The Gosford Glyphs Hoax revisited

On Turkish TV (via MEMRI), a debate on the destruction of antiquities by ISIS allows Syrian political analyst Yahya Badr to air his views on, of all places, Australia. There are, he tells us, Egyptian hieroglyphics north of Sydney which demonstrate that the grandson of the pharoah Khufu landed there over 4000 years ago. Egypt, therefore, has a prior claim to the place:

TV host: Let's discuss the destruction of antiquities.

Yahya Badr: This is a crime, because antiquities constitute documentation, which preserves the [legal] rights of nations.

Let me give you an example unknown to many. In Australia, there is a cave in a place called Hunter Valley, 100 km north of Sydney. In this cave, there are two wall inscriptions in ancient hieroglyphics. The scientist Ray Johnson translated these inscriptions.

It is very strange to find in Australia 4,300-4,400-year-old hieroglyphics. The English [translation] refers to the grandson of Khufu, Djes-eb. It says that he sailed westward for two seasons, or two years. So where was he coming from? From the American continent. He sailed until he got there. Pharaoh ordered him to bring insects, and he was killed there.

You know, in the history of colonialism, the first to discover a new land and to plant his flag there gets to own it. Therefore, the Egyptian people is entitled to claim its [legal] rights in Australia, because of the two "documents" that date back to the time of Khufu, and say that he was returning from America.

This is very important. This is why history is so important. He who destroys history destroys the rights of nations.

TV host: Okay. Thank you.

Read all about the Gosford Glyphs Hoax (Pt 1) here.

[Admittedly not everyone agrees that they're a hoax. Research by the Khemit School of Ancient Mysticism has declared them to be genuine after all. I confess that I remain sceptical.]

Comments

[Argie]

"Syrian political analyst"

[Mick H]

Well, that's what they say. According to MEMRI he was introduced on the show as "owning the patent to mummy technology". Make of that what you will.

[Graham]

The comical silliness hardly needs mentioning, but the view that the value of antiquities is that they 'constitute documentation, which preserves the [legal] rights of nations' is pathetically impoverished. The idea that the only value ancient artefacts have is to validate claims of ownership degrades human artistic work to the level of toddlers shouting 'Mine!'

[TDK]

I'm prepared to be more forgiving than Graham.

Badr isn't specifically excluding any other way of valuing antiquities. That may be because to value artefacts on, say, aesthetic grounds might be considered haram but if so he doesn't articulate that thought. Muslims ban representational art so the destruction of statues isn't unprecedented.

Nonetheless, a significant reason for valuing antiquities is because they tell us about ancient cultures. If Badr needs to call that "documentation" to articulate a reason for not destroying it, I'll give him a pass on that score.

[Graham]

Badr’s reason for condemning the destruction of ancient Mesopotamian sites and artefacts is wrong and I wouldn’t give him a ‘pass’ for such a minimal level of ethical awareness.

Perhaps he elaborates in the video, which I haven’t watched, but his focus in the transcript above is clearly that the reason destroying antiquities ‘is a crime, [is] because antiquities constitute documentation, which preserves the [legal] rights of nations’, and reiterates: ‘This is why history is so important. He who destroys history destroys the rights of nations.’ He uses this objection to ISIS’s destruction as the justification for a modern Egyptian claim to America and Australia, similar to Erdogan’s recently.

‘Telling us about ancient cultures’ is absolutely not the same as documenting historical legal claims and it is clear his focus is entirely on ownership rights. To see the antiquities’ value as being only to do with ‘the rights of nations’, and not historical, anthropological, cultural, aesthetic, or that their destruction destroys information about ourselves is exactly what is so impoverished.

Saying that to acknowledge aesthetic value would be haram is simply restating my point. It's an impoverished way of seeing the world.

[Graham]

Also, ISIS's destruction of Mesopotamian sites is not because the artefacts are representational: it's because they are evidence of pre-existing, non-islamic civilisations.