About This Blog

I started this blog for a couple of reasons: First, to defend orthodox historical research and archaeological findings, primarily pertaining to ancient civilizations of the Near East; and second, just to talk about these civilizations, for most any discussion of them is worthwhile in and of itself. We know what we do about ancient civilizations because of the concerted and devoted efforts of countless scholars—in the field, in the lab, in the classroom, in the archives and libraries.

In my opinion the study of these ancient civilizations is fascinating in and of itself. What ancient peoples achieved and the sophisticated societies they built is a testament to their innate capacity and intelligence.

This blog will mostly be focused on the ancient Near East, including Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia, Nubia, Hatti, and Syro-Palestine. Of these Egypt is my favorite of all ancient civilizations, so pharaonic Egypt will often be emphasized. We might very well take detours also into ancient Greece and Rome and other peoples of the Mediterranean…and who knows, perhaps even Mesoamerica on occasion.

Of concern to me is the growing popularity of questionable media which present ancient societies in a misleading and dubious format. It goes by numerous names: the fringe, pyramidiocy, alternative history, cult archaeology. I’ve taken the time to explore what these authors have written and have found their material to be almost complete rubbish. Also of growing concern is highly questionable television programming like Ancient Aliens, which comes across as polished material but is in fact alarmingly misleading and patently dishonest.

We owe our ancient ancestors a great deal more. We ought not to strip them of their achievements, regard them as too simple minded to achieve what they achieved, and ascribe their accomplishments to such things as aliens or Atlanteans.

Their achievements are their own. A proper study of our ancient ancestors reveals how brilliant they were, how profound their thought processes could be, and how sophisticated they were as the world’s earliest civilizations. Indeed, we are who we are today because we are standing on the shoulders of these ancient peoples.

The great achievements of the distant past belong to our ancient ancestors, not to ancient aliens.

5 thoughts on “About This Blog”

  1. Clive Carter said:

    Dear John
    How refreshing to come across a calm, reasons and evidence based treatment of Ancient Egypt – congratulations!
    Small point about Akhenaton article: the aerial photo is from EES excavation before the war.
    I’m a Marfan’s man. It seems likely that the caressing hands of the Aten represent the feel of sunlight on the skin. If recent work on the KV 5 body proves it is not A, then test on it are irrelevant for Marfans. Your point about Nefertiti looking like A but not being related is a good one. Many people miss the fact that everyone in the Amarna reliefs looks like the king, not just the ethereal beings which the non-representational theory proposes. The point is also well made by your correspondent who has seen living people who look like A. Look at Audrey Hepburn’s neck!
    Anyway renewed congratulations and all good wishes
    Clive

    • Thank you for your comment, Clive, and I apologize for such delay in replying. Since Hawass’s departure from his governmental position, discussion of the KV55 body and other Amarna mummies has died down significantly. Together with Salima Ikram, a highly respected Egyptologist, Hawass recently published a book on the CT scanning he did of royal mummies while he was still head of the SCA. I intend to buy it because paleopathology is a keen interest of mine, and I want to know what more, if anything, Hawass might have to say about KV55. His argument prior to his removal from office was always less than convincing. I think it was a matter of his firm desire that KV55 be Akhenaten, even if the science didn’t point that way.

  2. Dr. Hans-Dieter von Senff said:

    Dear Sir…
    Love reading your blog, especially the nonsense about Pr. Feder and his fraudulent inventions . (See “Is this a case of Fraud”) iSBN 978-1-875741-18-2, which destroys in full the credibility of Professor Feder’s assessment about the Kariong Glyphs.

