session I----- ------ session II - Put Up or Shut
Up !
Archives
This page has several responses and rebuttals of Harry and Paul to opposing communication, correspondence, published articles, letters, and commentaries from various publications and periodicals. There are dozens of articles on this page and we encourage you to print and read each one. Our old What's New is also here.
Neara Article by Alexander MacGregor Ph. D
March 1998 by Paul Schaffranke
Ancient American Issue #17 March 1997
Ancient American Issue #18 May 1997
Old Questions and Answers
Letters to the editor from Ancient American Magazine issue #17
The Burrows Cave Blues
(Response Hubbard: Dr. Scherz reply is so lengthy, I must insert phrases into the article to keep the subjects cohesive and the reader on path.)
This letter refers to articles in Vol. 3, Issue 16 of the Ancient American (AA) concerning Schaffranke (translator of the Burrows Cave script) and Horatio Rybnikar (also known as Brian - Harry - Hubbard).
I praise these two energetic and brilliant fellows for publishing their work and its correlation to the last of the Ptolemy Dynasty-kings of which set up the Library of Alexandria, center of high learning in the ancient world before it was burned by a fanatical Christian mob in AD 400. (There is no ancient record to support this statement.) Schaffranke and his colleague Hubbard presented and defended their work at an ISAC conference, in Columbus, GA. in April, 1995, just before the death of Dr. Joe Mahan, then president of ISAC.
Although this meeting is documented in non-published proceedings, it is far better that the authors themselves present to a wider audience the results of their work. This sort of documentation is vital for future scholars who might wish to study the Burrows Cave saga and the Burrows Cave rocks, for such data will not be found in our traditional archaeological journals or text books.
An example of the academic bias against that appears to be of Old World origin was nicely illustrated at a gathering of interested people at the museum of "Falls of the Ohio", in 1992. We had been invited to show some of the Burrows Cave artifacts in any state building. "Why? Those pieces are fake," was the reply. "Have you seen the Burrows Cave rocks yourself?," our host asked. "No, but we know all about them...they have to be fake." Also, at our meeting with the Illinois state archaeologist, he began by making it clear he did not believe in Burrows Cave. But he did tolerate our presence and questions about what the state's position would be if the cave were verified. These are the governmental officials that some people want the cave turned over to. (Reason, the State Archy, was fed up with Burrows' lies and deceit. Who can blame him for reacting this way? Burrows has jerked them over for the last 10 years.)
I first became involved with the Burrows Cave Saga after being invited by Dr. Joe Mahan to attend an ISAC meeting in 1990. At this meeting were displayed some intriguing carved and polished rocks (looking very ancient and genuine) which Russell Burrows reported taking (stealing) from a cave. They were displayed by Jack (John) Ward, along with some bogus looking "Monroe City" pieces which I was later told Jack purchased from a young local collector. Ward, and not Burrows, was the speaker. And, he rambled on about how pieces from both sites fit into his story of Chief Raz, a central character in his book of fiction, written years before he met Burrows. (Chief Raz was invented by Barry Fell not Ward. Archives Among the Cornstalks was not a work of fiction but a very scholarly book referred to by many scholars 15 years after its publication.) Although everyone present could see the folly of what was being said, and Joe stopped the presentation, it seemed to myself and Fred Rydholm that there was important material relating to the rock pieces that Burrows said he had found. Some were highly polished, almost like glass. Others were deeply pitted and corroded. Many had script which no one at the time could identify nor make sense of.
This meeting occurred some years after the photos were taken of Ward surrounded by coins and medallions of yellow metal (the cover photo of the AA, Vol. 3, Issue #16). Although I also saw some of the coins and ornaments, I assumed that they were cast copies and not originals. Consequently, I decided to focus efforts on the carved rocks which were not duplicates and which I could handle and study.
My first goal was to separate out of Ward's collection the "Monroe City" pieces which Dr. Mahan and I assumed were modern forgeries. We concentrated on the stones that Burrows remembered taking from the cave and photographed a significant sample to include in a report. At the same time, Fred Rydholm was interested in documenting the human drama relating to Burrows Cave. From this effort came two self-published books and a non-profit corporation (later called BCC). (BCC is not a non-profit organization. Russell Burrows has pocketed over $100,000 from artifact sales since its creation and Scherz just turns his head.) This organization was dedicated to preserving the story of Burrows Cave and bringing it to the attention of scholars who might eventually make sense of what the pieces meant. Thanks to the efforts of several interested researchers, especially Schaffranke and Hubbard, it would appear that there has been considerable progress along these lines. And, BCC also formulated a long range plan for the cave. Our plan is essentially the same as that presented by George Lodge (vice-president, Business Manager, Treasurer and Secretary of Ptolemy Productions Inc.) on page 16 of AA, Vol. 3, Issue 16. We are happy that others agree with our views. (Agree? Scherz view is to do nothing but allow Burrows to continue plundering.)
The first real meeting of our group of four (BCC) was in an old log cabin near Sauk Prairie, WI, overlooking the prairie where Chief Blackhawk once lived before being driven from Wisconsin. From an Indian burial mound in this prairie came what has been described as a statue of Buddha. It was given to historical society officials who lost track of it without taking photos or making a real report. The same thing happened with a metal sword taken from a burial mound at Vilas Circle in Madison. It was given to the State Historical Society who got rid of it without leaving a sketch, photo, or adequate report that modern scholars can use, provided they wish to examine data that academics of the day thought had to be fake, or which was too embarrassing, or outrageous, to properly document or preserve for future generations.
At our first meeting, we agreed that the foremost objective was to secure Burrows Cave from Looters and pot-hunters, or merely unqualified amateurs, who would surely destroy its importance before qualified scientists would take it seriously. (Isn't that ironic?) This task was assigned to Russell Burrows, who said he was in contact with the real landowner. (I am happy to say that to date, our foremost objective has been successful.) (That is rather, the landowner never knew about Burrows and his continued plundering.) Since I was heavily involved with photographing, documenting, and writing, I did not want to know the exact location of the cave and said so. Such knowledge amongst people who did not have the need to know would only weaken our prime goal of security (ha ha). However, there were others who relentlessly pressed to see the site. We were taken to a rock overhang which had ancient manmade holes ("metate holes") on top of it. This was obviously an important archaeologist site, which we will here-in refer to as the decoy, or "dummy" site.
It was at this site that Hubbard and his crew have been working for the past two years. It is here that they have invested tens of thousands of dollars for leasing land, cutting trees, digging holes, and raising local support. (Funny how I raised local support and Burrows didn't.) They were accompanied at this site by one of the four people present in the log cabin near Sauk City, WI, in 1990. (This must refer to Virginia Hourigan but I'm not sure.) Although I was happy about the decipherment activities that Schaffranke and Hubbard presented at the ISAC meeting in 1995, their fervent requests to be given access to the cave so they could prove that Alexander the Great and Cleopatra were buried there did not meet with positive results. (The truth of the matter was that Russell had promised to take us to the site. He naturally declined just as he had to everyone previously.) They subsequently formed an Illinois corporation called "Burrows Cave Incorporated" (ours was simply BCC). They instructed us not to use the name "Burrows Cave" because they thought they had the name copyrighted. (The ad of page 23 of AA, Vol. #3, Issue 15, relates to their corporation and not BCC). They also arranged a lease with the landowner of the decoy site for the stated purpose of finding and recovering the treasure of Alexander the Great. (We do own all the copyrights to everything. This is obvious since we have stepped on everyone's toes and not one single person has challenged us. They know they can't because they have no tomb and they all own stolen artifacts.)
The office of the state of archaeologist of Illinois was aware of all this. People there seemed annoyed or amused, and did not even go to the field to investigate. When shown the photos of the man-made holes in the deep woods (photos on page 27, of AA, Vol. 3, Issue 16) they dismissed the photos as being obvious cisterns, or wells, made by early white settlers. There was no need for field investigation. But I think it would have been good to have a professional archaeologist investigate what was really at the bottom of these "wells" as they were being cleaned out by Hubbard and his crew. (Let me sell you some of the debris, I have over 5 tons.) They also cleaned out material under the overhang with the metate holes (page 25 of the same issue of AA). These are the state officials that interested amateurs want the cave turned over to. (Damn right, the 'metate' holes is where I found tablets that had ancient Numidian characters, why not clean it out. We will stop at nothing to get Burrows to stop selling stones. That's what this whole thing is all about..)
We all agree that professional archaeologists need an official verification of the cave and statements by qualified people, besides Burrows, before they can take Burrows Cave seriously. (Why doesn't Scherz do anything then?) But such verification is a decision that only the true landowner can officially and legally make. And once the cave is again entered and verified, the present security will be broken. (The only security this cave ever had was Ptolemy Productions and our on-site warriors.) Who will pay for armed guards to man the cave 24 hours a day? (Ptolemy Productions, Inc.) How can we be sure that those who enter will not accompany another group of treasure hunters to the site as has happened with the decoy site? (We will be sure to keep you and Burrows off the property.) Those who want the cave to be entered to merely satisfy their own curiosity until qualified officials take it seriously are not those who are charged with worrying about the cave's security and an interesting human hysteria known as "Gold Fever," which results when people see or hear about heavy yellow metal. (How much Gold do you have Scherz?)
In the meantime, interested amateurs could operate under the hypothesis that the cave is real without seeing it, as scientists are doing with black holes and atoms, which no one has seen. That's what Hubbard and Schaffranke have done. And they have been rewarded with tremendous insight, excitement, and adventure. And through their efforts and devotion, so have we all. (Sorry, but it's been a NIGHTMARE.) And there is yet another area of study that can be pursued before a verification of the cave. It relates to material on pages 44 to 47 of AA, Vol. 3, Issue 16, (the article by Horatio Rybnikar). I sense that a close scrutiny is needed of the documents administered by Jack Ward in the days when the painted lead coins were cast and during the time when Dr. Cook was hired by this organization and fired.(by Russell) I have the same feeling on this matter as I had about Ward's "Monroe City" rocks which we investigated shortly after Dr. Cook died. Although Russell Burrow's signature is on the letter which relieved Dr. Cook as director of investigations, Burrows maintains he never saw the letter and did not know that Cook was fired. How could this be? (Think maybe he lied to you Scherz??) Well, some time ago Burrows told me that a man from Vincennes, IN., approached him with a promissory note carrying a signature of Ward and Burrows. It appears that $2,000. had been given to Ward. Ward died without repaying the money, and the man thought Burrows would pay. Burrows said he never saw the document before. His signature was a Xerox copy, easily made with a Xerox machine, scissors, and paste (and then Xeroxed again). (Did you ever see this document Scherz? I don't have a copy of it because it never existed.)
Burrows further maintains that although his signature on the letter on page 46 of AA, Vol. 3, Issue 16, is indeed his, he never saw the letter before, either. (I know, but I've got over 60 more of his letters with his signature that I'll bet he's never seen also.) And when I studied the date on this letter that Burrows supposedly drafted, wrote and signed, I chuckled. A man whose first career is with the military writes the date in a particular fashion: day first, then month and year. This is a habit almost impossible to break, and I write the date this way yet today. Burrows has the same habit. But the date on the letter on page 46 of AA, Vol. 3, Issue 16, lists the month first and then the day, year. This is not the way that Col. Burrows writes the date. (Yes it is, and Scherz is a liar.) He further states that the signatures in Figures 4, 8, and 10 of the article are not his, but forgeries. (There all forgeries aren't they Scherz?) Is there a modern day Henriette Mertz in the reading audience (forgery expert) who would examine the signature in this article and share the results? (Wake up, it was done long ago and they are not forgeries.)
James P. Scherz*, Professor of Civil and Environmental. Engineering; University of Wisconsin Chairman of BCC. Madison, WI.
