Schwartz and Edgerton - A Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria (2021)

• Source: Journal of Scientific Exploration
• PDF: full article
• Authors: Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold E. Edgerton
• Published: 2021-09-30
• Captured: 2026-09-05
• Extraction: complete 57-page PDF converted with pymupdf4llm
• License stated in source: CC BY-NC
• Analysis: ../../sources/stephan-a-schwartz

---

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 485–541, 2021 0892-3310/21

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria, Egypt, Including a Comparison of Side Scan Sonar and Remote Viewing

Stephan A. Schwartz

The Mobius Group

Harold E. Edgerton
Radio Strobe Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Submitted April 20, 2020; Accepted April 16, 2021; Published September 30, 2021

https://doi.org/10.31275/20211815
Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC

Abstract —This paper reports a preliminary survey of one of humanity’s
most historic harbors, Alexandria, Egypt. It constitutes one phase of
a broader joint land/sea examination of the largest and most famous
city to bear Alexander the Great’s name. The research overall had two
goals: 1) To resolve locational uncertainties concerning the city’s past
configuration, particularly its Ptolemaic antecedents; and, 2) to compare
electronic remote sensing survey technologies with Remote Viewing
generally, and the applications methodology developed by the Mobius
Group, specifically. In the area of the Eastern Harbor, the aim of the
research was: 1) The location of the ancient shoreline; the location and
predictive description of several sites including: the island of Antirrhodus
and the Emporium / Poseidium / Timonium complex; a palace complex
associated with Cleopatra; and, a further elaboration, both in terms
of location and predictive description, of the Pharos lighthouse area.
2) A comparison of remote viewing and side scan sonar data after each
approach had surveyed the same area. This paper describes the probable
location of the Emporium, the Poseidium, and the Timonium, the palace
complex of Cleopatra, the island of Antirrhodus, a site at the tip of Fort
Sisila (known previously as Point Lochias), new discoveries pertaining to
the lighthouse, and an associated temple. The most important discovery
though is the identification and location of the ancient seawall which
extends some 65 meters farther out into the harbor than was previously
suspected, and whose location resolves a key piece in the puzzle of the
ancient city’s layout. The discoveries reported were principally the result
of Remote Viewing. Except for one clear “hit,” side scan sonar proved
unproductive because of the large amount of particulate in the water.

486 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

INTRODUCTION

In 331 bce, Alexander of Macedonia stopped at a small fishing
village on Egypt’s Mediterranean coast and marked out the boundaries
of what would become the greatest city to bear his name. From the
first, its destiny was tied to the sea (Arrian, 1942, p. 468). Its founder
appreciated this and fixed its location believing, as Arrian reports, that
because of the sea, “the site was the best possible for the foundation of
a city and the city would prosper” (Arrian, 1942, p. 467). To achieve his
ends, one of Alexander’s highest priorities was the creation of what has
come to be known as The Eastern Harbor.

How sound was Alexander’s judgment? From its Western and
Eastern harbors, Alexandria soon supplied the world with grain, with
glass, and with precious metals. Strabo of Amasya in Pontius, whose
Geography describes the city three centuries after its founding, provides
us with an assessment from antiquity: “. . . the only place in all Egypt
which is by nature situated with reference both to commerce by sea, on
account of the good harbors, and to commerce by land, because the river

[Nile] easily conveys and brings together everything . . . [Alexandria] is
the greatest trading center of the inhabited world” (Strabo, 1949, p. 53).

Fraser, writing two thousand years later, offered a modern
assessment of that period that is little different: “Alexandria in the late
Ptolemaic period was the unrivaled center of world trade” (Fraser, Vol.
1, 1972, pp. 133–188). [1]

Today, although Alexandria is Egypt’s second-largest city, the
Eastern Harbor is no longer a great port. Yet, as this paper describes,
diving in those waters was entering into an ancient past that held
answers to myriad unsolved archaeological riddles. The detritus of
almost two-and-a-half millennia of commerce has accumulated on
the harbor’s sea floor. Due to subsidence of the shoreline, to depths
as great as eight meters, a considerable number of the ancient city’s
most famous buildings—structures associated with the now mythic
figures of Cleopatra, Mark Antony, and Caesar—now lie submerged. [2]
What was also important, in 1979 when we did this work, is that they lay
relatively undisturbed, unlike the archaeological chaos to be found on
the shore, where earth-moving and construction has been constantly
ongoing since 1882, when the modern city emerged. [3]

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 487

Figure 1. The Eastern Harbor as it appeared when the Mobius Expedition began.

