|
|||||||||||
Over the past few months open, critical opposition has erupted between yourselves and me. I am writing this letter in the vein hope of bringing some much needed clarification both to the background of the position I hold and the reasons thereof.
My specialist research area is human evolution. I have no formal qualifications in the archaeological sub-discipline of Egyptology and nor have I claimed so. The knowledge I have concerning Ancient Egypt comes from the books and journal articles I have read, the Egyptologists I am in communication with and the application of archaeological practices and theory from human evolution to Ancient Egypt (which prehistorians like Professor Fred Wendorf and Associate-Professor Andy Smith, amongst others, also do). In 1995 I was informed that a book called "Fingerprints of the Gods" (FOG) had been published. I subsequently purchased it. I was interested in propositions presented that Antarctica had housed the lost civilisation of Atlantis; that certain maps, like the Piri Reis map, were based upon more ancient copies dating back a few thousand years and portray Antarctica free of ice; that the Olmec Heads display African features; that certain architectural features and myths from South America can be dated back to 10 500 BC; that the mammoths died out in a cataclysm around 10 500 BC; that the ice age had continued until around the epoch of 10 500 BC when the earth's crust shifted dramatically; that domesticated grains were found at Wadi Kubbaniya by Professor Fred Wendorf dating back to c. 10 500 BC, which are claimed in FOG to be remnants of a failed experiment in domestication fuelled by Atlantean teachers in the local populations; that the Sphinx dates to 10 500 BC; and that the Giza pyramids represent exactly the belt stars of Orion as they appeared in 10 500 BC.
I subsequently purchased "The Orion Mystery", watched the documentaries featuring yourselves and John West which appeared on the South Africa pay channel M-Net's documentary program, Carte Blanche. I also heard of a published academic response to "The Orion Mystery", published in KMT (1996) by Robert Chadwick, which I obtained a copy of. Referenced was Dr Jaromir Malek's review of "The Orion Mystery", which Dr Malek kindly volunteered to send me a copy of. Upon further investigation, I found Chadwick's article to be fatally flawed in a number of aspects [NOTE: 11 November 2001. I have reinvestigated Chadwick's article and found my previous criticisms to be invalid. I hold Chadwick's article to be a critical blow against the Orion Correlation idea]. I settled on publishing my response in the magazine "Quest for Knowledge" because at the time I felt it was the easiest route to make my objections publicly known. In hindsight, I committed a grievous error by doing so and I regret not having chosen my other option of first submitting my article to KMT as a formal response. It is a lesson I learned the hard way: when faced with a choice between a prestigious academic publication and a common magazine, the correct method is to opt for the former (I have gone into this point in greater depth in my article on peer-review journals).
A couple of months after "Quest for Knowledge" published my article in a two-part series, Mr Bauval contacted me via e-mail and requested permission to include my article, either as a whole or in part, in a forthcoming book. This book was meant to be an updated version of "The Orion Mystery" but, for reasons already documented by Mr Bauval, the book evolved instead into "The Secret Chamber". I granted permission, with the proviso that I see the relevant sections prior to publication. As "The Secret Chamber" progressed, the focus of the book changed further to the extent it was no longer feasible to include my article; this was a position I fully understood.
By this time I was heavily into researching ancient Egypt. For this, credit has to go to Mr Hancock for having stimulated my interest, as I am aware he has done for many others. Mr Bauval's work heightened my investigations into ancient symbolism and behaviour, not only with Ancient Egypt but also in regard to human evolution. For these two reasons I will always be grateful in some respects to you two. It is quite ironic, in my opinion, after this closer investigation of the archaeological and astronomical evidence, stimulated by yourselves, that I should land up being one of your most vocal critics.
As I advanced in my archaeological training and research, and from discussions with other professional archaeologists and astronomers, fundamental flaws were revealed in your arguments.
