Item description for Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man by Jack Cuozdo...
Overview In "Buried Alive", the author, a New Jersey orthodontist, concludes that the Neanderthals were in reality humans from the time of the biblical patriarchs. Illustrations.
Publishers Description In "Buried Alive," the author, a New Jersey orthodontist, concludes that the Neanderthals were in reality humans from the time of the biblical patriarchs. Illustrations.
Community Description In 1979, New Jersey orthodontist Jack Cuozzo was granted access to the world's most famous Neanderthal skeletons in Germany, France, and Israel. His interest in the mysterious remains began as mere curiosity about these ancient creatures. His findings, though, are sure to shock the scientific world. Based on his x-rays and photographs, Cuozzo maintains that the key to understanding who the Neanderthals were lies in the pages of aged manuscripts readily available to anyone: the Bible. In "Buried Alive", the author concludes that the Neanderthals were in reality humans from the time of the biblical patriarchs. Illustrations.
Please Note, Community Descriptions and notes are submitted by our shoppers, and are not guaranteed for accuracy.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Master Books
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 8.86" Width: 6" Height: 0.75" Weight: 1 lbs.
Release Date Nov 1, 1998
Publisher New Leaf Press/Master Books
ISBN 0890512388 ISBN13 9780890512388
Availability 3 units. Availability accurate as of Aug 23, 2017 07:02.
Usually ships within one to two business days from New Kensington, PA.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
Reviews - What do customers think about Buried Alive: True Story Of Neaderthal Man?
His agenda drives him to a highly selective use of evidence. . . . Oct 29, 2006
First, let's clear something up: An evolutionary process is perfectly compatible with the revelations of Genesis.
To understand how this is possible, you must put Genesis in the context of the society in which it was written. It is a cosmogony. The cosmogony was a literary genre utilized in ancient societies for the purpose of telling the WHO and the WHY of creation. Cosmogonies were not written to tell scientific and historical facts. And no ancient person reading a cosmogony would ever have thought to force one of these accounts into use as a scientific or historical account. It has only been in the centuries since the cosmogony genre fell into disuse that readers, unaware of its context, symbolism, and purpose, began to read Genesis with the earnest literal-mindedness that results in its abuse as a straightforward play-by-play of Creation.
This sort of explanation makes many Christians nervous and even angry because it is assumed that if the work is not literal, scientific fact, the only other conclusion is that it is mythology. Why? The ancient world, in which context it was written, would never have been forced to such conclusions. Genesis reveals truth _within its genre_, and that is that God is the sole Maker and Master of an ordered creation--however He chose to establish that creation (evolution being one hypothesis). That is what Genesis was intended to tell us, not scientific fact, not a historical timeline--but Jack Cuozzo does not seem to know this, and the entire book proceeds from this fatal misapprehension of revelation. Had he been willing to examine Genesis in its context, he might well have discovered that there is no dogmatic reason Homo sapiens could not have been brought to be from lower animals, and that fossils which seem to reveal this are nothing that need to be explained away (see Father John Hardon's The Catholic Catechism, pp 91-102; Cuozzo presents his reasons against evolution on pp 98-99, most of which are evidence of a lack of instruction in theology).
As for the book itself, Cuozzo is an egregiously sloppy writer. The text rambles away within poorly structured, carelessly punctuated sentences. All right, we can forgive him for not being a natural writer--but that the publishing house (Master Books) allowed the book to be presented to the public in such a state of undress leads me to question its credibility as a serious work. As other reviewers have pointed out, Cuozzo is also unnecessarily pedantic, which means that even had he solid scientific conclusions to draw, the layman would not be likely to comprehend them. And, yes, he is extremely paranoid. Each time a fossil is mislaid, poorly studied, or improperly diagrammed or reconstructed he throws out asides equivalent to a wink, since "we" know what "they" were up to with all that. (An example, from p. 42: "This could truly be called evolution after death. . . . Pretty imaginative, wouldn't you say?") What's hilarious is that amidst all his talk about the political reconstructions of "the evolutionists," anytime he finds a fossil not meeting his own expectations we find him conjecturing that it simply must have been "doctored-up" or "deliberately damaged" so that no one would know the truth (see, for example, his study of the tympanomastoid fissure on pp 187-189).