*Here is as good a place as any to make just one more point concerning our illustrious Dr. Scherz. Scherz has always believed in the fantasy landowner and has anticipated Burrows giving the Cave to the Hochunk (Winnebago) Indian tribe. In fall of 1994, after Burrows held us up in the woods, Scherz was worried that I (Harry) would find the Tomb before Burrows gave it away to the Indians. The Indians, however, didn't want it. So Scherz thought up a plan to give the land away by petitioning the directors of the Shawnee National Forest to annex the property, he figured that this would keep us away and OUT OF IT! Burrows went for the idea and together they tried to steal the land away from the real landowner which would also have jeopardized ownership of land adjacent to the Tomb site.
Since the Ptolemy Woods Engineers and I had found several scripted artifacts; knew the 'mete' holes were very ancient; discovered pottery, tools, axes, points and ancient linens all the way up the ravine; I KNEW THEY COULD DO IT. If I had found artifacts, anyone else could also. This outraged me. Who did Scherz and Burrows think they were trying to give all the land in the area away without even informing the landowners of what was going on? It was at that time that I came out of the woods leased the property and conducted a town meeting informing the locals of what had been done. After securing the lease we began our excavations. Now you know why Scherz is so sore about me leasing the property (see para. 8 & 9). I thwarted his conspiracy! Scherz was now going to have to battle ME instead of an unsuspecting local township.
Sharing a fox-hole at Burrows Cave
The letter writer is a trained physicist (Ph.D., University of NC, 1965) and worked for ever 30 years as a research scientist and engineer. I am currently a very active publisher of prehistory-related research and the Editor of the Mid-western Epigraphic Society. Dr. Beverly Moseley, the Art Director of the Ohio Historical Society for 25 years, and I published in the Ancient American the first serious interpretation of the Burrows Cave artifacts. I have lectured extensively on the meaning of prehistory symbols, and I have recently discovered a model for translating ancient names into Earth Mother Culture religious names that appears to work rather well.
I first heard of Burrows Cave in 1991 and became very active in its interpretation in the spring of 1992. I have excellent knowledge of the activities and players since then, and I have heard the many, many stories from earlier times repeated over and over. Leaving aside the Burrows-Ward and Burrows-Hubbard episodes, I am very impressed with the integrity of the Burrows Cave supporters, i.e., Fred Rydholm, James Scherz, Beverly Moseley, Warren Dexter, Joseph Mahan, Cyclone Covey, etc. We are of like mind! The BC artifacts look very legitimate after many years of availability and study, and, if this is indeed the greatest archaeological find of ancient North America, we want to be part of the process of revealing it to the rest of the world. If we were to find out that the artifacts were a factual fraud, the outcry would be heard around the world!
I have not been in the alleged cave, and I have not met the alleged landowner or his lawyer. I assume that Russell Burrows has thought out the cave ownership and development issues quite well. Burrows surely does not want to be left out in terms of involvement or reward. Thus he has been very careful to avoid partners who want to take it all for themselves.
I know Burrows better than most people because I served in the Army and then spent 18 years developing and analyzing ordinance technology for the government. We have many experiences in common. Some of the stories about Russell have a grain or two of truth to them, but they are frequently told by former Burrows Cave suitors or prehistory wanna-be's who have a personal ax to grind. As a research for an off-the-wall opinion about the legitimacy of artifacts from a person who has no hands-on experience with the subject. We are seeking truth here, not opinion!
If you push Burrows improperly, he will tell you where you stand with him. It is hardly a crime to have a backbone. I have had good and bad times with Russell and have acquired a few scars to show for the experience. The most lasting impression I have of Burrows is a basic military assessment. In tough combat situation, he is the kind of man you would want to share a fox-hole with.
Returning now to the issue of Burrows Cave artifacts, I have access in Columbus, OH to an outstanding collection of these items. I have personally studied more than 400 artifacts and have examined and recorded photographs of more than 600 others. There is nothing foolish or inconsistent about this collection. That is why I have taken such a great interest in the subject.
In the latest issue of the Ancient American (Volume #3, Issue 16), there is am implication that Burrows may have gotten rich from selling the gold "coins" that have disappeared. I don't know if any of the "coins" pictured are made of gold. What I can tell you is that Russell provided me with 50 of these "coins" for my research in late 1992, and I have not heard of any other "coins" circulated in any other collections.
Burrows told me that the "coins" were one-of-a-kind lead castings. I never questioned his statement. He indicated that the purpose of the castings was to attract interest in the Cave as show pieced in Jack Ward's Museum Store. It is claimed that nearly all of the gold remains in the Cave today. In any event it is not obvious that Burrows is a rich man.
In preparing this testimonial, I photographed six of the "coins" for your information that I have not published previously. Two of the "coins" were selected for material evaluation. My associate Randall Bennett used a small wood chisel on the backs of these "coins" to see if the gold-tone coating would come off. As expected, the coating shaved off easily, and the base material of the "coins" is soft and silver-colored. It is our conclusion that these "coins" are made of lead as Burrows claims.
The "coin" examples shown here are representative of the Carthaginian-Phoenician theme with bold marks and deep engraving. There is a second theme that features Egyptian-like images and hieroglyphs with refined calligraphy and shallower engraving. I interpret these alleged gold pieces to be funerary artifacts that were expected to benefit the deceased leader or king in the next life. The obverse is blank in each of the examples shown. These "coins" have no apparent New World content but nevertheless, in consideration of the art quality I would suggest manufacture in route to the New World.
Dr. John J. White, III; Midwestern Epigraphic Society; Columbus, OH.
Response Hubbard: I like Dr. White and am a big fan of some of his work. You'll notice that he doesn't slam us like the others do so he probably likes us a little too. I don't believe that his article here will turn any heads in the History or Archaeological circles, nevertheless, it seems strange though that Dr. White would want to share a foxhole with Burrows because Burrows has held him hostage at gunpoint twice. The first incident was in a restaurant over an argument at dinner and Burrows held a loaded gun on White under the table, aimed right at his crouch. HHHMMMMMM. I'd rather not say what was told me that Burrows said to him at that moment. The second time was out in the woods, alone just the 2 of them. Dr. White, perhaps you wouldn't make it so far as the foxhole. Let me know though if it comes to that because I would bet that you ain't coming back!
Permission Denied !
Let me state from the outset, as a member of the Board of Directors for BCC. (Burrows Cave Corporation), registered with the State of Illinois, that I have never been inside "Burrows Cave," nor have I seen or handled any gold, silver, diamonds, as alleged to exist outside the cave, and described in a recently published issue of Ancient American magazine.
The BCC. Corporation is listed with the State of Illinois as a non-profit corporation. The Lazeria Company, Alexander Helios, Inc., Horatio Rybnikar or Harry Rybnikar, or whatever, is in the act of researching solely for the monetary venture. They have based their research on one of the numerous written alphabets discovered on " Burrows Cave artifacts." They now believe they are the supreme researchers of the world and are owed a debt of gratitude. The following letter was sent to BCC., stating their requests:
"Lazeria requests for the
Burrows Cave Committee, Inc."
9/24/94
Permission Denied! YOU'RE OUT OF IT!
Members of the Board
Dr. Beverly Moseley, Russell Burrows, Dr. John J. White III, Dr. James Scherz, Fairy Johns and Dr. Sticky.
Response Hubbard: Notice that most of Dr. Moseley's letter is something I wrote years ago. At that time, we had no idea what a bunch of asses, thieves and looters we were dealing with. You must remember that Dr. Moseley as well as Dr. White both own 100's of stolen artifacts sold to them by Burrows. Read once again our offer to these people. Is it too bad? Is it a bad business proposition? Is it maligned and biased? Sad it is to say that Dr. Moseley isn't in a position to deny anybody anything. He is an insignificant weasel. He gossips and tries to pit people against each other. Also, we shouldn't forget that Dr. Moseley and his associates drafted an entire program and presentation for a state-of-the-art, barge flotilla Museum designed to trek the large rivers of North America. This package was a complete project, plans, layout, materials photos etc., and it must have drained them hundreds and hundreds of hours - all for a man that didn't exist. But don't laugh, the project proposition is totally cool.
I have a copy of it and might use it myself one day and claim all the credit. Dr. Moseley in his own right does deserve credit though, he has built several of this country's top museums (including Cahokia). He is an art expert and knows the significance of the artifacts and buys as many as he can. He serves Burrows as a broker or 'fence' for his stole pieces to other collectors around the world.
Just another expert
Dear People: I subscribed before only for some cheap amusement. But I won't be sending any more money after seeing your last issue , # 16, because you have crossed the border between ludicrous and dishonest. Why don't you just come out and call the magazine what it really is science fiction?
Number 16 was so obviously and transparently FAKE! What with the typical, leering, buffoonish moron on the cover, the out-of-focus photography, the absurd wealth of pieces and the childish attempts at ancient portrayals!! And all obviously brand new ---Wow! What a joke!
I wonder how many people subscribe to your magazine because they really believe all your crap!
Sayonara! Gary Blair, Santa Cruz, CA
Response Hubbard: Sorry folks, this Gary Blair doesn't exist. This letter was concocted by Wayne May to kind of shift the balance a little. Editors and Publishers often print their own critique just for kicks and this is no exception. Why write in just to say you WON'T be renewing a subscription. Just let this one go. There's always a plant somewhere.
Loved our cover photo!
In response to your "Special Report'," Vol. 3, Issue 16, which contained several interesting articles on the Burrow's Cave saga, I have several hopefully objective and one emotional reaction. The front cover photograph says it all! I've never seen an instance in which one picture told a thousand stories! That one photo spoke of greed, covetousness, and sly Bacchanalian visage like none other.
As a researcher, I would be tremendously interested in hearing other analyzes of the purported gold hoard, the actual purity of the gold, and some evaluation by objective numismatists as to the authenticity of such items.
Also, in viewing the several so-called signatures of the individual named GEORGE NEFF, I see numerous glaring inconsistencies in the handwriting... all of which cast doubt on the authenticity of the papers 'signed' by him. A panel of graphologists ought to come to some conclusion about these doubts.
In discussing this issue with colleagues, it was pointed out to me that the so-called hoard of coins, et al, lacked the usual burial goods associated with ancient burials, i.e. pottery, weapons, personal effects. Most expressed doubts about their authenticity and many said, "Let's wait and see."
I, for one, continue to press for some credible evidence of the mystery cave's actual existence. Until that site is confirmed, evaluated, radio-carbon dated, and authenticated by some reliable experts, I will continue to be highly skeptical.
Sincerely, David P. Barron, MA; Noank, CT
Response Hubbard: No comment.
Long Time, No See
Hey! What's going on? I leave you guys alone for a little while and you start fighting again. And just for a measly $10 million in gold! And what's all this about me being dead? You make me feel like Mark Twain, who said that reports of his death had been greatly exaggerated. How can I be dead if I never really existed, you may well ask? Well, ask away. I'll never tell.
And as for telling anything about all that gold from the cave supposedly on my property, ha, ha, just let that be our little secret! Besides, we don't want no IRS. agents snooping around here. It's bad enough we have all these foreign folks trying to find my stash. There's Harry Hubbard, and his brother, I think, Brian, and Horatio Rybnikar, and they're brother, Harold. Funny, all Floridians look alike to me. Yup, as I told Jack Ward (rest his soul!) and Doc Cook (rest his soul!), "crime does not pay" (rest my soul!).
But talking about criminal activity, how come nobody ever told me that Alexander the Great was buried on my property?! How do I get that royal stiff off my lawn? Trying to pull something over on the Old Man again, eh? Well, we'll see who gets the last laugh this time! But until then, no autographs, please!
Your buddy, George Neff
Response Hubbard: This son of a bitch just won't die. This is the 3rd time Burrows has brought him back to life. R. I. P. damnit!!!
I wish to make a comment concerning your issue with its detailed discussion concerning Burrows Cave.(#16).