FOG's statements regarding Antarctica, the pole shifts, the ancient maps, the mammoths and South America have been disproved. The arguments raised by Mr Hancock on BBC Horizon regarding his dismissal of radiocarbon dating are spurious at best which reveal a distinct lack of knowledge and research on this particular subject and its application thereof. With regard to FOG, "Keeper of Genesis" and the Carte Blanche documentaries, the Sphinx has no cultural, geological and archaeological context at 10 500 BC when, contrary to FOG and your statements in the Carte Blanche documentaries, the Western Desert was in the tail-ends of an arid phase and did not posses a lush savannah-like environment. FOG contends that grindstones in the western desert were used in processing found domesticated grain, dated to the epoch of 10 500 BC. In this contention FOG relies upon Michael Hoffman's summary in "Egypt Before The Pharaohs" (1979) of Professor Wendorf's published work from the late 1970s at Wadi Kubbaniya. Mr Hancock failed to conduct follow-up research and consequently failed to take note of Professor Fred Wendorf's study published in 1988 entitled "New radiocarbon dates and Late Palaeolithic diet at Wadi Kubbaniya, Egypt". Although the latter study, in which Professor Wendorf reports on his research into his original claims and finds then to be without substance, has now been in the public realm for 13 years and has been pointed out on Mr Hancock's website message board on numerous occasions, I have yet to see Mr Hancock make a public retraction of his statements in FOG. This lack of acknowledgement gives lie to Mr Hancock's claim that if he was ever proven wrong on a subject then he will admit as such in the public realm.
The astronomers Dr EC Krupp and Professor Tony Fairall have raised objections to the strict correlation drawn in "Fingerprints of the Gods", "The Orion Mystery" and "Keeper of Genesis" between the Giza pyramids and the belt stars of Orion. In these books, and in the Carte Blanche documentaries, it was repeatedly stated that only in 10 500 BC do the angles of the Giza Pyramids and the angles of the belt stars of Orion match with exacting precision. As Tony Fairall's examination revealed, together with his response to Mr Bauval's criticisms of the BBC Horizon production, the angles are not an exact match and the discrepancies are significant. Mr Bauval, your critique of Associate-Professor Fairall's arguments have included a statement that the differences in the angles involved are within human eye tolerance levels. As much as you seem to criticise some people, with regard to the precision laying out of the Giza pyramids, as not being qualified in engineering so you are not qualified in astronomy and astronomical calculations for citings for stars and their use in precision layouts of buildings. I passed your comments on to Associate-Professor Fairall who responded that if you are correct in your statement, then the Ancient Egyptians must have had very poor eyesight.
Mr Bauval e-mailed me soon after Professor Fairall's critique was first published and requested qualification on various aspects, as I was in contact with Professor Fairall and was familiar with his criticisms. Despite having provided the requested clarifications on numerous occasions, Professor Fairall's argument was misrepresented in "The Secret Chamber". I note that it was after the publication of Professor Fairall's criticism that the "exact angle" argument ceased to be in usage and it was supplanted by the claim that the discrepancies were "insignificant" and that the real significance lies in the visual symbolic relationship between the Giza pyramids and Orion's Belt, as expressed on BBC Horizon. This change in tract whenever valid criticisms are put forward which rebut Mr Bauval and Mr Hancock's arguments smacks of desperation.
It is with regret, Mr Bauval, that I note your tactic of slamming each individual who dares to disagree with your ideas and praise for those who support you. I have experienced this shift from when I was sympathetic to your ideas to my opposition, upon closer examination of the evidence. In case you chose to deny this, I have copies of e-mail correspondence between us. Unlike your recent behaviour on Mr Hancock's message board where you posted e-mails from individuals without permission, thereby breaking copyright, I will not include them here. But please note that I will be keeping them on record and should you press me on this matter by denying this point, I give advance warning that I will not hesitate to release some of their content. Mr Bauval, aside from myself you have slated Dr Hawass and Dr Spence, amongst others. Dr Spence has never said anything publicly offensive about you and yet in your article on Mr Hancock's website you have effectively accused her of dishonesty, fraud and falsifying of evidence to suit her "purpose". A quick investigation into your accusations regarding Dr Spence's Nature article on astronomical pyramid alignment reveals them to be baseless: Polak suggested a related method to that used by Dr Spence, but it does not conform to the criteria set out by Dr Spence. It is useful to note that Polak withdrew his suggested method within a year of publication. The method was known before Polak, having been suggested for timekeeping by Gensler at the end of the 19th C and the use of two stars actually seems to be embedded within folk tradition when there is no polar star. The only accessible references to these works are in Zaba which is clearly referenced in the article. Nature does not usually reference obscure Czech journals or books published in the 1880s, which renders your vocal criticism in this regard invalid; it is a point which renders your vocal criticism in this regard invalid. Zaba did not reject the method for the reasons given by yourself, for the rejection came because it would not prove accurate over time and it was a secondary method. Furthermore, references to the Great Pyramid shafts would have been rightly removed from Dr Spence's as unnecessary to the main thrust of her argument, particularly when it is born in mind that not ever Egyptologist accepts that they are star-shafts. You have also been vocal in voicing criticism over Dr Spence's omission of Haack's article, which is a hypocritical stance considering that you never knew about his article, let along mentioned or referenced it in any of your works, before Dr Spence's article was published. The omission was an unfortunate oversight which happens from time to time in the archaeological discipline and usually does not indicate poor research, nor does it in this case. Finally, the gradient line error was unfortunate but the reality is that it does not affect Dr Spence's result: the calculations done should have converted Cos 30 into azimuth. When 0 is divided by Cos 30 you get 0; therefore the basic date does not change, only the gradient of the line which can be accommodated without problems. The published results are therefore not incorrect as you have claimed.
