native workers dig things up and ship the artifacts to him in crates with no in situ observation.

His “strongly suggests” is based of picking the opinion he likes the most.

You do realize that Hrdlicka was an opponent of Ameghino’s right? Whoever was making fires 3 million years ago may not have been “modern humans” but it still brings the commonly accepted timeline into question.

He also seems to be obsessed with obsolete sources. The field has moved on since the 19th century.

Proof that these sources are obsolete? Don’t make a fool of yourself like the social security debate again please. I guess that I will just have to ignore you if you make unjustified claims constantly.

bump

Is that really the best that you can do?

I need to do more than point out that it is not a scholarly piece, but that it uses propaganda techniques instead?

That is my claim afterall, that it is nothing more than a Hindu version of Christian Creationists’ books.

Some bolas (stone balls) and other objects were found independently and photographed in situ by a skeptic of Ameghino’s work. Ameghino had a team of at least 4 prominent geologists confirm the date for the rock these things were found in. The opponents used only 1 or 2 at most and made accusations of a museum curator planting the objects.

So the book claims. I can find nothing specific about most of these claims, supporting or refuting.

My main response is simply that if they existed, where are they now? If the claims there true the entire site would be crawling with palaeontologists looking for finds. Either to refute or support the claims.

You do realize that Hrdlicka was an opponent of Ameghino’s right?

I fail to see the relevance.

Whoever was making fires 3 million years ago may not have been “modern humans” but it still brings the commonly accepted timeline into question.

Many things cause fires, humans are just one

Proof that these sources are obsolete?

They’re from the 19th century… completely lacking in any modern scientific equipment or methodology or knowledge.

Again I’m going to have to ask, do you buy his implicit assertions of academic suppression?

I need to do more than point out that it is not a scholarly piece, but that it uses propaganda techniques instead? That is my claim afterall, that it is nothing more than a Hindu version of Christian Creationists’ books.

You reached your inane opinion from one review of the book. As I said before, quote actual passages from the book that display this supposed creationist bias or STFU. Every ad hominem attack you have tried so far has failed. It is a collection of research from numerous sources, not just some guy’s opinion.

I fail to see the relevance.

The guy who had vigorously opposed Ameghino’s work found the skeleton to be “fully human”, while Ameghino thought it showed primitive features. Hrdlicka had 1 geologist examine the site to try to say that the strata was from an earlier time than it really was. Ameghino had a group of 4/5 geologists from different institutions all conclude that the rock the bones were found in were from 2-4 million years ago. If you actually read the book, you would get to the part where another skeptic found relics on his own, photographed in situ, in the Pliocene rock at another site.

My main response is simply that if they existed, where are they now? If the claims there true the entire site would be crawling with palaeontologists looking for finds. Either to refute or support the claims. So the book claims. I can find nothing specific about most of these claims, supporting or refuting.

The book cites sources, but they are books from the early 20th century. You would have to actually go to a library to get more details. Also, you complained that you couldn’t read anything about Ameghino on the internet because it was spanish, but there are online translators. I know Spanish well enough to translate accurately too, with a dictionary to help with the archeology terms, but I suppose you would claim I am a biased source like you do every time you are wrong. If anthropologists stick to the commonly accepted theories without looking into all of the evidence that is their failings. There are other reviews of the book by noted archaeologists that support Cremo too…

Many things cause fires, humans are just one

I would think they know enough to tell something like a campfire from something like a lightning strike or a vast wildfire.

They’re from the 19th century… completely lacking in any modern scientific equipment or methodology or knowledge.

Ameghino’s work was in the early 1900’s and finds from the view of the status quo like Java Man were found around the same time or in 1891 specifically in that case. The bolas were found and documented properly by a skeptic and he claimed the museum curator somehow created a hoax and put the bolas in solid 3 million year old rock. The curator didn’t even lead him to the exact location of the find at all though… These are the type of wild accusations people like you make when your whole body of work and worldview are threatened by new evidence. People can’t get funding to dig in places like this because it runs against the current of the commonly accepted beliefs. Also, our understanding of geology for this type of thing hasn’t changed that much in the past 100 years. There are other examples in the book from more modern times too.

You reached your inane opinion from one review of the book.

2 reviews, the content of the book itself, and the readily apparent biases of the author.

i would prefer to deal with the book as a whole, rather than individual parts of it, otherwise it will devolve into an endless series of independent examples.

The driving points of the book are the following.

Humanity and life in general is ancient and unchanged. There is a conspiracy of silence to cover this up among the academic community.