There seems to be a general opinion stated in several of the articles that the cave has an association with the reign of King Juba II in North Africa, i.e., today's Morocco. In 1973, I spent part of the winter in Morocco conducting an archaeological survey on Iles Purpuraires just off the coast from Mogador, which was occupied during the period of King Juba II.
What bothers me about a connection of the Burrows' assemblage of artifacts with any of King Juba II Period material is the complete dissimilarity between the two. Referring to the epigraphy, the only letter forms prevalent on artifacts recover in Mogador are Roman (Latin), not Greek, Etruscan, Iberic, Ogam, or what have you.
Also, in regards to images of people, animals or symbolic motifs, there is no comparison between the "cave" images and those of King Juba II Period. Can this be explained in a logical manner? I refer you to Les Esablissements Du Roi Juba II aux Iles Purpuraires (1967), the report on the French archaeological excavation at Mogador directed by Andre Jodin, for information.
As far as I am concerned, there still is no cave.
Dr. James P Whittall, Jr. Rowley, MA
Response Hubbard: Dr. Whittall, you mention Roman (Latin), Etruscan and Iberic. These are basically the same. Sorry you didn't know that. The Greek is abbreviated and colloquial. There are also several Numidian tablets being #2 in cave content thus far and there is no Ogam to be sure. Please re-examine our magazine issue and attempt to absorb it more fully, perhaps early in the morning when you're still sober. We will be featuring Numidian decipherments on this website soon in the Artifacts department. They will astound you.
Confusion with "Islands"?
In issue #16, Horatio Rybnikar writes of the description of far off lands as "islands." I wonder if "islands" had a somewhat different meaning 2,000 years ago? The Roman Catholic priest, Emil Petitat, wrote that the Dene (Athapaskans) spoke of any land, large or small, as "an island" (Petitat, Emil, Manuscripts of the Dene-Denajie Indians, trans., D. Brynner, Ottawa, 1878, pp. 1 to 61).
The spoke of the earth as a "round island." To the Dene, the Ptolemy empire in America would have been an island. This does not mean that I'm taking sides. I want to know the truth.
Dr. Ethel G. Stewart - Ottawa, Canada
Response Hubbard: Dr. Stewart, I did not say "islands" I quoted it from ancient Greek text, and no the word is still 'islands' like we understand today (a body of land surrounded by water.) As far as your outrageous theories concerning the Athapaskans; Do you realize that the word "Dene" actually refers to any one of at least 132 tribes? They are subdivided into 4 categories: Northern Athapaskan, Alaskan Athapaskan, Pacific Athapaskan and Southern Athapaskan. These tribes extend from the coast of west Alaska to northern Mexico. Which tribes are indicative?
There are no "Dene" manuscripts which you speak of; they are figments of peoples imagination as is "round island," the first book ever printed in Na Dene was the bible. Where did you find that the "Dene" called the Ptolemy empire 'an island?' Finally, since when have you been so concerned with knowing any truth except to twist and distort it??
Doing Business with Gangsters
Barry Fell identified Adena Punic in 1976 in his best-seller, America BC. Now, 21 years later, Paul Schaffranke says that a script resembling Adena Punic is actually an archaic form of Latin alphabet and he has named it "Schaff", after his grandfather. In fact, his every word in Latin is fallacious, taken from Punic letters read as Latin, producing total nonsense in what may be a schizophrenic delusion.
That you have published his gibberish as a special report of your journal qualifies you for my "Rip Van Winkle Antiquarian Award," for having slept through the last twenty years of epigraphic discovery. Regardless of the authenticity of the Punic and Numidian texts, the Latin interpretation is a hoax based on a total ignorance of American Archaeology.
The remaining question is this -- "Is the Ancient American being victimized by a scam perpetrated by Hubbard and his crew, or is it a participant in the scam?" I say AA is a participant You are doing business with gangsters for a profit, and your reputation is at stake.
Andy Tracey - Sacramento, CA
Response Hubbard: Can you show me the term "Adena Punic" in anything other than America BC? Is it listed in the World Book, Britannica, Judaica or any legitimate Chrestomothagraphic Linguistics Reference digest? Are there any "ADENA PUNIC" Dictionaries, Grammar books or Analytical Lexicons? Of course not, it was simply concocted by you-FELL-for-it, didn't you.
I'll have you know twas I, not Paul that named his American form of Latin "Schaff" because there simply was no name for the complex alphabet and it does honor his late grandfather. Paul is not a sentimental person and would most likely have settled to call his new-found alphabet something much easier to understand perhaps, "Adena Latin".
Responding to Hubbard
Augustus did not restore Juba II to his Numidian homeland, which Augustus annexed to the Province of Africa and traded Mauretania. Robin Lane Fox did not know of the Palmyrene eradication of Ptolemaic tombs in the Sema 270-72 and could not have known in 1973 that the whole palace complex, including Sema, submerged into the East Harbor opposite the Lighthouse, as marine archaeologists discovered this past January -- two of the better reasons than transfer to Illinois why Alexander's tomb was never seen again after Caracalla. If Alexander Helios, born 383 years after the death of Alexander the Great, should be buried in Burrows Cave, he therefore is Alexander the Great? Nonsequitur terminus ad quen or, as we say in Spanish, Huevos revueltos. The obese drunk Ptolemy Alexander II (Ptolemy IX, in one numbering, X in an alternative), twice mob-expelled from Alexandria 89 BC, would have been the Ptolemy who fit Strabo's hearsay of melting Alexander the Great's gold coffin; which would account for no mention of such by Cassius Dio or Suetonius when they recount the sarcophagus hauling-out for Octavian.
Denigration of our higher education system (by hearsay) sounds peculiar from one who could so profit from systematic sources in civilization, logic, ethics, and remedial English. Irresponsible wild spy-fiction libels of Gen. Burrows (who had to qualify for each rank) would be gravely dangerous if not rollickingly ludicrous. Unless meant as a joke, they alarm rather for Hubbard himself, whom no one can take seriously or wish to take advantage of if he's sick..
Cyclone Covey - Professor Emeritus
Wake Forest University - Winston-Salem, NC
Response Hubbard: Dr. Covey, your first sentence contains 2 gross historical errors, if King Juba II was not restored to a throne, why was he called 'King'? Could someone else in the Roman Empire at the time of Octavian done it for him - ? - or was there a greater ruler than Octavian over Numidia after all? Maybe an unknown ancient someone new whom you've found that no one else in the world is privy to? Also, it was Caligula that annexed Mauretania, not Octavian. You don't even create a credible environment for your tainted history.
The reason Robin Lane Fox did not know about the Palmyrene eradication of the Sema is because it never happened and is not recorded by any ancient writer, therefore causing no truth to your statement. Last January rendered the finding of a submerged wall, why do you call it a palace, museum, tomb and library when there is no way to determine what the simple WALL was a part of?
Helios was born in 40 BC, not 60 AD as you have stated; another gross historical miscalculation on behalf of higher education you so proudly boast of - I suppose. You should also attempt to more clearly identify the Ptolemy you mean to write about and if it was 'Ptolemy IX' that you believe Strabo wrote about, well, why did Strabo name 'Cocces' instead? Does Strabo need you to correct him 2000 years after he has died and you really have no CLUE? Why do you call Strabo "hearsay" and then refer to him? It is obvious to me that you have never read Strabo, is he now available in Cliff Notes??
Remedial English?? Tis thou who writes the cheap Latin cliché's to be COOL. Not I. You get upset with me when you know I'm right. I understand "remedial" English is what you are reading right now. Dearest Dr. Covey, never take me serious. I cannot benefit from using support of so green, lacking and inexperienced a scholar such as yourself. How you ever became a Professor in the first place just boggles my mind. What was Wake Forest thinking of when they hired you? Was it a prank some staff member conjured up, or just a ploy to keep the student body stupid? All a literate person has to do is read one of you hundreds of poorly executed articles to realize that it is YOU who needs practice in remedial English.
I guess I am absolutely crazy to dare you to prove anything you say to be true. You have never backed any of your works with non-fiction. Alas, I didn't make up the spy-stories, you knew them long before I came into this bizarre situation.
And finally, I have composed this beautiful Classical Latin poem for you:
Credo te hominem stultem et
ignorantem sine pilo in culo tuo.
Te geris
velutsi Yoda
esses.
Te loqueris velutsi
porcus stridor esses.
Tibi merda in cerebro es et
amas vaporem malum
ex culo olere.
Potesne hoc intellegere?
Love Harry!
Questions and Answers
Why does your Webpage contain so much bad material about Russell Burrows? Doesn't that take away from the scholastic picture? ......-. Hank F. - Palm Bay, Florida
Lodge: As for the first part of the question, I can say that our WebPage reflects not just how we feel, but people's opinions all over the world concerning Russell Burrows. He has broken many laws. But whats worse is he has thwarted the most amazing Historical Discovery ever known, with his EGO. As for the second part, it does take away from the scholastic side however, that will be long forgotten when studies are done on the skeletons by the establishment and our theories are proven fact.
Are you infringing on Russ Burrows copyright material? ............... -.. Jean T, Madison, Wisconsin
Lodge: NO! The story goes like this: We have a lease on the land that Burrows has printed pictures of in both of his books. I have geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists and even the landowner that can attest to this. The photos are definitely taken on this property. Burrows did not ask permission or bother to get a disclaimer. This means that all the maps he drew for the books and magazines, are implicated to have come from this ravine system, hence, should anyone wish to attempt to sue us, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE TOMB IS NOT ON OUR PROPERTY! This is plain and simple. Since they would have to produce or shut up, they in turn would have to force Russell Burrows to prove where the entrance is. Burrows has no copyrights to any Historical evidence relating to this Tomb.
Are you going to show decipherments of tablets from other places besides Burrows Cave? ..................................................................... Ronald G, New Orleans
Schaffranke: This particular forum is geared to deal directly with deciphering tablets from Alexander's Tomb. There are so many inscriptions already removed that I can fill the pages of our decipherment department for years and not get bored with it primarily because each decipherment I make writes a new page in world history. Other scripts? This is something I've been thinking about for the future but the way I look at it is: If "experts" exploring my decipherments at this site cannot understand the simple forms of basic linguistics, why should I bother with more complicated scripts? I have put forth the challenge to anyone in the world to give a translation of the gold Glyph medallion for 3 months now with not a single positive result. The only persons in the world who are excluded from this contest other than myself are Harry and Dr. John Bailey; both figured it out quite easily. Response and demand will determine my future directions in Epigraphic finesse.
Why don't you show more Ogam on your WebPage? ........................... Edo Nyland, Nevada?
Schaffranke: First of all, I would like to state on behalf of Ptolemy Productions, Inc. that we are not subject to or have associations with Diffusionist Groups. We are a separate entity in pursuit of the Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great, and simultaneously, to bring Russell Burrows to justice for his fraud and looting activities. This is one reason why our story was published by the Ancient American Magazine, which is also a separate and neutral entity not subject to Diffusionist camps. As contrary to history as our claims are, we have never been rudely attacked by the establishment archaeologists and Egyptologists. Though some may be dogmatic in their beliefs, they have the intelligence not to voice unfounded opinions and attack us on subjects they are not familiar with and cannot back up with evidence. They are not afraid to say 'we don't understand' or 'we don't know if you're right.' That is a sign of Professionalism. Our WebPage is open to top scholars as well as the public. Ironically we have been slandered and attacked by Diffusionist groups made up of wanna-bee's who have no knowledge of ancient scripts, languages nor ancient history. However, in their rude comments and ignorant remarks, they foolishly expose their lack of knowledge and fall prey to our impolite counter-responses. 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'.
