by
Damien F. Mackey
In all honesty I would have to say that, generally speaking, I
was fairly and helpfully served during my experience of writing two
post-graduate theses at the University of Sydney (Australia) for the purpose of
exposing the problems with the conventional system of ancient history and
chronology. It was only at the end that matters become most unsatisfactory, as
one can read further on.
- In the case of the
first thesis completed in 1993, The
Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar, an MA by Research that was
intended by me to be a critical and searching examination of the very
foundations of the conventional chronology, I encountered only one case of
blatant bias from an examiner. This was when the thesis was first submitted for
marking. At the urging of a non-University colleague, I wrote a strong letter
of complaint to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, then Paul J. Crittenden, which
was effective, as the latter informed me (letter of 23 December 1992) that the
offending marker would no longer have any further part in the process.
Moreover, my supervisor from the University’s History Department, Dr. Noel
Weeks - though he was of an entirely conventionalist persuasion - persisted
patiently throughout the entire writing of the thesis, ever offering his good
advice and encouragement.
But it also needs to be said that all of the impetus, and the
best ideas, for this thesis, originated outside the University.
Eventually the thesis was passed on both historical and
scientific (archaeo-astronomical) grounds and I was buoyed by examiners’
comments that my “… critical analysis [was successful] when examining the
opposite points of view. Indeed, most get a thrashing …”, and that the way now
lay open for “a more acceptable alternative” model of history to be presented.
It was the latter task that really held the more interest for
me.
However, as I had been again well advised by the
non-University colleague, one needed first of all to come to grips with, and to
refute, the text-book system. In relation to this notion of refutation, I was
also boosted by my supervisor’s description of my thesis, in the end, as
“irrefutable”.
But, as there was no further interest shown by the University
after that, I looked elsewhere for getting my thesis and articles publicised,
especially the Internet, where my articles began to be picked up by Johnny
Zwick at the California Institute for Ancient Studies (www.specialtyinterests.net/).
I was also a co-founder of the Australian Marian Academy (name
later enlarged by Cardinal Andrzej Maria Deskur, President Emeritus of the
Pontifical Council for Social Communications, in the Vatican, to Australian
Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception), that had its own publications and
Newsletter. And, although this Academy’s interests ranged far beyond a revision
of ancient history, this latter study - particularly with its ramifications for
biblical history - still held great fascination for all of the Academy’s
members.
- The opportunity to write
that “more acceptable alternative” model
at post-graduate level came in the year 2000, when Professor Rifaat Ebied
of the Department of Semitic Studies (later Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish
Studies), invited me to write a PhD thesis on the era of king Hezekiah of Judah
(c. 700 BC, conventional dating). I eagerly took up this opportunity because a
pet project of mine, on which I had been working for many years, namely to establish the historicity of the
pseudepigraphal Book of Judith, had resolved itself in this very era of
Hezekiah. In other words the Judith incident, which I firmly considered to be
historical, had occurred - as far as I was concerned - late in the reign of
king Hezekiah. I now envisaged a huge project:-
Volume One of this new thesis would be
a reconstruction of ancient history from c. 2000 BC down to the era of king
Hezekiah of Judah in 700 BC; whilst-
Volume Two would show how the Book of
Judith integrated into the era of this same king Hezekiah.
The results of this “truly Herculean synthesizing effort,” as
one examiner called it, were mixed. As with the first submission of the
previous thesis, this one too was
(a)
passed by one examiner,
(b)
given a mixed reception by another one, who insisted that much more work needed
to be done, and
(c)
failed by a third, who called it “a disaster and a sad one”.
Thankfully, for me, this last examiner would not be involved
in the second marking of the thesis.
It was generally considered that my Judith material (Volume Two) was workable and that
perhaps I should concentrate on that in its relationship to the era of king
Hezekiah.
