Com-piracy: The Archaeologist Who Conveniently Disappeared from History

the archaeologist who conveniently disappeared from history

By Steven Strong and Andy Whiteley

Contributing Writers for Wake Up World

We came ever so close to relenting and using the dreaded “c-word” – conspiracy – as the heading for this article. After eschewing that same opportunity in the first and second articles devoted to this topic, preferring to avoid the usual “tin foil hat” rhetoric, this time the temptation is manifestly greater and of a much more personal nature this time. Despite having absolute proof that government agencies were, and still are, actively involved in suppressing archaeological evidence of the presence of technologically advanced civilisations in ancient Australia, we will resist the urge to state things as they really are (at least in the title) and offer the above milder hybrid.

What can be stated with complete confidence is that the topic of ancient Egyptian influence in Australia was thoroughly canvassed and received favourably within academic circles and mainstream press. From the period between 1914 and 1937 a variety of eminent scholars and researchers were united in their belief that there had been interaction between ancient Egyptian and Original people. They freely acknowledged ancient Egyptian sites found within Australia, and made detailed comparisons between the customs of these two ancient peoples, which were widely printed in mainstream media outlets across the country.

Then the climate swung full circle.

A Sea of Troubles

Between 1937 and 1939 representatives from the Commonwealth of Australia took the matter into their own hands, suppressing information about Australia’s ancient history and making sure strife would befall any who objected. During these turbulent times of suspicion, threats and warnings of confiscation of property, long formed allegiances evaporated and incredible pressure was placed upon Frederic Slater (President of the Australian Archaeological and Education Research Society) and those who tried not to buckle under the lies and wilful destruction.

As Slater confided in personal correspondence “I have shipped a sea of troubles”.

Fortunately, as is always the case when pirates and deniers of truth are at the helm, their lies and actions were never fully concealed. Yes Slater’s academic standing plummeted, and all of his academic records mysteriously vanished. In fact we cannot find one official reference to him anywhere, bar the news archives we have recently written about, nor could we find one visual image of his face – it is as the man never existed. But it wasn’t just the man who came under attack – the site that brought all of this Egyptian talk past the ‘tipping-point’ was destroyed under the duress of government, and his colleagues belittled into toeing the line and backing away.

Despite all the collateral damage, his letters, diagrams, notes, and all the personal correspondence sent to his on-site colleague escaped the censor’s attention. Then last year (2013) researcher Richard Patterson decided to find the most obscure filing cabinet at the Brunswick Valley Historical Society (in Mullumbimby NSW) and look inside. It was then that he sighted a black, untitled folder containing Slater’s hand-written letters, and thus ended 74 years of silence and missing Original truths.

When reading his letters in chronological order, it becomes quite obvious that, as the months of 1939 passed, Slater became less buoyant about his findings and more suspicious of the circumstances surrounding him. On first reading, his mistrust for those speaking on behalf of officialdom seems to verge on paranoia. But once we read of the events and approaches that led him to that point, we feel he was actually quite restrained.

Reading the Lines and in Between

Slater’s opening letter was laced with equal amounts of excitement and foreboding of potential future developments. He was positive that what was found at the Standing Stones “will be of worldwide interest”. But as promising as his opinion was, it was obvious Slater had already identified those whose motives were suspect and devious. In a tragically prophetic warning, Slater advised his co-worker to have nothing to do with one of the many agents-provocateurs. From Slater’s personal correspondence:

“Re the invitation of the Anthropological Society to send down some specimens. Don’t. They know nothing. They are only making another attempt to steal the brains and property of others”.

What is quite illuminating, and certainly shows the lines of division, is that the same Anthropological Society was standing behind and beside Slater barely two years earlier. The team, whose work in 1937 Slater proudly presented to an enthusiastic audience at the Science Congress, contained two members of the Anthropological Society whom he now despised; “Mr. W. J. Enright”, a “former president of the Anthropological Society of Sydney” and Mr. Roy H. Goddard, an active member of the Anthropological Society of Sydney. People he once commended as “proper.. archaeologists” and “explorers” were by 1939 deemed by Slater as unprincipled and liable to “steal”. This leads us to believe that the shift away from truthful exploration and towards the academic status quo was already in progress before the Standing Stones site was brought to Slater’s attention in early 1939. And as Slater continued, he revealed the scale and complicity of the officially sanctioned agencies now railing against him, and others who advocated his findings, reminding his assistant that “the Anthropological Society is run by the Museum. Nuf sed”.

By no means did Slater roll over and accept ‘the inevitable’. Slater saw this dispute in terms of a battle. In one corner was the archaeology and translations of the Standing stones, which he believed to be “the basis of all languages”; in the other corner were those who so vehemently opposed him bringing this information to light. He (correctly) believed that because of what he had interpreted, he was “not loved by anthropologists”, who he felt were the “authors of modern materialism”. In his eyes, they were the enemy.

Nonetheless, He was very pro-active and was constantly trying to find ways to circumvent the actions of the many people he knew were actively conspiring against him, and the Standing Stones site in particular. Showing his determination, Slater remained adamant that what was discovered would “revolutionise many departments of knowledge” and provided “the knock-out blow to animal evolution”. And in his second letter Slater proposed that this site was so “important to archaeology and must be preserved as a national memorial”.

