Professor Norman Totten, Islamic historian and archaeologist who has conducted a number of expeditions in the Near East and North Africa, and who teaches a course on the origins of writing, here gives some reasoned consideration to the claims of those archaeologists who deny the reality of New World epigraphy.
The Epigraphic Society
Vol. 9 no 215 June 1981
Occasional Publications
EPIGRAPHIC RESEARCH IN AMERICA
Reply to Archaeologists Denunciations
Norman Totten
Bently College
Preface
I
view Barry Fell as a pioneer, without living peer in epigraphic
decipherment. He is delineating new territory for linguistic
research through his numerous decipherments of ancient languages
and scripts and by the identification of certain Amerindian
languages and scripts of those of the Old World. The implications
of this, as well as the actual meanings of the texts themselves,
create new insights into the past. Already, competent linguists
have confirmed much of his work, often with detailed
evaluations--Imanol Agire, Linus Brunner, Reuel Lochlore, Sanford
Etheridge. Robert Archibald Logan, and others. Most
negative statements about Fell's work, on the other hand, have
come from archaeologists. Many of them find anathema the very
idea of Old World populations and cultures being transplanted to
America in precolumbian times. Generally they avoid linguistic
analysis for which they are not prepared, but challenge the
authenticity or existence of the texts themselves. Each portion
of my reply is made to a specific charge, so as to avoid
unsubstantiated generalities and the mere exchanging of
prejudices. My
reply is not a blanket condemnation of archaeologists. I have
great respect for archaeology and archaeologists and are
part-archaeologist myself, but graduate training, field work,
teaching and interest. I distinguish in my mind between those
whose publications and methodology are as scientific as possible
in today's state of the profession, and a good vocal minority
whose methodology, in part, has run amiss. Also my reply is not a
condemnation of persons or the entire corpus of any given persons
work, for I hold in high regard some writings by individuals whom
I find at fault here. Nor do I consider the quality of all
negative criticisms dealt with to be on one level--some are
reasonable if erroneous. Others are not; some are meant kindly,
others are malicious. I
object to faulty logic, unfounded and unsubstantiated charges,
misrepresentations, fabrications, mischaracterizations, the
presence of untested or badly tested ideas as solid evidence, the
unnecessary use of flag-words, the assumption of authority where
one is incompetent to judge, denunciation based on second hand
and often faulty information, the repetition of negative
accusations based totally on theoretical grounds which do not
correspond with the facts, ad hominem attacks, joining together
the incongruous to establish guilt by association, unwillingness
to correct mistakes once pointed out, turning scholarly
disagreements into emotional causes, trying to force data to fit
preconceived and inappropriate models, defence of public
reputations as if sacred, building cases by omitting important
evidence, blaming one's own fault's, and clairvoyance in
academia. I
have pointed out what I believe to be all these faults, ranging
in frequency from once to many times, in the statements to which
I have made reply. I do not believe such faults to be
characteristic of archaeological criticism as a whole, which is
normally quite scientific, but I have found these faults to occur
frequently in the archaeological criticism of Barry Fell's
epigraphic research and of other scientifically valid
investigations which find evidence for precolumbian transoceanic
influence such as Joseph Mahan's studies of the Yuchi. Balanced
reviews have been written about these matters by archaeologists,
but these call for no reply. Valid
criticism is, of course, sine qua non to scholarly
research. Dispassionate investigation by professional
archaeologists with proper backgrounds to offer constructive
evaluations is needed--for Fell's work, to begin with , and then
for that whole group of scholars who have been similarly and
irresponsibly denigrated for ideas which challenge what amounts
to an academic dogma. Eventually, I believe the evidence of
epigraphy will come to dominate in this area and will discredit
the dogma. A degree of mutual respect necessary for moving the
matter from confromtation to cooperation will be achieved and
both fields will derive benefits from collaborative investigation
of outstanding problems.
Archaeological criticisms are italicized; regular print
constitutes my reply. This article is divided into the following
topics:
Daniels Review Cited As Authoritative
Fundamental Errors In Daniels Review Fell
Accused Of Racism
Cole's Attacks
Accusations Of Unoriginality And Isolationism Word
Lists Condemned
'Missing Artifacts" And Guilt By Association The
Bourne Stone
Polynesian Inscriptions The
Davenport Tablets, Et Cetera The
Inscribed Sherbrooke Boulder Latex
Peals And Lichen Dates Plow
Writing The
Dogma
Fell's Decipherments; Denied By Archaeologists, Confirmed By
Linguists
Bibliography(AMERICA B. C. ) was expertly reviewed in the New York times of 15 March 1977 by professor Glyn Daniel (Cambridge University, England) , it is unfortunate that this did not put an end to its influence.
--Anne Ross and Peter Reynolds, Antiquity (July 1978), 100
The NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW (13 March 1977) described AMERICA B. C. as rubbish. Fell's outraged followers leaped into the fray and accused the reviewer of ignoring the hard facts that support such notions... in purely general terms, the facts do deny Fell's reasoning.
--Nigel Davies, VOYAGERS TO THE NEW WORLD (1979), 153
Glyn Daniel, Disney professor of archaeology at the University of Cambridge, in reviewing Fell's book, along with Ivan Van Sertima's... Fell and Van Sertima do not seem to have read, or at least digested... books, fundamental to their work. indeed they write with an abysmal ignorance of the prehistory of Europe and Africa, which I would have found unacceptable among third year undergraduates I had taught in Cambridge, England.
--Felicia Antonelli Holton, "Celts in New England... in 800 B. C.?" EARLY MAN, MAGAZINE OF MODERN ARCHAEOLOGY (Spring 1980), 13
In the New York Times, the great Cambridge archaeologist, Glyn Daniel eviscerated Fell's book as "ignorant rubbish" and dubbed him a "deluded scholar."
--Peter Gorner, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (May 22, 1980)
REPLY
Despite the unworthyness of Daniel's review, it continues to be quoted as authoritative by some academics and newsmen. Journalists are not expected to be authorities on every subject on which they write, but scholars are.
Glyn Daniel, as a long time editor of ANTIQUITY and also of the book series, "Ancient People and Places" (which has reached 83 volumes with Shaw's NIGERIA in 1978), as well as author of numerous books and articles, and Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge University, wields tremendous influence and power within his discipline. As such he holds above average responsibility for being accurate and fair.
So far as I know, stands by the errors in fact and judgement and the aggravated mischaracterizations in his review and has never retracted any part of it, much less apologized. Replying to various letters protesting the review (NY TIMES May 1, 1977), Daniel again referred to Fell and Van Sertima once again in unsavory terms: "self-deluded", "cranks", "fuddy-duddies", whose works are "nonsensical", "fantasy", "archaeological fiction."
General Mischaracterizations
These two books (Fell's AMERICA B. C. and Van Sertima's THEY CAME BEFORE COLUMBUS)...make very unhappy and depressing reading. I had thought that I had reached the nadir in all this speculative nonsense...but not so, there was more to come. And here it comes in these two books... Why do responsible and accredited professors write such ignorant rubbish? Fell and Van Sertima are deluded scholars... give us badly argued theories based on fantasy.
--Glyn Daniel, NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW (March 13, 1977)
REPLY
Ivan Van Sertima teaches anthropology and linguistics at Rutgers University and edits the JOURNAL OF AFRICAN CIVILIZATION which tends to focus on possible influences of Black Africa in America. His reply (not repeated here) to some of Daniel's errors about his book may be found in the NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW (March 13, 1977)
They have just not done their homework. The books abound in factual and literal errors... There are no authentic Ogam inscriptions outside the British Isles.
--IBID.
This point was later elaborated upon by Ross and Reynolds in the journal which Daniel edits, and has since been widely quoted as authoritative by archaeologists and journalists criticizing Fell:
Ogam is an Irish word for an alphabet based ultimately from late Latin, peculiar to Ireland and to lands settled by the Irish and dating to the fourth century AD at the earliest. It is thus improper to apply the term Ogam to any other alphabet found in association with non-Irish countries or cultures... To speak of Egyptian ogams... is to indulge semantic phantasy of the wildest nature.
--Ross and Reynolds, op. cit, 106 (also in "ANCIENT VERMONT", 139-44)
REPLY
Ogam inscriptions have been published from not only from the Iberian peninsula, but from sites ranging from northern to southern Africa and from Canada to Paraguay. The semantic fallacy shared by Daniel, Ross and Reynolds should be obvious. Are cabbages cabbages only when grown in their native European environs, but no longer so when transferred to America? A particular script should retain its name wherever it is found, and no script should be restrictively defined in terms of the place of its initial identification or of inadequate ideas about its origins.
In any case the belief that Ogam is a native Irish script is itself wrong, for numerous finds of readable Ogam have been reported by Fell and others showing it to have originated outside the British Isles and in an era long antecedent to that of the Roman occupation. As the most recent example, I have just been informed by Fell that he will shortly be recording Ogam inscriptions from Celtic coins from Aquitania and Noricum, dated by Allen (1978) to at least the second century BC.
The megalith builders of Western Europe were not Celts. -- Daniel, op. cit.
We know where the Celts ultimately came from; they came from that corner where Switzerland and France and Germany meet. We have a lot of archaeological evidence for that. We know about their diffusion. We are not certain how the Q-Celts got into Ireland.
--Wilhelm F. H. Nicolaisen, in "ANCIENT VERMONT" edited by Warren L. Cook (1978), 92
REPLY
The question of Celtic origins and the range of dates for European megaliths are far from the settled issues Daniel's and Nicholaisen imply. My own opinion is that when Europe's visual symbols from Upper Paleolithic to Iron Age are better understood, a continuum here and in other material evidences will be identified as at least as important as the east to west migrations of culture in the Iron Age. Hallstatt and La Tene newcomers must have amalgamated with other cultures already in existence in Western Europe. Has any archaeologist seriously suggested that Nicolaisen's migrants completely eradicated the existing populations whose ancestors built Stonehenge and all the rest? The term "Celt" begs for redefinition on other than purely diffusionist grounds which many in the archaeological community have preferred until recent times. The geographical extent of Celtic culture is also due for some serious revisions.
