The
current issue of Archaeology magazine features a Special Section
devoted to debunking 'alternative' archaeology.
While the Open Letter is designed to be self-explanatory, it's
not a bad idea to read the article first. Or maybe better -
after. It's posted on their website.
An
Open Letter to the Editors of Archaeology from John Anthony
West
Re:
Atlantis and Beyond: THE LURE OF BOGUS ARCHAEOLOGY (or: The
Anupadeshi Strike Back)
(Special
Section in Archaeology May/June 2003) 1
Gentlemen
(and scholars),
An
acknowledgement:
I
am delighted to learn that our 1993 NBC special MYSTERY OF THE
SPHINX (based upon geological investigations carried out by
me and my geologist colleague Dr. Robert M. Schoch of Boston
University) has been awarded top honors in your 'Worst of Television
Archaeology' list. The show 'Argues that the Sphinx is thousands
of years older than currently believed and includes comparisons
of the Sphinx with the "Face on Mars" (since shown to be wholly
natural...)'
Short
of having my books singled out and condemned by an official
George W. Bush Presidential decree, I could not feel more flattered.
I regret only that you have no physical equivalent of an Oscar
or Tony to go with it. It sure would look good on my old oak
filing cabinet! Right next to the Emmy I won for 'Best Research'
for MYSTERY OF THE SPHINX, which, by the way, was also one of
four nominated for Best Documentary of 1993. Anyway, I think
that extraordinary disparity in public opinion a healthy sign,
don't you; proof that democracy is still with us, alive and
well, despite appearances to the contrary? Would you be kind
enough to send me a parchment diploma, a little printed certificate
... something, anything to hang on the wall to prove our show
won?
The
Special Section
'Why
do people so desperately want to believe in Atlantis-style tales?'
moans Archaeology Editor Peter Young, unable to comprehend
why people are turned away from the 'real' archaeology featured
in his magazine. Bogus Archaeology expert Garrett Fagan, Assistant
Professor of Classics and author of the epic, best-selling,
modern-day scholarly classic Bathing in Public in the Roman
World 2) explains, 'There is little
doubt that presenting science (and archaeology) on television
is a difficult business. The slow pace of change in scientific
thinking .the habitual lack of consensus among academics about
details (ital. mine, jaw), and the often complex nature
of the arguments involved place pressures on producers ... The
unspectacular and painstaking nature of the discipline does
not make for particularly spectacular television. For how long
will viewers sit through scenes of dirt sifting through knee-
high ruins?'
That
may sound plausible but it's claptrap. Interest in archaeology
is no more dependent upon sifting through dirt than interest
in baseball is dependent upon spring training or bat manufacture.
Like baseball fans, archaeology fans revel in the game -- which
in this case is not dirt-sifting, but uncovering and interpreting
the past. It is the significance and the relevance of those
discoveries that generate interest. The key word here is 'significance'.
The
audience will sit through plenty of 'dirt sifting' if the stakes
are high and valid Your prize winning selection for Worst Television
Archaeology' had its obligatory patina of network glitz but
most of that show was devoted to a complex scientific geological
argument. The audience was riveted, and still is. It is not
that 'people want so desperately to believe in Atlantis-style
tales', it is that they are smart enough to recognize the comic
triviality of your petty discipline. Again Fagan inadvertently
supplies the clue (just about everything Fagan supplies is inadvertent)
Those heated arguments over 'detail' (i.e., the Big Picture
is agreed upon by the 'experts; only 'details' remain) appeal
to no one but yourselves. The archeologically uninitiated cannot
be made to warm to furious debates over how many asps killed
Cleopatra (Serpent in the Sky, p.9). Especially when
profound mysteries, self-evident to all acquainted with the
problems involved, go unexplored, their very existence left
doggedly unsifted by archeological consensus.