Credit should go to him, however, for his honesty. Cuozzo has an agenda, and that agenda is to prove that Neanderthal man was post-Flood man with the morphology of long-lived men. He states, "I really hesitate to call the 'absolutes' [sic] of the Bible 'assumptions,' but this is only done in a quest for continuity of scientific thought . . . . Underlying both positions is a basic faith upon which a scientific model is built" (p. 81).
However, he makes such a point of the agenda, and therefore untrustworthiness, of the opposite side that it really must be asked why we're supposed to think Cuozzo's agenda and resultant conclusions are any more trustworthy. And if anything, the book reveals a great deal of evidence-lassoing, viz.:
1. Cuozzo's hypothesis is that Neanderthal fossils are actually the fossils of the long-lived descendants of Noah. Projecting the rates of growth of the modern human crania and the rate of wear on teeth, he claims that the evidence proves that the shape of the Neanderthal crania--sloping forehead, brow ridges, lack of chin--and the worn-down teeth are actually the normal shape and condition of the Homo sapiens crania and teeth at the biblical ages of, say, 500 and up. Since this sounds good, and since these are the only features discussed by Cuozzo, the unsuspecting reader may then be under the impression that except for these two features, Neanderthal morphology is not otherwise different than Homo sapiens morphology.
This is not the case, and even Cuozzo has to refer to this from time to time, as on page 96: "They did try to make a different species case as well, on the basis of the labyrinth of the inner ear. . . . I can't say they were too convincing, either." But why should we believe you, when we know you have an agenda, too? In fact, Neanderthal morphology differs in a number of ways, to wit, pelvic dimensions and the phonetic apparatus.
In the case of the first, Cuozzo does make reference to the larger Neanderthal pelvis, but, weirdly, states that this is because Eve's broad hips would have been designed to facilitate a painless childbirth. But if this is so, they why on earth would Neanderthals, who are supposed to be post-Flood humans and therefore well removed from Eve, still exhibit a characteristic only typical of the single pre-Fall female?
In the case of the second, Cuozzo also makes reference to the discovery of a Neanderthal skeleton with a modern hyoid bone: "Kebara II had the only hyoid bone ever found for a Neanderthal. . . . It is essential for speech and the Kebara hyoid was that of a normal human" (p. 252-253). What he doesn't tell you is that based on the placement of this very bone and the associated apparatus as revealed by the Kebara fossil, Neanderthal speech has been reproduced via a computer program--and it is not the speech of modern humans at all. In fact, the Neanderthal was incapable of producing the long e, the long u, and the short o--the cardinal vowels. If Cuozzo's hypothesis is correct, then the vocal apparatus of these long-lived sons of Noah would with age migrate into such a position as to make basic Homo sapiens-level communication pretty darn near impossible (which, incidentally, interferes with a later supposition he makes about the true meaning of some Sumerian texts).
2. He presents a single Neanderthal tooth (an upper bicuspid) with indications of having been precisely carved, apparently to resharpen a worn edge, as evidence that Neanderthals possessed the dexterity not normally attributed to them. But . . . if this were evidence of regular Neanderthal dexterity we would expect to see the same work done on other teeth--and the carving is not repeated on any of the multitudes of teeth Cuozzo examined. (Why did he attribute the work to a Neanderthal in the first place? I'll come back to that.) What's interesting is that in his research notes, Cuozzo admits that the physical evidence is not in favor of Neanderthal dexterity; he writes, "[I]n comparison with a modern man's thumb, the end bone of the Neanderthal thumb is longer and the next bone of the Neanderthal thumb is shorter; therefore, the muscles were at a disadvantage in the thumb grip" (p. 286). No matter, he says, that just means they had to work harder at it. (And wait a minute, do our thumb bones change with age, too?)