There are no authentic megalith tombs in America, although there are curious structures... they are not megaliths and they are not very ancient, however we may interpret the radio-carbon dates.
-- Daniel, op. cit., 103-4
Certain structures, however that are broadly comparable to those recorded in New England are found in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe (PL. XVIIIa). as the buildings in question are constructed of dry stone walling, the options are fairly limited, and the very diversity of structural method virtually assures some degree of similarity... Buildings of these types... are known from many periods of prehistory and from documented historical times. (Examples from various periods are cited and figure 1 depicts): A typical cleit for storing fuel or hay. Many date to the nineteenth century A. D.
--Ross and Reynolds, op. cit., 103-4
REPLY
Certain European dolmens are virtually identical to some of New England's megalithic structures (several of which carbon dates now place long before Columbus). Daniel's "however we may interpret the radio-carbon dates" is ambiguous and confusing. For if we interpret carbon dates and other form of dating by the same principals in both Europe and America (which we should), then we have solid evidence for the antiquity of some lithic structures in both North and South America.
I have visited megalithic burial grounds at Newgrange, Ireland; West Kennet Long Barrow, England; Barnenez, France; Damiyeh, Jordan; and at sites in Malta, Denmark and elsewhere in Europe. I have also visited various megalithic sites in North and South America. While we cannot yet prove that any of New England's dolmens were, like their topological counterparts in Europe, Asia and Africa, tombs, we can do so at one site in South America.
San Agustin, Columbia, is located near the Equadorean border Archaeologist Reichel-Dolmatoff in his book SAN AGUSTIN (1972, 148) gives a table of 15 radio carbon dates from different sites there ranging from 555 BC +/- 50 to 1630 AD +/- 90. That some of the dolmens at San Agustin were tombs is incontestable as is the proof that similar but slightly larger megalithic structures there were shrines, or temples. Archaeologists who have viewed my slides of San Agustin dolmens, before hearing my commentary have invariably supposed them to be Old World.
Though the statement by Ross and Reynolds is more detailed than that of Daniel, they do seem bent on confusing the issue by grouping later minilithic structures such as "cleits" and "root cellars" with earlier megalithic structures which seem to have been temples and tombs. Archaeologists don't do this in Europe, why insist in doing this in America? If we were discussing horses it would seem out of place to mix in donkeys and proceed to discuss them all together. To include obvious colonial and post-colonial structures in a grouping being investigated as ancient confuses the issue; later structures should be categorized separately, for comparison when desired.
While Daniel is generally regarded as something of an expert on European megaliths, there are significant problems in his stated views about those in America. For information about America's lithic structures, the reader should consult not only Fell, but also the BULLETIN of the early Sites Research Society, publications of NEARA, and Salvatore Trento's THE SEARCH FOR LOST AMERICA (1978).
American pyramids are temple platforms; the Egyptian pyramids are tombs.
--Daniel, op. cit.
REPLY
Again we face an absolute statement which is simply not true. While some American pyramids were indeed temple platforms, as Daniel says, others were definitely tombs. Others, still, served both functions simultaneously. Twice I have stood deep within the pyramid known as the "Temple of the Inscriptions" at Palenque, Mexico to gaze upon the sarcophagus of Pacal. Steps leading from the temple floor, atop the pyramid, down to the tomb within the pyramid were discovered in 1952. The tomb is dated by inscription to 683 AD. Yale archaeologist Michael Coe described this in his book THE MAYA (1966, no. 52 in Daniel's "Ancient People and Places" series). Coe told me fairly recently that he believes more Maya tombs within pyramids await discovery at Palenque and elsewhere.
Once I crawled into the great pyramid at Cholula and was shown burial locations. Sahagun was told by Amerindians shortly after Cortes' conquest that the Mexican pyramids were burial places for their kings. Although it is hardly within the scope of this paper to deal with comparative typology of uninscribed artifacts, small or monumental, much suggestive evidence of this sort exists, to link the Old and New Worlds--e.g., Europoid characteristics of the Northeast's earliest pottery (Alice Kehoe "Small Ships upon the North Atlantic," in MAN ACROSS THE SEA , eds. Carroll Riley, et al, 1971, 275-92).
Egyptian pyramids of the Old Kingdom, in addition to being tombs, were also symbols for the sun, the primary deity at the time, and all of them had both funerary and valley temples attached to them as integral parts of their total plans. Following the Old Kingdom, the mortuary temple of Mentuhotep I at Deir al Bahri, Thebes, was topped by a pyramid. It may seem unkind to suggest it, but in view of Daniel's acerbic and accusatory review, one can hardly help but wonder if his kind of misinformation is what he expected from his third-year archaeology students and would have preferred to have found in AMERICA B. C. Daniels views here are badly outdated.
I am astonished that you publish such folderol as Barry Fell's (Chapter 1 of AMERICA B. C.) There is a curious nineteenth-century racism in an approach that must derive the accomplishments of native cultures and civilizations from the civilizations of the Old World, most particularly those of Western Europe, the Celts and Egypt. article .
--C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, SATURDAY REVIEW (December 11, 1976), 6
That Native Americans were intellectually unequipped to create the monuments they left behind without outside assistance--this notion was particularly useful, and most often made explicit, during the nineteenth century, when the presumed racial inferiority of Indians and the rush to open lands to non-Indian settlement were conveniently joined. Yet it remains silently with us, expressing itself even today in the ease with which the public accepts hypotheses of visits to prehistoric America by people from other continents and even other worlds.
--Dean R. Snow, VERMONT HISTORY (Winter, 1980), 33
"Saga America" is either a delusion or a cynical exploitation of people's honest enthusiasm for the romance of archaeology. To the considerable extent the book camouflages or denigrates the accomplishments of native Americans (and serious scholars), it is regrettable indeed... Thoughtful readers will come to Barry Fell not to praise him.
--John R, Cole, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (June 9, 1980)
REPLY
To view the possibility of significant precolumbian contacts between the Old World and the new, including interhemispheric voyages, as racist, or to assume that all accomplishments must have come from outside if any did, are illogical ideas.
While I do not know all the ethnic backgrounds of most members of the Epigraphic Society, a number of us are descended, in whole or part from a variety of Native American tribes (my ancestry is part Choctaw). We support Barry Fell's work and appreciate him as a scholar and a human being, which is not the same as saying that we are his "disciples" or agree with every interpretation he makes. We do not consider him a frivolous scholar, as Cole suggests, nor ourselves as "unthoughtful" as Cole further suggests.
I am unaware of even the slightest racism against Amerindian's on Fell's part. To the contrary. He has always shown deep appreciation for America's ancestral cultures and has been both thoughtful and gracious in consulting members of a variety of tribes about such matters. While it is certainly true that Fell questions prevailing archaeological views about the roots of some Amerindian cultures, his work does not denigrate nor does it imply racial antipathies.
It seems particularly out of place for archaeologists repeatedly to level the charge of racism on totally theoretical grounds and in contrast to Fell's own good relations with members of various Amerindian tribes. Cole's statement lacks integrity, as it suggests, in addition, that Fell may be cynically exploiting the public.
If the reader remains unconvinced about the ridiculousness, if not unkindness, of charging racism on theoretical grounds, he should read George F. Carter's forthcoming "Invention, Diffusion and Racism (CANADIAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL), which show that those who employ this approach are more vulnerable to the charges of being racist than those whom they so label. His tongue-in-cheek argument, in brief: Since all major races of the world were present in precolumbian America, if one race is at fault, all races are at fault, which is nonsense. If Amerindians developed their civilization(s) in isolation then they are an absolute exception, as no other civilization so arose. If the Amerindians, in a much shorter period of time, reproduced virtually everything achieved in the Old World over a much longer period of time, then they must be a super race. But to argue this is to advance virtually a Hitlerian theme of The Great Race, certainly a racist concept.
Background Information
In the November 1978 issue if the BULLETIN (New York State Archaeological Association), John R. Cole reviewed the "Ancient Vermont" held at Castleton State College (October 14 and 15, 1977). In that article entitled "Barry Fell, AMERICA B. C., and a Cargo Cult in Archaeology," he accuses members on the program of hostility toward science and implies that they wanted to cut off government support to archaeological research. Sometimes he uses the term "scientific" when "professional" is appropriate. He seems to assume, however, that he himself is a scientist because of his archaeological training and special interests. He defines science in a footnote for his Fellow archaeologist readers of the BULLETIN.
Cole has continued his attacks against Fell and others whose opinions he does not like in numerous articles and speeches. In my own opinion, Coles own review refutes his claim to interpret science correctly. He says that Fell made "an obvious play to enlist the religious"--absolute nonsense. He accuses those on the program of staging a revival for true believers--further nonsense. Cole seems bent of forcing conference events into his own predetermined mental template, which views the scholarly investigations with those with whom he disagrees as cult phenomena, whether they are or not. In the case of Fell and Castleton, they were not.
We are all one, with God, and there is no need to think about evidence of cultural evolution and diversity or to question whether or not the Judaeo-Christian ethic is the 'right' way: of course it is and don't worry any more about cultural relativism! thus saith Fell...
Bigfoot and UFO sightings, Loch Ness monster research interest in witchcraft and astrology, renewed enthusiasm for Velikovosky and Atlantis claims, anti-evolutionism and other non-scientific 'solutions' to contemporary problems seemed to be clustered together at this assembly. Egyptian colonies in America and all the other Fell claims fit into this syndrome which both leads and capitolizes upon a general dissatisfaction with the way things are, channeling general malaise into an active yet safe anti-elitism and antiestablishmentarianism...
A crackpot syndrome of hypersensitiveness, disregard for rules of scientific logic, denigration of professionals, assumption of a maligned underdog stance, and slipshod use of evidence... the result is a sort of cargo cult phenomema.
