History is a humanity, not a hard science. Moreover, the only history one can know is one's own. Historians are essentially journalists, often with agendas, reconstructing the past often citing likely biased historians from earlier times, to teach us the history we do not know.

In your daily harangue of alternative historians, you attack those who disagree with the histories you have assimilated as true. But how do you know the truth other than trusting those you've chosen to trust and distrusting those you've obsessively chosen to condemn?

What is the scientific litmus test for scholarship? What the majority says is true and untrue? Mainstream anthropology, similarly, is dismissive, at least in America, of diffusionism, a priori, without any curiosity or commitment whatsoever to actually investigate ideas that run contrary to their dogmatic beliefs no written histories can or will be found in the New World prior to Columbus, i.e., anything that might rock the boat on a fantasy ideal that indigenous cultures in North America were pristinely isolated from other cultures in ancient times.

So when you assert:

"Even the more nuts-and-bolts approach to alternative history, as promoted by America Unearthed, has followed this trend, spending a great deal of time wondering in awe at abstract concepts like the Mysteries of Mithras and spirit-matter duality, often at the expense of looking for physical evidence to support diffusionist claims."

You are merely echoing the mainstream mantra without knowing or permitting yourself to know what might change your reality were any archaeologist to authorize an actual dig at the Anubis Caves or anywhere else for that matter at dozens of similar, anomalous, non-indigenous sites along the Arkansas River.

It must be very comforting to live in a bubble of the history you regard as mainstream, ignorant of the possibility parallel histories, unknown to you and the mainstream at this time, might actually exist.

What real science (archaeology and anthropology more properly seen as humanities with non-omniscient knowledge) do you trust, Mr. Colavito, to write with such passion that you know all there is to know and condemn what you fear might be true?

Dr. Robert Meyer, Professor of Celtic at Catholic University of America, visited the Anubis Cave on the autumnal equinox of 1986 and declared some of the inscriptions he evaluated there as genuine ogham. The Mithraic connections were postulated 2 decades later by self educated epigrapher Phil Leonard. Dr. Barry Fell, archaeology's favorite whipping boy for diffusionism, translated consonantal ogham in the adjacent Nosepointer Cave to read, "Sun 6 months in the north, the remainder in the gloomy south" before any of 3 companion equinox solar alignments were observed at the pair of shelters. As David H. Kelley, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at the University of Calgary observed in the Spring 1990 Review of Archaeology, Volume 11, Number 1, "Proto-Tifinagh and Proto-Ogham in the Americas:

"I have no personal doubts that some of the inscriptions which have been reported are genuine Celtic ogham. Despite my occasional harsh criticism of Fell's treatment of individual inscriptions, it should be recognized that without Fell's work there would be no ogham problem to perplex us. We need to ask not only what Fell has sone wrong in his epigraphy, but also where we have gone wrong as archaeologists in not recognizing such an extensive European presence in the New World."

Dr. Kelley's remarks and other reputably cited news articles in defense of ogham-associated solar alignments in mid-America were scrubbed from the archaeoastronomy article on Wikipedia by an outspoken University of Leister grad student and a sympathetic American colleague co-authoring it in the spring of 2008 when I attempted to add some balance to their dismissive bias. In the end, these 2 academics had me silenced because I directly challenged an important omission in their historical narrative on archaeoastronomy's genesis: Metrology. This is the kind of whitewash and a priori rejection I have experienced first-hand with so-called professional archaeologists who regard themselves as sole authorities and gatekeepers of the collection of facts you worship as inviolable. Click the link next to my name above for a 3 minute synopsis video at the end of which I ask, rhetorically, "Isn't sanitizing history, pseudoscience?"

Mr. Colavito, evidence and the postulated theory set forth by credentialed experts of Ogham and associated archaeoastronomy in mid-America has been around for nearly 3 decades. Deny it if you will, but show me where your credentialed associates in archaeology have ever even bothered to visit the sites or authorize digs for portable artifacts, though those calls have been made by scientists with the USGS. It hasn't happened and it won't as long as the close-minded attitudes you espouse remain mainstream and unchallenged.

You first characterized me as "upset", now there's "outrage"? You're welcome to interpret my remarks as you please, however I'll point out to your readership I've remained "on topic" rebutting your remarks.