E.g.,
we do NOT know how the pyramids were built, we do NOT know why
they were built (there is NO evidence, none, that the pyramids
of Giza and Dahshur ever served as tombs, though other pyramids
did. They may have been tombs, but there is NO evidence that
they were - got it? Science is supposed to be based upon evidence,
not inference.) We do NOT know how the 200 tons blocks of the
Sphinx and Valley temples and the paving blocks surrounding
the Khafre pyramid were moved and put into place, etc., etc.,
etc., etc. People are not as stupid or as gullible as you think
they are. They don't buy your version of the Big Picture. Simple
as that. Unfortunately, they are also not very discriminating.
They tend not to distinguish between, say, a Von Danikin and
an R.A. Scwaller de Lubicz. But then, neither do you.
To
understand your unsolvable PR and image problems and the public's
stubborn refusal to accept your word as Gospel, all you have
to do is reflect upon what you wrote in your own Special Section
- and, more important, what you didn't write. MYSTERY OF THE
SPHINX wins your First Worst Prize, and yet, in all those pages
devoted to the wholesale denigration (and often misrepresentation)
of the work of Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval and everyone else
who dares challenge the Sacred Archeological Status Quo there
is no response to the geology --the water weathering to the
great Sphinx-- precisely that which qualifies it for Worst Place
honors. Not a word. How odd! But there is a good reason for
it.
Because
you have no response, that's why. And it is that (so far) irrefutable
geology that justifies and legitimizes the entire search for
alternatives - from carefully developed and sound mathematical
and astronomical theories down to Von Danikin and the wilder
shores of alien intervention. Until you find a way to disprove
the geology, the search itself is neither 'bogus' nor 'pseudo',
though some of the material cited as evidence may well fit those
categories...Curious note: if an archeologist is disproved on
some significant detail (say that, given enough sifting through
dirt, it is established that Cleopatra committed suicide using
just one asp after all) multiple asp proponents will be called
'mistaken' or 'wrong', but if those outside the archaeological
Vatican make a no more egregious mistake, they are practicing
bogus or pseudo-science.
To
bring Archaeology readers up to date on the geology--
since developments in this ongoing investigation somehow do
not find their way into your pages-- here is a brief update.
Our geological evidence was presented first at the Annual Meeting
of the Geological Society of America in 1991; further compelling
evidence was presented at the GSA Meeting in 2000, both times
with the overwhelming support of attending geologists -- and
shrieks of outrage from archaeologists and Egyptologists.3
Over the intervening years a handful of opposing geologists,
most with a stake in academic archaeology or Egyptology, have
offered mutually exclusive alternative theories to account for
that weathering ranging from demonstrably just plain wrong (K.
Lal Gauri) to certifiably inept and inane (James 'Wet Sand'
Harrell's theory.) All have been easily, systematically and
conclusively dismantled and rebutted point by point. Meanwhile,
two English geologists, Colin Reader and David Coxill, independent
of each other and of ourselves, have studied the matter on site
and support the theory (precipitation-induced weathering) unconditionally,
categorically necessitating re-thinking the dating of the Sphinx
and with it pretty much everything archeologists accept as dogma
regarding very ancient history.
The
actual dating remains a matter of debate so the extent of that
rethinking process cannot be determined at this point with certainty.
But that it must be radical is apparent to all but yourselves.4
Which is one reason why a quarter of a billion people (rough
estimate) have seen MYSTERY OF THE SPHINX and been won over
by it. It is often bought by teachers (sometimes with their
own money) to show to students from grade school on up through
college level; it has considerable support among academics and
scientists across a spectrum of disciplines not in danger of
caving in from the implications of a vastly older Sphinx. (Threatened
by evidence as revolutionary as this in their own fields, they'd
probably react as you do, but that is not the issue here.) And
it is even taken seriously by a handful of credentialed Egyptologists
and archeologists, who mostly keep quiet about it, not wanting
to subject themselves to the predictable academic auto-da-fe
they know will be their lot if their interest is revealed. It
is, however, discussed briefly but taken seriously by Egyptologist
Edmund Meltzer in his essay on the History of Egyptology in
(that encyclopedia of New Age pseudo-scholarship) The Oxford
Companion to Egyptology edited by Donald Redford. Closet
New Age flakes show up in the strangest places, don't they?
