Peer Review



The observations expressed here are presented as a Peer Review of recent actions by three researchers, who seem to have assumed the role of a collective voice for altering perceptions of history.  I refer to Robert Bauval (Equinox 2000), Graham Hancock and John Anthony West.

There is great value, now, in recognizing the consciousness - raising foundation for social maturation being set forth by researchers who perform the work of revising ancient history.  Yet, up to the minute activities by these three men call into question the motives for their recent methods in pursuing their apparent perspective.  And I am not the first to publicly voice such concern.

Something which enamors me to this process of history reconsidered is that we, who may simply be supporters of such work, are the "Peers" of the researchers.

In other words, revisionist history, or archeo-astronomy, etc., is mostly done by amateurs -- in the best sense of the term - - because there are no degrees in the field. Yet!

As such, it is our responsibility, as those who buy the books and attend the lectures, to participate in the furthering of our endeavor by Peer Reviewing those we support.

This review is critical at this time, because public awareness of our issues has grown substantially, of late.  And a heightened potential for the correction of historical continuity may now be available, through the comprehensivist advantage of many more researchers making contributions; e.g., the work of Christopher Dunn and Sir Laurence Gardner to mention a couple.

Thus, we now have technologies for interactive scrutiny of the new data and
perceptions being presented, by people like B, H & W, as they surface.  And we can use such technologies to prevent our falling prey to old patterns of historical exclusivity; i.e., our past acquiescence to authority.

Specifically, this Peer Review focuses on contradictory acts vs. pronouncements of men who are assuming roles of authority (now that they have achieved popular fame).  And their questionable approach suggests their role is in doubt.  Are their voices for change especially preferable?  B, H & W have become popularizers of "Egyptology Reconsidered."   But their process may have simply paved the way to considerations, whose significance is beyond what they are capable of making.

However, my views are echoes of similar critiques already on the record; e.g., in the December, 1998 issue of Atlantis Rising Magazine, Barbara Keller reported her concern for questionable implications of pursuits by B, H & W. Similarly, author Alan F. Alford posted his critique of same in an internet communiqué of September 15, 1998.

Back in June 1996, Hancock represented himself and Bauval as being upset
by "...what we regard as a ghastly archeological scandal (in) Giza."  They said, "We want those chambers open ... and no commercialization!"  It's been 2 1/2 years and no chambers have been opened.  But Bauval, Graham and John have given their support to expensive debates/tours in Alaska and one that was scheduled in Egypt during Jan. 1999 through Vision tours.  The Egyptian debate has been cancelled and another one is being planned for this coming April by Equinox 2000.  At least this one offers more opportunities for the public and thus peer review to participate.   But the question is:  Is it really a debate or has it turned into a détente with Hawass and the conservative viewpoint with no real discussion of the points brought forth in their past lectures and popular books?  I have since learned that Bauval's November 1998 activities indicates  the Fox-TV filming of same shall certainly pave the way for his commercialized tours now that he is in détente with Zahi Hawass.

In June 1996, Hancock said, "Our media ...regurgitates the orthodox Egyptological view of Egypt."  But where is the evidence that the rapprochement B, H & W have with Egyptian authorities will change the ideology of why the Egyptians manage archeology the way they do?  The premise upon which revisionist Egyptology is based is a spiritual and philosophical paradigm shift.  It is not pursued of personal agendas and increased book sales.

Were there insights of B, H & W into the  priorities of their agenda revealed during Bauval's November 1998  Equinox 2000 kickoff cruise in Egypt?  I recently learned that, prior to Bauval's 11/98 cruise, B, H & W presented their well-known views, yet again, in contrast to Zahi Hawass' well-known views -- and no debate.  Good! The collective product of implications now available from our growing revisionist research community clearly make "Debate" a moot exercise, thus obsolete!  In any case, did Bauval or West further their cause for correcting the historical record, by publicly recognizing the work of Christopher Dunn?   It is doubtful.  But, if not they should have.  A friend of Dunn's told me, Dunn was invited, but could not attend.  Rather than review old material to an
invited audience of people familiar with their material, it's fair to assume qna regarding new breakthroughs of alternative value would validate B, H & W's views.  Is the current détente between B, H & W with Hawass, because they need access to the sites for their version of commercial necessity: book contracts, TV specials, etc?   But previously, Bauval stated on Art Bell that Hawass threatened to cut his head off for being politically incorrect too loudly?

All this should be insightful, because Bauval and West appear in the new (and excellent) "Technologies of the Gods" video by Atlantis Rising.   Therein, they are seen to clearly validate and reinforce Atlantis Rising.   Therein, they are seen to clearly validate and reinforce the breakthrough contributions now being made via the professional expertise of Christopher Dunn.  In public, do B, H & W discuss the Giza discoveries and new insights by Dunn and others?  Is this the political correctness of, as Alan Alford put it -- the "outbreak of cordial relations" they have with Hawass?

As Alford also said, "Hard and objective thinking has a tendency to get soft and fuzzy when (affected by) personal rapprochement."

When high (overhead) profile egos are involved, "truth is always the loser."