As far as Ptolemy Productions is concerned with North American Ogam, it does not exist. Consaine Ogam was concocted by Barry Fell and is unlike any Ogam found in Europe. How was it that Fell could not decipher any old world inscriptions (including Ogam) unless he changed the letters to make them say what he desired? Isn't it odd that Fell could only read scratches found on rocks in North America? Logically, no ancient craftsman would go through the hard work and trouble to write the nonsense that Fell translates.
I have yet to meet any one of the "Ogamite" tribe that can read REAL Ogam. That should explain the fallacy of these Ogamite Religious Diffussionist groups. I wish you all would just dissolve and go away, your Ogam Guru's have all died and you just hurt the true scholarship of North American Archaeology. The more rude remarks you make, the more Foolish you look, hence, the more we will do to expose your nonsense and ultimately CRUSH you. Dr. Cyclone Covey once told me "You alone will not defeat Ogam". I hadn't realized until then the hideous war of passion I would be engaged in. Put up some intelligent comments or shut up. Our WebPage is not for you! Your Ogam religion is DEAD! We welcome remarks from the public and scholars, they ask far more intelligent questions than Diffussionists. In the meanwhile, the war with Burrows continues until he shows us the entrance or lands behind bars, one or the other; there is no in-between. His cronies (you know who you are) should stay out of it or suffer the consequences. They are accomplices to the greatest robbery of all time, and will have to answer for their actions in the near future. Once again, and finally, THERE IS NO OGAM IN NORTH AMERICA! GOT IT???
What is supposed to be the purpose of the Ptolemy Productions, Inc. WebPage? .............................................................................................. Rick F, Manhattan, NY
Hubbard: Naturally to sell videos, I apologize if you didn't figure that out. Actually, we began this crusade because Burrows refused to stop selling the artifacts for fat profit. Paul and I eventually became his best salesmen. We would give lectures or speeches somewhere and Burrows would be out in the parking lot peddling scripted tablets at premium prices. He made over $10,000.00 in the parking lot of the Columbus Georgia Museum in spring 1995 alone. Burrows has about 10 people that he can always sell artifacts to. I intend to put a stop to it.
What would you do if he (Russell Burrows) dies? ............................. Vincent M, Washington, DC
Hubbard: This is a valid question because it is possible. Burrows has had 2 heart attacks and I always heard that the third is the 'big one'. I can't see it interfering with our project because that's all he has done as a living person. He would no longer be able to spread lies and rumors about us and he wouldn't be threatening me all the time. The sad thing is, that none of his people could step into his shoes and take the hard hits we've landed. The man has no conscience and thinks nothing of lying or slandering anyone who opposes him. To hear him rage on about his friends is bad enough. There will be no leader to the "Anti-Ptolemy Productions" crowd. Therefore, Ptolemy would be the ONLY source of information concerning this Tomb. His cronies would get over their hate for us because they would want to know anything new concerning this issue and that's part of the reason for this Q&A forum.
Is Harry Hubbard a tomb-looter and just in it for the GOLD? Gold fever? ...................................................................................................... Sam H, Hot Springs, Ark.
Lodge: Quite the contrary. No one has been in the Cave other than Russ; therefore, no one else could have looted it but himself. When we find the entrance and gain access, I will be more than happy to answer looting questions about Harry.
Was Harry really thrown out of the auction at Peoria, IL last winter? Ben E, Orchardville, IL
Hubbard: No but I came damn close. The auctioneer just jumped my case for some unknown reason and I still don't know what for. He later apologized to me. Several people got mad at him for using that kind of language to describe me in front of their small children because it was very foul-mouthed. It was not the perfect family event I can assure you. Burrows and his cronies got a real charge out of it and applauded the auctioneer. There were over 20 people at the auction from the Romine Township and I was very happy to see a strong local concern.
Questions and Answers
Announcement by Paul Schaffranke
I am stating to the subscribers of Ancient American, on behalf of Ptolemy Productions, that the events involving a cave visit by Frank Joseph, Wayne May and Russ Burrows on Friday June 20th as stated by them is an elaborate hoax. How was it that they were in southern Illinois on the 20th and later that day held a conference in the Washita nation in Louisiana? They must have towed a Concorde with them.
After speaking to Frank, I found many discrepancies in his story; he hinted that the photographs may not come out well (haven't we heard that before?). The sudden appearance of a deputy sheriff at this well hidden site, looking for an escaped convict is also ridiculous. No sheriff was looking for any escaped convicts in any county in southern Illinois south of Hwy. 50 and east of I-57 that day. This was easily verified. This does not surprise me at all, we have been lied to several times recently by the staff of AA. This scenario was concocted by AA and Burrows to create an the illusion that someone other than Burrows had been to the cave site. This trick is a prelude to the Salt Lake City conference. Its purpose is to inflate the prices of BC artifacts so that Russ can make a financial killing. What percentage has he cut AA in? GOTCHA !!!!!! Your scam really stinks and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the motive. Oh, but it all still has to remain secret. We've heard that crap for 3 years, echoes of Burrows. I hope it's all worth the pennies Burrows will throw to you while he is laughing his way to the bank.
If I'm wrong, please prove it. If you were truly at the cave site, and now are keeping it secret like Burrows, then you are also guilty of covering up for and conspiring with a looter of precious historical artifacts. In the end, you will have to answer for it. Is this really all worth ruining the status of your magazine, which has up to this point been a good publication?
As for those Burrows fans and AA who now disagree with my decipherments; let me make one thing clear. For 12 years there had not been a single person who could make any sense out of the cave scripts; except the late Dr. Cook and Jack Ward who were heading in the right direction and made preliminary conclusions which were identical to mine. Now there are several "Wannabe Epigraphers" (with no linguistic background) giving interpretations that make ancient literate stonecutters look like they had an IQ of a Kindergartener. I have also been told by Burrows and his followers that my translations are good as long as Harry Hubbard is not involved in the cave project. What a childish bunch! Sorry, he will always be in it. In conclusion I will have to borrow one of Wayne May's phrases regarding these circumstances, "PUT UP OR SHUT UP!"
New England Antiquities Research Association
Volume XXXI, No. 1 Summer 1997
p. 51ff.
THE "LOST TOMB" OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND OTHER PROBLEMS
Commentary by Alexander P. MacGregor, Jr.
Recently a member of NEARA, an old friend, sent me a copy of a special issue of Ancient American (Jan. 1997, Vol 3, no. 16) on the so-called "Lost Tomb" of Alexander the Great, and asked me for my opinion about its authenticity. He knew that I am a classicist - a Latinist, primarily - and perhaps could separate the wheat from the chaff, as far as the classical world is concerned. I was happy to oblige and the following is basically the letter I sent him on short notice, reworked to incorporate the highlights of my research since then. the historical and linguistic problems raised by the "Lost Tomb" are quite interesting. In fact, the letter has snowballed into an exhaustive analysis of nearly a hundred pages, which underlies the summary that follows.
According to the "Lost Tomb" hypothesis, Alexander Helius, the young son of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, escaped from Egypt to southern Illinois after the defeat and death of his parents in 30 BC, bringing with him from Alexandria a mass of treasure that included the corpse of Alexander the Great as well as the mummies of his "lineal descendants," the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt. All of this was reburied in a cave in Illinois, along with Alexander Helius himself. It was rediscovered around 1982 by Russell Burrows, and 42 pages in this issue of AA), as well as a stream of artifacts released by Burrows, but no excavation.
That scenario does not add up as history. The facts alleged have been twisted to fit the story-line, and still other facts that would utterly overturn it have been suppressed. All too typical is the ludicrous assertion that Alexander the Great had lineal descendants in the first place. It is well attested that his posthumous son Alexander IV was murdered by the usurper Cassander in 310 BC. the Ptolemies were descended from Lagus, a noble but not of the royal blood. Worse still, the tomb of Alexander, with his corpse inside it, still existed town centuries after Helius is supposed to have removed it; it is independently attested by three historians (Dio Cassius, Herodian, and the Epitome of the Caesars). An article by Harry Hubbard on the historical background ignores, or suppresses, two of these sources; but remarkably, he does quote Dio on the fact that Septimius Severus looked on Alexander's face in 200 AD and then had the tomb sealed so that he would be the last to enjoy the privilege. This leads Hubbard to speculate a bit whether the sealing of the tomb meant that it was about to be removed. He concludes (so to speak) that the visit to Alexander's tomb by Octavian in 30 BC was the "last reported visit and viewing." Now, the Dio passage demolishes the whole "Tomb" business. I simply don't know what Hubbard thought he was doing when he calls Octavian's the last viewing. But this is hardly the most baffling conclusion that he reaches.
Alexander Helius, hero of the piece, is supposed to have fled Alexandria (in the face of the army and navy of the victorious Octavian!) in 30 BC. That is not just implausible; it is impossible. Dio tells us that he was in Rome the summer of 29, paraded for all to see in Octavian's triumph. The sentimental Plutarch tells us that Octavian had him raised by his sister (Antony's legitimated wife) just as tenderly as if the lad were his own. Given Octavian's track record with his own family, his tenderness was much to be feared. In any case, the last we hear of Alexander Helius is at Rome in the summer of 29. Whether he died there of strangulation the evening of the triumph or of tenderness in later years hardly matters much. He is not loose in Alexandria in 30, preparing the tombs of the Ptolemies for export. For all of that, the AA articles make much of Alexander's supposed helper on his way to America, Juba II the king of Mauretania. Juba ranks as Alexander's "Ptolemaic brother-in-law," since he was married to Alexander's twin sister. Cleopatra Selene; his knowledge of the Atlantic, which was considerable, helped Alexander to cross it. That much we are told. We are not told that Juba was an old mess-mate of Octavian's and a Roman citizen, who was given Cleopatra Selene by Octavian long after Antony and Cleopatra VII were dead. He was so much a Roman puppet that his subjects rebelled, and he stayed on the throne only with the help of Roman troops.
There are other omissions too, but these are the most telling ones. Taken together, they only show that a judicious omission can be far more misleading (to be polite about it) than a positive misstatement. To be sure, Hubbard expresses no great respect for the ancient sources, much less for scholarly caution. On the other hand, he is absolutely certain that Alexander Helius left Alexandria in 30, and that the tomb of Alexander (and the rest of his "descendants") were there for the taking. Juba's good will is also assumed. In short, the proponent of the "Lost Tomb" does acknowledge a few unimpeachable facts - indeed, the AA issue starts off on the first page with a sworn affidavit to the effect that the cave and its "Lost Tomb" are everything he claims it is. At the outset the reader knows what to believe; the verdict is already in, and the evidence is an afterthought.
Unfortunately, Hubbard is working backwards; perhaps he has never heard of the trial of the Knave of Hearts. Or perhaps he has, and thinks that is how history, too, reaches a verdict. The "facts" he now adduces to support his case (or at least not contradict it) do what he wants only once they have been divorced from the context that gave them meaning in the first place. He does not recognized that bare "facts" count for nothing. For example, it is a true fact, but irrelevant to the case, that Alexander Helius was in Alexandria in 30 BC, if he is known to be in Rome a year later. So also the fact that Juba was his "brother-in-law," as soon as one learns a couple of other facts about him. Indeed, virtually all the facts that seem to bolster the "Lost cave" scenario crumble to dust as soon as they are viewed in context. The authors are hard put to find facts that are, at best, not inconsistent with their view - harmless irrelevancies, in lieu of evidence.