--Cole, BULLETIN, 1-2
REPLY
It is easy enough to check the transcript of what Fell and others said. It is all recorded in Cooks volume, "ANCIENT VERMONT." Cole's statements are sheer fabrication, both the words and characterizations. Fell has never talked or written even remotely similar to the words Cole puts into his mouth. Cole presents his own illusionary world and presents it to his readers as reality.
Cole appears not to distinguish between things that create within him a similar response. Seemingly, in Cole's mind Fell belongs with Bigfoot and witchcraft and all the other. By wedding the incongruous he apparently regards Fell as a mountebank who would upset tradition and world order and bring in all the boogies.
Cole seems to be forcing some abstract characterizations of cult phenomena into an alien situation, rather than accurately describing what actually took place. This Alice-in-Wonderland approach that can only be convincing to those ignorant of the facts, but can be supported by those who wish to discredit Fell in any way possible. Though I participated in and attended the entire "Ancient Vermont" Conference, I cannot recognize what I experienced from Cole's descriptions. Furthermore, I have known Barry Fell for a number of years; so far afield are Cole's characterizations of him that they might as well be of a total stranger.
Scholars in linguistics, archaeology and history have scorned his conclusions and methods--reinforcing a tinge in martyrdom which Fell and his friends wear like a badge of honor. After all, they laughed at Galileo and Pasteur, too. But of course, they also laughed at Laurel and Hardy.
Like Tolkien, Fell has invented a self-contained fantasy world, But Fell represents his as scientific reality. On the whole I find Fell's fantasy less consistent and believable.
Inscriptions such as the Kensingston Stone, Spirit Pond Stones, and Iowa Tablets have long been exposed as hoaxes, but Fell cites them as if they had never been challenged...
Fell is a prophet in an archaeological cult. In the name of science he tells people they should believe in him and share in the secrets of civilization. Disdainful of the experts, he gives easy answers to complex questions. His evidence is illusory, erroneous and unsubstantiated, but he raises a powerful call to belief...
"Saga America" belongs in library collections next to (the) Bermuda Triangle, Bridey Murphy, and fad and cult items... a peculiar genre of wishful thinking, and is worth reading only to that extent.
--Cole, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (JUNE 9, 1980)
REPLY
This is not a book review, but a personal attack where every sentence distorts the facts through innuendo, mischaracterization, and misleading quotations. Overcoming his tendency to sidestep specific evidence Cole writes:
Inscriptions such as the Kensington Stone, the Spirit Pond
Stones, and
Iowa Tablets (sic) have long been exposed as hoaxes but
Fell cites
them as if they had never been challenged. Fell has never published a single word about the Spirit Pond Stones. Referring to the Kensingston Stone in SAGA AMERICA (368-9), Fell summarixes evidence both for and against its authenticity. And although he believes for linguistic reasons the Davenport Tablets (Cole's "Iowa Tablets") to be genuine, he has acknowledged challenges to their authenticity each time he has cited them.
Cole's assessment of Fell and his associates' personal motives are as groundless as his statements about the inscriptions. Those who have worked with them know that it is totally untrue to refer the "tinge of martyrdom which Fell and his friends wear like a badge of honor." To write that "Fell is a prophet in an archaeological cult" and that "SAGA AMERICA belongs in library collections next to the Bermuda Triangle, Bridey Murphy, and fad and cult items" is a serious charge and based upon serious evidence, but Cole can offer only more distortions, fabrications, and unfounded claims. Clearly it is Cole, not Fell, who is "dwelling in a fantasy world."
Why has the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR compromised itself as a vehicle for responsible journalism by printing and widely disseminating such fabrications and distortions, without editorial comment or an article accurately portraying Fell's research?
John R. Cole was listed in 1977 as a member of the Anthropology Department, Hardwicke College, Onetona, NY. In 1978 he was listed as Member-at-Large, SUNY College, Onetona, NY. In early 1980 he was listed as Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amhurst. In the fall of 1980 he is listed as Assistant Professor at Northern Iowa University. That his polemics against Fell, Cook and others constitute injustice through misrepresentation does not seem to matter to him. I should think he would want to be known for positive contributions toward the understanding of precolumbian America, but apparently not.
Cole has had at least one opportunity to realize the fallacious nature of some of his charges, but he ignored the corrections and went on attacking (in which he has certainly had the support of a number of editors).
Warren Cook answered his initial assault upon the integrity of the Vermont Conference (RUTLAND DAILY HERALD, Cole's letter October 24, 1977, and Cook's reply, October 28, 1977) first by characterizing its nature ("a long, intemperate and unjustified attack... the unfairness of his first two charges typifies the closed-mindedness of the remainder"), answering the first part of it with solid information. Cook's task in organizing, carrying out, then publishing the proceedings of the "Ancient Vermont" conference with very limited resources, called for considerable work on his part and was successfully and excellently accomplished.
Cole's review is followed in the BULLETIN (November 1978) by another garbled account of the conference, by Kendall Wild, editor of the RUTLAND DAILY HERALD. He was an invited participant at the conference, but his extensive coverage of it in his newspaper was filled with numerous errors of fact and negative judgements. In one letter of rebuttal which he printed (Oct. 26, 1977), Gloria Farley, then president of the Eastern Oklahoma Historical Society and a conference participant) pointed out, among other things, four errors he had made in reporting briefly on my presentation. Wild wrote (Oct. 15, 1977) that I had claimed a bronze age ingot from Cyprus was found in Arsansas, an ancient coin was taken from a horses hoof in Illinois, a Sicilian coin was found in eastern Oklahoma, a coin of Nero was found in western Arkansas--all inaccurate accounts of what I had said.
Supposedly Wild heard my presentation, saw the color slides illustrating objects about which I talked, read Farley's letter which he printed, read Cook's published transcript of the conference which he proceeded to lambast (see the excerpts that follow)--yet the identical mistakes reappear uncorrected in the BULLETIN. While my own presentation and assessments rightly should continue to be challenged in scholarly manner, journalistic license should not be condoned when writers refuse to correct mistakes once pointed out. I have become aware of one error in my presentation, a statement concerning Jewish shekels, but Wild missed this one as did all others whose reports on the conference I have read.
Here is an example of Wild's journalism, from the HERALD (Feb. 20, 1978), entitled "Tripe Report." It is reprinted in the aforementioned BULLETIN article, 8-9
CRITICISM
Castleton College has put out a publication called "proceedings of the ancient Vermont conference held at Castleton Oct. 14-15, 1977." Castleton State ought to be spanked for perpetuating any such thing. They are charging $10 up to March 1 and $12 after that date and it's an outrage either way. Anybody who would spend $10 for the trash that was perpetuated at that "conference" might as well put the money on a milepost and hope some indigent makes some use of it. Let us examine the reasons that have gone into such a statement, based on the evidence at hand:
There were no Celts in pre-Columbian Vermont. The so-called "settlements" are not of pre-Columbian derivation. The so-called "inscriptions" are not inscriptions and practically all of them are not even any language. It is misleading to refer to "lithic sites" since that carries a connotation of scientific proof of pre-Columbian origin, and there is no proof of that and considerable belief to the contrary. Some who ought to know better have referred to the markings on various stones as "Ogam." Such a reference displays an ignorance of the provenence of Ogam writing, and the time in which it was used. Ignorance, in fact, is what the Castleton "proceedings" publication panders to: ignorance of history, ignorance of anthropology, ignorance of linguistics, ignorance of this region's own cultural and economic background...
Making money out of unscientific junk by calling it something scientific is shameful. To perpetuate it on an unsuspecting public is base. It is vile. The best thing that could have happened to the "Ancient Vermont" conference would have been to have it forgotten forever except for an occasional twinge of conscience on the part of the promoters when they realized what tripe they had been dishing out...
--Kendall Wild, RUTLAND DAILY HERALD (Feb 20, 1978), 8-9
REPLY
Wild's emotions run deep, and he makes no effort to disguise his strong personal biases. Cook's volume is actually a bargain at today's publishing prices-- 172 large-format, tupeset pages, plus 73 high-quality black and white photographs.
Fell's selection of 'hard facts' bristles with detailed omissions. In the first place, the true specialists in each of his many chosen fields of study have shown that his epigraphy is often wrong, and his knowledge of the language defective. A leading authority on the Algonquian, Dr Ives Goddard, formerly of Harvard and now working for the Smithsonian Institution, says that Fell's work on that tongue is full of errors of analysis and interpretation.
--Davies, op. cit., 153-4
The quest for frivolous solutions to serious problems is endowed in AMERICA B. C. with the status of a cause... (Quoting Fell Davies redefines for his readers Fell's "colleagues and other associates" as "pseudo-experts," then continues) Professor Fell is surely indebted to Noah, who pressed into his ark every species of the animal kingdom an thereby preserved them for study by future zoologists. His own feat, in assembling every breed of Old World Man in Ancient New England, if not comparable to Noah's is so remarkable that it must be the work of a crank or a genius. But alas! for every crank that turns out to be a genius, there are ninety-nine who remain cranks.
REPLY
Davies statements about the "true specialists" in each field finding Fell often wrong and defective is untrue. AMERICA B. C. was written for the public at large and in it Fell frequently refers the reader to more specialized analysis and detail in the EPIGRAPHIC SOCIETY OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS. Davies seems to know nothing about these, in which a constant stream of linguists confirm major parts of Fell's work.
Although Goddard is a specialist in Algonquian languages ("Eastern Algonquian languages, "HANDBOOK OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS, Smithsonian, 1978 70-7), are his views to be taken automatically preemptive over those of native Algonquian linguists who have shown positive interest in Fell's work and collaborate with him? What about the opinions of scholars like Bernard Francis of the Micmac tribal Cultural Center in Nova Scotia, working on a needed new Micmac dictionary and a linguistic consultant to Fell and the Epigraphic Society; Robert Archibald Logan, a Fellow of the Epigraphic Society and author of the analytical Cree dictionary which the Cree themselves find to be the best treatment of their etymology and grammar; and Stephen Laurent who has been diligently compiling an Abanaki dictionary for many years and supports Fell's work?
Fell differs from other self appointed experts...Fell's ideas, far from being new are mere variants on well worn themes... Like so many other eccentrics, the sponsor of the weird if unoriginal ideas works in isolation from professional colleagues.