From what I have bothered to read, he cites sources that cannot be checked today (long dead naturalists for example), and cherry picks only the anomalies, ignoring all the rest of the science.

As I said before, quote actual passages from the book that display this supposed creationist bias or STFU.

From the introduction.

Richard Thompson and I are members of the Bhakti vedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness that studies the relationship between modern science and the world view expressed in the Vedic literature of India. From the Vedic literature, we derive the idea that the human race is of great antiquity. For the purpose of conducting systematic research into the existing scientific literature on human antiquity, we expressed the Vedic idea in the form of a theory that various humanlike and apelike beings have coexisted for long periods of time.

Good enough? His ideas come from his holy texts, and he wrote the book to support it.

Specifically his religion tells him that humans and ape-men have lived side by side for over 2 billion years, and that they continue to do so today (bigfoot for example), and will continue to do so for another 2 billion years or so, before life takes on another form and continues.

So goes the Vedic creationist’s position, anyway.

From this interview.

I went digging into the history of archeology. From my studies in the ancient Sanskrit writings of India, I learned of a human presence that goes back about 2 billion years on earth. When I looked at the current textbooks on archeology, I did not see any such evidence. But I decided I would dig deeper, and when I did that digging I found that over the past 150 years archeologists have discovered huge amounts of evidence, in the form of human skeletal remains, human footprints, and human artifacts tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of years old, going all the way back to about 2 billion years. My digging took eight years, and it meant searching out original archeological reports in archives and libraries from around the world, in many different languages.

Again, it begins with his religion, and he searches archives for anything he can use to support it. No different from what other Christian creationists have done, except in the details.

I could probably find mroe on his website but.. have you been there at all? His “museum” is a nightmare of site design.

It is a collection of research from numerous sources, not just some guy’s opinion.

It is a select snapshot of those anomalies which agree with his religious perspective, as filtered through his perspective.

For some of the claims I can find nothing to either support to rebut them.

For others that is easier, the afore mentioned laetoli footprints we already discussed. Or the sandal print

I also finally found something on those bolas, although it was hard as they were not called by that name, which threw me off somewhat.

Also, here is a book written in response to Cremo’s. Should be available at a reasonably large library.

The guy who had vigorously opposed Ameghino’s work found the skeleton to be “fully human”, while Ameghino thought it showed primitive features.

Again, not seeing the relevance.

The book cites sources, but they are books from the early 20th century. You would have to actually go to a library to get more details.

I really doubt any library near me carries copies of those books.

Also, you complained that you couldn’t read anything about Ameghino on the internet because it was spanish, but there are online translators. I know Spanish well enough to translate accurately too, with a dictionary to help with the archeology terms

Feel free to find something to support his claims, preferably from a credible university or similar source. I don’t expect you to type it up or anything, I could labour through it with a translator if I must.

but I suppose you would claim I am a biased source like you do every time you are wrong.

If a source is obviously biased it calls into question anything they claim. I wouldn’t accept a Discovery institute report on the latest finding in evolutionary biology, for example.

If anthropologists stick to the commonly accepted theories without looking into all of the evidence that is their failings.

Do you have evidence that they do?

I would think they know enough to tell something like a campfire from something like a lightning strike or a vast wildfire.

After a few million years, not really. Depends what they found. Was it merely charring? Or was it something more obviously the work of a human? Such as an oven or firepit or something.

People can’t get funding to dig in places like this because it runs against the current of the commonly accepted beliefs.

That wouldn’t stop them particularly. All you need do is save some funds of your own for a plane ticket and to buy provisions while over there, and you can run your own small scale dig. If you could find something major, you could easily generate funds from donations. And what’s to stop his organisation from funding such digs? It’s not only archaeological institutes that can do so.

Or from his books sales perhaps?

There’s nothing to stop Cremo, he has plenty of sources of money, he needn’t even bother with going himself, he could hire someone to do it for him.

Also, our understanding of geology for this type of thing hasn’t changed that much in the past 100 years

It has, hugely. The methods we use now are not limited in the same way tha they were over 100 years ago. We have computers which can carry all of the information resources a digger could ever want, we have quick and easy ways to disseminate information around the globe so that other experts can see them, we have new techniques for dating rocks as well as for discovering if the rocks are natural or have been disturbed, we can use things like sound waves to study the internal composition of rocks and the ground without having to dig. We have “radar” like devices that can study small details underground (only to the depth of a few metres though). Likes most sciences things have progressed nicely over the last century.

And apart from that, we are simply better at training archaeologists now, having learned from the mistakes and successes of the past.