ESOP 24 includes articles, reports, and research papers from contributors with many different areas of expertise and interest. Evaluations of prior discoveries, along with potentially groundbreaking new findings and ideas are presented. Updates are provided in some cases to cover the gap in time between submission and publication. This volume of ESOP along with volume 23 have set the stage for continuing the "epigraphic discipline," as originally established by prior ESOP contributors and editors. Together with several planned future publications (many of which have had substantial work already performed), we hope to further develop the continuity with the past, as well as to provide new materials.

As mentioned in the Editorials and Information to Authors sections of Volume 23, we are interested in moving the ‘epigraphic discipline’ forward in a responsible manner, in which all those who have contributed and continue to make discoveries can have an active role. It is our intent to preserve the approach Dr. Fell employed in prior volumes of the Journal, in which general and/or background materials could be considered if presented in an interesting style, along with exciting new discoveries and proposals that employ a variety of specialized approaches. In this issue, we have re-asserted our intention to involve the findings of avocational contributors, as well as scholars and professionals in archaeology, geography, history, and other disciplines. Hopefully, these comments will help to alleviate concerns expressed by some readers and authors, who may have become uneasy about their roles during the period in which publication of this volume has been delayed.

In comments posted on our website (epigraphy.org, presently under re-construction), we indicated that ESOP 24 would report many new developments that occurred since 1998 (Volume 23). In the process of putting together this issue, we have included updated information on papers and individuals who were involved in that volume. Interesting new findings and methodologies discussed in the papers in many cases have had follow-up investigations, and several new discoveries from other authors have been included in ESOP 24. We are also in the process of sorting through additional papers —including putative ground breaking discoveries by our epigraphic colleagues. Some, which have not yet been fully evaluated (and revised) for publication, could not be presented in the current volume. These may be published in future issues of ESOP.

The format of the current publication remains similar to that of ESOP 23, in which Correspondence and Report sections highlight important ongoing work and opportunities for future research. The Research section involves papers with more established or more developed (but not less controversial) ideas that could have broad implications. Because of the delay in publication, the Obituary section in ESOP 24 is unusually large. It includes individuals who have directly contributed to ESOP publications as well as those who worked independently. Their contributions are placed in the context of ongoing work, and with an attempt to give deserved credit for pioneering discoveries. We have added an Interview section not found in ESOP 23. First we interviewed Norman Totten due to his reception of the prestigious Kidger Award and his status as a Founding Member of our Society. We followed that with an interview with Gloria Farley dealing with her numerous contributions to epigraphy. The final interview is concerned with the efforts and discoveries of Rod Schmidt during his work with the INYO-272 site in California. The cover story showing early corn representations from India is followed by a brief interview of the author, Carl Johannessen.

The Correspondence Section opens with exchanges concerning Italo-Celtic scripts and inscriptions by Buchanan and Ed Robertson of Scotland. Then comes a portion of the first letter ever received by Barry Fell from Louis L’Amour, the famous Western writer. Gordon Currie proves that a purported Ogham inscription in Canada described in an earlier ESOP by Bruce MacDonald is actually the result of natural forces. Fabio Campos provides us with a mystery inscription to ponder. Wayne Kenaston and Marshall Payn report on their careful preservation of the False Cove Stone (reported on by Fell in an early ESOP). The late Amos Wright reports on the Etowah Stone, found in Alabama. Noel Chitwood reports on a petroglyph found in a cave in New Mexico. Phil Garn discusses Fell’s decipherment of Easter Island’s Rongo-Rongo script and a famous example is shown. Gloria Farley, Louis Buff Parry, and Gerald Hutchison discuss the origins of the Cree and Ojibway Syllabaries. Daniel Lucas makes some further observations as a follow-up to his ESOP 23 report on Kuna writing and mythology. Finally, James Harris discusses the Old Negev (Proto-Sinaitic) script, focussing on the Wadi-el-Hol inscription (Middle Kingdom Egyptian).

The Research Report section includes a summary of the scholarly attention now being given to Richard Nielsen’s work on the Kensington Runestone (KRS) inscription from Minnesota. Critical appraisals of the KRS writing system, language, and the use of modern geological methods of dating by independent experts, have supported its authenticity. In addition to providing evidence of an early Norse exploration into America, the controversies surrounding the inscription provide interesting insights into the history of ideas. While the results of additional careful scholarship cannot be prejudged at present, it appears that persistence in obtaining appropriate scientific consideration of the materials can eventually triumph over inadequate off-the-cuff dismissals.

The Research Papers included in ESOP 24 cover proposed discoveries and ideas involving several different disciplines. In a very important contribution, Donal Buchanan revisits the translation of the crucial "Six Months Insciption" from Anubis Caves, giving credit to Dr. Fell’s work, but also providing a corrected and potentially improved decipherment of the final part of the proposed ogham text from Oklahoma. Another paper by Buchanan presents his recent work on an inscription from the island of Lemnos. In another contribution, a rather comprehensive evaluation of dating methodologies applied to petroglyph sites is provided by Alan Gillespie.

Two other interesting papers in the Research Section involve new approaches for the decipherment of numerical and proposed musical symbolism. The paper entitled "The Forgotten Harmonical Science of the Bible" by Ernst McClain (author of The Myth of Invariance, Pythagorean Plato, and other scholarly books about ancient, advanced concepts of mathematics and culture) is a progress report on his continuing efforts to decode ways in which the ancients developed understandings and had hidden ways of expressing themselves. An accompanying paper, "The Canon of Lespugue," by Ralph Abraham and William Thompson, discusses a hidden mathematical order in neolithic art. An article by Todd Greaves considers global implications for the "Tau" sign. Keith and Kevin Massey-Gillespie present a paper on medieval elements in the KRS. A paper concerned with a potential "Sphinx Pipe" from Missouri is contributed by Gloria Farley.