--Ibid., 153-6
His claims don't amount to anything, just a rehash of old stuff. Fell is a distinguished marine biologist but an amateur archaeologist. He never has been associated with our department in any way...Not a scrap of evidence points to any unknown pre-Columbian visitors to America.
--Gordon R. Willey, as reported in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE (May 22, 1980)
REPLY
Davies and Willey have both published works about precolumbian America, in which they have either ignored or denied the validity of evidence pointing to the possibility of precolumbian voyages. It is understandable that they might be defensive about their life works.
But what has "self-appointment" got to do with anything? Who appointed Champollion to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs? Who appointed Ventris to decipher Linear B? For that matter. Who appointed Davies to judge the ability of an epigrapher?
Willey's statement is a bit more balanced, relatively speaking but he misunderstands the nature of Fell's research. He is certainly not alone in this, but it is unfortunate that he cannot see linguistic evidence when laid out before him. Fell is not an archaeologist, professional or amateur, but an epigrapher--whose research overlaps many fields, including archaeology. Despite his misconceptions of Fell, Willey's place in American archaeology is distinguished and assured.
The only way Willey, Davies, or any archaeologist can seriously believe Fell to be unoriginal is by ignoring what he's all about, his linguistic research, and by grouping him in the most general terms with others who believed in precolumbian voyages to America. Fell makes no claims to have originated such broad ideas. Thus, the accusation is out substance.
The charge that Fell works in isolation from professional colleagues is likewise false. He spends virtually every morning in correspondence, much of it with professional colleagues around the world, and his guestbook reads like an international Who's Who of scholars. That he does not work closely with Harvard colleagues is hardly his fault. I attended several Harvard symposia about Fell's research, and even chaired one of them in 1975, to which such scholars were invited. Attendance by linguists and archaeologists was poor. Fell sent numbers of his earlier papers to Harvard linguists and archaeologists without receiving any response; finally he stopped this, considering unacknowledged communication to be meaningless.
In fairness to those who have shown no interest and made no public judgements, one should remember that sometimes research interests can be quite narrow, though designated publicly in more general terms. A "Celtic scholar" for example may have actually specialized in Highland Fling and may have scant interest and working familiarity with ancient Gaelic or Ogam. Certainly not everybody has to be interested in epigraphy or archaeology or how America was settled.
I attended an archaeology class taught by Michael Mosely and Ruth Tringham, then both of the Harvard Peabody Museum, in which Fell was guest lecturer. Numbers of Harvard archaeologists were present and commented on his lecture, though not always in a friendly or understanding manner (Mosely himself was quite fair). One, for example, accused Fell of lacking elementary understanding of ocean currents. Though Fell chose to make no response to this, he had previously lectured by invitation on this very topic at Wood's Hole Oceanographic Institute--the archaeologist was ignorant of both Fell and ocean currents. Another archaeologist proclaimed forcefully that ancient Libyan bore no relation to ancient Egyptian, though he knew neither language and Fell works with both. Fell is the first person in modern times to be able to read ancient Libyan, an achievement confirmed by Libyan scholars.
Like so many of his kind, Fell is a champion player of the word-list game; a mere fifteen allegedly common words prove that Algonquian derives from Egyptian, and a further eight words link Algonquian to Norse... the absurdity of this approach. --Davies, op. cit., 156
REPLY
Fell here is identified as "of his kind," meaning those who follow an absurd approach to linguistics. Word lists, like anything else, can be misused or misunderstood. Davies is aware of the first and guilty of the second. He seems to think that all word lists are a deceptive game, because he has seen some so employed.
Fell has published several additional papers on the Micmac manuscripts since AMERICA B. C., involving discussions of grammar and decipherment. Fell has classified considerably more than 1,000 Algonguian words, not 15 and 8. I am astonished at Davies ignorance of the development of the subject. He obviously has ignored the Bibliography in AMERICA B. C. and the EPIGRAPHIC SOCIETY OF OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS altogether. Furthermore, he should know that word lists are part of the basic material linguists use to indicate probable linguistic affinities, whether intrinsic or by borrowing.
Fell blithely ignores the negative archaeological evidence; not one single artifact has been found to support his views. Like von Daniken's Martians who visited the Maya, Fell's Celts and Phonecians packed their bags very meticulously and left not a single utensil behind. By way of contrast, as we shall see later, Helga Ingstad's painstaking digs did prove a Viking presence in Newfoundland...
Fell writes in deadly earnest. Really, von Danikin's belief that astronauts were at work in AD 800 on Easter Island... is no wilder, and spacemen are more entertaining to write about than Libyans or Celts...
Gordon's general views on pre-Columbian matters do not inspire confidence... The Paraiba inscription serves to show that some people, if given an inch will take a mile... Efforts to link Egypt with America continue unabated. Certain endevors are based on the so-called science of pyramidology whereby arbitrary measurements taken from Egyptian and other pyramids enable students of the occult to prove any theory that they wish.
--Davies, op. cit.,153, 155, 158
REPLY
Fell has not criticized Davies; he did not even know of his existence until I pointed it out. By jumping into a field where his inadequacies show, Davies has managed to compile error and contempt upon each other. Despite his compendium-like collection of interesting information, he has managed it badly, and his latest book, VOYAGERS TO THE NEW WORLD, does him no credit. In particular he should at least have studied Fell before attacking him.
Though he is by no means the only person to have made such statements, Davies misleads his readers in a variety of ways. First, inscriptions are artifacts. So are stone heads and other sculpture, including bas-reliefs and engravings of elephants and horses and ships. So are coins, inscribed ax-heads, swords, pottery and so on. Fell referred to many of these and illustrated some of them in AMERICA B. C. (1976) and still others in SAGA AMERICA (1980). While most such finds do not come from carefully excavated sites, some do.
Second, it maligns a serious scientist like Fell to identify and equate him with the methodologically unscientific research of von Danikin, whose views Fell does not espouse. While Davis is almost certainly wrong about the Paraiba inscription, his linking a distinguished linguist with a following paragraph on pyramidology and the occult is an unfair attempt to establish "guilt by association."
Third, it seems strange to condemn Fell for not being an archaeologist, since, as has already been pointed out, he is an epigrapher. Shouldn't Fell be judged for what he has done and not for what he doesn't claim to do? Is Davies "an authoritative archaeologist" as the dust jacket on his book refers to him? He makes numbers of elementary mistakes which one would hardly expect of an authoritative archaeologist writing in his own field (Davies' special expertise: Aztecs and Toltecs). Some examples may be worth pointing out.
Davies seems to enjoy upsetting straw men, then knocking them down (8, 17). He appears not to know that the potter's wheel was used in America as early as 500 AD (Grieder, ARCHAEOLOGY, July 1975, 178-85), or, seemingly that draft animals would be needed to pull a plow (14). He facetiously assumes that if there were a first Chinese junk to reach America, that it could be found if the entire Pacific Ocean were drained and searched (16). He seems unaware of the widely publicized man-made holed stones found off the coast of southern California in 1972 and 1975, believed by some Chinese and American archaeologists to be precolumbian Chinese anchors and a "messenger stone" used to strip seaweed accumulations from anchor ropes or chains.
Davies refers to Neanderthal people as "brutish and beetlebrowed" and not Homo sapiens (28), and goes on to make the peculiar statement that Homo sapiens "was not necessarily much more intelligent than his forerunners (Neanderthal), whose cranial capacity was similar. He merely knew more because there was more to know." (28) Such simplistic distinctions take no account of differences in the crucial portion of the brain having to do with speech and dexterity, or the pharynx. Most physical anthropologists now classify Neanderthals as Homo sapiens. There is little doubt, based on surviving evidence, that the European successor to Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, made quantum leaps over previous technology and visual symbolism.
Davies thinks clothing and "primitive dwellings" were invented only in the "closing phase of the Old Stone Age." (28) While it is, of course, possible that Tierra del Fuego type nudity is the answer, clothing is at least implied by the Lower and Middle Paleolithic fossils of man (Heidelberg, Swanscomb, Neanderthal) found in northern Europe. The idea that Neanderthal was a nudist may be one of Davies' original contributions. That he was not a builder is contrary to well-published evidence. Multiple dwelling foundations at Terra Amata, Nice, some 300,000 years old have been well known since their excavation since 1966, and possible hut foundations at Olduvai Gorge date back to nearly 2,000,000 years.
Davies uses the word "history" inappropriately; "the last ten million years of the world's history.": History refers to the human past, and the larger part, before writing is called prehistory. But he refers to The Ten Lost Tribes as captive in Babylon (141). In fact, they were dispersed by Assyrians in 722 BC and only the two remaining tribes of Judah were taken to Babylon in 586 BC by the Chaldeans.
CRITICISM
(Fell) claims that a stone inscription, discovered on Cape Cod by English settlers in 1653 and recently found by Hindus embedded in a flight of steps, is really Phonecian and proclaim the annexation of Massachusetts by Phonecian Kin Hanna.
--Davies, op. cit., 234
Another stone with some recent miscellaneous markings is deciphered to read that General Hanno annexed Massachusetts for the Carthaginian empire.
--Marshall McKusick, ARCHAEOLOGY (Jan.-Feb. 1981), 66
REPLY
AMERICA B. C. (160) contains a drawing of this inscription, together will Fell's decipherment (Punic tongue, Iberian script): " A proclamation of annexation. By this Hanno takes posession." Reference is there made to its fuller treatment in ESOP, II, no. 44 (1975). Nowhere does he refer to a "Kin Hanna" or "General Hanno" or assume the annexation referred to present state boundaries of Massachusetts. The first he or I have heard of Hindu associations with the stone is Davies report of them. The stone isn't even mentioned in SAGA AMERICA which McKusick is supposedly reviewing, and since the stone has been recorded since the seventeenth century, why McKusick calls its markings "recent" is a mystery.