Well, ok: Neanderthals were as perfectly capable of executing finely wrought works of art and ornamentation as Homo sapiens turned out to be. If that's the case, then Cuozzo would not need to rely on a single tooth to make his case--their teeth would regularly exhibit dental work, Neanderthal burials would regularly turn up hand-crafted goods, and, of course, there would be cave art associated with Neanderthal occupation.
We've already exhausted the dental record; as to burials, the French site Grotto du Renne is so far the only site that I'm aware of to reveal Neanderthal craftsmanship beyond tool-making, turning up beads, rings, and necklaces. While this is interesting, the fact remains that because almost all Neanderthal sites lack intricately carved goods, we still must conclude that they did not routinely practice craftsmanship--and unfortunately for his hypothesis, Cuozzo does not provide any evidence to the contrary.
Now, remember, Cuozzo wants us to believe that Neanderthals were the long-lived grandsons of Noah, and therefore capable of fine art, so he must find examples of this art to support--not create--this predetermined hypothesis. Burials don't provide it; dentistry doesn't provide it; therefore, cave art must provide it. So, brazenly, he asserts that the real reason scientists say Neanderthals had less manual dexterity than a Cro-Magnon would have had is simply because they want to eliminate them as possible creators of the lovely Upper Paleolithic cave murals, and, of course, that way we can make them into a separate species (wink, wink). (Astonishing, given his own admission that the physical evidence supports the conclusion that the Neanderthals could not execute such art!)
He offers as proof of Neanderthal dexterity a handful of examples of cave art which in his opinion (which is all it is) that Neanderthals practiced imaginative art. First, he relates his illegal trespass in the off-limits cave of Bernifal, France, and reproduces for us what I'm sure he considers his ace, what he describes as a depiction of a dinosaur battling a woolly mammoth. Now, he does raise a very good point: if man as we know him ever co-existed with dinosaurs, where are the depictions in cave art? None have ever been produced (and I will agree that it's definitely possible none have ever been produced for purely political reasons). However, this ill-gotten photo he provides us with is, well, pathetic--it looks nothing like a dinosaur. Besides that, woolly mammoths and dinosaurs existed millions of years apart in time anyway--how could anyone therefore have drawn such a battle?
Second, he collects three strange Upper Paleolithic sculptures of men with very long noses as proof that the nose "does grow in old age. . . . ancient men knew this was happening to them and wanted to document it" (p. 241), thereby attributing the works to Neanderthal ("post-Flood") men. It is worth noting that two of the three faces are executed without brow ridges; the third is reproduced for us in an illustration drawn by him, and contains lines near the forehead which he says are a "series of elevations. . . . portraying future growth of the brow ridges and frontal area" (p.242). Not only is that a huge assumption, but since the ridges aren't evident on the other two sculptures, why associate them at all as a body of Neanderthal cave art? Even if all these WERE depictions of Neanderthals, first, that would hardly be a vast body of evidence constituting proof of Neanderthal dexterity, and secondly, it is not exactly wild theorizing to attribute them to Cro-Magnon man instead, since cave art all over Europe is known to have been worked by them. (He dismisses the idea of a Cro-Magnon authorship without much explanation as to why; more on that in a second).
3. But the most egregiously manipulated piece of "evidence" appears in Chapter 29, "Creation Model Predicts Downward Path." Cuozzo believes that age at the onset of puberty is falling, and will keep falling, due to devolution. First, he quotes a handful of classical and medieval sources which mention the age of puberty as around fourteen (none of these sources appear to be medical works), and then cites several studies from different nations showing that the average menarche (age at first menstrual period) has fallen. Finally, he brings in the condition known as Precocious Puberty; those with PP mature sexually at abnormal ages, even as young as ten months.
What's wrong with this chapter? First, he does not have any reliable data for actually establishing the age at onset of puberty for the last, say, six thousand years. So, how does he know it has _consistently_ fallen from an average age of about 30 circa the Flood (4459 B.C., the date he gives)? More to the point, though, is that most doctors DO agree that the age at menarche is falling--for one group of modern humans, and that is Westernized girls. Why? Better nutrition. This is what his cited studies actually show: all of them are from Westernized nations! One in particular proves my point: Japanese women born before 1900 were compared to Japanese women born during the 1960s; the age at menarche fell from 15 yrs for the first group to 12.5 for the second. What had happened in Japan by 1960? Western influence, that's what! And, in fact, among non-Western modern societies the age of menarche still holds steady in the upper teens--but, wink, wink, did you expect him to tell you that?
