THE PROGRESS OF ROBERT BAUVAL, GRAM HANCOCK AND
JOHN ANTHONY WEST SINCE THE SUCCESS OF THEIR BOOKS AND THEIR COMMERCIAL DEBATES?
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
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
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.