If so, this is all the more reprehensible in view of his own words praising another writer: "Instead of blindly accepting second-hand reports of the original sources, (he) studiously consults them for himself." (161) Davies isn't alone in this, however. I met one archaeologist and heard of others, who criticizing AMERICA B. C., when pressed on the matter, admitted they had never seen the book. Apparently some scholars think Fell's research worth debunking, but not worth investigating; the responsibility for this goes pretty deep. Why did Davies feel confident to attack Fell at length without consulting his work. Some apologies are in order, but one doubts that they will be forthcoming--especially in ways equal to the damage done.
Ross Clark, senior lecturer in linguistics at Aukland University, states in an article in the NEW ZEALAND LISTENER ( 16 April 1977 ) that Fell and his leading New Zealand apostle, Dr R.A. Lochore, are both deficient in their knowledge of Maori and other Polynesian dialects. Another New Zealander, Dr A.K. Pawley of the Department of Linguistics of the University of Hawaii, writes that Fell's rendering of a Maori chant makes little sense to him. Dr Kenneth P. Emory, of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, the father of modern Polynesian studies, regards Fell's incursions into his field as ludicrous and told me that what he portrays as Polynesian writing has never been seen in Polynesia...
As Ross Clark also points out in his article, Fell produced an Egyptian-Libyan rendering of a set of rock carvings from Pitcairn Island, working from a version of these carvings published as long ago as 1870 in Richard Taylor's TE IKA A MAUI. But Otago University archaeologists recently obtained an accurate copy of the glyphs, which showed the Taylor version had been much altered and rearranged to fit on a single page. Fell's decipherment would not work on the correct version of the inscription and was withdrawn.
--Davies, op. cit., 154
REPLY
Not all Polynesian authorities agree with the negative assessments of Clark, Pawley and Emory. Maui Pomare, a New Zealand Maori Chief and prominent researcher of Polynesian culture and language, is the Polynesian representative of the Epigraphic Society and supports Fell's work. Sidney Mead, head of Maori Studies at Victoria University, New Zealand is at least aware and open to Fell's work. Ruel Lochlore is not an "apostle," but he is a competent New Zealand linguist who supports Fell, and has verified some of his decipherments.
Fell is hardly a Polynesian interloper. He grew up in New Zealand, and has traveled widely throughout the Pacific in World War II. He learned his first polynesian legends and Polynesian words from Maori schoolmates and continued his research into polynesian backgrounds during his eighteen year university teaching career in New Zealand. His initial paper on Polynesian petroglyphs was published in July 1941.
Kenneth Emory of the Bishop Museum holds an honored position in Polynesian studies. I have three letters from him (Dec. 31, 1974; Feb. 1, 1975; July 22, 1975), to which he thoughtfully added numbers of articles and other attachments, including an old Polynesian stamp for my son's collection. How could I wish him anything but well, even if I can't agree with his evaluation of Fell's research?
Though Fell is an expert on Polynesian matters, I am not, and unfortunately, at the time many communications (including one from Ross Clark, July 30, 1975) were going on I was unable to give these matters the attention they deserved--I was writing a doctoral dissertation on medieval coinage while also teaching full time.
I don't blame anyone in particular for what happened then, But there were failures in communication. Fell's research came as a shock to some Polynesian authorities, who had been unaware of it, and his claims countered established views about the origins of Polynesian language. His initial studies of the Easter Island and Polynesian scripts also countered prevailing views about them. Fell was surprised by some of the hostile reaction reported in the press and by letter. Also the Epigraphic Society was founded initially (we later decided, mistakenly) as the "Polynesian Epigraphic Society," corresponding with the bulk of Fell's research at that time. Beginning with seven founding members in 1974, we now have members in all fifty states and nearly as many countries, including major research libraries in about 30 countries.
During this period of the societies growth, Fell's knowledge of ancient scripts and his experience at deciphering them continued to increase in both range and depth. He had considerably more, as yet unpublished, work on the Easter Island script. While he has made mistakes, as with the Pitcairn island text, indications of affinity between ancient Libyan and Polynesian have increased, rather than diminished. What will probably happen (my basically uneducated guess, not necessarily Fell's opinion) is that eventually some integration of theories between the currently favored "Austronesian" grouping and Fell's evidence for Libyan affinities will take place, resulting in a much more accurate understanding of the origin of the Polynesian language and peoples. Also I do expect that the currently favored opinion that the Easter Island script is a post-European-contact attempt to develop writing will give way to Fell's view that it is rather the somewhat degenerate but still readable residue of an earlier more literate form of script.
Exactly how much material is being held back to avoid the kind of abuse dealt with in this paper is conjectural, but it is quite likely considerable. I have heard of several linguists who are waiting about publishing Indo-European or Asian roots to Amerindian languages not studied by Fell. Once it has become possible to publish presently unorthodox opinions without severe risks to reputations and work, numbers of linguists who have been deferring such research will probably come forth and the linguistic issues may be elucidated more rapidly than would seem likely at the present.
CRITICISM
Not content with using rock tests that have been doctored or are that are merely written in natures own handwriting, Fell avails himself of inscriptions that professional epigraphers have shown to be frauds. In 1877, the Reverend Jacob Gass found several tablets in an Indian burial mound at Davenport, Iowa. One of these, known as the Davenport Tablet, was once compared by the READERS DIGEST to the Egyptian Rosetta Stone.
Much more recently, however, officials of the Smithsonian Institution established that the tablets in question were frauds, planted alongside authentic Indian artifacts. And, in 1970, Marshall McKusick, state archaeologist of Iowa, actually wrote a book called THE DAVENPORT CONSPIRACY in which he assembled massive evidence of trickery, including testimony by Davenport residents that the tablets had been made in the basement of the Davenport Academy...
None of this deterred Barry Fell from writing in 1976 at some length on the davenport tablet, which he calls one of the most important stelae ever discovered and describes as a priceless treasure. Whatever one may think of his other endevors, to write in such terms without even mentioning McKusick's book is unscientific.
--Davies, op. cit., 154-5
(Fell) deliberately misleads the public. I have written proof relative to the Davenport 'Rosetta Stone' that he was informed by the Putnam Museum staff that artifacts spurious origin prior to publication of AMERICA B. C. and yet he gave his readers no warning about the nature of the evidence against it.
--McKusick, ANTIQUITY (July 1980), 155
Fell provides us with a pretentious series of revelations, a visionary imagining, speculative might-have-beens, all constructed on phony artifacts, phony coins, phony inscriptions, make believe history and preposterous linguistics. He has previously erred, and in deceiving himself has deceived the reading public. The fraudulent Davenport tablets of Iowa and an aboriginal petroglyphic tablet from Long Island become "Egyptian" texts.
--McKusick, ARCHAEOLOGY (Jan.-Feb. 1981), 65-66
REPLY
While no professional epigraphers have shown these tablets to be frauds, as Davies states, and contrary to McKusick's erroneous charges in ANTIQUITY that he did not warn his readers of evidence against its authenticity, Fell noted in AMERICA B. C. (262) "Scholars at Harvard and the Smithsonian Institution declared it to be a forgery," then presented linguistic reasons why he believes these particular tablets to be genuine.
Since then, further strong epigraphic evidence for authenticity has been brought to light. After AMERICA B. C. was published, Fell read Heizer and Baumhoff's PREHISTORIC ROCK ART OF NEVADA AND EASTERN CALIFORNIA (1962), and traveled to those states to examine some of the sites and to consult with one of the authors, the esteemed archaeologist Robert F. Heizer. At the time Heizer's work was published there was no question in his mind about writing and he was vigorously anti-diffusionist. Before his death, however, Heizer concurred that Fell's decipherment of his desert-varnished petroglyphs (in this case, his figure 19a) seemed correct, and he had planned a joint publication on this with Fell. Arabic scholars have verified Fell's decipherment of the letters as Kufi Arabic as correct.
Though there seems to be little question about the precolumbian dating of these inscriptions and related petroglyphs, if desert varnishes become more precisely datable through trace elements, as now appears likely, this method of dating will move from relative to absolute. See "An Ancient Zodiac from Inyo, California" (ESOP VIII, 1979, 9-14), or SAGA AMERICA (108-9). The text of the Inyo inscription matches in meaning the particular Davenport tablet in question.
McKusick's, THE DAVENPORT CONSPIRACY is an interesting and worthwhile publication, in that it records a lot of relevant archival material. His evidence for the faking of artifacts, effigy pipebowls and tablets, is partly convincing and partly unconvincing. He presents no "massive evidence of trickery," as Davies states, regarding the slate tablets (McKusick, plates 1-3). The "several tablets" to which Davies refers as having been found in 1877 were actually two, with one now split into two halves. As with AMERICA B. C., Davies has not referenced THE DAVENPORT CONSPIRACY in footnotes or bibliography and was apparently basing his views on it on second hand information, some of which was obviously wrong.
While McKusick believes the Davenport tablets to be fakes, his book does not prove this. He himself is careful to point out chronological limitations and problems in the testimony, including the especially significant imputed to Judge Bollinger. It is second hand, recorded 18 years after Bollinger's death and 92 years after the tablets were discovered. It would have had Bollinger faking the tablets at age 9 in the basement of the Davenport Academy at a time when the building itself was nonexistent (McKusick, 88-9). Bollinger's indirect testimony was, in part, fake and the whole claim may have been so.
Altogether McKusick's information regarding the important slate tablets is ambiguous, and his case for forgery is weak. The epigraphic evidence on the other hand strongly supports their authenticity. This evidence McKusick and some other archaeologists continue to ignore.
Precolumbian depictions of elephants in both North and South America exist in some abundance and new ones continue to be reported, but this widely scattered herd wanders invisibly past most archaeologists, banished by fiat to nonexistence. Among the remarkable spin-offs from archaeological dogmas about precolumbian America are the following:
elephants become birds
swords become walking sticks
readable inscriptions become plow marks
megalithic chambers become colonial rootcellers
linguistic affirmation of Amerindian traditions
about their own origins become racistThe elephant pipe depicted in McKusick's plate 5(2) is labeled fraudulent, thought the data presented favors its genuineness. McKusick should not be blamed for this more than most archaeologists dealing with such material, when he affirms dogmas at the expense of evidence. He does dot believe that the Davenport inscription might be genuine, a document of Old World influence in precolumbian America, or that some knowledge of elephants existed in precolumbian America. He believes that a nine year old schoolboy created and planted an esoteric inscription and a janitor whose known forgeries are artistically crude produced an elephant pipe in a much finer style.
