Conflicting Accounts of Whether Producers, History Channel Capitalized on Dan Brown for "Holy Grail" Documentary

6/12/2013

I’ve talked quite a bit about responsibility, both the responsibility of the media to avoid intentionally misrepresenting history, archaeology, and anthropology to their audiences, and the responsibility of those who claim to speak for those disciplines to play fair with the facts. I will remind everyone once again that this is not a legal requirement: No law prevents you from lying through your teeth about history, so long as you don’t libel those you discuss—and one cannot libel the dead.

Take a look at this interesting piece about Steven Pinker and the misuse of anthropology. I’m not sure what I think yet; I’m still digesting it. Perhaps tomorrow I will have more thoughts on it.

I know I’ve harped on America Unearthed quite a bit in regard to responsibility and truth (though not nearly so much as I have Ancient Aliens or the ancient astronaut theorists in general). It’s easy to do since so many people who have appeared on the show have complained about being lied to (Scott Dawson), misrepresented (Joe Rose), or taken out of context (Dennis Parada). Still others have agreed that the show did one of those things to them, but they’re OK with it because it’s “just entertainment.”

Does it surprise you that Andrew and Maria Awes, the production team behind the show, have had the same complaints made against them for years? Listen to what Alice Kehoe, of Marquette University, said about her appearance in the Aweses’ 2009 documentary Holy Grail in America, starring Scott Wolter. The documentary proposed the first version of Wolter’s idea that the Templars and Cisetercians were in a conspiracy to colonize medieval America in the name of the Holy Bloodline of Jesus. This is what she told Archaeology magazine in the May/June 2010 edition:

Maria Awes assured me the Templar stuff would be minor. But that’s not what happened. It’s clear the whole thing turned into an effort to get on the Dan Brown bandwagon. … We were all told they were going to make an hour-long documentary on the rune-stone, and that we would all have a chance to explain our views. But it was dominated by the same group of reenactors dressed up as Templars.

After purchasing the film, the History Channel doubled its run time to two hours and poured more money in to expand the film.

In 2010, executive producer Mike Stiller of the History Channel denied to Archaeology that the program, which aired at the same time as the release of Dan Brown’s Lost Symbol, had any relationship to Brown’s books, citing perpetual interest in the Templars at every time of the year. (Disclosure: As EP in charge of the Ancient Aliens pilot and MonsterQuest Stiller oversaw the decisions that led to the former show implying I was evil, though I believe he was not EP when MonsterQuest dropped me from their episode on flying monsters of Mexico.)

Compare Stiller’s denial to the production documents History received from the Aweses as part of their presentation trying to sell the film to his network several months earlier, when the program was still only an hour long and called “The Secret History of North America.” I obtained these documents from Minnesota Film and Television: “Its release could be timed perfectly to capitalize on the anticipated hype for the movie ‘Angels and Demons,’ the prequel to [Dan Brown’s] ‘The Da Vinci Code,’ which focuses in part on the Templars.”

Just as History claimed to me to have no knowledge that America Unearthed came from the same team that delivered Holy Grail in America, the network also claimed to have had no knowledge that the project was designed to capitalize on Dan Brown’s popularity, despite documentary evidence to the contrary. Sure, it’s possible that History simply “forgot” about the documents, or never read them, and that the timing was a coincidence. (In the late 2000s almost any time was reasonably close to some Dan Brown related event.) But despite History’s denials, we know that Scott Wolter and the Aweses set out to ride Dan Brown’s coattails.

13 Comments

CFC

6/12/2013 10:51:06 am

Harry Shapiro was a curator of physical anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History and professor at Columbia University. He’s quoted as saying…

“Science has another duty beyond the impassioned and objective search for truth. It has also the responsibility for keeping the truth inviolate and uncorrupted. On some occasions this assumes the form of revealing the underlying insecurity of popular as well as scientific speculation”.

Gunn

6/12/2013 01:32:17 pm

Yes, we approach keeping truth inviolate and uncorrupted through speculations, scientific or otherwise, though we often feel insecure in doing so. And it's no wonder.