Memorializing this site was a theme he would raise throughout his letters, and on occasions, he provided specific details as to how this might happen. But despite his positive facade, we suspect that he knew deep down he was swimming up-stream and that the currents were accelerating in the opposite direction.

In his fourth and fifth letters, Slater was less prone to melancholy and seemed to be quite positive about future prospects, as his research of the standing Stones continued to expand more horizons. Slater spoke of a renaissance and “awakening of a new interest” in “the wonder of these stones that talk”. In a very optimistic frame of mind, he predicted there would be headlines “in the newspapers” reporting “Australia’s Link with Primordial Man” and “The Stonehenge of Australia”.

Harking back to his concept of protection through tourism, he lauded this site as “a world discovery”, and declared that “the Mystic Track of Life… is destined to become a magnet for scientists and tourists alike”. Continuing in the same positive vein, he noted that the current owner “will see the glory of ownership which may prove more profitable than his farm” through publicity and paid access.

Regrettably his buoyant mood was fleeting and by the sixth letter he reminded his colleague, once again, of who not to trust and also of what he felt was the sites’ legal loop-hole and saving grace.

“If you are approached by any museum authorities, do not give one of them up no matter how they bluster. They know nothing about them but profess to be the guardians of everything on earth. Fortunately, the discovery is on private property and no claim can stand. Nor would anybody be permitted to take possession of them or claim them…”

Unfortunately, as events unfolded both here and abroad, the apparent protections of “private property” were not enough to protect the Standing Stones.

Boiling Billies at the Car Park

The seventh letter illustrates how Slater constantly fluctuated between utter despair and pro-active ripostes. Knowing secrecy is the weapon of the deceitful and most ruling elites, Slater saw salvation and protection through public interest as another counter, and set out in his concluding remarks how this could come to fruition.

“Tell XXXX that when we have got the mound properly laid out and the symbols explained he will have to make a charge for entering the ground, set aside a place for parking cars and a small area for boiling the billy. If I were drawing up the rules I would permit drivers of public vehicles, certainly all buses, to enter free only charging for the passengers”.

Two letters further on it becomes obvious that the forces of repression and government intransigence were fully mobilised, and the owner of the farm had been formally approached by post.

“I warned you very early in the piece that the anthropologists would start blustering and making declarations as if they owned the earth. They know nothing about archaeology and consequently are “incompetent” to express an opinion … I would like to get copies of the letters sent to XXXX”.

Apparently the pressure had been ramped up considerably and the owner was receiving official “letters”. That being the case, Slater’s belligerence and disdain may be understandable, but I’m not sure it was the best tactic to adopt in reply. If Slater’s colleague had employed Slater’s advice and responded to this action by replying in writing to the anthropologists that “no incompetent person is permitted on it”, I can’t see how this would create anything other than more grief ahead.

On the surface there seems to be a brief respite in hostilities because, from then up until Slater’s twelfth letter, there is no mention of plotting from anthropologists, Museum officials or Government agents. Rather, Slater discussed new developments and a positive attitude. But as the narrative continues, it becomes clear the new avenue Slater was chasing was support and sponsorship from overseas. Given the public interest evident in earlier years, we suspect Slater had realised by this point that, in Australia, he has lost not only the battle but maybe the entire war.

Are We Downhearted? Most Definitely

Slater had sent an article “to America where I hope to introduce XXXX XXXX and make an appeal for some of those Carnegie and Rockefeller funds”. The reason this wasn’t done earlier is inferred in an off-hand comment which really shows that the forces stacked up against Slater were in the ascendency: “Are we downhearted? The sun of fortune will shine on us yet”. Because those in Australia were directly responsible for Slater’s despondency and desperation, and for every avenue in his country of origin being closed off, it seems Slater hoped the sun would rise in America.

Slater’s cynicism and frustration continued throughout the exchange of letters. Finally in Slater’s last letter we see his cause was lost and the final step was about to be taken to silence the whole untidy talk of ancient Egyptians in Australia and the First Language spoken by modern humans.

Of vital importance, “your statement about a visit from a Lands Department officer stirred me up a bit”, said Slater. He immediately wrote “to the Minister for Lands” complaining about the actions of people “in the Museum and in the University”, but he sensed time was running out, as was his patience. Adopting an unfamiliar tone, born no doubt out of helplessness and a real sense that the battle with officials and conscripted academics was well and truly lost, Slater wrote “I suggest – no demand this time – you make a complete chart of the mound”. Never before had he been so strident, but his fears were well grounded, for within months the site was disc ploughed into the ground and completely destroyed.

Knowing how sympathetic the owner was to what Slater and his colleague were researching, and that the owner abstained from ploughing the paddock lest he disturb one shaped or placed rock, the fact he instructed his son to destroy the site seems at odds with his deeds and sympathies (note: we personally interviewed the son of the farmer who was 15 years-old at the time). Of course, a visit from the Ministry of Lands in 1940, at at time when Australia was at war and under virtual martial law, provides the necessary context to understand the farmer’s actions.