While
our geological evidence does not in itself prove the existence
of a physical Atlantis (we never said it did) it goes a long
way toward proving the existence of an 'Atlantis', a highly
developed civilization capable of moving around 200 tons blocks
of stone around at a time when civilization is not supposed
to have existed at all. In other words it scuttles the historical
context of your entire discipline. Yet not one word about the
geology in your pages of carefully orchestrated debunkery masquerading
as scholarship.
Strange
omission! Yet hardly unique. Your fourth place 'Best of Television
Archaeology' entry, ATLANTIS REBORN AGAIN ('Systematic Dismantling
of Graham Hancock's proposition about his 'Lost Civilization')
resorts to the same chicanery. In that television equivalent
of Archaeology's hatchet job there is also no mention
of the geology of the Sphinx. A long filmed interview with Schoch
on the subject was carefully edited down to a brief appearance
in which he gives his negative opinion on the underwater Yonaguni
formations. (This striking site, with its remarkable geometric
angular ledges and walls is believed, by Hancock and others,
to be man-made, or at least man-doctored. If so it would be
the 'smoking gun' testifying to the 'Lost Civilization' we are
looking for. Schoch and I are convinced that it is wholly natural.)
So Schoch's opinion was good enough to refute Yonaguni, but
not good enough to support the water-weathering to the Sphinx.
There's no mention of that.
In
a court of law, that's called 'withholding evidence' and it's
a crime.* If Academic Malpractice were a crime (not a bad idea!)
a lot of archaeologists wouldn't be walking around loose. Chris
Hale, the producer of ATLANTIS REBORN AGAIN, largely escaped
the consequences of withholding evidence. As
unprincipled
as you but less maladroit, he had the wit not to hand out a
First Worst Prize. And it is difficult to prove 'intent' when
the evidence is totally excluded. But you, in your debunking
zeal, could not resist calling attention to the geology by bestowing
the prize and then conveniently failing to discuss what qualifies
it for the honor.
Presumably
you thought no one would notice? Now they will. Thanks to the
internet hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, will notice.
The
Reason Why
But
while this reveals the modus operandi of your scholarship,
it does not really account for the attraction to alternative
views that motivates the special section. That attraction is
actually justified by Fagan, even as he discounts it. ''Pseudoarchaeology
fans,' he sneers, 'get attracted to all sorts of odd notions.
Their ancient civilizations are better than ours, more peaceful,
more spiritually attuned.'
Now
this is a curious, wholly subjective statement coming from a
self-proclaimed scientist supposedly devoted to objective truth,
and it merits dissection (or, more accurately, trisection).
'Better' is not an 'odd notion'. It is a judgement call. Me?
I would prefer to live in world without hydrogen bombs and traffic
jams, a world where you can drink the water. On the other hand,
even I would rather go to a 21st Century dentist than a 21st
Dynasty dentist. On balance, I'd say ancient was 'better', but
it depends entirely upon how one's values are weighted. Fagan
has every right to disagree -- which in turn I might call an
'odd notion'.
'More
peaceful'? Well, since the world has never been less peaceful
than it is at present, this does not seem such an 'odd notion'
either, especially if you go back far enough. Old Kingdom Egypt
was most assuredly more peaceful than anything around today.
That is demonstrable.
'More
spiritually attuned'? Here, inadvertently as always, Fagan has
stumbled upon the core of the matter. That ancient civilizations
were more spiritually inclined and directed (I'll get to 'attuned')
is undeniable.. A civilization may be judged infallibly by what
it does with its collective creative energy. (You do not have
to be a Christian or even religious to recognize the truth of
'Ye shall know them by their fruits.' Matthew7, 16
)
We
put the bulk of our creative energies into shopping malls, weapons
of mass destruction, Hollywood and Television trash, bobble-head
dolls and Disneyland, with a dollop left over for clever but
emotionally bereft science and technology, most of it destructive
and/or frivolous; a small percentage of it undeniably beneficial.
Egypt (and all other ancient peoples to a greater or lesser
extent) put their creative energies into temples, tombs and
pyramids all designed to facilitate the quest for Immortality.
That is a 'fact', which should be apparent even to archaeologists.