Mr Bauval, you have claimed that Dr E.C. Krupp supports your claim that Dr Spence's work is fatally flawed. Yet, having spoken with Dr Krupp, he has not examined either the Nature article generally or the astromonical calculations behind Dr Spence's results. Your statement, therefore, is a misrepresentation of the facts and you owe the public and Dr Krupp an apology for the misrepresentation. However, I suspect this will not be forthcoming.
I was recently at the University of Cape Town, where I spoke with Professor Tony Fairall, amongst many other academics. Tony produced a production on the astronomy of the Great Pyramid which runs at the Cape Town Planterium, which he heads. At the end of the production he examines the proposed Giza-Orion and Sphinx-Leo correlations, and finds them to be lacking in substance. The production is now showing in planeteriums across the United States; however, the interesting thing is that almost all of the heads of the American planeteriums had never heard of you, Mr Bauval and Mr Hancock. Contrary to your beliefs, both of you are far from being at the centre of archaeology and academia generally has chosen to ignore your cult beliefs. Scientists examine and evaluate the evidence in proper manners and procedures; it is a lesson both of you would do well to learn. Until such time, both of you will continue sitting on the fringe and be rightly regarded as pseudoscientists.
Mr Bauval, despite your vindictive and false portrayals regarding the Pennsylvania State University conference, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all participants in the debate the best of luck - and for them to have a good time at the local bar afterwards together! In other words, leave your professional disagreements behind you at the conference and relax at night.
I am still waiting for Mr Bauval to point out the alleged "personal insults" made in my article "An analysis of the quality of Graham Hancock's science", and I will keeping on about this matter until I receive a public apology for the false allegations and personal insults which have been hurled in my direction.
Mr Bauval, you have also attempted on Mr Hancock's message board to deride my degrees. At the time of writing this letter I do not have a Masters degree in archaeology, for the simple reason that I have taken two years off degree studying to do my own archaeological studies and to earn money on the side in IT. Make no mistake, I will be returning to university to complete my studies. You appear to be of the opinion that as you have written two best-selling books that means only professors who have had years of archaeological experience and many journal articles behind them are qualified in opposing you, and those who do not have Masters and Doctorate degrees are insignificant. In this you are sadly mistaken and again show a distinct lack of understanding of the functioning of the archaeological profession. For example, one of the foremost rock art researchers in southern Africa is Royden Yates, with whom I have had an acquaintance. Royden is currently employed at the South African Museum and is also extensively involved in the important Blombos Cave project run jointly by Dr Chris Henshilwood (University of Cape Town and the SA Museum) and Associate-Professor Judy Sealy (University of Cape Town). According to the criteria you have set, Royden is not qualified to critique your work if he so choose to. I am afraid on this particular ploy of yours, you are very much incorrect. I have never belittled your engineering degrees and experience, and have never called you any names in public on Mr Hancock's message board; therefore I request a public apology for the personally attacks, name calling and false allegations you have deliberately brought against me.
In December 1997 I was helping with the excavation at the South African West Coast site of Dune Field Midden. Professor John Parkington introduced a group of us to a farmer and restaurant owner about 45 minutes drive away. The farmer/restaurant owner showed us around his grounds, which contained Oldowan stone tools, raw material rock sources and even worn groves in the boulders where it is postulated that australopithecines sat. The guy has no formal training in any form in archaeology. But he has a deep fascination and healthy respect for our hominin past, and he has taken every precaution to preserve his material in situ. He has also educated himself and his scientific knowledge and know-how is phenomenal, and is a credit to him. He understands how science functions. It is a lesson and example many people outside the archaeological discipline would do well to follow.
There is an old saying: if you have got nothing to contribute, don't say anything. Here's another saying: novels sell. Now if you will excuse me, I need to return to the rock art and strontium isotope research which currently occupies my time.
Yours sincerely,