    If Professor Feder would have some checking in Gardiner p.544 Section F.44, Budge p. cxiii, No. 66,J.P. Allan p. 432, No. 44,,Vomberg and Withuhn p. 129 F.44 or Betro,p.129, he would have found the so-called Un-Egyptian glyph in all these Books, proving Professor Feder wrong, in describing it as a Dogbone. A picture of this glyph for Heritage was also printed in Wilkinson (“The Ancient Egyptians” p.171)

    Another obvious mistake by Feder is, to what he refers to as a Bell, because the glyph of the “Bell” is clearly established as a glyph and has a distinct meaning..Gardiner, Sect.U-22, Budge p. cxl No. 31-32-33, or Vomberg & Withuhn p.p.366, U. 22 as well as Allans p.446 No. 22, as well as in Betro’s p.241 and p. 230, where it is designated as a “Kleiner Meißel (i.e. A small chisel)

    A further comment is also needed about Prof. Feder’s simply silly statement about U.F.O’s being depicted at Kariong. Professor Feder was clever enough not to publish any of these to him, offending glyphs, which would have alerted Egyptologists around the Globe about his manufactured evidence in his book “Encyclopaedia of dubious Archaeology”p.119-121. I compared the glyphs, published by a UFO research group by Moira Mc Ghee and Brian Dickson 1996, p.169… And guess what. Every one of these UFO glyphs was a recognised Egyptian Glyph by the Authorities mentioned above.

    You Sir, like so many Americans, believe implicit, what is printed in the U.S. of A. because you too, have failed to check the glyphs, just like Professor Feder and have written nonsense, based on the so-called research, produced by Woy Woy Steve…Don’t you think it is about time, that Researchers in the U.S. doublecheck the spurious research, before going into print ?

    Like you, he too, relied on Woy Woy Steve and his so-called research, I draw your attention to the fact, that Proto-Egyptian was not written with Syntax (etc), because it was the Bilderwert (Picture Value) of the glyph, that determined its meaning. See Orrell and Withuhn in.”Hieroglyphenschlüssel”.

    Further, I suggest you try your knowledge on the Palermo Stone, ant try to transliterate the Cairo C.1. part. I guarantee you a great surprise in Register one, because a woman (common) not a Queen is travelling at the helm, following the (Spirit of Osiris)…to get her son made Pharaoh…

    Also, I draw your attention to the fact, that the square cartouches were used in the Palermo stone, like at Kariong… The reason for the square cartouches appears to be… Each cartouche contains 4 Ninety Degree Angles, meaning 4X90 = 360 Degree, i.e. the exact value of the Egyptian year. I am indebted to Dr. Reinoud deJonge for this information

    I remain,

    Yours sincerely

    Dr. Hans-Dieter von Senff

    • I haven’t heard from you for some time, Dr. von Senff. My apologies for not approving your contribution sooner. Life gets in the way, including some medical issues over the past year.

      I see you’re still hot on the trail for Gosford. And my multi-part article on the subject probably continues to generate more comments than my other articles. But I assure you, in my years of research, I’ve consulted all of the primary references on hieroglyphs, not just from the U.S. but from Great Britain and Germany. The one exception would be Budge, whose two-colume dictionary I still keep in my library but have not even opened in years due to how outdated and questionable Budge’s research has become.

      I’ve worked only to some degree on the Palermo Stone, and mostly only to its section on Dynasty 4. It’s otherwise of little interest to me personally. This is late Old Kingdom and definitely bears no similarity to the orthography or structure of the Gosford glyphs, which really don’t resemble anything actually originating from dynastic Egypt. You refer to “proto-dynastic” glyphs, and really the only true and useful evidence for those, as far as quantity and quality goes, are the inscribed dockets from Tomb U-j at Abydos. These glyphs are over 5,000 years old and the debate about how to interpret them continues. They bear no evident relationship with Gosford. As far as that goes, the Early Dynastic inscriptions I’ve studied don’t either.

      I know you are a firm believer, but based on my own research experience as well as valuable input from actual Egyptologists, I continue to see Gosford as a hoax.

  3. Especially in science, the simplest answer is most often correct. Approaching it with logic and reason is definitely the right approach. But they drew what they saw.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s