But I had initially intended to offer a new model of ancient
history, as well as to establish the Book of Judith as historical. So, in the
re-writing of the thesis, though this time I based myself far more firmly upon
the era of king Hezekiah, I also deliberately included in the thesis title the
“background” to Hezekiah’s era (thus A Revised
History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background), thereby
enabling for me to fan out, and to include history going back some two
centuries or so prior to Hezekiah’s reign. This span also allowed me to tackle
probably the three most knotty problems that the revision of history has so far
encountered: namely,
(i)
“The Assuruballit Problem” of the el Amarna period;
(ii)
where to locate the long-reigning Ramses II in the revision; and
(iii)
the almost unresolvable Third Intermediate Period.
All three problems (i-iii) were, as it happens, in range of
the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah in my revised context.
In fact, I never ceased to be amazed, during my writing of
this particular thesis, just how much important history, when revised, converges
in this approximate era.
Now, it was with the second marking of this new thesis that my
problems with the University of Sydney really began to become manifest. Despite
two international examiners passing the thesis at Doctorate level, and also recommending
that it, or parts thereof, be published, the Doctorate was not awarded due to
the entirely negative (from the point of view of approval) marking of the
“in-house” 3rd examiner, as well as the Assessor (4th examiner), who was later
called in, and who completely took the side of the 3rd examiner.
A fuller treatment of this matter can be read in:
Damien F. Mackey's Defence of Post-Graduate Thesis
Against 3rd Examiner's Criticisms
This defence was allowed by the Faculty of Arts (though, in
the end - and I had fully anticipated this - it made not the slightest
difference whatsoever).
Was the whole experiment worth while of running two theses of
radical historical revision through conservative academia?
Yes, definitely, because it enabled me to write, at the
highest level (the second at the most demanding PhD level), a brace of theses
that rigorously tested the conventional system and found it wanting, and that then
proceeded to create the basis for a new model.
However, because conventional academia moves so slowly as to
be quite imperceptible, at least in this subject area, then I should advise
fellow revisionists who might also be contemplating a University thesis on the
subject to look elsewhere, to work independently of any conservative
institutions.
An Interesting Additional Note:
Here is the furious reaction by the US examiner, art historian
Professor Lewis M. Greenberg, to the assessment of my thesis by the Arts Faculty
of the University of Sydney:
"I
am distressed over your latest news [thesis result], except to say how sorry
and angry I am over your plight. …. I would also say that [the University of
Sydney’s Arts Faculty’s] behavior is unprecedented and unprofessional and you
may quote me. Their actions are totally unacceptable to me and go beyond the
groundrules for judging your degree worthiness. Once a majority of your
examiners have approved the thesis, that should be it!! The University of
Sydney will never be taken seriously so long as it continues this kind of
nonsense. If there had been a tie, then I might understand the need to bring in
an additional reader – but NOT under these circumstances! By their actions, the
University of Sydney has impugned my reputation as well as that of the [other
examiner, at Cambridge University]. UACCEPTABLE! – and you may quote me. At the
least, both I and the [Cambridge examiner] should have been consulted and
advised re the need to bring in an outside individual. Since this was not done,
this “unofficial” individual [4th examiner] should carry no weight …. This is
discrimination and a violation of the department’s fiduciary scholastic
responsibility. The University of Sydney has made a mockery of the entire
thesis process and turned your Ph.D doctorate into a farce. …. The Ph.D process
has been sullied and all of this is only one more horrific footnote to that
process. The fact that all this has been done AFTER A SECOND version of your
thesis was submitted and judged makes this whole situation that much more
odious. Why didn’t they do this after the first version was judged?…. I read
and re-read the examiners’ comments (including my own). The negative [3rd]
examiner was vile! He was merely showing off what HE knew. His comments were so
pompous and arrogant that they were insulting to the two other readers as well.
The graduate committee [University of Sydney Arts Faculty] is a farce as far as
I am concerned. They don’t want you to get the degree, plain and simple. The
rest is all shadow play …. Professor Ebied [thesis supervisor] is totally
unprofessional. From day one, he has handled this entire matter (including your
first go round) as some kind of novice. He never communicated with me even
though he was here in Princeton and acts totally spineless. What an advisor he
is! …".
No comments:
Post a Comment