Of course, the hoax Dan Brown's house was built upon collapsed in time for him to have known better than to continue on with "the lie," but Brown soaked our culture in it anyway.

The hoax of the so-called "holy bloodline" collapsed in time, too, for Dan Brown author-advocates of the time to have purged themselves from the newly-exposed hoax...but some did not, apparently including Wolter.

Does this mean that the Knights Templar could not have come to MN in the mid-Fourteenth century? Not at all. And, what exactly does the hoaxed bloodline have to do with the Templars, anyway? If the French hoax Brown's novels were built on is now exposed, doesn't that necessarily mean that the nonsense of the false bloodline is now exposed, too? One would think so, unless a person (Wolter) would be willing to try to prove the bloodline hypothesis aside from the hoaxed information.

Apparently, this is what Wolter wants to do, by replacing exposed hoax material with other material, such as the sadly victimized hooked x runic character. Perhaps the Knights Templar are being victimized, too.

The opportunity to associate the KRS with the Templars and a proposed bloodline arose out of Wolter's examination of the Kensington Runestone. In his Hooked X book, Wolter thoroughly combined the KRS with the Knights Templar and Cistercian monks, which may end up being okay for history speculation, but not okay to the almost total exclusion of other Christians who could have been responsible for carving the "Catholic" document back in 1362. Apparently, Wolter still has a basis for believing in the holy bloodline, other than from the hoaxed material.

The author Wm Mann (Templar Meridians) thought bloodline representatives may have been placed around North America in conjunction with locating mineral resources and leaving treasure. I don't know what he thinks now.

I personally don't like to see the runic A character (hooked x), such as can be found on the KRS associated with the bloodline hypothesis, but it especially bothers me to hear it being called a symbol representing a physical, fleshly offspring of Christ, rather than the acknowledged medieval symbol for "In Christ," which is historically correct.

This may be the extrapolation by Wolter that most offends, and I'm guessing that this may be why History channel is skittish in supporting his author activities. Being perceived as "profane" by a goodly portion of American's citizens is probably reason enough for History Channel not wanting to support Wolter outside of America Unearthed, I'd say.

Bottom Line: Trying to popularize the KRS in a false light is not helpful if it is genuine, as I believe. Adding to the actual message is not helpful at all, whether it be about mooring ships or search parties or men dying of disease, or saying the hooked x means something it may not mean at all. I call the latter "profane speculation."

Why is the new book delayed? Maybe Scott's having second thoughts about offending half of America. But, some things are hard to let go of....

Jens

6/15/2013 09:39:10 pm

It's nok genuine.
Don't waste your time . No experts ever thought of it as a genuine artifact.
The specialists Erik Moltke, Harry Andersen and Karl Martin Nielsen all deemed it a hoax. The evidence was overwhelming, Countless simplicities raised suspicions. The word opdagelsesfærd (journey of discovery) is not known previous to the 16th century, the period in which the runic alphabet went out of use.
From the highly esteemed danish archeaology magazine ''Skalk''
#3 - 2003.

Moreover we now know, that Ohman copied of the Larsson papers. Which displays the hooked x.
That anyone whould choose to disregard such strong evidence is beyond me.

6/16/2013 04:27:26 am

Jens, you and your references are way behind times. Nothing you said suggests "strong evidence" in favor of a hoax, in light of all the new and current information. I could make up an impressive list of professionals (not including Wolter if you wish) who have deemed it genuine over the years. Anybody can look at all the "evidence" available and make up their own minds...but one should be open-minded, at least.

But, seriously, you are relying on old information selectively and ignoring new evidences pointing to its authenticity. You are absolutely incorrect in saying that no experts ever thought of the Kensington Runestone as a genuine artifact. Do your own in-depth study and be willing to be surprised....

6/12/2013 04:33:28 pm

on the Christian/Templar aspect- if Templars were not following the doctrine of the Catholic Church- why would they put such a total Catholic *for that time* phrase as AVM on it? That also brings up the question as to why, then, would the Templars revere a blood line that they felt was not Holy/Divine but just a prophet?

