Recently, the Guardian World News published an article about an abundance of stone tools that were found in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and which have prompted a rethink about when humans left Africa. According to Michael Petraglia, an archaeologist at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work, "This is really quite spectacular. It breaks the back of the current consensus view" (Guardian World News).

And thus begins my rant. As a student of history and anthropology I have a few quibbles with the "current consensus view" held by the establishment. For some unfathomable reason historians and anthropologists/archeologists (hereafter referred to as HAA) seem to be laboring under two very erroneous beliefs:

1. That people didn't ever move around, and if they did, it wasn't further than the village down the road.
2. That we "modern" humans possess far superior intelligence.

Evidence dispelling these long-held, baseless claims can be found everywhere, and yet the establishment has seen fit to completely ignore this evidence. HAA's tend to base all of their hypotheses on these two beliefs while not even considering the obvious. A perfect example was aired on PBS in February of 2006. The Nova special titled, The Perfect Corpse, details the discovery, and subsequent investigation into, two bog bodies found in Ireland, Old Croghan Man and Clonycavan Man. Throughout the course of the program two scenarios were advanced in an attempt to explain the purpose of these interments:

1. These people were the victims of ritual sacrifice; OR
2. They were executed criminals.

After analyzing both sets of remains, certain commonalities became evident and were subsequently used by supporters of the premises to prove their point. That evidence is as follows:

1. Both bodies were dismembered.
a. Old Croghan is a torso with full arms.
b. Clonycavan is a torso with head and upper arms.

2. Both bodies showed evidence of being brutalized prior to death.
a. Old Croghan had numerous stab wounds, cut marks and one of his nipples was nearly severed.
b. Clonycavan had been battered at least 3 times in the head with what appeared to be a heavy,
sharp-edged weapon.

3. Both showed signs of wealth.
a. Old Croghan had manicured fingernails and few signs of physical labor.
b. Clonycavan had a "gel" in his hair, whose primary ingredient, pine sap, came from tress found only in the
south of France/north of Spain (a possible indication that he was wealthy enough to import).

4. Both were well nourished prior to death.
a. Old Croghan's stomach contents were indicative of a winter diet, containing wheat and milk products.
b. Clonycavan's hair showed a summer diet rich with vegetables.

5. Both were buried in bogs spanning tribal boundaries.

At first glance this all seems to suggest that the "experts" are correct in their assumptions; if both men were the victims of ritual sacrifice or criminal execution, one would expect them to be very similar. The problem is, this supposition ignores some very obvious points: if they're executed criminals then why are all the criminals apparently wealthy, and, if Clonycavan's hair gel comes from France, why can't he (there being no evidence to suggest he isn't)?

Both of these questions (and, to be sure, I have other issues with this whole thing that we just won't go into right now) lead us back to my original rant. When HAA's succumb to the above mentioned beliefs, they miss the most obvious, in-your-face conclusions, and wind up looking like fools. Thankfully, there are a few HAAs that don't go in for sensationalism and jumping to conclusions based on slim, or no, evidence. Archaeologist Moten Ravn of Denmark's Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, is one of the few. As far as bog bodies go, he has recommended (what to me is totally obvious) that all bog bodies (that includes the completely skeletonized ones as well as the fleshy ones) should be examined and taken in context. Only then can we begin to unravel the mysteries of these people.

All too often we view the past through the lens of our modern prejudice. What needs to be taken heavily into account is that we genuinely don't know what life was like during periods in which we, ourselves, didn't live. We cannot judge people based on what we don't know, and to the victor goes the privilege of writing the history books. That means that we can't really trust the scribes, either, as the vast majority were writing about events that took place sometimes centuries before they were even born, writing down stories that had come down, through generations, by word of mouth. And, as anyone who has ever played Chinese Whispers knows, an oral story can change quite dramatically with each retelling.

So, what does all this mean? It means that we need to stop making stuff up and start with the evidence. Examining it with an objective eye, looking at it from every angle and not just the one we prefer. Though I've focused on the bog bodies my rant extends to all corners of the histo-anthro-archaeo realm.