Indeed, your readership is aware you've been on a daily crusade the past week or so (perhaps longer) belittling and diminishing threads of history you find unpalatable with the drumbeat that diffusionism is wrong-headed thinking. I'm chiming in with anecdotal stories that demonstrate how manipulative and myopic American archaeology actually is. You clearly don't agree with my point of view, but that neither conveys that I am upset or outraged. I am your op ed voice.

Since this blog thread title begins with drugs, might I suggest the most dangerous drugs are dogmatic complacency and scientific indifference to new evidentiary paradigms, both of which American archaeology appears to over-indulge. So be it. The "facts" promulgated by these constrained minds must be weighted accordingly, IMHO.

"Sun 6 months in the north, the remainder in the gloomy south" makes no sense for Oklahoma. The sun is always in the south when viewed from OK. The only place it is six months in the north and six months in the south is on the equator.

It's a good reason to view my 85 minute documentary released in 2005, rather than have to do piecemeal educational responses to your many skeptical parries. But I'll oblige, as I understand many have short attention spans which is the reason I assembled 3 minute video vignettes. While you watch this one, you'll also hear from Barry Fell why the preferred pronunciation in America (and after all I am an American) is Seltic, confirmed independently at http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Celtic_pronounced_seltic_or_keltic.

Contrary to the archaeologists consulted for the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on ogham, which you and fellow archaeologists love to cite, there is an artifact I filmed at the Avebury museum north of Salisbury with vowels, consonantal ogham (same as is found in America's heartland) from 2200 BC, as you will see in Barry Fell's rebuttal at http://onter.net/video13.html

Next question, Mr. Anti-diffusionist? Oh, by the way, what about MY questions that have gone unanswered? How do you know what you know about history? It's the people you trust, right. It's the opposition you condemn you have such difficulties with. While you're on my web site's collection you might benefit from viewing onte.net/video14.html under the Rollin Gillespie caption and thumbnail regarding the psychological inertial barrier that prevents dogmatic professionals from grasping new ideas.

What is your scientific litmus test for scholarship? What the majority says is true and untrue? Is what the majority says always correct?

Varika,

Scholars disagree. One thing I try to do in rebutting Mr. Colavito or in responding to his challenges to me is present not just what I have to say as a journalist, but what other authorities I've interviewed in the past 30 years in researching this story have told me on video. Even then, I'm clearly disadvantaged against the authorities in control of the so-called facts and the dynamic that American archaeology has no fondness for diffusionist claims. I offer the best evidence I can to rebut. While you may regard this as overboard promotion, it is the only way I can effectively pit scholarship versus scholarship.

I don't know how to fill in some gaps in Ogham chronology; there's no comparable Rosetta Stone out there, at least not yet discovered. What I will say is we have collected enough of a pattern of circumstantial evidence of translatable ogham associated with archaeoastronomy, star maps and petroglyphic evidence distinctive from Native American rock carvings that some archaeological experts should be investigating this, but they've consistently demonstrated complacency. To me, that's an amazing 30 years of indifference, all because it suggests a total lack of the scientific method. Yes, I'm an advocate for change. If that's irritating to some, I plead guilty as charged, but I'm not backing down.

By the way, just as an aside, crazy usually shows itself in so many forms. One of those forms is in web site design. Yours, Mr. Monahan, fits the theme perfectly. It looks like it was designed in 1995, back when transitional gif animations used as logos were considered "cool", has the disorder and presentation of a jumbled mess, and the background certainly confirms my absolute worst fears for your mental stability and health.

But that is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to the horror when I see that you have a "Made with a Mac" button on the bottom of your "Archaeoastronomy" site. Please. That sort of thing went out of style nearly 20 years ago. And, as a designer who uses mostly Macs since you probably hadn't even ever heard of them, that horrified me the most of all.

I kindly beseech you, nay implore you, to change your design, bring it up to speed with modern times, and remove that silly throwback button which hails from the dark ages of the internet. I should not be so surprised at your use of it, however, because that usually is where your brand of "beliefs" usually belong.

I do have to confess that before I clicked on your site link, I had predicted exactly what sort of insanity I was likely to be confronted with in terms of design. Amazing how accurate these kinds of predictors can be, eh? To think: I was right on the money (except for the "Made on a Mac" button - that was a twist and a real horror).

You see, the science of psychology can most certainly provide people such as myself with the tools to ascertain what we shall encounter by making accurate predictions about people such as yourself. Now, if only your "alternative" theories could do as much....