In November of 1978, the Mobius Group began designing a project
using remote viewing to guide archaeological fieldwork in Alexandria.
As the paper describes, the project began in Los Angeles, California,
and it was there, long before anyone involved had gone to Alexandria,
that the first remote viewing probe was carried out, and the data, and
the master map it produced, helped in developing a set of hypotheses
concerning both location and reconstructive data. That led to planning
a preliminary survey of the harbor, an area, as one looks outward
toward the sea, limited on the west by a man-made peninsula known
as the Heptastadium, associated since antiquity with the Lighthouse of
Pharos and, on its eastern bound, by a smaller, natural, although much
altered peninsula known today as Fort Sisila and, previously, as Point
Lochias (see Figure 1 and Figure 3).

This harbor research constituted one segment of a broader joint
land/sea examination of Alexandria. The research overall had two goals:

488 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

1. To resolve locational uncertainties concerning the city’s past
   configuration, particularly its Ptolemaic antecedents; and,

2. To compare data derived from electronic remote sensing
   technologies both marine and terrestrial such as side scan sonar and
   ground-penetrating radar, with a triple-blind technique for accessing
   nonlocally sourced information known as remote viewing. And to
   do this using the applications consensus methodology developed by
   the Mobius Group. (In this paper, remote sensing means electronic
   instrument sensing.)

In the area of the Eastern Harbor, the aim of the research was:

1. The location of the ancient shoreline; the location and predictive description of several sites including: the island of Antirrhodus and
   the Emporium / Poseidium / Timonium complex; a palace complex
   associated with Cleopatra; and, a further elaboration, both in terms of
   location and predictive description, of the Pharos lighthouse area, one
   of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

2. A comparison of Remote Viewing and side scan sonar data after
   each approach had surveyed the same area.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Strabo, who visited the city in 24 bce, in the first decade of Roman
rule, gives the best description of Alexandria and its harbors at their
height. He says that while Dinocrates was the primary architect,
he followed a well-tested urban plan developed by Hippodemus of
Mieltus, and previously used in Priene and Herculaneum (Fakharani,
1974). Alexander apparently had admired it because it made for an urban
environment with good air and traffic flow patterns and produced a
city with a sense of graciousness. Arrian tells us that Alexander himself
outlined the city’s walls (Arrian, 1942, Vol. 2, pp. i, ii).

Ancient Alexandria was roughly rectangular in shape. Strabo calls
it “an outspread chlamys”—the cloaklike garment favored by Greek
travelers and soldiers (Strabo, 1949, p. 33). He says it was built along the
sea and spread out 30 stadia (1 stade = 185 m) in length (5.55 km) and
seven to eight in width (1.29–1.48 km), with indentations on the long
sides caused by the harbors on the north, and Lake Mareotis on the
south (Strabo, 1949, p. 33). The key to the city’s layout was its two major

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 489

streets, which intersected at right angles, and were “particularly wide,
being more than a plethron (30 m) in width” (Strabo, 1949, p. 33). This
planned urban community must have been very beautiful, particularly
along the sea frontage, which was filled with shaded groves and
mansions, intermingling with public buildings. Unfortunately, almost
all of this city has been lost, either beneath subsequent constructions,
or because of subsidence, and so visually the city described in the
literature of antiquity exists today mostly in the writings themselves.

When we began our research, although there was a fairly extensive
modern literature on Alexandria, the scholarly writing addressing its
archaeology and geography was much smaller than one would have
expected for a city of its prominence in the ancient world. And much
of what did exist dated to before World War II. Only the University of
Warsaw had an active continuous archaeological presence, one they
had maintained for the previous 20 years, and the totality of all previous
marine archaeological work consisted of hobby-ist divers and of a few
dives carried out around Kait Bey in 1962 by the Egyptian Navy (which
resulted in the raising of a 7-meter–long broken statue of a female
figure), [4] and six dives in the same area, in 1968, by a joint UNESCO/
English team as reported by Frost (1975). [5]

It is also worth noting that all of this previous underwater work
stemmed not from anything in the literature but from a Customs
House official and amateur scuba enthusiast, Kemal Abu al Saadat, the
most knowledgeable antiquities diver in Alexandria, who had reported
to local archaeologists what he had seen.

Three main themes weave their way through the modern archaeological and geographical record that does exist:

1. Cycles of habitation: Mobius researchers were startled to discover living individuals who remembered much of the city, particularly
   east of the Eastern Harbor, as virtually a desert. [6] Unlike Rome, the
   metropolis with which it is often compared, