Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory
University of Pennsylvania Press
I found this to be a very informative book discussing discoveries not accepted by mainstream science. Dr. Williams covers each subject in detail, presenting a complete background covering all sides of the issues. He lays out the criteria for evaluating the results of fieldwork, providing helpful hints clearly marking the path to realistic interpretations of the data.
The discussion of my great-grandfather James Churchward originally drew my attention to read the book. Reading Fantastic Archaeology was an eye-opening experience for me in that the book addresses the tablet discoveries of William Niven in the Valley of Mexico. Had I read it prior to writing The Stone Tablets of Mu, I could have included his analysis and treatment of the subject instead of missing it and asking the question, “Why doesn’t anyone write about or study the tablets?” My original supposition was since James did not find the tablets and apart from the 2600 unique tablet discoveries, William Niven contributed many worthwhile, credible artifacts to the National Museum. On the other hand, James interpreted the tablets; perhaps some bias was preventing their study. Obviously, my search was not broad enough. There is a rewrite necessary to update The Stone Tablets of Mu.
Persons interested in archaeology will want to read the book to learn about past cases of ‘Fantastic Archaeology’ and their cyclical nature. Written before the explosion of social media, he shows that old, debunked material recycles regularly, without the extra baggage identifying evidence of a hoax or the commonly accepted interpretation. I have first-hand experience of this cyclical phenomenon with the alleged ‘discovery of the Naacal Tablets,’ by Thomas Ritter in India sometime in 2010. The ‘discovery’ was easily debunked (http://my-mu.com/podcasts/pc26.html) in 2011. Earlier this week (July 2016,) the fable again appeared and assumed its place in line as the miraculous story of the day. Did the latest incarnation provide any verifiable evidence or just regurgitate the same story? You already know the answer. Another case also deserves mention, the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS.) Why doesn’t the former host of a cable TV show mention the deathbed confessions of Olof’s son and a close friend attesting the KRS was a hoax when he discusses it? Never mentioned is evidence and background information that might lead a rational person to disbelieve the veracity of the KRS.
This book provides well-documented information discussing many cases of ‘Fantastic Archaeology.’ Researchers should probably not use the examples discussed in this book, if they want to be taken seriously.
This is a challenge for all the researchers on the hunt for ancient lost civilizations.
In the 1931 Children of Mu, James Churchward refers to the “Llakoff Islands” in the text quoted below from page 219.
“Off from the mouth of the Lena is Llakoff’s Island. This island is composed of the bones and tusks of mammoths and other forest animals which had been swept up from the Mongolian and Siberian plains by the flood and carried to this, their final resting place. In these bones we find a confirmation that no ice accompanied the wave, for had there been, their bodies and bones would have been mashed into a pulp, and as in eastern North America, no remains of them would be found and Llakoff’s Island never formed.”
Children of Mu, page 219
A web search yields references that all point back to this one passage or derivatives, there is no such place with this name.
The text is included as a portion of the chapter on the Great Uighur Empire describing its destruction. The complete chapter’s text can be viewed at http://www.my-mu.com/gue/com.html and even includes a map.
The questions are:
Provide the real name of the island (the easy part,) and,
Provide the name of the earliest written account that James may have used as a reference in his description of the island, as well as author’s name, publisher (if known,) and page numbers.
The winner of the contest will be the holder of the email address that sends the earliest correct answer to both questions. There will be only one contest winner. The contest will remain open for one month (May 2016) and all the responses evaluated. After the evaluation, the My-Mu.com blog will announce the winner. Preliminary research has developed tentative answers; however, that may not be the final word.
All entries shall be emailed to email@example.com and contain easily identifiable answers to the questions in English. Please include your name (or alias) to be included in the announcement of the winner. Please use an alias if you do not wish your name to become public.
The Contest Administrator (Jack Churchward,) may request verification of the answer to the second question via email to request a url to an image of the text from a printed work or the actual text listed online (i.e., you have seen a document I have not.)
The Contest Administrator is the sole arbiter of the results of the contest.