What was said by officials can never be proven with paperwork, but the intensity of opposition apparent, the threatening letters sent and the unlimited powers of acquisition possessed by the Australian Government could all lead one to reason that while the Standing Stones remained standing, the farmer’s land was under immediate threat.

Put simply… he had no choice. If he didn’t destroy the site, his land was lost.

Put to the Disc-Plough

Once the farmer directed his 15-year-old son to disc-plough the smaller stones and store the bigger stones in the dairy, the letters stopped and government officials made no further front door visits. Slater’s work was suppressed, then officially disappeared without a trace, and from government’s perspective, everything fell back into place. No more ancient Egyptian mischief was reported in the press and Slater’s work miraculously disappeared from all academic records. The case was closed and the coast was cleared of all things Egyptians, and remained in stasis for nearly 75 years.

This action may well have been viewed as the final “solution” by those who feared Slater’s discoveries, but the truth always leaves its mark. When attempting to conceal an ancient truth of such immense importance to global affairs past and present, there were clearly so many loose ends to destroy or cover-up that officials were (thankfully) unable to cover all bases. With Slater’s notes now recovered, more corroborating archaeology conducted, and the academic climate more enlightened and educated, one might suspect the truth can finally be revealed, with the earlier official intransigence considered merely a relic of more repressive times.

But alas, nothing has changed and ignorance still reigns. We have also been inexplicably snubbed by Australian archaeological networks, and threatened by Government officials (both by post and telephone), while communications during many of our overseas interviews have also been jammed.

Clearly, the metaphorical disc-plough is still very much in use.

Truth and Fiction Must Collide Someday

In our final article on this long suffering censorship (for the time being) we will demonstrate that academics and government agencies today are no less active, conniving and spiteful as they continue to suppress the same inconvenient chapter, and many new chapters, of Original history. But there is one new addition to this mix. Slater had no trouble nominating his opponents but gave no indication that he understood why so many arms of government and academia were openly conspiring against his research.

It is of some use to ‘know thy enemy’, what is even more beneficial is to know what motivates thy enemy. And next time around we will identify the culprits who manipulated and fabricated, as well as their motivation to maintain this deceit. Armed with the Original truth and full knowledge of the ‘who and why’, at least the contest is now on a ‘level playing field’ – something Frederic Slater was not afforded. Now, knowing that “truth and fiction must collide someday”, all we have to do is keep telling the Original truth and wait patiently for that day of reckoning.

And that’s exactly what we plan to do.

In that spirit, we would like to share with our readers the archived newspaper clippings from throughout the 1930’s, found in various historical archives by historical researcher Erik Bower. Now that we have publicly discussed these news features and their historical implications, it is likely they too will disappear from national archives just as mysteriously as did Slater’s records. Thus, we believe it is of vital historical importance to post these news archives in their entirety.

Some of these clippings were specifically referred to in our last 2 articles on this topic, many were not. As you will see, not only was there a bounty of open discussion in media of the ancient Egyptian archaeology found in Australia, these articles cover a range of issues relating to ancient Original ancestry and culture that are far broader than we could discuss in a short series of articles. While proving the level of mainstream discourse in both rural and urban media, these clippings also demonstrate that archaeologists and academics who brought this information to the public forum were also held in extremely high regard. Among the respected academics who threw their hats into the Egyptian/Australian ring are:

  • Professor Dr. Elliot Grafton Smith, the “gifted Australian, who is today Professor of Anatomy at the Manchester University” and who “has been persuaded to deliver a series of lectures in Sydney early next month”.
  • Dr. Hermann Klaatsch, physician, anatomist, physical anthropologist, evolutionist and professor who “expresses the opinion that the Australian is one of the oldest races on earth… and he is not the first who has thought so”.
  • Sir Raphael Cilento, a respected Australian medical practitioner and one-time Director-General of Health and Medical Services, who inspected Aboriginal mummification techniques and declared “the incisions and method of embalming to be the same as those employed in Egypt during the 21st and 23rd dynasties over 2,900 years ago”.
  • W.J. Perry, Professor of Comparative Religion at the University of Manchester, who described how an ancient “archaic civilisation” of “sun worshippers” believed “to have had its origin in Egypt” spread across the globe, paying particular focus to “evidence in Australia”.
  • Dr. Albert Churchwood, “the eminent authority” on ancient symbols and symbology.
  • Dr. Donald Thomson D.Sc, Doctor of Science with a Diploma in Anthropology from Melbourne University.

News Archives – in Chronological Order

About the authors:

Steven Strong is an Australian-based researcher, author and former high school teacher. Together with his son Evan, his work is to explore the ancient story of the Original people, a narrative that was almost lost to aggressive European colonisation.

Andy Whiteley is a former corporate manager turned writer, editor and co-founder of Wake Up World. An advocate of peaceful (r)evolution, Andy believes we are on a necessary path (albeit bumpy) to a renewed social model grounded in love, transparency, individuality, sustainability and spirit. Connect with Andy at Facebook.com/JoinWakeUpWorld.

Additional research by Erik Bower.

This article © Wake Up World.

 


Wake Up World's latest videos

 

Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus