Originally posted by Logarock
IAccording to the editor of the Review of Archaeology, D.H. Kelley is "an epigrapher of considerable reputation." And what is the subject of this
respected journal and reputable epigrapher? B. Fell's work on North American inscriptions!
Kelley is concerned by the strange lack of supporting archeological evidence at the inscription sites, but as the following quotation demonstrates, he
dares to admit an ancient Celtic presence in North America.
The "strange lack of supporting archaeological evidence..." is the crux of the matter, isn't it?
Originally posted by Logarock"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 done 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."
I would ask Dr. Kelly to provide any solid evidence at all for this so called "extensive European presence in the New World" before I agree that we
should ask ourselves "where we have gone wrong."
At any rate, Kelly and I agree, where is the evidence?
Also, nobody (until now) has suggested researching the work of D.H. Kelly. I believe Fell was the subject.
This is what Kelly also says about Fell:
"Fell's work [contains] major academic sins, the three worst being distortion of data, inadequate acknowledgment of predecessors, and lack of
presentation of alternative views."
Note the "external source" tags I used. You should use these when you quote from another site.
The source of the above is your own link (The Atlantic.)
Originally posted by LogarockAs for your link I have discussed this in depth with the chapter president that handled the Kentuky Ogam.
Please point out in my link where it mentions any ogham in Kentucky.
Here's a page for people that want to know more. It includes my previous link on it:
LINK
Here's a couple more:
link2
Fell and the Los Lunas fraud
I agree with Kelly that without Fell, we might not have the "ogham problem" to perplex us. However, one should also note that there is no real
evidence for any "ogham problem" in the first place. Until there is, I maintain that there is no "ogham problem."
Also, in consideration of the idea that Fell has caused some people to look at things they weren't looking at before. Precisely the same thing could
be said about Erich VonDaniken and Graham Hancock. Both of these so-called "researchers" are nothing but con men, but they do make some people look
into ancient history that may never have done so had they not read the fantasies of these two writers (among others.)
Originally posted by Logarock
You need to give me a link to Berry Fell getting kicked out of his own organization.
Here's a quote from and a link to a pro-Fell paper:
Every once in great while mankind is blessed with genius. Barry Fell was one of these. Sadly, his revelations are not well liked by the establishment.
Even the Epigraphic Society, which he founded, has turned their backs to him and his works. Indeed, they do their best to erase him from memory and
with a collective vow of silence, refuse to acknkowledge his genius.
In Praise of Barry Fell
I admit that it doesn't specifically state he was booted out. Perhaps I misremembered - I don't have time to look further on this right now.
It does state that his own society which, during his life consisted primarily of his own disciples (amateurs that wanted to believe,) no longer is so
enthusiastic in their support of Fell's lousy (academically speaking) work. In fact, they do everything but repudiate it.
This is because much of what Fell claimed has been shown to be wrong. It's also been shown (in many cases) that, had Fell worked in the manner he
should have (and he knew that he wasn't doing this - he knew the proper way but chose on his own not to operate that way,) most of the mistakes he
made he could have uncovered himself, prior to publishing them and making himself look like a fool.
Anyway, like I said, my responses here are to the recommendation to research Fell's work. That is a mistake. I'd suggest Kelly, or the others you
mentioned. Anyone but Fell.
Harte