But does it qualify for 'spiritually attunement'? I'd say, yes.
All you have to do is go to Egypt and experience it for yourself.
It is self-evident ... to all but the emotionally defective
and spiritually dyslexic. Still, it is a judgement call. It
has nothing to do with 'science', not our science at any rate.
But that it should qualify as an 'odd notion' in the Fagan lexicon
is revealing.
To
our Church of Progress (materialist, rationalist, Darwinian)
'spiritual' is a synonym for 'superstitious' and 'spiritually
attuned' is therefore meaningless. There can be no attunement
if there is no spirit. So why use that particular word.? Why
not grant the ancients their demonstrable ancient preoccupation
with superstition, and leave the pseudoarchaeologists to theirs?
After all, we are not threatening your biological survival --
the only 'value' permissible in your one-dimensional Darwinian
cosmos (though that, too, is purely subjective. I won't go into
that here). Yet it is deemed dangerous. Pseudoarcheology must
be contested; stamped out. Why?
My
old Japanese sensei put a finger on it. He used to counsel,
in his broken but pungent English, 'You want happy in klazy
world? No talk moonbeam to blind man; no talk music to deaf
man; and never, not ever you talk sex to eunuch. Him just get
angry, sometime violent.'
This
accounts for all that contumely and vituperation, the misrepresentation
and deliberate neglect of real evidence; the rant, cant and
intolerant yap of the Defenders of the Archaeological Faith
on the Hall of Maat website so heartily endorsed by Karen M.
Romey in her contribution to the special section (characterized
by Maat contributor Paul Heinrich as response 'in a polite and
understandable fashion'. 5
Like
academic dogs in the manger, you would deny others access to
that which you are incapable of digesting yourselves. Spiritual
attunement cannot be acknowledged. The ancients could not possibly
have had knowledge or faculties you do not have. Everything
must be kept locked up nice and safe in your little Darwinian
box just in case someone pries open the lid and finds the emperor's
new clothes inside.
It's
your loss. But if you're actually interested in understanding
why vast numbers of people refuse to accept your establishment
expertise, that is why. Your special section will change nothing.
It is an exercise in flawlessly sustained futi
You
also do not have your facts straight. A discipline exulting
in minute detail (cf. Fagan) should be scrupulous in such matters.
The Mars material you deride in MYSTERY OF THE SPHINX was never
shown on TV. It was not part of the original NBC special, but
was rather an addition to the expanded home video version. And
I make it absolutely clear in that version that I am not endorsing
either the Face or (especially) its putative relation to Egypt,
but rather, consider the evidence supporting the notion provocative
enough to merit inclusion. The Face by the way, has NOT been
'shown to be completely natural'; though NASA, the space equivalent
of orthodox archaeology, declares it so. There are a number
of astronomers, geologists , physicists and imaging experts,
no less qualified than those at NASA who do not accept that
declaration. Since this is not our field, we happily leave open
that particular question.
John
Anthony West
P.S.
Oh yes...and the Anupadeshi mentioned above... You're probably
wondering who they are. They should be included in the well-known
Hindu caste system (probably derived from still earlier Vedic
sources and initially, it's thought by some, not hereditary)
yet they are never mentioned in standard texts. According to
the shadowy 19th Century guru and scholar Sri Viram Pradesh
(who spent decades in Europe and America studying the western
world) the Anupadeshi have always been with us, but it was only
the onset of the Kali Yuga (the 'Iron' or Dark Age) that produced
conditions favorable to their unchecked proliferation; to the
extent that they now represent a class of their own, a sub-species
in the long process of human devolution and debasement responsible,
at its nadir, for the establishment of our own Church of Progress.
The
Anupadeshi are the caste below the Untouchables: the Unteachables.
Notes:
1.
Readers of this open letter would do well to read the entire
Archaeology article. Those who do not subscribe to the
magazine do not have to waste good money on it to support still
more dirt sifting. The Special Section is posted on their website
http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=0305/abstracts/tv
Emailing or writing your reactions to Archaeology is
recommended.
2.