He wraps up the chapter with a solemn warning about Precocious Puberty, apparently because he thinks that what is classified as an abnormal condition is actually evidence of devolution. If PP is the shape of things to come, then the age at onset of puberty will continue to fall until an age of ten months is normal for sexual development--come on.
Cuozzo has a few other bizarre theories to share with you; he uses the book of Job as proof of post-Flood man's healing saliva, which we have lost (apparently unaware that Job was written after the return from the Babylonian captivity, and once again being excessively literal with a poetic text). He also performs an exegesis (more like esegesis) on a handful of Sumerian texts which refer to "the big brothers" and "big foreheads," linking them to a text which refers to "the first generations.," of whom we are to inquire (p 247). These are, of course, the long-lived sons of Noah, with the heavy brow ridges of age. Leaving aside how presumptive it is to interpret with assurance a figure of speech used 5,000 years ago, if we are to inquire of them we won't get much out of them, since according to the Kebara II fossil record, Neanderthal man couldn't communicate much of anything!
But, besides the above examples of evidence-lassoing, it is also clear that Cuozzo's interpretation of that evidence is being warped, first, by a refusal to acknowledge the paleoanthropological consensus that Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man co-existed for many thousands of years, and second, by a puzzling ignorance of the relationship of Neanderthal man to Homo sapiens. Beginning with the first, he touches on this archeologically attested fact by mentioning the Mt Carmel sites, which provide evidence that "both modern man and Neanderthal were thought to co-exist for 50,000 years" (p. 97). Instead of dealing with this evidence, he first makes a joke about Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons dealing with each other as the Palestinians and Jews do today, and then, returning to the subject later in the book (p. 253), explains that the reason Neanderthal fossils have been found at levels higher than Cro-Magnon burials is not because of co-existence, but because Neanderthals (the grandfathers, so to speak) would have been longer-lived than the Cro-Magnons (actually their devolving grandsons), and so would have outlived them, thus been buried after them.
His inability to work a Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal co-existence into his hypothesis leads him, therefore, to make several weird comments. First, discussing the aforementioned carved upper bicuspid, he states, "Unless La Chapelle had visited the local Cro-Magnon dentist, it appears as if he attempted to sharpen his own upper tooth" (41). One can't help but wait for the punchline, because, well, La Chapelle could very well HAVE visited a Cro-Magnon dentist. In another passage dealing with cave art, he remarks, " I doubt if a Neanderthal sat and had his portrait carved by a Cro-Magnon in France" (p. 243). Why? Cro-Magnon man frequently made artistic representation of the life abounding around him--why not his Neanderthal neighbor? Again, if Neanderthals were capable of artistic representation comparable to Homo sapiens, then their teeth, burials, and cave sites would all exhibit it--but they don't.
That's minor, however, when compared to his astonishing ignorance of the relationship of the Neanderthal to Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens is not, repeat, NOT, supposed to have descended from Neanderthals. Rather, H. sapiens and Neanderthal man both descend, but separately, from Homo antecessor. I do not know how he could have written this entire book under the impression that anybody still thinks Homo sapiens is evolved from Neanderthal man, yet he makes the following statements:
"[Regarding the Mt Carmel sites] According to evolution, the order should be the more modern skulls on top and the primitive or archaic ones on the bottom. Because they are found in reverse or too close to the same levels on Mt. Carmel, one could not have simply evolved into the other, so they were thought to co-exist" (p. 97)
"I believe that this child was not a Neanderthal but most likely in the group devolved from Neanderthals called modern man (Homo sapiens)" (p. 248).