As Francis Robisek put it in COPAN, HOME OF THE MAYAN GODS (72): "Elephants (is) a word which has become almost obscene in archaeological circles." Stele B at Copan, Honduras, is dated by its glyphs to 731 AD. Its authenticity has never been questioned, but it has been the subject of more controversy than any other Mayan artifact. Early explorers noted its apparent Asian attributes: a man with face and dress more southeast Asian than Mayan surrounded by other figures, including two heads of elephants (?) with turbaned mahouts (?) leaning on them.
Spinden (1913), following earlier leads by Perry, Gordon, Tozzer and Allen, pronounced the apparent elephants to be blue macaws. Most archaeologists since have made the same faith-judgement, including especially Morley and Wauchope. Maudslay (1889-1902) had somewhat more plausibly interpreted the elephants as tapirs. Seler (1923) viewed them as tortoises. Smith in ELEPHANTS AND ETHNOLOGISTS (1924) saw them strictly as elephants, as have Uhle (1935), Carter (1975), and others.
Despite its nearly wholesale adoption by archaeologists, Spinden's case for macaws remains strained and awkward. Spinden never showed elephants to be macaws, only that the two shared certain stylistic features in Maya art, with no chronological progression from one to the other. Spinden's point is almost meaningless, when one considers such conventionalized features go beyond elephants and macaws to representations of other creatures as well. Pobicsek (73-4) has illustrated some Costa Rican birds with trunklike beaks, but even this does not make birds of elephants. It was not unusual of Mesoamerican and South American art to portray creatures with mixed features: man-jaguar, feathered-serpent, winged=human, fish-with-legs, bird and animal headed humans, animal-headed birds--in various combinations of reality and fancy. Birds and elephants could easily have shared some of each other's features in artistic compositions, for mythological or stylistic reasons.
Apparently mastodons survived in some American locations long after their general demise in North America about 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. Franz Spillman, paleontologist and Max Uhle, archaeologist, excavated in 1926 about 12 km. east of Quito, Ecuador, an almost complete mastodon skeleton-without feathers and wings, but with associated obsidian and bone tools and about 150 potsherds. The animal had been killed, cooked and eaten at the site--at a time well after the introduction of pottery. Representations of this form of elephant seem to have continued into historic times, augmented later by models and depictions brought from Africa and Asia (e.g., a Cuenca tablet which depicts an elephant together with an inscription which translates "The elephant that supports the earth upon the waters and causes it to quake." AMERICA B. C., 184).
Swords to Walking Sticks
About three years ago I viewed a marvelous exhibition of Mimbres pottery at the University of New Mexico, Museum of Anthropology, in Albuquerque. In adjacent cases were bowls showing men holding long objects, both labeled walking sticks. One obviously was, a crooked stick with a bent old man using it for support. The next showed an apparently strong, upright figure with a sword, its tapered point on the ground, with handle and guard at the opposite end. Supposedly because swords of European and Asian origin should not have been present 1100 AD New Mexico, this one was labeled "walking stick."
Archaeological Fakes
Admittedly, fakes and wild theories exist in abundance, but one should objects fraudulent simply because they do not fit preconceptions. Uncritical rejection is just as unscientific as uncritical acceptance. Many legitimate discoveries are discredited as hoaxes because they run counter to the prevailing climate of archaeological opinion. It is an absolute untruth frequently repeated by American archaeologists That no Old World artifacts have been excavated by professional archaeologists in strata that is clearly precolumbian (e.g., Jose Garcia Payon uncovered a small Greco-Roman terra cotta head near Calixtlahuaca, Mexico, in a twelfth-century stratum --with a cremation, under three intact layers of stone and cement. Heine-Geldern)
Caution is, of course, justified. In 1961 I visited a rather large gallery in the British museum filled with fakes, all of which the museum had acquired and exhibited as genuine. In 1962 I found a bushel basket full of supposedly ancient bronze weapons and tools in a little antiquities-curio shop in Old Jerusalem. They looked good, yet because of their quantity and cheap price I could not believe they were genuine. Eventually I learned who made them and how. Not so much for profit but for fun of fooling the public, a man cast them and buried them in the guano beneath his pigeon coop, where he also added a personal touch by urinating. Occasionally he would dig up a few to examine, until they looked ready to market. In 1954 obsidian points for sale at Teotihuacan, Mexico, looked crude when compared to those in museums, but some of those for sale today are excellent replicas of ancient artifacts. The same may be said for North American flint knives, points, and "eccentrics," some of which are superbly recreated types.
Changing Interpretations The kind of scientific methodology I learned in my college chemistry courses is that new ideas, together with their supporting evidence, ought to be considered objectively, not treated as obscenities to be suppressed through misinterpretation and ridicule. I received a good lesson in this from my first graduate-level course in archaeology in 1958. I wrote a term paper on "Solomon's Stables at Megiddo," only to learn about a year later from Yadin's new excavations at Hazor and Megiddo that whose particular remains had not been built by Solomon (as previously thought, based upon the University of Chicago Oriental Institute's excavations there in 1925-35) but by Ahab and that they were probably not stables but storehouses.
McKusick's Dilemma
Marshall McKusick is firmly on record (two books, numerous articles and reviews) favoring the archaeological dogmas and strongly opposing those who challenge them, especially Barry Fell. If the dogmas are wrong, then virtually all of his recent writings are wrong. Neither Fell nor anyone else wished this dilemma on him. He chose the role he has assumed, and his methods, including the substitution of scorn and fantasy for evidence, in his two reviews of SAGA AMERICA:
As a spontaneous creation of New World prehistory, SAGA AMERICA is the sequel to the delusions Professor Fell perpetrated upon the lay public so successfully in AMERICA B. C. (Times Books, 1976). His current book has no redeeming features and in years past would have disappeared into merited oblivion without benefit of comment from ANTIQUITY...
SAGA AMERICA and similar books of this genere represent a populist, antiquarian revolt against the more prosaic conclusions of archaeology. In explanation of this social movement conformity is no longer fashionable and almost any anti-establishment opinion is received with favor by many. There is, in addition, a growing public enchantment with outer space, science fiction, astrology, eastern mysticism, and other marvels, which allows an easier acceptance of the relatively more down-to-earth doings of wandering Jews, Vikings, Celts, Algonkians, Greeks, Romans, and others. The New Antiquarianism does not just stem from these aspects of contemporary culture, but has racist overtones which a considerable segment of the population appears to find appealing...
It is necessary to continue and mention the sources for this extraordinary and fanciful book. Professor Fell dismisses a century of North American archaeological research with barely a passing wave of his hand. His insights derive entirely from undocumented finds of Old World coins and pseudo-inscriptions. I will not leave readers in suspense about the latter; they are an assortment of plough-mark ogham, aboriginal petroglyphs, phony runes, erosional groves, recent graffiti, and marks of unstudied and therefore unknown origins...
Reputable scholars search for the truth and in my opinion Professor Fell is not among them, but rather he chooses to lead the public into a wasteland of erroneous, naive, and unsubstantiated conclusions. It is not uncommon for a commercial success to be followed by an even lesser sequel. SAGA AMERICA is SON OF BATMAN.
--McKusick, ANTIQUITY (July 1980). 154-5
"Shockingly deceptive"... "totally erroneous"... "all seems to be poppycock"... "fanciful speculations without factual foundation"... "deceiving the reading public".. "a deluded scholar"... "A Prophet for profit".. these are the published and unpublished judgements of professional archaeologists when confromted with the enormously popular books written by Barry Fell...
The butt of humorous scorn and subjected to devastation professional rejection, Fell nevertheless has a large and dedicated following...
Fell provides us with a pretentious series of revelations, a visionary imagining, speculative might-have-beens, and all constructed on phony artifacts, phony coins, phony inscriptions, make believe history and preposterous linguistics. He has greviously erred, and in deceiving himself has deceived the reading public...
That such a book as SAGA AMERICA could be perpetrated upon a naive reading public represents a scandal deserving censure of the issuing press and author alike... "poisoned chocolate" in the words of Glyn Daniel... In my opinion Barry Fell, late of Harvard, is the Typhoid Mary of popular prehistory.
--McKusick, ARCHAEOLOGY (Jan./Feb. 1981), 62-6
THE INSCRIBED SHERBROOKE BOULDER
CRITICISM
Clarke goes on to relate how the editor of a Canadian anthropological journal, himself a champion of the unorthodox, was interested in Fell's work and sent him a sketch of some rock markings which he had received from a local priest. Fell promptly responded with a Phonecian decipherment of the markings. However, soon after this, the Canadian editor had a chance to examine the original stone and found to his surprise that the 'inscription' was a set of cracks made by nature.
-- Davies, op. cit., 154
Seven hundred and fifty-one days have now passed since that historic evening when Dr. Barry Fell of Harvard University bluntly stated in a letter that he could read the Sherbrooke and Beauviour inscriptions, that they were "well preserved Libyan," and he would send me "a prompt report and detailed analysis of some Punic elements in the script." Time enough, surely, for reason to replace euphoria, and to now make a sober assessment of what has transpired... How are we to absorb the shock of four different translations of the same inscriptions, by the same expert, the last totally unlike the others?
--Thomas E. Lee, "If At First You Don't Succeed...", ANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF CANADA (XV,3,1977), 11
REPLY
In mid-January, 1975 Fell sent Lee his preliminary decipherment of two ink sketches, identified as from Quebec, which had been forwarded to Fell via George Carter. In retrospect, this was a mistake, for Lee rushed to print Fell's informal communication in an initial article about the stone's (AJC, XIII, 1975, no. 2. "Hanno, not Bjarni, Leif or Christopher?"). As a result of this, Fell felt hesitent about forwarding additional working materials to Lee. The following year Lee severely criticized Fell in his journal (XIV, 1976. no. 2, "Et Tu Hanno")."