This is what comes of picking and choosing facts to fit preconceived notions, and sticking with a notion to the bitter end even in the face of evidence that emerges to say it nay. But failures happen to everyone. "Men are apt to be over-fond of their own discoveries," as A.E. Housman once said. If the proponents of the "Lost Tomb" were simply being slipshod in their enthusiasm over whatever it is they hope is in the cave, their misreading of the ancient sources should not be held against them, even by a classicist. But there are worse things than failure. Hubbard picked only the evidence he wanted. But in the course of his task he could not have avoided finding unwelcome evidence that demolished his case - for example, evidence that Alexander Helius was in Rome in 29 or that Juba was a Roman stooge. I can make that assertion because Hubbard found the "evidence" he does publish where any scholar does, in the index to each author. In the course of such a search in Dio, it emerged that Octavian accidentally broke off the nose of Alexander when he viewed the corpse in 30 - an amusing fact, if not very relevant, and so Hubbard repeats it. Not fifteen pages away is the passage in Dio that places Alexander Helius in Rome in 29. Did Hubbard search Dio for the one Alexander and not the other? He was incompetent if he did. If he found the sort of sharp dealing that would disgrace a scholar for life.
Now, what happened with Alexander Helius in Dio happens with Juba and Pliny and Plutarch and Suetonius and the Garden of the Hesperides and the tomb of Alexander the Great as well. I am not talking about just one lone instance of succumbing to temptation. There is and overall pattern of scholarly misconduct here from start to finish, and it hardly matters whether it amounts to chicanery or to flat out incompetence. Enough that if the proponents of the "Lost Tomb" actually think that they can legitimately make their case by selecting a couple of "facts" that do not obviously demolish it while ignoring the dozens that do, they should try to apply their easy-going methodology to an unforgiving field like law, or pharmaceuticals, and see how long they survive.
So much for the historical basis of the "Lost Tomb"; there is none. The hard evidence of the artifacts removed from the "Lost Tomb" over the years by its discoverer is only a little better. If we have a cave full of corpses and funeral goods, along with several millions in gold and the "cascade of diamonds" that greeted him on his first visit to the cave, how come the only artifacts forthcoming so far are made solely of materials that cannot be dated by and scientific method? Something susceptible of Carbon-14 dating is not too much to ask; so also, something connected with any of the historically attested figures supposedly interred in the cave - everything that has emerged so far concerns the problematic Alexander Helius. Such an array of artifacts is the opposite of a random sample of what is supposedly inside the cave. It is skewed in favor of precisely the one figure for whom there is no historical evidence. But somebody did the choosing, and somebody has done a bad job of it - assuming that there is actually more in the cave than just artifacts and inscriptions associated with Alexander Helius.
The inscriptions, supposedly in Latin, are nonsense. [1] Paul Schaffranke, the self-styled decipherer, has no discernible credentials as a Latinist, or anything else that would qualify him for his work. Latin Epigraphy is not child's play. If Schaffranke is a Latinist on the basis of three years of high school Latin, then with greater justice I should set up shop as a cardiologist on the basis of having undergone open heart surgery.
[2] His "alphabet" is an imaginary composite of several archaic alphabets already 400 years out of date, Greek and Latin both, with some characters apparently added from the Minoan syllabary. On the other hand, the letter 'U', a mediaeval development, makes a premature appearance alongside the expected 'V'. Stranger still, since all Greek and Italian alphabets had a full range of vowels - that is their great advance over Phoenician and Hebrew. - Schaffranke's "alphabet" usually behaves like primitive Hebrew, only with vowels supplied as needed (the occasional use of vowels tells against its authenticity). Moreover, Schaffranke gives some of the characters flatly impossible equivalents. For example '+', which he takes as et (= 'and') uses the plus sign which is not classical but mediaeval, and never stands for et even then. In archaic alphabets a letter so shaped is usually the Greek Chi 'KH' on its side, and in a few cases it is equivalent to the Latin 'X'.
In sum, only someone in the modern world would have been in a position to assemble all the incompatible elements that make up his "alphabet". In the days of Alexander Helius, inscriptions in archaic alphabets had long since become rubble underground, awaiting discovery by modern archaeology, and no contemporary of his could have read them even if they had been available. Ancient stone cutters were already using what we think of as "modern" letter forms of both Latin and Greek.
[3] The inscriptions are supposedly in "vernacular Latin", a Latin virtually without endings. No such Latin ever existed. If you had something worth putting on stone, you were literate, and used the formal Latin to be found in any text or grammar. Even the wall graffiti in Pompeii are literate. At times Schaffranke manages to extract a short phrase that rings true (if the absence of endings is ignored), but even that accomplishment is achieved by dint of what he calls "morphing" - rotating the letters upside down and backwards until something useful turns up. But most of his Latin is nonsense; it even turns macaronic, and becomes Greek nonsense in mid-inscription. "King Achilles the Snake," with "King Achilles" in abbreviated Greek, and vipeo doing duty for the Latin vipera.
The plain fact is that Alexander Helius had been raised in a Greek court in a Greek city. He was the King-designate of Persia and India ("when he should have conquered them", as Dio tells us tongue-in-cheek), and had no reason whatsoever to put his thoughts into Latin. His purported inscriptions have turned out to be in Latin for no other reason than that Latin is the only language available for a decipherment. Hubbard discourses about Greek texts without so much as knowing the alphabet. He cannot tell the difference between Sigma and Xi, or recognize the rough breathing equivalent to our 'H'. Schaffranke, who counts Greek among his eighteen languages, makes the same blunder. But it hardly matters what languages Hubbard and Schaffranke know or don't know. I suspect that the "alphabet" itself was adopted in the first place, long before Schaffranke emerged, precisely because an inscription written in it could be made to mean anything, and everything. After I first saw the "decipherments", I spent an evening or two seeing if the inscriptions would yield something in English or perhaps Ebonics. The preliminary results have been most gratifying. (e.g. "U<nited> S<states> Five Dollars" and "Gold Piece (chr.) 52 <BC>" or perhaps "Christ <aged> 52"). With such an alphabet anything goes.
By the same token, all the artwork to emerge so far seems to assume that things from Egypt have to look "Egyptian". Egypt had been a Greek kingdom for 300 years, with a Greek-speaking elite, minting Greek coins, and sculpting quite un-Egyptian statues too. Mummies they still had, but Ptolemaic mummy portraits are in line with Pompeian wall portraits and mosaics, realistic and full. None of the cave artifacts conform to the actual type of the age - not one. Most are crude imitations of dynastic styles - sham Egyptian goods from the corner of Illinois known as "Little Egypt". At least one thing about the cave rings true.
In sum, the cave is a washout. There is no discussing it as archaeology, since Burrows refuses to divulge its location. To be sure, AA prints tantalizing photographs of Hubbard emerging from a natural ledge described as the "purported entrance of the Mystery Cave" and from underground shafts "in its immediate vicinity" which he says cannot be the work of early settlers. In the next breath, though, the location is still unknown. In point of fact, the area in question is riddled with old mine shafts. In the 1830s, just as lead was discovered upstate around Galena, fluorspar (its best flux) was providentially discovered in the general area of the Mystery Cave. To this day, Hardin County is the center of fluorspar mining in the U.S. Until recently there were small operations with shafts no deeper that fifty feet, and no equipment fancier that a ladder, a windlass, and a bucket; so the Bureau of Mines informs me. Presumably Hubbard was out looking for the "shaft" Burrows claims to have fallen into, which led to the cave proper. If so, it is curious that Hubbard is completely unaware of the origin of the shafts in the area, to the point of claiming that the five he himself had located are "unique in the American Midwest" but "similar to Neolithic burials in Western Europe". Granted, an abandoned mine shaft is similar to a hole in the ground, but so are many other things.
The archaeology of the cave will have to wait until there is a cave; at least its historical scenario and a selection of its artifacts are available for scrutiny in the meantime. As history the "Lost Tomb" is nonsense. the case Hubbard makes for it depends on suppressing the evidence against it, not finding anything in its favor. The purported artifacts and "inscriptions" from the cave belong to no known historical period, let alone the Alexandria of 30 BC. Everything here belongs to an imaginary universe, in its origin and mode of construction not essentially different from the composite fantasies of science fiction.
On the other hand, the material presented in Ancient American does hang together as a sort of sales-spiel. In the next issue, a letter-to-the-editor mentions such things as John Ward's "Museum Store," and the fact that the "coins" the writer had prudently tested turned out to be gold-toned lead. There is nothing about such facts in the special issue, which leaves the casual reader with the impression that six million dollars worth of real gold has already been removed to Ward's "museum" (to say nothing of the diamonds) and perhaps a billion dollars worth has been lost already. Now, we know this gold is real because Ward asked his congressman how he should go about selling gold to Fort Knox. The obliging congressman replied and his letter is reproduced in this issue of AA; we have proof - that Ward wrote the letter.
Since the discoverer of the cave promises to reveal its location and even turn it over to the "Illinois Authorities" this spring - a remarkably generous act, since he doesn't own the land. - I expect that the next step will be for the Illinois authorities, who are having trouble enough with Indian burials at Cahokia Mounds, to decline the white elephant; whereupon Hubbard et al. (doing business as Ptolemy Productions, Inc.) will step in and begin their long promised "professional investigation". They have already spent $350,000 with no return so far. Presumably they will have to raise the necessary funds by a public solicitation. I would not be surprised if the sympathetic readers of AA are offered attractively priced shares in Ptolemy's future profits - to say nothing of attendant glory - to defray Ptolemy's past losses, the projected costs of excavation, and so forth. Clearly the videos advertised on the back cover of AA are not bringing in enough to cover current expenses, much less finance a full-blown excavation if it ever comes to that.
Now, there is nothing wrong with an entrepreneur selling a share of future profits that, sad to say, do not materialize, unless of course, the seller knows in advance that his venture could not possibly turn a profit. But since the AA articles make it perfectly clear that Burrows, the discoverer and so to speak the proprietor of the cave, has been keeping everyone else away from it for years, Ptolemy Productions could not possible know that there is nothing whatsoever of value in the cave. Nor can the use of an Internet Web Site to promote the sale of their videos and other offerings possibly violate statutes originally aimed at wire fraud and misuse of the US Mails. In sum, the activities that Ptolemy Productions is already engaged in appear to be perfectly legal, and indeed quite clever, as the AA issue demonstrates in its own way.
Clever, but none the less it casts a pall over the whole idea of pre-Columbian intercourse. For a useful antidote, Thor Heyerdahl's Early Man and the Ocean still demonstrates a scholarly honesty and rigor the very opposite of the "Lost Tomb" travesty.
Professor A. P. MacGregor
Department of Classics
University of Illinois at Chicago
to
"The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great
and Other Problems"*
by Professor Alexander P. MacGregor Ph.D.
Department of Classics
University of Illinois at Chicago
By Harry Hubbard
*Professor MacGregor's article is now available for review
All references used are taken from the
Harvard University Press,
Loeb Classical Series unless specified otherwise.
NOTE THAT: This Response is directed to Dr. MacGregor but parts are
anticipated for by-persons as will be easily detected by alluding
grammatical tenses, pronouns, verbs and subjects.
When at first I learned last summer that a journal publication by NEARA (New England Archaeological Research Amatuers) had featured an article concerning myself and my associate Paul Schaffranke, I was somewhat excited and desired greatly to learn more and review the article as soon as I could. Next, I was told that the article came out staunchly against us, my first question was how? I shortly thereafter was informed that the article had been written by a Professor of Classics who was also a Latinist, I admit I became weary as to how anyone who knew anything of Latin Classics could stand against us, much less smear us, myself in particular.
The article, as titled above, was composed by Dr. Alexander P. MacGregor, Department of Classics at the University of Illinois in Chicago. As became true, this acclaimed scholar was just another fly-by-night author attempting to create more publicity for himself by attacking Paul and myself for having made the greatest discovery in all mankind's history. I contacted the editors at NEARA and requested a copy of the issue featuring us and upon receipt of the publication began to read the article appearing in the 'Reviews' section.
