Out of Antarctica: Reflections on the Origin of Peoples.

by Robert Argod

Grand theories sometimes arise from simple questions or the elementary observations of natural phenomena. History is filled with no least that, from the examination of a falling body, universal rules were established to explain the mechanics of the skies. Where did the Polynesians come from?



This question on the origins of a people, now isolated on the islands of the Pacific Ocean, has attracted the attention of scholars and given rise to many theories, such as those of Thor Heyerdahl on the Kon-Tiki and Eric de Bisschop aboard the Tahiti-Nuit



The desire to answer this question was, for Robert Argod, the starting point of an astonishing quest with fascinating ramifications. Polynesian mythology gave him the first leads. In these myths the original land is described in poetic then came a long night and an endless cold forcing the Polynesians' ancestors on great ocean expeditions in search of more hospitable lands. The legends are filled with strikingly realistic details.



Robert Argod combined an encyclopaedic knowledge of the myths and legends of different races with a quality that is certainly essential to anyone trying to understand maritime migrations; he was a master mariner.



When fed by the accumulation of knowledge and experience, intution often generates fertile discoveries. A place recurred in Argod's research, logical from a maritime perspective but at first hard to believe, Antartica.

326 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

Reviews

[John Tarttelin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the 53rd book I have read this year so far and one of the most interesting books I have ever read. In my lifetime (now 65) I have seen how the history of early man and ancient civilizations has changed beyond recognition. With consummate arrogance many modern humans think that they know everything and that today's technology makes our modern culture supreme to all others. When I started reading about anthropology in the 1970s the Neanderthals were portayed as brutish ignorant savages who were a completely different and inferior species to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Now we know that most modern humans in the northern hemisphere have between 2-4% Neanderthal genes and in particular genes that helped our more recent ancestors cope with new and novel diseases that they had not encountered before. What's more the Neanderthals existed for around 350,000 years and they had a deep and rich culture that included music, sculpture, careful burials and stone tools that in some cases were far more sophisticated than their so-called 'betters' - modern humans. There is also archeological evidence that they cared for their children and old people. What is more they interbred not only with Homo Sapiens but with the recently discovered Denisovans. The discovery of Homo Floriensis in Indonesia the so-called 'hobbits' was stunning. These tiny, metre tall people had brains as small as chimpanzees yet they could talk and had a culture that lasted until very recently, perhaps as little as 20,000 years ago. (Interestingly, Neanderthal brains were on average rather larger than those of Homo Sapiens!) Recent skulls found in Georgia indicate that our earliest ancestors might not have originated in Africa at all but in the Caucausus region of Europe. The great works of ancient times like the fantastic temples at Gobexli Tepe in Turkey, Nan Madol in the Pacific, the perhaps 20,000 year old ruins found in New Guinea (where there are far more languages than the whole of Africa) and the recent re-dating of the Sphinx in Egypt to 10,000 or more years ago, more than suggest that we do not know the whole story about 'where we came from'. 'Primitive' skulls have been found in Australia that are as thick as motor cycle helmets but which date to only 10,000 years ago, while the Aborigines have been in that continent for at least 60,000 years. In her 2008 series promoting the 'Out Of Africa' theory on BBC Alice Roberts suggested that the first modern humans left Africa 60,000 years ago! And she sat opposite a mock-up of a Neanderthal and winced saying she could not dream of mating with such a creature. Little did she know and, so recently, that she had some of their genes! The Basque people have 25% rhesus negative blood which does not occur at all in Africa! The trouble with the current worship of 'gene theory' is that it is based on speculation and averages. I recall reading Oppenheimer's book about the 'ancestral Eve' which stated tucked away in his notes that some dates about out ancestors were accurate to within 26,000 years either way! This book was supposedly promoting the 60,000 years ago exit from Africa. So-called experts 'assume' that genetic mutations occur at quite regular intervals over vast periods of time - anybody who has read a lot of natural history and paleontology, or the history of human civilizations, would know that such 'regularity' is very unlikely. Also, as we now know that 'we' bred with Neanderthals, Denisovans and at least one 'lost species' from north of the Himilayas, how can we truly say we are a 'seperate' or a distinct species? In his book 'Into Africa' Bruce Fenton gives a very convincing different view to the 'Out-Of-Africa' paradigm. And Robert Argod does the same in 'Out of Antartica'. He mentions Charles Hapgood's theory of crustal displacement from the 1950s and builds upon this with a superb overview from world mythologies which I found quite magisterial. No less a person than Albert Einstein wrote the foreword to Hapgood's book so those people who idly dismiss the theory of crustal displacement ought to think again. I recall being at grammar school in the mid 1960s and a classmate of mine noticed how the shape of South America 'fitted' into that of Africa. The existence of tectonic plates and how their movements cause earthquakes is now established fact - yet 100 years ago no one would have believed it. So-called 'learned' men even drew straight lines adding 'land' to maps to 'explain' how South America and Australia could both have marsupials. They were akin to the 'canals on Mars' and only existed in the minds of the men that drew them. The theory of plate tectonics was still novel in 1960, the year after Hapgood published his book. Over the last year I have read Graham Hancock's book 'America Before - The Key to Earth's Lost Civilisation' in which he suggests that the first great human culture began in that continent. I have also read Andrew Collins' books about Gobexli Tepe and his very recent 'Denisovan Origins - Hybrid Humans, Gobexli Tepe, and the Genesis of the Giants of Ancient America'. I always thought that elves, leprechauns and giants were just myths and fables. The 'Hobbits' would obviously disagree had they still been around! Meanwhile the discovery of hundreds of giant skeletons in America (systematically erased from the historical record by The Smithsonian Institution due to racism and a feeling of culutral superiority) - show that 'our past' has still a great deal to reveal to us. I am convinced that early hominins and early modern humans were far more accomplished than many modern historians and anthropologists give them credit for. I am also convinced that travel between the continents in antiquity and during ancient historical epochs was widespread and that cultural diffusion was common. Perhaps there really was an ancient civilization BEFORE the last Ice Age - wiped out during the sudden cold spell of the Younger Dryas - and that a few people from that culture survived to 'seed' later civilizations with wisdom and knowledge. As recently as 2,500 B.C. - when the Egyptian pyramids were being built - there were dwarf mammoths living on Wrangel island north east of the Siberian Russian coast. Robert Argod mentions that many of the mammoths preserved in ice in Siberia died with vegetation still in their mouths! Whatever killed them happened in an 'instant'. Many frozen bodies of other creatures indicate the same thing. Read this book - it will really make you think!

[Ike · Rating 5 out of 5]

One word = cataclysmic

[Rob Haas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Robert Argod uses religious texts as his main source of "research" along with observable phenomena that comes off as racist.

Not to mention everything this guy is saying contradicts the current thinking in the anthropology scene. he makes for a poor scientist.

It was his life's work apparently which means his life was in vain.

Read: Deep Ancestry by Spencer Wells should you be looking for something informative rather then subjective.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book. I found the connection between mythos and the possiblity of Antarctica being the ancestral home of many world culture to be interesting, as was the idea of lithospheric shifts being responsible for Antarctica's move south. However, I would have to read up on other hypotheses to fully understand the full conditions of his ideas as well as to decide if it is something that I believe in. At this point, I don't really think it is something that is entirely true.