Indeed, as clearly indicated by Bauval's Equinox 2000 advertising
campaign, his November 1998 cruise was a prelude to some kind of
lucrative strategy for revelatory altruism he has -- but the question is
-- is the discernment of B, H & W comprehensive enough to warrant the
deserving of their assumed leadership role?  Their exegesis is still
colored by politics, politically correct or otherwise.  And I have met
quite a few pre-détente supporters of theirs who now hold similar

Should we, the Peers, align ourselves with popularizers, whose commercial vested interests require a selective determination of facts which they choose for advertising their hypotheses?  Do B, H & W exhibit consistently positive leadership qualities in relation to the vision (or historical re-vision) which a consensus of our community is aligned with?

The mere fact that West and Hancock should come off the Art Bell "Debate" cruise to Alaska earlier this year, in demonstration of their détente with Zahi Hawass, and immediately attack Larry Hunter via Art Bell's highly publicized website (not J.A. West's low profile website), suggests the questionable exclusivity of their current political correctness.  Why?

Why is the feedback from the "Alaska Debate" hard to find?   Do we have to wait for another book to find out what the leading author experts discussed?

These men should reflect on the new environment of awareness prevailing, in which their Peers increasingly participate in global dialogue. There is scrutiny re whether or not the politics of B, H & W's rapprochement reflects a balance between an examination of their conscience with an examination of facts -- all the facts.

Recent books by Hawass and Mark Lehner clearly show resistance to the need for much broader parameters in which to assess certain features of Khemetian archeology -- since their détente has not eliminated the paradigm of corruption, which they previously were so vociferously attacked for.  The ego continues to impede progress.  They, too, are authority figures who presume the profane will continue to be dissuaded from critical thinking, by being captivated with
pseudo-scientific, absolutist, propositions lacking in common sense.

-- A Case In Point --

Let's take the paradigm of thought control (not mind control) back to 2500 B.C.; to the so-called "Pyramid Texts," which B, H & W feel are so informative. B, H & W are scientifically obligated to concede interpretive clarifications of such texts -- even when unlikely plausibility's present themselves.   So here's a
consideration being fleshed out.  B, H & W prefer an interpretation of the "Pyramid Texts" (Unas pyramid) which is essentially mythological.  This is because their own world view is not a reality which includes placing experiential value upon the theocratic hermeticism of the priests who authored these texts. By definition, the hermetic world is one of encrypted protection for safeguarding knowledge of power.   Thus, in reading the "Pyramid Texts," it is wise not to take them for face value, i.e., it's plausible these texts were structured for the Creation of Myth, rather than the telling of one: identifying a dead king with Osiris.  Then, identifying Osiris with Orion.  (As Andre Parrot states in his book on Sumerian art: '' ... all attempts to interpret and explain ancient art are necessarily hypothetical." )  But, with a hermetic perspective, we have that much
more to go on.  For, the purpose of overt expression of hermetic based knowledge, should be to present it with some insurance that non-initiates will fail to accurately decipher that knowledge upon which the theocratic power was based.

The theocratic priests chose the Pharaoh and they conducted the Khemetian Mystery schools. The priests certainly were not going to expose the essentials of hermetic knowledge to eyes of future generations.  And they were not going to reveal the origination of how such knowledge came into their possession; this level of understanding had to be earned.

B, H & W have no familiarity or experience of hermetic jargon.   So, what they believe about the " Pyramid Texts," and the Westcar Papyrus must be regarded as speculative.

During the old kingdom especially, the unvarnished truth was kept from the profane; outer-temple and beyond. The significance of such possibilities is at least pursued by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz.  Yet, for some reason, West, et al., are shortchanging the potential significance which such considerations have? Rather, they wish to presume that simply because ancient people expressed
themselves in or on stone, we must conclude the purpose and meaning for
such data can be taken for face value.  Nothing could be further from the truth. This approach is like fundamentalist literal (face value) interpretation of the Bible; numerous persuasions of which serving to fragment Christianity into a mosaic of cults.  And I've heard serious researchers voice concern, that the politicized détente negotiated by B, H & W creates an analogous "Them and Us" situation; further fragmenting the research community.

As advertised, it's their means for securing media publicized tour access to Egyptian sites, which make the B, H & W agenda rather dubious.   Whereas, so recently, they all were absolute in their belief a vehement opposition to Egyptian research management was correctly reasoned.  How could they have been so wrong?  Could it be that their selective set of data, so exclusively interpreted, is also a "misunderstanding?"  The collaborative contributions by many new
members of the growing research community should prove invaluable in
exceeding the contributions B, H & W have made.


By Randy Koppang


Suggestion!  FYI, anyone identifying with the above perspective, may wish to
inquire about learning tours emphasizing hermetic analysis - contact THE
PHILOSOPHICAL RESEARCH SOCIETY, in collaboration with THE INTUITION NETWORK, in Los Angeles, regarding their SACRED SITES MYSTERY SCHOOL. Their SPRING EQUINOX 1999 tour in Egypt features 13 presenters on various facets of this perspective.  The trip is organized by Power Places tours as a commercial tour with speakers, channelers, and teachers.  The speakers are not all from the Philosophical Research Society and the Sacred Sites Mystery School is an idea from Power Places.