6/13/2013 02:59:46 am

I see your point, JJ...if Jesus were shown to have not been God (supposedly), then where was the "honor" for being in His bloodline? But, a further problem arises if Jesus is seen as being both a fleshly father and God, too.

I'm not sure where Wolter is going to come from on this, but I might mention that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw Jesus alive on earth between His resurrection and His ascension 40 days later. There are no "Jesus bones," because Jesus is alive today, as God.

The idea that Jesus fathered a child is quite profane, but especially when one considers that He was immaculately conceived. My own opinion is that associating the Knights Templar with a so-called holy bloodline hypothesis is profane, too, when one considers that the majority of ordinary Templars would have been following the Christian message of redemption, not an abstract and decidedly "unholy" bloodline viewpoint, as speculated by Wolter. What is he turning the image of the Knights Templar into? What has he tried to turn the image of the KRS into? What is he trying to turn the image of the hooked X into?

Yes, the people who left the KRS in MN in 1362 were apparently following the "Catholic" doctrine of the time, unlike the immigrants in the late 1800's, who were Lutheran for the most part. Why would these medieval Christians visiting MN have believed in a holy bloodline? Where is the evidence of that? I guess we're waiting for some actual evidence from Wolter about that...otherwise, the bloodline idea is just adding something else, unsubstantiated, to the message of the KRS.

For the benefit of readers, here is the message on the KRS (2010, Williams/Nielsen):

Eight Gotalanders and 22 Northmen on
(this?) acquisition journey from
Vinland far to the west. We
had a camp by two (shelters?) one
day's journey north from this stone.
We were fishing one day. After
we came home we found 10 men red
from blood and death. Ave Maria
save from evil.
There are 10 men by the inland sea to look
after our ships fourteen days journey
from this peninsula (or island). Year 1362.

Tara Jordan

6/13/2013 03:42:19 am

I challenge the so called "alternative experts" to find a single historical document that records a Knights Templars transatlantic journey to America.
Bibliothèque des Archives Nationales de France:
http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/

Steve

6/13/2013 03:59:24 am

Gunn, you might want to watch this. Barbara Frale is an interesting researcher in Italy.
http://youtu.be/ndGnEGCJuaA

6/13/2013 04:16:39 am

Reporting live from Disneyland:"Vatican researcher discovers Jesus death certificate on Holy Shroud".By doing so,the Vatican researcher denies the divine nature of the "son of god".
By the way,it has been demonstrated that The Turin Shroud(The Miraculous image of a mythological character) is fake.Get over it.

6/13/2013 03:45:33 pm

Your sources, scat girl?

Dave Lewis

6/13/2013 07:34:41 pm

Jason said "...when MonsterQuest dropped me from their episode on flying monsters of Mexico."

They probably dropped you because you don't look much like a flying monster from anywhere.

6/14/2013 11:25:23 am

Tara, even Jason, I believe, would disagree with your view that Jesus was a mythological character, but I must agree with you about the Shroud of Turin being a fake IF it suggests in any way that Jesus was enshrouded in it more than 3 days. Jesus being in a shroud for 12 months makes no sense, as it conflicts with Biblical events. After being crucified, His physical body was dead for 3 days, after which His body came back to life...but in a different form that was able to walk through a wall, yet eat fish.

Steve, begging your pardon, but we are discussing the divinity of Jesus. This 12-months-in-the-shroud theory is as bad for attacking the divinity of Jesus as Wolter's hook-in-the-x theory, which designates the hook as representing a flesh child of Christ.

Vanity, vanity...all is vanity.

(Dave Lewis, I think Jason looks more like "The Last of the Mohican Lumberjacks" with safety glasses in place, than a flying monster.)

6/14/2013 05:34:38 pm

The book Relics of the Christ by Joe Nickell lists lots of items that are considered to be relics. Apparently these items drew lots of Christian tourists.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.