James Whittall, Director of Archaeological Research, Early Sites Research Society, decided to go to Sherbrooke and investigate the whole matter himself. He did so, and obtained color slides, latex peels, and considerable information. From his slides and casts made from the peels, Fell completed his decipherment and interpretation. He and Whittall published their research in two articles (Early Sites Research Society BULLETIN, IV May 1976: "The Inscribed Stones of Sherbrooke, Quebec," by Whittall, and "Decipherment of the Bifacial Sherbrooke Stele 33-7, by Fell).
The following year, Lee composed a satire on the events as he saw them, taking liberties with the evidence, selecting and misconstruing information so as to make Fell look ridiculous. (AJC, XV, 1977, no. 3, 11-14, "If At First You Don't Succeed...").
CRITICISM
Thomas Lee (1977) reports on the several conflicting 'translations' of the Beauvior Stone or Stones at Sherbrooke, Quebec. The scientific explanation of the marks is that they are a series of natural cracks on, in this case, an igneous boulder. This explanation is entirely credible, and far outweighs the 'linguistic interpretation' which depends upon a high degree of selectivity and interpretation of hitherto unobserved detail (Whittall and Fell, 1976).
--Ross and Reynolds, op. cit., 102
REPLY
Except for the deletion of "moored his ship" (one word), there is no meaningful change between Fell's preliminary and final decipherment of the Sherbrooke text. Choice of English wording is only a matter of style. Fell produced no conflicting decipherments. Lee made much ado over little, and had he not rushed into print without proper consultation with Fell, the misunderstanding might have been avoided.
Whittall's search for the Beauvoir inscription proved fruitless. The only unusual stone shown him at Beauvoir Sanctuaire du Sacre-Coeur was marked by natural causes and bore no resemblance to Lee's sketch (Fell has never published anything on this).
All of the authors quoted seem to imply Fell is ignorant of geological markings on rocks. From 1953 to 1977 Fell was a consultant to the geological Society of America. He contributed large sections through jointly authored books published by that society, some of which included studies of various natural causes producing unusual markings on rocks. These were classified and named. His work as an oceanographer involved deepsea remote-controlled photography of the ocean bed and brought to light many previously unknown markings in sedimentary rocks including some which might be mistaken for writing (e.g., X's, Y's, Z's, ect. ).
All in all, Fell has been badly reported: by Lee first for jumping the gun and failing to supply sufficient data (he never sent Fell photographs or information on the stones' exact whereabouts) and then blaming Fell for just about everything; Ross and Reynolds for being unable to distinguish cracks from cuts, despite Whittall's excellent photographs; Davies (and Clark) by referring to his decipherment as the reading of natural cracks as Phonecian.
LATEX PEELS AND LICHEN DATES
CRITICISM
On other rocks and stones too large to remove to 'safety' the preparation of latex molds has removed all possibility of scientific microscopic and chemical analysis... Apart from the microscopical and analyses which should be fundamental to the enquiry, the presence of lichen on a great majority of the stones is also worthy of study. This particular aspect has been totally ignored, although there is every reason to believe that lichen growth can be used as an indicator for dating rock surfaces. (Bechel, 1961)
--Ross and Reynolds, op. cit., 102
REPLY
The Matter of Latex peels
Ross and Reynolds assert on unspecified grounds that latex remove all possibility of later microscopic and chemical analysis. This is untrue. Archaeologists have long employed this method for later study and analysis of material which must be left in situ or in the country of its finding, and it has been used to reproduce cuneiform tablets and many other artifacts. Its applicability is limited so as not to include objects of a very delicate or fragile nature. Latex does tend to leave some small residue in objects with small crevasses, but with microscopic analysis it isn't hard to distinguish this biodegradable and removable material from other things such as traces of metal.
While a peel may remove minute particles of loosely adhering rock and other matter, it does not constitute the vacuum cleaner implied by those criticizing Fell. Incidentally, Fell has done a lot of microscopic analysis, virtually daily over many years, enough to know when it is and is not applicable. In any case, with regard to Vermont inscriptions, this criticism is pie-in-the-sky. Except for one initial experiment, all of Fell's molds from Vermont stones were made by gently tapping a brush on aluminum foil against rock surfaces, involving neither latex nor any other chemical.
Fell's technique for recording inscriptions is merely a modern adaptation of the brush-and wet-paper technique employed by 19th century Irish epigraphers, subsequently adopted universally, and used with special success by the Epigraphic Survey of India. B. CH. Chhabra, former president of the Indian Epigraphical Association and for forty years an epigrapher with the Archaeological Service of the Government of India, personally demonstrated this technique to Fell (for his collaboration with Fell, see AMERICA B. C., 219-31).
The Inapplicability of Lichens I had a long talk with Ann Ross at Cook's Vermont conference and found her altogether delightful-- an intelligent charming and lovely person. I liked her very much and find it unpleasant to have to criticize her writing, but there is little in the ANTIQUITY article which I can justify as valid.
Although my ignorance may be abysmal, I was quite surprised by the emphasis upon lichens, as I have never read of a case where an archaeologist has dated an artifact by its lichen growth. I telephoned Fell to be certain about the scientific aspects of this and have incorporated much of that conversation into this section.
It is almost unbelievable that Ross and Reynolds have seriously accused Fell of destroying evidence by removing lichens from a few Vermont rocks. Lichens have some limited applicability to dating in Arctic climates where xerophytic lichens (unrelated to the hygrophilous genera that grow on the sodden rocks of the Vermont hills) grow very slowly, spreading out from the center at a reasonably steady rate. At most, and only where such lichens grow, they can be used for determination of a few hundred years.
The lichens observed by Fell in Vermont were fast growing species mostly of the genus Cladonid, and consequently could have no bearing on the age of the inscriptions they covered. The problem that concerned Fell during his research of AMERICA B. C. was not the possible use of lichens as age-indicators (obviously inapplicable in this case) but rather certain allegations in the press that he might be forging the inscriptions. To deal with these claims he photographed inscriptions before and after the removal of their lichen cover, with portions of the inscription having lichens intact. On subsequent trips to Vermont he found that the lichens had already begun to grow back over the denuded areas, after a lapse of only two years. Thus for whatever its worth since the lichens are a meaningless issue, inmost cases he did not remove all the lichens from the inscriptions. Since Fell did not find or record all the and since Ross and Reynolds don't believe they are inscriptions and since numbers of the inscriptions have remained totally intact with original lichen growth and since the state archaeological team with whom Ross and Reynolds have made, so far as I know, no effort to date the lichens-- the whole matter seems ridiculous.
Observations of lichens, however, do serve important non-archaeological functions. As is well known by scientists, lichens of the type which grow in Vermont and ecologically-similar genera, disappeared from the environs of industrial areas some decades ago in consequence of atmospheric pollution. Following environmental amelioration as a result of legislation, these same lichens are reestablishing themselves. The suburbs of Boston have already recovered much of their lost lichen florule, as observed by Fell, a change which has occurred since 1964. Fell has also published original research on microscopic lichens growing on meteoric rocks in the Australian desert. We can only hope that the non-issue of dating Vermont stones by lichens does not become, as so many other instances involving Fell's work, garbled in successuve retellings by those anxious to find fault.
In the face of erroneous charges that Fell has destroyed meaningful evidence, it does seem that before he identified Ogam in Vermont, nothing (except by a few private owners) was being done to protect or preserve any of the inscriptions. During the summer of 1975, Byron Dix, who has done much outstanding work in testing possible astronomical significances of Vermont's lithic structures, took me to see an Ogam inscription on a very large boulder, but when we arrived, we found the whole area recently bulldozed and the boulder overturned some distance from its original location.
While activities such as these, and vandalism. Elicit no comment from Ross and Reynolds, it is only in response to efforts by members of the New England Antiquities Research Association, the Early Sites Research Society. And the Epigraphic Society (whose joint meetings on New England lithic structures I chaired at Harvard in 1975) that major recent interest in study and protection of Vermont's lithic structures has come about. Warren Cook's "Ancient Vermont" Conference (1977) provided another major boost in this direction. Even these efforts and attendant studies seem sometimes seem more lamented than supported by archaeologists. Note, for example, Dean Snow's seemingly clairvoyant statement:
PLOW WRITING CRITICISM
Although the scorations on this stone (a Vermont boulder) have been 'translated' as alleged Ogam inscription, the marks could well have been made by the plough since they follow a specific pattern of shallow entry groove following the land contour which deepens and ends abruptly with a further similar entry after a gap of approximately 0.20m. The physical explanation here offered is the striking of the rock by the ploughshare, the momentary lodging of the tip, followed by the lift under traction and the secondary strike. The majority of the grooves correspond to the directions in which the stonewall field boundaries run. The marks mirror the experimental ard marks achieved by Hansen in Liere (1967). Subsequent erosion and deepening of these marks has clearly occurred as the topsoil has eroded down the slope exposing the boulder to the extremes of the local climate.
--Ross and Reynolds, op. cit., 101
REPLY
Linguists and many others must pause in wonderment when archaeologists generalize epigraphic inexperience by offering elementary misconceptions, dressed up in technical terminology, as scientifically legitimate alternative explanations for documented, readable inscriptions.
What is obvious to many does not seem obvious to some archaeologists, so let us set forth once again. Glaciers, frost, ice plowshares, have all created marks on rocks; organisms and nonorganisms have left patterns in mud and other matter which have later become rocks; certain types of crystallization, fossils, even unusual sedimentary concretions mat look to the inexperienced like artifacts. Rarely do individuals have the background to distinguish between all these natural markings on or in stone and human inscriptions, but Barry Fell does. He is a skilled epigrapher and has a international reputation among scientists for his work with fossils and other geological matter. He studied geology under the noted geomorphologist Charles Cotton, one of whose specialties was glacial geomorphology. For archaeologists to assume that their opinions in these matters are as good as anyone else's simply because they hold them leads to continual errors and misevaluations.