As I anxiously read the article, I was amused and realized what a farce Dr. Mac Gregor's thesis was, seeing so many obvious historical mistakes and the concentrated attention propounded on trivial matters. I was very disappointed that such an 'expert' could perform such a low quality rebuttal and attempt to elevate himself above the layman. As this Response to that article unfolds, I will prove that not only is Dr. MacGregor a disgrace to the board of faculty at the University of Illinois in Chicago, but also a disgrace to every American Institution of higher learning, where as I have discovered over the last several years, has fallen into an abyss of misinformation and can only oppose persons and debate topics by making up slander mixed with history as they go.
I was content to merely let the article pass without confrontation for as the old adage "you can't win an argument with a fool", was the principle slogan that most inspired me to do nothing. However, a reprint of the article appeared in the fall Issue #21 of Ancient American magazine when our business manager, George W. Lodge, mandated we divide the article by two portions and each contribute to a Response. George stated that even though the article was hilarious and foolish, we could use our Response and the opposing article for our own promotion. The purpose of this Response, is to be used with the initial article as advertisement of what happens when an inexperienced scholar attempts to assault me in the media classroom. I compare this encounter to a gator (king of the swamp) poised as a dog ferociously barks at the king until dinner time comes. This Response will demonstrate who lives in the swamp, and who is a mere dog barking. I will close this chapter on Dr. MacGregor, create turmoil for him and hopefully cause him to consider resignation of his post with higher learning. This Response will hopefully generate conflict and mayhem because being chastised and reprimanded by alledged 'dropouts' in our modern world is too shameful and humiliating for University Professors.
Beginning with the first paragraph, Dr. MacGregor admits his inability to research historical data being restricted to the limits of the Library where he teaches. He states that he has reviewed less than 100 pages to underlie his 'exhaustive analysis'; I ask, is this all the information such a vast library contains? This statement, however, was my first suspicion of what the remainder of the article would entail because this is an admission by the alleged scholar that he is completely ill prepared to argue any points of discrepancy. Here, he is the example of someone who becomes an expert after watching a 30 minute program on TV, and who will most assuredly argue those points with someone who has studied 20-30 books on the subject the previous week. I call this "Comical Scholar Syndrome." This disease is generally most common among laypersons.
It was obvious to me that Dr. MacGregor had no idea that 100's and 100's of books were read from cover to cover (English, Greek, Latin and German) to fill in the few pieces of this amazing puzzle we have concluded up to this point. Our organization is so far beyond modern mediocre scholars, it will take them years to catch up.
After the first sentence in the next paragraph (#2), it was quite clear that Dr. MacGregor had no idea as to what he was abstractly relating. Let us now begin to examine how Dr. MacGregor twists history just as he desires to suit his own false historical fancies. Dr. MacGregor commences paragraph #2 by writing, "....Alexander Helius, the young son of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony,...." which is absolutely wrong. Cleopatra and Antony never had a son named such and I have never had cause to state this. At first, I thought it was simply a misspelling or typo, however, when I immediately realized that Dr. MacGregor wrote 'Helios' as 'Helius' over a dozen times in his 'exhaustive analysis', it became clear that he prefers misquoting over accurately stating facts be them historical or contemporary.
The difference between Helios and Helius is simple, the former is a real word and the latter is not. There is no Helius ever mentioned by me and there is no word in any Greek dictionary or lexicon written as Helius. However, there is a word called Helios, which in Greek means the sun and that happens to be the name of Cleopatra and Mark Antony's first son. So to even carry on this debate, we must first overlook this appalling error in spelling proliferated by Dr. MacGregor to be sure, and while challenging my history, he can't even get the simplest items correct. So, a scholarly debate almost runs down the tubes for me. I, at this point knew I was dealing with an idiot but forged onward still. Next, Dr. MacGregor accuses me of saying that Helios left Alexandria in 30 BC for Southern Illinois with a host of treasure and that it is all reburied in a cave including sic. "Alexander Helius" himself. This is another lie perpetrated by Dr. MacGregor attempting to erroneously discredit me. I have stated time and again that Helios is not interred in the 'Tomb' and never does any of the AA articles even slightly suggest that Helios is buried in the cavern ambiguously known as Burrows Cave. Hideous mistakes like this plague Dr. MacGregor's 'exhaustive analysis' as I will continue to manifest.
As paragraph #3 begins, "That scenario does not add up as history." Who's history is what I ask, Dr. MacGregor's? After he has twisted and distorted not only fact, but the way it has been presented, who cares at this point what history has been violated? ".....the ludicrous assertion that Alexander the Great had lineal descendants....", when I never asserted this at all, where does Dr. MacGregor come up with this? Certainly not from anything I have written. More naïveté is illustrated by the following statement, "The Ptolemies were descended from Lagus...." when it was common knowledge that Arsinoe was pregnant when given to Lagus by Philip as can easily be verified, exposing the fact that Dr. MacGregor has not done his homework, and I would expect such stumbles after only 100 pages of research. Stating that the Tomb "..with his corpse still inside it, still existed two centuries after (sic) Helius..." is not verifiable with the sources Dr. MacGregor gives as well that Helios himself moved it which I never wrote or believed. The 3 historians quoted do not say that Alexander was "looked upon" as I will articulate.
Paragraph #4 is childish insults directed towards me that are unfounded and absurd using the same resources which concerns me greatly, because Dr. MacGregor's Classical History is not from Cambridge, Harvard or Yale, but perhaps some abridged reprint similar to "Cliff Notes". I run across this quite frequently where a scholar quotes and says things that are not truly recorded at all, but their assuming that it is renders it fact. It is quite common among persons who research using "Jacoby". I suspect such is the case here. Dio does not by any characteristic of grammar state that "...Septimius Severus looked on Alexander's face in 200 AD...", but to be most accurate, Cassius Dio, Volume IX, PP 225, Book LXXVI, paragraph 13 does reflect (as accurately stated in my Ancient American article) that Severus did lock up the tomb and, "....that no one in the future should either view Alexander's body..." leaving out an indication that Severus looked on Alexander's face as incorrectly promulgated by Dr. MacGregor. So while stating that I ignore the ancient authorities, he shows no regret in doing exactly what he accuses me of. Typical American Scholarship; hitherto, my statement stands true concerning the last viewing of the corpse and the Dio passage does not demolish the whole "Tomb" business, however, I must destroy paragraph #5 of Dr. MacGregor's 'exhaustive analysis' which becomes more asinine as we proceed. I simply don't know what Dr. MacGregor thought he was doing to reach his inaccurate and baffling conclusions, however, he uses the same reference to support that Caracalla was in the tomb; so he must therefore establish whether it was locked up or not. Moreover, a linear doctrine is of no concern whatsoever to Dr. MacGregor, he needs to study my articles more closely that he might better understand the recorded history.
Paragraph #6. "Alexander Helius, (sic)......is supposed to have fled Alexandria ... in 30 BC" when again, I never made such a claim and do not know where Dr. MacGregor gets this crap. Dr. MacGregor then goes on to really justify the minor point that (sic) Helius was in Rome in 29 BC not 30. Wow I say, big deal, one year of discrepancy which is the only legitimate argument in Dr. MacGregor's entire 'exhaustive analysis'. For this reason though, I make known even the small blunders of Dr. MacGregor. I never implied, written or otherwise that Helios was preparing tombs for export in 30 BC and I believe it difficult for Dr. MacGregor to assume that I would place such a task on a child yet only 10 years of age. Statements like this cause me great concern for the scholastic capacities of Dr. MacGregor. A 10 year old stealing bodies? Come on Dr. MacGregor, be real.
Paragraph #7 is an incompetent attempt by Dr. MacGregor to sound scholarly and make people think he knows something about ancient history of which he is ill advised and a poorly skilled writer if we assume that words mean things and accuracy is important. He states concerning King Juba and the Atlantic that "...he helped Alexander to cross it. That much we are told." Who told Dr. MacGregor anything of the sort other than me? Here Dr. MacGregor is claiming my work to be the work of the ancient authorities, how flattering and kind but another booboo. He goes on to deliberate and even deny whether Octavian and Juba were "mess-mates" but from Pliny, Volume IV, PP 41, paragraph 31, verse 56, we read that Juba wrote several volumes of praise about Augustus Caesar's son Gaius Caesar. One might get the impression that they were friends would you admit? Not only this, but the fact that several ancient authors record Juba sailed and traveled all over the Empire for Augustus, does not cause one to assume that they were enemies does it? The references to their friendship are many and Roman history is clear on this.
Paragraph #8 attests more faceless and irrelevant insults directed towards me including the statement that I have "...no great respect for the ancient sources, much less for scholarly caution." As anyone will be able to deduce, it is easy to run rings around this scholar who in reality is inopynable as where to start or begin. I would even go so far to say that this "expert" has never deciphered anything or made any contributions to history whereas Paul and I both have made numerous contributions to world history working with excerpts from the ancient Library of Alexandria to pool from. As will be demonstrated, at the end of this article, I will disclose another earth shaking discovery concerning an enigma that has existed for over 2000 years which will enlighten historians and laypersons alike.
Paragraph #9 begins as, "Unfortunately, Hubbard is working backwards..." well my dear Dr. MacGregor, when looking for answers in ancient history, please tell me how anyone would work towards the future. And to answer the irrelevant question, no; I have never read the "Knave of Hearts" and have no desire to. As Dr. MacGregor busied himself with "The Knave of Hearts", a fictional Harlequin Romance trash novel, I busied myself with Diodorus, Pliny, Livy, Strabo, Dionysius of Halicarnisus, Dio Chrysostom, Appian, Quintus Curtius, Jacoby, Arrian and the list goes on and on. While Dr. MacGregor engaged in a fiction love fantasy, I was finding ancient tombs. I wish to discuss the missing Tomb of Alexander, and he want's to hide in romantic tales of pity and woe to immortalize his scholastic precariousness. He should render himself congratulated by the fact that I have responded and returned insult for insult. Dr. MacGregor, is now able to boast to his grandchildren that he was crushed by Harry Hubbard in a most cruel and haughty fashion. He has made it in life and reached his pinnacle.
Let us now continue with further comment and instruction; but before we do, I must explain to the reader of this Response other than Dr. MacGregor, that scholars such as this one mean things by what they say or write. Words are carefully chosen to cause worthy readers to skip over an important subject with no regard of its significance; and for this reason, I initially declined to prepare this Response in reply to his article. Watch very carefully what happens next. Dr. MacGregor in paragraph #9 states concerning Me, "He does not recognize that bare "facts" count for nothing." Now ladies and gentlemen, this is not a misprint, a misrepresentation or anything other than the fault of its author. What Dr. Alexander P. MacGregor means with this direct statement is that BARE FACTS MEAN NOTHING. You must realize that this allows Dr. MacGregor to make up anything he wishes and therefore state it as if it were indeed fact. He is declaring that his "facts" are better and more important than bare or real "facts" when it comes to ancient history. Concerning his silly statement that Juba was brother-in-law, what else can anyone learn about Juba without seeing this as obvious? But it was new to Dr. MacGregor. "(...as soon as one learns a couple other facts...)", poo-poo on Dr. MacGregor! I am light years ahead of him. These "....couple other facts..." must have been noticed in the less than 100 pages he studied for his 'exhaustive analysis'. It is clear that I am not "hard pressed" for facts to support my theory, but that Dr. MacGregor's article is hard pressed to prove itself within contrived boundaries designed by its author.
By the next paragraph, #10, Dr. MacGregor is feeling much bigger about himself and believing he is awesome. He accuses me of being, "...guilty of the sort of sharp dealing that would disgrace a scholar for life." Well Dr. MacGregor, it's going to be very difficult to wash this one off in the shower. He should learn by the end of this Response that he will have to study far more than the unpretentious bit he has to attack me even at the bottom level. He has disproved nothing so far in his elusive and over dramatized 'exhaustive analysis'; so back to the barn he goes.