Terry,

I've just reviewed your citation of Dr. Keyser's 1995 screed. Thanks for mentioning it, a fine example of American archaeology's archetypical close-mindedness and "dismissive at a distance" attitude toward the diffusionist implications of the Anubis Cave and its family of a dozen, demonstrably non-indigeneous examples of Ogham-captioned seasonal cusp shadow plays documented in America's heartland.

Had Keyser seen the site? No. Had he suggested archaeological digs there? No, yet, as with his similarly indifferent brethren, he heartily faults the authors for an absence of locally unearthed portable artifacts supportive of the petroglyphic/archaeoastronomical tandems, a classic, professionally-managed Catch-22 since the story erupted in 1975.

Yes, Keyser tries his best to "eviscerate the scholarship" of the advocates. He's not the first, and he'll not be the last. It is prototypical of archaeologists confronting challenges to their absolute authority to go long on generalities peppered with insults and pejoratives, but fall short on specifics. Keyser is consistent and consistently fails to score any direct hits of substance.

The Book of Ballymote contracdicts Keyser's assertion "true Ogam has vowels". There are over a hundred documented variants, including consonantal. Furthermore, many ancient languages including Hebrew began as vowelless and added vowels later for expansive reasons.

Keyser also relies on the shopworn belief that all vertically incised strokes found come from Plains Indian tally marks, yet make this observation of the Nosepointer Ogham (again from photos in the book, not from actual in situ observation)

"...the marks were made with at least four different tools (based on width and shape of the groove), the strokes are oriented in five different directions, and are of at least 3 different lengths."

Indeed, as the advocates have remarked, this screams of intentionality, specifically out of the ordinary for Indian tally marks, in that the ancient author most likely used different depths and different angles to DISTINGUISH adjacent linear clusters as independent letters. Nonetheless, Keyser considers himself enough of an authority to divine from the photos in the book alternate cluster patterns other than the 2-5-3 groupings representative of the Ogham consonants G-R-N (Grian, sun). His insistence that Occam's Razor alone is grounds for dismissal of pre-Columbian contact is a trite and convenient canard well worn as a justification to ignore and insult all challengers of mainstream anthropological thought. But what's not to expect from a reviewer who openly admits his skepticism in advance.

Bradley T. Lepper's review in American Antiquity, Vol. 60, No. 3 (July 1995) pp. 586-587 http://www.jstor.org/stable/282289 erred in ignoring the Anubis Cave's archaeoastronomy, witnessed only AFTER the neighboring Ogham inscriptions were understood, but he took a more moderate and reasoned POV in rejecting the advocates compared to Keyser's 4 page rant. Lepper viewed the advocates' comparisons with Old World analogs "inherently racist". Keyser claims "they fall prey to the subtle racism inherent in the 'Diffusionist True Believer' school". Colorado State Highway archaeologists on TV accused advocates and me, as documentary producer, of racism in 1985. John Colavito is much more muted, in politically correct 2013 to so resist the R word, but he indirectly continues to raise "racism" as an underlying motivator for some who could welcome the possibility Europeans left their mark in America before Columbus or the Norse. In a sense, then, should that condemn the research being done by those professionals who stay away from the sites and won't authorize digs to uncover any possibly supportive evidence. It's just missing, get over it everyone and trust the experts it won't be there ever were they to look?

Please consult the book's co-author Rollin Gillespie's response, www.jstor.org/stable/25669401 published in Plains Anthropologist, Volume 41, No. 156 (May 1996), pp. 201-203. Another rebuttal appeared to Leppert's review in American Antiquity, Volume 61, No. 3, July 1996.

Sounds like the plot to Ghostbusters II.

What's awful here is that Hancock wrote a really great, valuable book titled "Lords of Poverty: The Power, Prestige, and Corruption of the International Aid Business" back in 1989. It's based in his experiences doing some serious development work. I stumbled across this book in 2001 & then set about looking into what else he was writing.

... yikes! At first seeing the list of the insanity I had to verify that there wasn't more than one GH writing two different bodies of work. Sadly there isn't. I'm afraid that instead of invalidating mainstream archeology and history he's just knocking the legs out from under his own earlier sharp observations of the foreign aid (or "aid") world. Apparently having rejected some western economic practices with good reason he's also rejecting most other western disciplines for shaky reasons.