The explanations offered by Ross and Reynolds is that the Ogam inscriptions are not really weathered writing but weathered marks created by plowshares. But Ogam inscriptions of similar form to those in Vermont are attested on both igneous and sedemtary rocks, in climates ranging from Canada's cold winters to Africa's hot deserts, on dressed stones and natural boulders and small objects, even in places where plows would have to be hoisted by cranes to make their marks, such as the inside walls of caves and the sides of huge boulders and cliffs. Curiously, Ross and Reynolds believe the marks would deepen with erosion, when the opposite actually occurs. Plowshare marks are generally much shallower than genuine inscriptions.
An Arkansas Analogy
I grew up on a small, rocky (shale, slate, sandstone, quartzite, ect.) farm in Arkansas. Our vegetable garden and several of our cultivated fields had been the site of Amerindian camps, and I learned to observe rocks very carefully as I gradually amassed a collection of stone artifacts. I estimated that I spent a minimum of 1000 days walking behind animal-drawn plows and many other days removing stones from fields cultivated by tractor. I have examined thousands of plow marked rocks, without finding one that might be read as any kind of script.
On a recent trip to Arkansas I checked all the plows in my father's barn, and spent several hours examining rocks in the garden and in a nearby stream. The plows were of the following varieties:
1. Middle Buster
2. One Horse Turning Plow
3. Straight, or Georgia, Stock - one share, a 10" sweep
4. Double Shovels - two shares (5" sweep, Bull-Tongues, or Buzzard Wings)
5. V-Harrow - 13 spikes
6. Jones Harrow - 9 spikes on each of four boards
7. Spring-toe Harrow (almost a cultivator) - 4 shares
8. G-Whiz scratcher - 5 curved shares
9. Walking Cultivator (same work as G-Whiz) - 4 shares
10. Disk (for tractor) - 3 large concavo-convex disks
11. Chain-driven tiller (recent) - series of curved blades
12. Drag - heavy boards for leveling
Several other tools were used which could mark rocks: sleds with metal runners, hoes, rakes, spades, potato diggers, picks. Plow marks in rocks tend to be very shallow. I found a few that might be viewed as symbols in various scripts, but none whatsoever that could be called readable inscriptions. All resemblance between plowmarks and inscriptions are superficial, and the same may be said of rocks scratched in flood-swept streams with bedrock bottoms.
Ross and Reynolds are certainly not the first and probably will not be the last to suppose that plows may have created quantities of readable inscriptions. This was widely stated about the Pennsylvanian Susquehanna Stones, of which Fell's decipherment as Iberian-Basque has now been confirmed by the eminent Basque scholar Agire.
The readiness of numerous archaeologists to accept as valid such a totally unfounded and discredited hypothesis should be a professional embarrassment. Commonsense is enough to tell us that if the plow-writing hypothesis were correct, there should be scattered throughout the world literally tens of thousands of rocky, plowed fields loaded with plow marked rocks readable as Ogam or Iberian. But there is no evidence for this.
Whenever persons insist on making judgements with insufficient skill to make those judgements valid, it is almost hopeless to convince them of what is genuine and what is false and why. Experts in one area may or may not be experts in another. The assumption that one can be so instantly is almost always wrong. Our best hope is that archaeologists of the future will receive sufficient training in epigraphy to recognize the difference between inscriptions and other phenomena.
THE DOGMA
The premiss listed below, its corollaries and conclusion, typify the expressed views of numerous archaeologists who have addressed the matter in print and many who have not. It has some limited validity as a working bias, but none whatsoever as a tested, proven theory. It is a matter of faith, not science. Those who believe in it often have difficulty tolerating challenges to their faith.
Crusades in its behalf have not discriminated between unpopular scientific investigation and science fiction. "Cult Archaeology" may sound feasible, but when derived from imaginings more than empirical data, has no more validity than any other abstract theoretical possibility. To make one's opponents in scholarly matters the butt of humorous scorn, instead of recognizing the vast quantity of data which Fell has presented and then testing it scientifically, is nothing to be proud of.
Smokescreen attacks against Fell, such as those dealt with in this paper, do not deal specifically and accurately with the matters they purport to treat. Offering little substance, they monotonously rehash many of the same nonentities over and over again. Just as tragic as the penalties the dogma attaches to persons with opposite views, or even with open minds on the issue, is the resulting suppression and loss of other data relevant to our understanding of the American past.
Many archaeologists reject the above premisss, corollaries, and conclusion. Unfortunately, many others believe in and defend them as stated or unstated dogma.
FELLS DECIPHERMENTS: DENIED BY ARCHAEOLOGISTS,
CONFIRMED BY LINGUISTS
CRITICISM
Fell's just a phony. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Fell has claimed 35 major decipherments, any one of which would be astounding if true. All are phony. He makes it all up. --Marshall Mckusic, as reported in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 22, 1980
(Fell) sees mysterious signs everywhere that he deems significant. The rest of us don't.
--Gordon R. Wiley, as reported in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE, May 22, 1980
REPLY
Basque In a new work, VINCULOS DE LA LENGUA CON LAS LENGUAS DE TODO el mundo (1980), The great authority on the Basque language, Imanol Aguire, confirms Fell's decipherment of the Susquehana Stones as Basque (ESOP, II, 1975, no. 45). He translates and comments upon Fell's article point by point. William Bright, editor of LANGUAGE (Linguistic Society of America) hails Aguire's new work as a major contribution toward solving the problem of the origins of languages. Professor Malmberg of Lund, Director of Studia Linguistica, considers Aguire the only living scholar with sufficient experience and skill to completed this particular research. Archaeologists' comments on the Susquehana Stones have suggested that their markings were created by plowshares.
Ogam and Takhelne Sanford Etheridge, department of classical languages, Tulane University, in the Irish-language periodical, GAELTACHT (VII, May 1980, 3) refers to Fell as the leading living scholar in Ogam. Earlier in GAELTACHT (VI, 1979, 6, 7, and 8), Etheridge notes in agreement with Fell that Celtiberians left Ogam inscriptions across America, and of the Amerindian language Takhelne "in British Columbia is so full of Celtic words...that one may call it a Celtic language." For Fell's articles see ESOP, IV, 1977, no. 92, and ESOP, VII, 1979, no. 140. In a 1979 issue of KELT it is reported that Lou Menez, a Breton Missionary among the Takhelne tribe, "is that Professor Fell's theory on the origins of the Takhelne language is correct. He too believes that the roots relate to Celtic languages."
Phaistos Disk Fell's decipherment of the Phaistos Disk was first given in a separate paper, December, 1973, but reprinted for wider distribution in ESOP, IV, 1977, no. 79. Ruel Lochlore of New Zealand, long involved in the study of ancient Anatolian languages with a doctorate in languages and logic, not only confirmed Fell's decipherment, but wrote a 47 page "Analysis of the Phaistos Decipherment" (ESOP, V, 1978, no. 108). It covers the establishment of the text, the decipherment itself, the script, translation and etymologies of the text, phonetics and morphology, syntax and the vocabulary.
Minoan (Linear A) "The Minoan Language--Linear A Decipherment," 65 pages, by Linus Brunner, the distinguished Swiss etymologist of Indo-European and Semitic languages, has confirmed it in a number of European publications and ESOP, VI, 1979, no. 129, "Etymology of the Minoan language." His opening sentence reads: "The last great (linguistic) enigma of antiquity, the Minoan language of the second milennium B. C. in Crete, has been deciphered by B. Fell, too, after his decipherment of ancient Libyan, Etruscan, Ogham, in America, etc. Every historian must thankful to him."
Linguistic Confirmations Take Time When considering the decipherment of extinct languages and forgotten scripts, linguistic confirmations do not usually come overnight. The most qualified linguists in each area are normally engaged in ongoing research which is not conveniently altered. Sometimes there are very few experts to judge. Younger linguists working either partly or wholly within the confines of other disciplines such as anthropology are not always free to make really independent public comment against the prevailing views without risking funding, opportunities to publish, or even their jobs. An open climate does not prevail everywhere in the academic world.
Not all the verdics on Fell's work are in, and it is almost too much to expect that every single case will be positive. Judging from a few private communications from linguists, his work on Etruscan appears to be valid, but no public confirmation or denial by competent linguists specializing in this or related areas has yet been made. His decipherment of the Indus Valley script is somewhat more problematical, though it is by far the best effort to date and the only one which has made consistent sense of the famous seals.
Fell, A Pioneer Researcher Fell's work is outstanding, even unprecedented in its range. He is one of the greatest decipherers of ancient languages and scripts of all times. Not withstanding numerous minor and possibly some few major corrections which may have to be made in due course, Fell's work and the potential impact upon our understanding of the historic past is fundamental. Perhaps this is just too much for some archaeologists to accept. By believing that his decipherments are phony they are relieved of the tremendous task of revaluation and integration which his new data call for. Individually, they may, of course, preserve old prejudices. But the doors he has unlocked cannot be closed or the glimses seen through them forgotten. Fell's challenge is real, essentially valid linguistically and far reaching in it's implications for the understanding of America's past.
Of course Fell has not personally made all possible technical analysis or all possible surveys--no one human being can, or should. Fell has endured a lot of abuse, yet he and I both hoped the general nature of criticism would move from unfounded denunciation toward scholarly critiques of the evidence and that this kind of reply could be avoided. But whereas most linguists have responded to evidence, archaeologists have frequently expressed negative judgements with unwarranted hostility, bias, and never-never-land mentality.
Practical or not, these are my hopes. Let each specialist contribute his part to addressing the vast and exciting array of new areas opened up for research. Approach them without reluctance and without intention to debunk, but only with the intention to find out. Replace academic dogmas with inquisitiveness. Redress seriously and without ad hominem attacks, any methodological weaknesses within archaeology and epigraphy. Seek to replace condemnation with cooperation.
The verdict of history will be harsh upon those how obstruct progress in the present, but will validate its pioneers despite their obstacles.
Bibliography
Return to Inyo Connections