"The older evolutionists like McCown and Keith would have liked to see a nice passage of archaic Neanderthal features into a modern Homo sapiens to make evolution smooth" ( p. 251)
"They would expect that this phenomenon happened all over the world with all moderns going through a Neanderthal 'phase' although not necessarily at the same time" (p. 251).
Overall, his work is a sloppy, disjointed embarrassment proceeding from a pre-determined agenda. Like the evolutionists he frequently lambastes, he has his story and he's sticking to it, no matter what the facts say. Sure, the "other side" has an agenda too. For that reason, and that reason alone, this book should be read, along with respectable paleoanthropological works: because somewhere, between Darwinism and six-days literalism, you can come to the truth.
Good Work Sep 23, 2006
To put it simply this book is very eye opening in showing some of the great lengths the Evolutionists will go to cover up and hide their deception. it shows just how much will twist the evidence to suit their goals to deceive everyone about evoluton and great ages. Cuozzo has done excellent dective work in helping expose the lies. I also commend him upon showing the reader that Neanderthals were not some kind of primitive pre-human but rather extremely old humans. He uses scientific studies and evidences upon the skulls of Neanderthals he was allowd acess to as well as statments and claims from the Bible to back up his finds. A book I found hard to put down.
Well researched, thought out, and supported with evidence. Jun 20, 2006
Having almost killed myself through boredom reading paleo everything type books, I have found Jack Cuozzo's book a real breath of fresh air. It is well written, well researched, and has carefully supported conclusions. Something that is becoming increasingly lacking in today's world of science. Although there are minor points in the book I wish were covered in more detail, it is so well written even layman can walk away from this reading knowing it has been well worth their time invested. Excellent book, good writing, and now that I've heard him speak, I would say he is an even better speaker.
The book buried me alive!!! Dec 28, 2005
Buried Alive was written by a dentist who obviously suffers from a really severe persecution complex. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a clue about how to write a book.
However, being a layperson when it comes to paleoanthropology, I must admit that the title of the book is appropriate: the author absolutely buries the reader with irrelevant minutiae throughout the disordered book. More importantly, he never presents a single intelligent conclusion (from the tons of data in the book) that might be considered to be even marginally significant.
Being a true-blue creationist, the author makes statements like: "Neanderthals were descendants of Noah" (p. 230). But the question the writer never bothered to answer is if Neanderthals were descendants of Noah, whatever happened to the advanced tools that Noah used to build his ark and to the reading and writing capabilities that Noah and the people of his time apparently possessed? It is generally accepted that Neanderthals had very limited communication capabilities and had only "stone-age" tools to work with.
The author dismisses Australopithecines (africanus & afarensis) and Homo erectus as apes (p.101) but fails to mention Homo heidelbergensis that many paleontologists believe were the immediate ancestors of both Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis.
Even if you are a creationist and reading the book to support your beliefs, the book is absolutely worthless. If you can find a book seller on the web who is offering the book at no charge with free shipping, buy it. Otherwise, it's not worth it
Evolutionists Hate the Truth! Nov 18, 2005
Buried Alive, by Dr. Jack Cuozzo, shames the evolutionist community by exposing the frauds and the truth about Neanderthal Man. But this is nothing new! The dozens of frauds, false statements, and outright lies perpetrated upon the unsuspecting public has resulted in a backlash across our nation aaginst the validity of the evolutionary theory. Witness the number of school districts in the past few years that have balked at teaching evolution. Dr. Cuozzo reveals yet another example of the extremes to which evolutionists will go to preserve their unscientific theory at all costs. The book is a fascinating read for anyone with an open mind (which excludes 90% of all those who subsrcibe to the evolutionary theory), and is based upon facts (something evolutionists like to "fudge"). If you're truly interested in reading a work that will make you sit up and take notes, this is the book. Its chock full of science, but reads like a thriller. Many books on the subject of origins have literally put me to sleep; this book kept my interest peaked from cover to cover. I challenge any evolutionist worth his salt to present to me one credible scientific fact that supports a theory that violates every thermodynamic law known to science. Cuozzo's book belongs on any academic's bookshelf. Read it and come to your own conclusions.