In light of all Dr. MacGregor's previous mistakes, misquotes and misrepresentations, paragraph #11 becomes sheer insanity. Dr. MacGregor has too many authority problems with history to begin relating to other professions not his own; let's see how long he survives in Classics before we examine other realms of the sciences and arts.
#12 "So much for the historical basis of the "Lost Tomb"; there is none." Here I am, still waiting for Dr. MacGregor's first frontal assault. Instead, he supports nothing. He is obviously ignorant of the fact that over 200 stones have been deciphered and that only a small portion of them depict Helios. He believes that (sic.) Helius is the only one represented on the stones which is far from being true, the tablets are a storehouse of data relating to many subjects and persons of ancient history, none of which did Paul or I make up. Dr. MacGregor could have requested decipherment videos (at no charge) including the Etruscan Volume I video and workbook should he have wanted to give himself a chance at opposing us.
This will conclude my portion, Part I, of this Response.
Final Note:
In summary, if Dr. MacGregor knew anything about Latin, I wonder if he saw the word MULTOA in the Ancient American staff photo on page 29. It does disappoint me that the AA staff would falsely represent the tablets as "indecipherable" when they printed an entire magazine devoted to them. Can someone not see that they did credit the work enough to publish it on a grand scale. The uncontested decipherment of this particular stone is featured in English, German and Latin in 2 of our videos and is also featured on our WebSite. The stone pictured on page 30 (Ram head) features a caption loaded with insupportable data relating to "esoteric principle"; how come no one at the Ancient American mentions the fact that the tablet shown, clearly has a sun at the top with a billboard (Helios) motif right underneath it. As scholars probe deeper, they are forced to use the knowledge and guidelines that Paul and I have precluded and established to a vague but real extent.
I am still quite easily committed to the principle foundation that we have made the greatest discovery of all time and no scholar can reproach the hypothesis or theory. I certainly hope that Dr. MacGregor is not as good as they get. I want badly to be challenged by real scholars and not these stupefying impostors. Our work still stands uncontested and institutional scholarship can do nothing but hurl the lamest of darts like Dr. MacGregor at me. Poor soul, he had to learn the hard way. Who's next? And should Dr. MacGregor wish to reply to this Response, I caution him not to make up history and untrue garbage to impress his friends and colleagues. He should stick to the facts and not misquote Paul, myself or the anceint authors of which I have so much rescpect and admiration for.
As I promised earlier, I will now reveal for the first time in public forum another historical discovery which is a fruit resulting from the research in preparing the article, "The Greatest Discovery in the History of Archaeology", written by myself which appeared in Issue #16, of the Ancient American over a year ago and subsequently slammed by Dr. MacGregor. This new discovery has already withstood the true test of opposing scholarship to the most minute detail, and that is: We now know who the Ptolemy described by nickname in Strabo, Volume VII, PP 37, Book XVII, chapter 1, verse 8, the Ptolemy called "Cocces", as referred also in the aforementioned article.
After the magazine was out and on the shelf of the world's bookstores, it dawned on me that it couldn't be impossible to research the Ptolemy known as 'Cocces', after all, it was limited to a fixed number of Ptolemies. The term 'scarlet' is not a masculine exemplification, therefore I felt that this Ptolemy might be a woman. This narrowed the field somewhat of potential persons and the search was on to find all the Ladies' names connected with the Ptolemies and work backwards (yes there goes Harry again) linguistically until something came up. It wasn't long before E.A. Wallis Budge came through with his complete Hieroglyphic listing of Divine and articulate names in Cartouche proper. This narrowed the field to 2 subjects by name, and since the former was born too early in the 2nd. century BC, the curtain was lifted to expose an unknown truth, and that undeniable truth is the 'Cocces' or rather "Kokkes" on page 944 of Volume II, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, by E.A. Wallis Budge, published by Dover Publications 1920/78+. Afterwards, as the storm settles, Strabo is proven correct and wise again, smashing the heads of contemporary scholars who have gossiped and spoken ill of him.
So who is "Kokkes"? You'll have to look it up because you wouldn't believe me if I told you. It must be seen of one's own accord to be acquiesced.
I now propose a challenge not only to Dr. MacGregor, but to all scholars and professors of Ancient History the world over: Alas, is it possible for anyone to prove that 'Pareisactus' was not Marcus Antonius?
to
"The Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great
and Other Problems"
by Professor Alexander P. MacGregor Ph.D.
Department of Classics
University of Illinois at Chicago
By Paul A. K. Schaffranke
Before I begin this essay of rebuttal, please allow me to make this one point clear. My colleague Harry and I have been viciously attacked in several publications over the past 4 years. Many of these articles are so reprehensible and ridiculous that even responding with a brief retaliation only adds more fuel to an already flickering torch. I personally felt (and still do) that Prof. MacGregor nor our supporting public at large had any need whatsoever of a Response and firmly believed that I should not have had to prepare Part II of this correspondence. By answering a wisecrack like Prof. MacGregor in detail after detail, I unintentionally give Prof. MacGregor more credence than he ever deserved, while at the same time, his perspective is actually raised by my deposition. In so much, by responding to such an irresponsible author as Prof. MacGregor, I inadvertently advocate him by erroneously admitting that he merits recognition, which in turn advances the spectacle that he does deserve a reply. The required attention and effort then becomes an exercise in futility. Therefore, in this case, I am left with only 2 options; I can remain silent and allow the continued growth of his scholastic disease, or I can oppose Prof. MacGregor and in so doing, promote him by preparing this Response.
When I first read Professor MacGregor's letter of response to our "Lost Tomb" articles printed in Ancient American magazine issue #16, I was appalled at the language and style of writing submitted for publication by an academician from an institute of higher learning. Nothing Prof. MacGregor wrote can be properly backed using the text of the ancient authors. I would ordinarily expect a Professor to create an essay of "constructive criticism" pointing out references to problems, not personal conjecture. Rather perhaps, I would expect questions and / or requests for more of my data and research, which we would have happily provided. Instead, this article by Prof. MacGregor turned out to be another insulting attack and slanderous campaign directed towards Harry and I which would be typical from someone closely related to even Burrows himself.
I have come to learn in my extended career as a scholar, that certain historical publications like AA and NEARA enjoy heresy, gossip and conflict, and more than often, leave true science and valuable information far behind.
I will now continue where my colleague, Harry Hubbard, has left off. In paragraph #13, Prof. MacGregor attempts to insult and ridicule my credentials as a Latinist. True, I only had 3 years of classroom Latin in an Austrian High School, but that was over 16 years ago. Let me point out that I had formal training prior to that from my grandfather whose life study and hobby was decipherment of ancient languages. In Prof. MacGregor's opinion, my work is "nonsense", but notice that he fails to support his claim and chooses not to prove me wrong. If he believes that Latin Epigraphy is not child's play, then I suggest he stay at home, because for me, Latin is child's play. I have all my comic books to prove it.
At the tender age of 8, I was reading mass in Latin as an Alter-boy in Spain. The priests at that time didn't allow just anyone off the street for such a task, only persons with genuine interests were chosen! In addition to that Latin study, I have been reading Latin for the past 18 years on a continuous basis and I assure all Professors in the world today that I am more capable of reading, speaking and writing Latin than anyone claiming to know Latin; after all, I did break the elusive Etruscan script that puzzled Latinists for over 2000 years. No one else the world over can make this claim. I am also extremely studied in many other ancient languages and scripts and will not hesitate to divulge my findings to any scholar who proves knowledgeable in languages. But I now suspect that over 16 years of extra curricular experience doesn't count in Prof. MacGregor's tiny universe. Any 3 years of Latin at an Austrian Secondary School is sufficient to surpass the skill of any Latin graduate from an American University. It appears to me that Prof. MacGregor's training in Latin is not European for if he really has a degree in Latin as he claims, he must have chanced out in the multiple choice exams which are common at American Universities of lesser quality like Illinois at Chicago. It is obvious that Prof. MacGregor did not learn Latin in such a place as Ireland, England, Germany, France, Italy, or Austria which all have more difficult Latin curriculums than the United States.
The following paragraph #14, really gets interesting as Prof. MacGregor attempts once again to convince his readers that he is an 'expert' of ancient alphabets. In this attempt, he makes gross blunders and childish presumptions and falls into the same trap that always works on would-be, night scholars. He states that I use "...archaic alphabets already 400 years out of date,...", but he lists no information to back up this or any of his statements. He has obviously never seen the scripts on tablets found in Spain, Portugal, and France which can easily be dated to the 2nd century AD. The languages on them show elements ranging from Greek, Vulgar Latin and Celtiberian, all with morphed alphabets. So Prof. MacGregor falls into the same pit as many other American Professors by amply suggesting that he has never seen or studied these tablets. He would certainly be shocked to see that they are very similar to the scripts from the "Lost Tomb". Ignorance is no excuse for irresponsibility! His wild statements concerning "Primitive Hebrew" is also misleading because no such spoken language ever existed, nor is he aware of the agglutinative forms of Vernacular Latin.
The subject of deciphering various 'Vernacular Latin' texts is definitely virgin territory for Prof. MacGregor, yet he dares to make outrageous comments and ignorant claims. Professor MacGregor has now stepped into the ring with the "Big Boys" and he is dealing with the contemporary champion of ancient scripts, me, that's Paul Schaffranke and don't forget it. So what of his 1 true statement that the "+" sign is medieval? Did I ever say I used it as the numerical operator which is correctly medieval? Of course not. By this statement, I see that Prof. MacGregor didn't even know the difference between a number and a letter yet he calls me a blunder.
If the Professor had ever seen any ancient alphabets of Latin or Phoenician origin, he would clearly have noticed that "+" was often assigned the value of "T", and if being used as a syllabic symbol form it could also be "et". Did Prof. MacGregor ever study what this symbol meant in Punic which was prevalent in the Mediterranean at the same time period? Of course not. I must also assume that he has never seen or studied the cursive forms of Latin used in the Virolanda Tablets recently discovered in an ancient Roman Fort along "Hadrian's Wall" which date from the 1st century AD. Many of the consonants were difficult to decipher because they were archaic, but fortunately the Latin wording was classical as expected being written by highly educated Roman nobles. With the examples given here, it is proven that Prof. MacGregor is again sadly incorrect. When we find Latin Tablets like this in Britain, can we assume that it is also "British" with an Italian influence? Since the fort was at Hadrian's Wall, can we perhaps 2000 years later refer to it as an ancient British fort? These regional types of Latin existed all over the European continent.
If Prof. MacGregor had studied my work more closely, he surely wouldn't have quoted me as making claim the language I deciphered was 'Classical Latin'. Most of those who sailed with Alexander Helios to Illinois were from Spain, the Coastal Atlantic and Coastal North Africa. Add there fugitives, refugees and remnants of Antony's legions who were mostly of stock driven to plebeian status. They did speak and write regional Latin, it was a very raw form of provincial Latin along with various influences. Due to their literacy capabilities, they simply used alphabets phonetically prevalent in their home regions. Luckily, several of the agglutinative definitions can be found in any Latin dictionary. The people that settled in southern Illinois were a diverse group of colloquials.
It makes sense that to communicate, they formed and used a morphed alphabet, with Vernacular Latin as the Lingua Franca for simplicity. Most of the inscriptions from the "Tomb" were carved by these same provincials. I do suppose that the royal scrolls, if ever recovered, will perhaps be written in Classical Greek, of which, there are already several tablets. Furthermore, Prof. MacGregor makes the false statement that, "No such Latin ever existed" concerning my work, however, I have seen hundreds of similar tablets from all over Europe; he has not, and I doubt with his obvious limited experience at Latin, if he could even tell the similarities, much less subject matter.
In light of the previous paragraph, Prof. MacGregor's completely false rendering of my decipherments in English or Latin hardly deserve even the slightest attention.
