(ed. what appears below is RK's reply to questions raised by a reader who posted them in Part I of this discussion.)
Defamation, libel or slander require that the statements made about somebody are not true. I know you know this, because I learned it from you.
I tried to learn the truth about James Mellaart so I could see whether Price defamed him or just spoke the truth about him. What I read is that he was an archeologist who made a very important find (Catal Hoyuk) while he was still young (by 1965), and wrote a couple of good books based on it.
>>>Catal Huyuk is only one of Mellaart’s ‘discoveries’, another is the Neolithic site of Hacilar, which is also located in central Turkey and almost as important as Catal Huyuk.
He then got banned from coming to Turkey for theft of important cultural works.
>>>>>Mellaart never stole anything and was never even tried for supposedly doing so, only slandered.
Nor was he banned from Turkey. What happened was the Turkish government refused to renew his permit to dig at Catal Huyuk. That’s it. Period.
The entire incident, was memorialized in a well researched and documented book published by two French journalists entitled "The Dorak Affair".
Go read it and you will learn the truth about Mellaarts misadventure instead of gossip and dumb-bell remarks akin professor clown’s that you state.
Some years later, he wrote more about Catal Hoyuk. A lot of it was inconsistent with his earlier reports, and is regarded by some professional archeologists as fraudulent.
>>>Basically, he did not write about Catal Huyuk, he wrote about the possibilities there were slit tapestry weavings(kelims) used there and referenced instances from Catal Huyuk where he felt evidence existed to prove that thesis.
By the way the jury is still out on that one, as digging has now been restarted at Catal. No one knows if Mellaart’s flawed references might end up being proven as fact, surely not steev price, who has never read anything other than the comic book style reportage hali and oriental rug review published about Mellaart and Catal Huyuk.
That said, the inconsistencies noted in the latter journal are ostensibly correct but we have always said concentrating on them and not the far more meaningful, voluminous and significant data of Mellaart’s discovery is like throwing out the baby with the bath water – myopic and just plain dumb.
You mention that you sponsored some of his work. Since you were not even an adult when he did the work that made him famous, this must have involved the things he did later.
>>>>(We are, for the record, almost 60 so that comment, while true enough, is not really correct, as we lived in NY State and 18 is considered an adult)
However, RK never said we sponsored his work, we said we worked with him and that we did.
Briefly, our collaboration involved my formulating the original concept and idea that became the thesis, a book entitled “The Goddess from Anatolia”, promulgated.
After conceiving the idea for a book illustrating the small collection of archaic kelims I owned alongside the Mellaart Catal Huyuk material and contemporary ethnographic field work Belkis Balpinar and her former consort udo hirsch were doing, RK hired them to work with me on that project. I then labored with Mellaart and Balpinar from 1983 until 1987.
Sometime in the late part of 1987, to make a long story very short, RK realized Mellaart was going deeper into uncharted waters by using supposition and unproven ideas as documentation to support his contention slit-tapestries were extant in the 7th and 8th millennia B.C. at Catal Huyuk.
Because I saw Mellaart’s suppositions as a liability to the validity of the work and research I had so carefully documented, I decided to break my kelim collection and independent archaeological research away from the Mellaart/Balpinar project I had conceived and worked for years to realize.
That collection and my work soon was published as a two volume work – “Image Idol Symbol: Ancient Anatolian Kelims".
detail, Plate I “Image Idol Symbol:Ancient Anatolian Kelims"
Because I was the originator and the original publisher of what then became “The Goddess from Anatolia”, I arranged for jon eskanazi and hirsch to take over the project.
If you have a copy of that book you will see the first credit listed thanks me for the original concept and work I did to further it.
The “Image Idol Symbol” book stands witness to not only to my original and independent research, and the archaic group collection of kelims I still own, but, more importantly, it set a high standard many other subsequent books on Oriental Rugs, not only Anatolian slit tapestries, have tried to achieve.
But back to Mellaart.
Yes, it is true he referenced wall paintings and other material in his later writing that was aimed at a rug world audience and not only in “The Goddess from Anatolia”. Some of those references were flawed and Mellaart’s explanations are inadequate.
I knew this and that was the only reasons I withdrew from the project I conceived and nurtured for 4 years.
In the end, this is not meant as a recital of what happened but one directed at professor price=clown’s outrageous defamation of Mellaart, me and our work together.
I will be glad to compare my “Image Idol Symbol” work with his doctoral thesis, or anything else, steev the clown has published.
I will do this any day, any where and at any time and am sure in anyone’s eyes, who has no agenda to forward or any pre-conceived prejudices, my work will eclipse his in importance and lasting meaning hands down.
If you doubt what we say, go read our work, as it is republished in entirety as the first exhibition on the Weaving Art Museum website with our collection of Archaic and Classic period kelims there for all to see.
If all of that is true, then Price didn't defame or libel him, he told the truth.
>>>>The clown of rugdom, steev price, doesn’t know what truth is and the facts of the story prove he is nothing more than a big-mouth whose front teeth are stained brown because he is full of crapola. Period.
You must have a different story, because you say that Mellaart only made some mistakes. Serious mistakes, but not fraud.
Please educate your readers by telling us the real story of Mellaart, and of your involvement with his work.
>>>>You now know part of the rest of the story, the main points here concern not only Mellaart, our work with him or our own accomplishments but solely their presentation to factually demonstrate, once again ad nauseum, what an ignoramus and boorish pedant steev price is, has been, and always will be.