December 6, 2005
irresponsible archeology
Terry Stocker
Imagine a book in which:
illustrations are repeated: 7.14 & 10.6
and then varied in such a way as to make one doubt the credibility of the archaeologists: 5.5 & 6.9. What is the real orientation?
illustrations are variations of each other: 5.6 & 5.7 & 5.11
illustrations are not related to the text: 1.3, 5.1
illustrations are meaningless to the text: 2.11, 2.12
an illustration has a legend, but none of legend's items are in the illustration: 4.3
an illustration has many objects but no legend or explanation: 5.34
an illustration is a mess because nothing is designated and thus incomprehensible: 4.12
an illustration is the antithesis of science: 6.10
illustrations are complete distortion of reality, which is present correctly elsewhere: in 5.7 the arrow on the right assumes the land is flat, which it is not, see 5.8A. In 5.24 the ball court is higher than the pyramid, which it is not, see 5.7.
an illustration is imaginary science fiction (5.44) while realistic illustrations are presented (5.45)
I probably didn't itemize every illustration ˇ°mistakeˇ± in Ancient Tollan , since I have only had time to read it once. This book makes a mockery of archaeology.
In the acknowledgements FAMI is thanked for funds to translate the text. Since two of the authors cannot write in Spanish, we are left to wonder if maybe the senior author wrote it all. The text is as much of a mish-mash as the illustrations, with no hint of professionalism; so one is left to conclude that the second and third authors didn't even look at the manuscript. Finally, we might wonder if students wrote most of the text, explaining at least the repeating of two illustrations, and explaining the disastrous presentation in other illustrations.
I have confronted many individuals, including the three who wrote testimonials on the cover, as to how this book ever found its way into print. To date, I have not gotten an answer.
Someone needs to explain how such a mishap occurred this late in the history of archaeology. It is a complete travesty that the three authors would try to foist Figure 5.6 onto a thinking public. This is tantamount to a hoax, meaning the attempt to deceive. Someone must come forward and explain what is going on.