This is a test; this is only a test. Below is a review of Bathing
in Public in the Roman World by Garrett G. Fagan, posted
on Amazon.com by Bruce Loveitt In quoting it, I have deliberately
made use of the scientific methodology invariably employed by
Garrett Fagan and the other authors featured in Archaeology's
special section. See if you can catch me out.
"Could
Have Used A Good (Editor's) Scrubbing !, December 21, 1999
This
book makes me remember why I chose not to go to graduate school!
Every page is filled to the brim with footnotes and the appendixes,
index and bibliography, etc. are as long as the book is itself!
The author hems and haws so much and is so hesitant to commit
himself to a definitive statement that I wanted to grab him
by his lapels and give him a good shaking! The middle section
of this already brief book (220 pages of actual reading material....but
don't forget those footnotes that sometimes take up 1/2 a page)
is mind numbingly boring and almost enough to totally ruin the
book. This section deals with who actually decided to build
or repair the baths and is full of statistics that I'm sure
make Mr. Fagan's colleagues happy but will not endear him to
the public. "
(Note:
Fagan's book at this writing is #586,204 on Amazon's best-seller
list. This figure reflects only its current status, not necessarily
its cumulative sales. It's possible that millions of readers
fascinated by this vital and engrossing topic already have their
copies and now, in the words of Paul Heinrich, '...understand
what archaeology is and how it is done, but also the significance
of such research to their own lives.' I have heard unconfirmed
rumors that a no less consequential sequel is in progress: Vol.II:
Drying Off in Public in the Roman World. jaw)
3.
The initial presentation of our evidence at the GSA Meeting
in 1991 provoked a storm of coverage from both the mainstream
and scientific press (surprisingly even-handed, given the stakes).
In an interview with the science editor of the Boston Globe,
asked why archaeologists and Egyptologists responded with such
unanimous fury, I told him that their opinions were of no consequence.
Our evidence concerned the weathering patterns in rocks, and
on this subject, an archaeologist's or Egyptologist's opinion
carried no more weight than a proctologist's. This, Schoch told
me, ratcheted up the outrage and a vicious attack on Schoch
by a B.U. Egyptologist was published in the in-house B.U. newsletter.
In a private letter to the author (subsequently widely distributed
by her) I tried to slake the flames by pointing out the proctologists
did not appreciate my comments either. They said their job was
to cure sick assholes; they didn't like being compared to them.
Unfortunately this was not accepted in the conciliatory spirit
intended.
4.
Colin Reader, while supporting the water-weathering hypothesis
unconditionally, nevertheless attempts to fit the carving of
the Sphinx within accepted dynastic chronology, but pre-IVth
Dynasty. While we admire Reader's careful work, we feel this
interpretation cannot be supported, Explaining why is beyond
the scope of this Open Letter.
5.
To Maat's credit, since it is a forum, it posts all contributions
pro and con its acknowledged establishment position. But its
own home page should disqualify it from utilizing the name of
the goddess of Justice and Cosmic Equilibrium the site is, in
theory, consecrated to. It proudly quotes Carl Sagan's famous
but self-serving dictum: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.'
For
who is it with the authority to judge what is 'extraordinary'
and what is not? Why, its own Maatzis-in Residence of course.
Who else? What this means in practice is that no matter how
compelling the evidence presented may be, it is never 'extraordinary'
enough. Paradigm preserved.
*
I stand corrected. It is not a crime. I sent this paper out
for review to my legal expert who commented: 'Actually, what
you are thinking of is more like Obstruction of Justice. Withholding
evidence is not generally considered a crime, although it is
severely frowned upon if the State intentionally withholds exculpatory
evidence in a criminal prosecution. The Defendant, however,
can and usually does withhold evidence. . . In civil matters,
evidence is routinely withheld, exaggerated, trivialized, spun
or otherwise sculpted as necessary to present only that which
promotes each party's version of the case. The opponent is then
charged with re-spinning the "facts" in his direction. (Sometimes,
this is difficult to do with a straight face.) Plain, unbiased
truth is the first casualty in any good courtroom drama. Apparently,
the same can be said for the media.'