But now in paragraph #17, Prof. MacGregor makes wild statements like Hubbard and Schaffranke cannot tell the difference between a sigma and a xi or recognize the breathing equivalent to our "H" and so forth, which perplexed me deeply. I back-checked my work carefully and could not figure out why this statement was made, so I asked Harry what he thought this was all about. Harry informed me that the problem was in his discussion having to do with the Greek words for 'glass' and 'glasslike' used by Strabo. I understand the problem now and have scolded Harry for it, but the reader must pay close attention to the unfeigned explanation. When Harry composed that article, he used a Greek computer font for those words. All of the articles were sent to the Ancient American magazine on a disk, and when the AA staff rebooted the disk, their computer did not have Greek font capabilities, hence the Greek letters that Harry used were reactivated on the file as their English computer keyboard counterparts. This caused a couple of letters to become incorrect English characters. It was decided by Frank Joseph (the editor of AA) to leave the near-English counterpart for simplicity's sake, feeling that no one would ever notice the difference implying that it was a very small concern of his. Well, to say the least, this sent me reeling. I thought for a moment the Professor actually had a worthy argument, but he didn't even get off the computer keyboard! And he is supposed to be my opposition?
Add to this scenario the fact that I have known Harry Hubbard now for well over 5 years and I have never, under any circumstances, ever heard him mispronounce his "K's". I am now irritated that the Professor had called us down on something so trivial that was out of our control.
Prof. MacGregor's proposals concerning his Ebophics Epigraphy is the most insane and embarrassing thing I've ever seen printed by a Professor. He should stick to doing that because he seems to have a really good grip on it. But I might suggest that he learn basic Roman Numerals first.
In addition to all this, around the time of Christ, there existed several archaic consonantal alphabets throughout the provinces east and west: Numidian and Neo-Punic in North Africa, Iberic in Spain and Demotic in Egypt. It was only by the 3rd century AD that "Classical Latin" became widespread throughout the western provinces as we know them today. Prof. MacGregor does not realize I am addressing a completely new phonetic alphabet and Language with Latin as the backbone. I agree that only a novice would confuse Numidian with Greek characters, it can be done very easily. It is evident to me that Prof. MacGregor is clue-less about Numidian as well as any other regional archaic African script. Before passing judgment regarding ancient alphabets, the Professor needs to inform his readers how many ancient tablets in Aramaic, Etruscan, Egyptian Glyph, Demotic, Iberic, Faliscan, Umbrian, Oscan he has deciphered and published; or what if any ancient languages he actually broke. I have published over 100 such decipherments with hundreds more in the tank, but why bother printing them if American Scholars don't understand the simplest forms of ancient European scripts. As an exercise, Prof. MacGregor should begin with something simple like deciphering the Rosetta Stone, a feat I accomplished at age 11. If he could prove that task then he might be ready for my 1996 video release titled Etruscan Volume I which comes with an illustrated Workbook. In the meantime, I suggest he keep his hot air to himself and let us 'True Scholars" continue our work to enlighten mankind with more amazing discoveries. Prof. MacGregor's mentality dates to the Inquisition period and he is truly a disgrace to his students and his institute. Such blatant rhetoric is unacceptable when there is so much information available. Should he or anyone desire to learn anything about the Archaic Latin language, I highly recommend the works of Varro and also the "Remains of Old Latin" available from the Loeb Classical Library.
Prof. MacGregor has a lot to learn and he is not even in our league for comment and criticism of anything. In our history, we never claimed that it all came from Alexandria, perhaps he needs to retake a test in English reading comprehension. We have taken minute pieces of the data available and related it to the public as what we know so far. There are still many questions left unanswered to this enigma and all we can do is record the information, and with common sense, which eludes most scholars, put together a plausible scenario of what may have happened. However, our scenario has to comply with ancient history already known for thousands of years. It is beyond any human capacity to blindly solve this 2000 year old mystery completely with only a couple of information sources and we may never know all the answers. The same problems exist with circumstances as recent in history as WW2 less than 60 years ago. I find it difficult to even classify Prof. MacGregor as a historian of any sort, but rather, a simple-minded ignoramus. The remainder of his article is total trash and too ludicrous to warrant any further attention.
In sum, Prof. MacGregor is a washout I now demand an apology from the University of Illinois at Chicago for the reckless behavior and asinine slanders heaped upon me by Prof. MacGregor.
Authenticating Burrows Cave
A Response to Alexander P. MacGregor's article in Issue #21
by Dr. Psycho Covey, Professor Emeritus, Wake Forest University
During 1982, Russell Burrows accidentally found a cave in southern Illinois unlike anything else of its kind. Its interior concealed several thousand stone and metal artifacts portraying overseas' visitors to America many centuries before Columbus set sail for the New World. Since its discovery, the site, known as Burrows Cave, has been the focal point of a controversy still debated by scholars.
Self-styled Epigrapher, Paul Schaffranke, deciphered several translations of Burrows Cave script that appears in issue #16 of Ancient American. Harry Hubbard is an antiquarian in search of the location of Burrows Cave, which has been kept secret by Burrows.
Alexander P. MacGregor, is with the Department of Classics, University of Illinois at Chicago. Amon was the Ancient Egyptian sky-god and chief deity. Oklahoma's Spiro Mounds was a Late Mississipian site (circa 1200 AD) looted of its archaeological treasures in the 1930's.
Mr. MacGregor's "exhaustive analysis" unprofessionally misrepresents individuals, history and Epigraphy. I never thought I would be defending Harry Hubbard, by of hyperbolic libels, outrageous theories and backhoe gouging, but he never contended that Alexander Helios escaped Egypt in 39 BC with the tomb of Alexander the Great or that this son of Antony and Cleopatra was a blood descendant of his namesake. Hubbard knew that Alexander the Great founded Alexandria and was encrypted in the Sema, as were his general Ptolemy and successors (Cleopatra built her own mausoleum.)
Hubbard knew that Augustus in his counter-clockwise tour through Spain of what is now Cherchell, Algeria, installed Juba II, the Numidian heir as king of Mauretania and Alexander Helios' twin sister, Cleopatra Selene, the Ptolemaic heiress, queen, 20 BC. Hubbard and Paul Schaffranke did not realize that Augustus had traded Juba's Numidian inheritance for Mauretania which had undergone profound Carthaginianizing, retaining the Egyptian religion of Carthage, some use of Punic writing and Old Libyan (Numidian or Berber.)
Though nominally subject to Rome, Juba was king, not governor or Mauretania, with far greater autonomy than a governor after Claudius converted the kingdom to a double Roman province. Archaeology has revealed an unexpectedly sophisticated capital at Caesaria. Disparaging Juba as "a stooge" unjustly characterizes the learned king, who wrote books in Greek and Latin, discovered seven of the nine Canary Islands, and enjoyed universal eminence in his time.
MacGregor's ungrateful disparagement of Plutarch as "sentimental" hardly dismisses his testimony. Juba's subjects did not rise in revolt against him. Mauretanians revolted against Rome when Caligula assassinated Juba's son Ptolemy XV. Mauretanian Jews revolted in tandem with the Bar Kokhba movement against Rome. It violates non of the established historical facts to guess that Alexander Helios accompanied his sister and brother-in-law in Augustus' 20 BC entourage and continued to reside in Caesaria -- his little brother Philadelphus also if still living. Alex would have been next in line for the Mauretanian throne until the birth of Ptolemy XV, which plausibly motivated a follow-up of Juba's explorations and of Carthaginian colonizing across the Atlantic.
He would have had the generous resources of fleet and troops at his disposal. It is further plausible that once beyond the Roman Empire he could tout himself as the legitimate pharaoh of Egypt, as had Numidian kings after the demise of Carthage. Burrows stones that map the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico to about the site of St. Paul, also part way up the Missouri and Ohio, and that pinpoint the site of Burrows Cave, indicate ascent to the heart of thriving Hopewell culture via the Gulf.
These stones and their inscriptions map the Guadalquivir, which Romans called Baetis, as on the stone Schaffranke translated. MacGregor ignored that stone, a crucial verification of Schaffranke's deciphering method, since it correctly locates known towns by the Roman method of dots and emphasizes the sites of Caesar's two final victories, etc. Schaffranke's "Romulans," which Romans did not call themselves, were colonies for veterans that Julius Caesar founded in Spain -- an unintentional verification.
Contrary to MacGregor's apprehension, monumental Roman Epigraphy resorted conventionally to abbreviations, some of which Schaffranke missed. Vincent Mooney lengthily critiqued Schaffranke's translations at the 1995 ISAC symposium only to conclude that the selected inscriptions were after all largely Latin. It is not Ciceronian, retaining the archaic Chalkidic alphabet, which provincial Spain adopted either via late-relinquished Etruscan or late-relinquished Neapolitan Greek, and read retrograde or boustrophedon after archaic precedent of both.
Schaffranke discerned what no one else had, as Michael Ventris in the case of Linear B. We do not ask how many years of formal training Ventris had in Greek, but what was his method and result. Would that professional classicists tested Schaffranke's methodology and texts instead of denigrating ad hominem. In standard Greek, H was indicated as an inverted apostrophe, in Latin by H. But does MacGregor know the usage of Mauretania and Iberia in 1st Century BC / AD lingual flux that mixed Chalkidik, Ptolemaic koine, Numidian, Celtiberic and Neo-Punic? Hopewell Illinois, in any event, would deviate in some minor degree from the Roman Senate. As in the case of the plus-sign for "and," the parallel vertical strokes for H (Latin H with the cross-bar omitted) fits the context consistently.
What would be a more proper alternative? MacGregor may assert that it did not predate the Middle Ages, but how does he know about provincial usage, and how does he know the stones in question are not Medieval? Cave potsherds date contemporary with the rise of Cahokia, c. 800 AD, when evidently the Cave was sealed (consistent with Yuchi Shawaeno tradition.) Although apparently commemorating the founder king and his most sacred associations (Juba, Caesar, Ptolemy I, among specific identifications), the mausoleum must have served as a ceremonial center for some centuries.
If the skeleton in a sarcophagus atop a slab which Russell Burrows discovered in the main crypt should be that of Alexander Helios (who is repeatedly mentioned and depicted on the Tablets), it would not be Alexander the Great's transferred, but would fit the historical picture, as we can establish it. We would expect a linguist to speak more carefully about language. Note that all the scripts and styles of Burrows Cave are authentically Mediterranean. In addition to that total consistency, the languages scripted are precisely those found concurrently in Mauretania and Iberia before the Mauretanian revolt and the same mix we find creolized in so-called Algonquin, the language that prevailed in the region of Burrows Cave well into the 18th Century.
One minor detail: the ram head on the Burrows Stone depicted page 30 also symbolizes Amon.
Finally, we had better be wary of trashing Col. Burrows, who brought the thousands of Stones, map and bountiful other information to light and endured disdain for his looting services -- a familiar fate of thieves. Prejudging "experts" have seldom studied that evidence in context or noted the elegance of many pieces, notably large black ones. Hubbard and Schaffranke, who do realize the genuiness of the Cave, dismissed the clear and careful Ogam of many Stones as actual Ogam, which does not read as Gaelic, but Boutet of Quebec has identified Celtiberic, consistent with all the rest.
When the Cave was available for excavation, a prejudging concerted campaign to discredit it followed. Now to open it, would require the estate executor's permission, which his clients do not at present authorize; waiver of state and federal laws prohibiting disturbance of burials; receptivity of the state archaeologist and Field Museum; and assurance of security from vandals like Russell Burrows. If Burrows or the executor, who also knows the Cave's locale, divulged it, the contents would suffer the same fate as Spiro Mounds of Oklahoma.
Reply to Covey by HH: Here comes the Calvary. After all the body slams and insults I have hurled at Dr. Psycho, he continues attempting to impress me. I really don't need his support and would be just as well off without it. He does make a few good points, but hardly worth the time and trouble of debate.