A number of articles suggest there was a substantial amount of preserved traditional knowledge among indigenous peoples involved in observing stars and astronomical events. A paper provided though the efforts of Richard Flavin, "A Clue to the Atlantis Myth?" by Harald A. T. Reiche, is an updated version of an article originally published in Technology Review and later reprinted by M.I.T. Press as part of a volume, Astronomy of the Ancients, that explored the implications of links between mythology and archaeoastonomy (first considered in a detailed way in Hamlet’s Mill by Georgio Santillana and the late Hertha von Dechend). This paper is intended to inform our readership of applications of the ideas concerning preserved astronomical myths.

Papers are also presented concerning new discoveries using archaeoastronomical methods. These involve documented interactions of light and shadow at important American petroglyph sites (with proximity to proposed examples of ancient writing systems), and/or interpretations involving the symbolism proposed to be associated with astronomical depictions. Research articles involving applications of archaeoastronomy to separate petroglyph sites are presented by Alan Gillespie, Jon Polansky and Jesse Warner —in different articles using distinct approaches Cbut in ways providing potentially complementary information. There are also collaborative presentations by Zena Halpern and astronomer Louis Winkler concerning "The Hidden Mountain Astronomical Petroglyphs" in New Mexico. A major article by Jesse Warner considers apparently ancient ship symbolism using comprehensive comparative methodologies from many sites in the SW American desert, and the potential implications in terms of a soul ship.

The Research Papers section concludes with a brief treatment of a new discovery that provides a key to a mysterious inscription. A decipherment is provided thanks to the ongoing efforts of L. Buff Parry tracing historical and linguistic information, and aspects that relate to secret societies in America as well as the ‘Old World’. In this case, a previously undeciphered inscription and sculpture may be providing the secret location of Grail artifacts and/or treasured knowledge.

ESOP’s Role in Presenting New Ideas and Encouraging Cultural and Academic
Exchanges

Consideration of evidence that indicates possible ancient contacts between cultures of the ‘Old’ and ‘New’ World remains a major interest for ESOP and its readers. While delays have taken place in our publication schedule, research progress has continued, and the prospects for updating and publishing the findings appear quite exciting. We are working with several authors who have made substantial progress in obtaining new and significant data, encouraging them to define their ideas clearly and responsibly for maximum impact and critical evaluation.

We are aware that information that appears most interesting (and that appears as a new academically justified discovery), may need to be handled carefully, taking into account both reasonable and unreasonable criticisms. This is especially true for proposals that suggest existing paradigms may need to be reevaluated —such as those indicating ancient exchanges of information or ideas have taken place involving cultures previously believed to have developed in relative isolation. This is also true in considering potentially advanced philosophical/religious ideas or technical knowledge of indigenous people previously considered to be "primitive." Such ideas engender unscientific, passionate criticisms (in the editor’s opinion) from individuals of authority within established academic circles. In spite of the problems, ESOP’s goal continues to be the honest evaluation of the data on a level playing field, in which opposing points of view can be dissected and discussed. In discussing controversial findings or opinions we will endeavor to maintain a collegial scientific atmosphere for considering opposing opinions and debate needs to be over the ideas not the personalities.

Experience has shown that one must expect the lower aspects of human nature to prevail in debates and public meetings on the subject matter. My observations suggest that even the most carefully validated work will encounter many non-scientific obstacles that will need to be overcome. This includes the use of fallacious ad hominem attacks and false appeals to authority, rather than proper scholarship as well as other non-scientific manipulations by those entrusted to make judgments based on fairness and scholarship.

Such manipulations appear to be motivated more by the desire of some academics to protect their own views and careers, or those of current or prior associates, rather than to promote an honest consideration of alternatives required for practical as well as philosophical or epistomological reasons. The results are usually anathema to a proper scientific process.

The above considerations make it clear that ESOP needs to maintain its role as a medium for bringing forward scholarly, open exchanges of information and
objective, dispassionate consideration of the controversial areas. We also see a crucial role for ESOP in presenting this subject matter for discussion and use, in which the new information and ideas are examined in a fair and even-handed environment. This does not mean that we avoid obtaining criticisms or giving opinions on the "experts" who challenge findings unfairly. Poorly supported or inadequately researched ‘expert’ opinions need to be challenged, in addition to including critical appraisals of ideas put forward by authors including discussions of outside work or from articles published in other journals. ESOP maintains that the real test of a proposal involves honest assessments of validity, based on the normal scientific methodologies —such as the ability of the proposals being made to represent, explain, and/or predict the data and new discoveries. This is true whether or not the conclusions of a given study or paper appear to step on the toes of previously ‘accepted’ theories, either by those in academics or those involved with ESOP. Peer review above and beyond editorial review helps to place the findings of research papers in context of
current opinions and knowledge —-but will not be permitted to be used inappropriately to eliminate or decrease competition or to suppress the publication of novel ideas.

In prior issues of ESOP, my editorials described the developing "Epigraphic Discipline." I was interested in detailing why it was important to apply this discipline on general epistemological as well as more specific heuristic grounds which might apply to any particular artifact or body of information being considered. This write-up, and this issue of our journal, provide additional new and/or updated examples. We hope the information will lead to additional understandings and also encourage follow-up studies (using any of several available multi-disciplinary approaches). In forthcoming issues of ESOP, it will be interesting to encourage additional interactions with preserved ancient knowledge to see if any of the findings relate to the fulfillment of ancient traditions.

Jon Polansky, Chief Editor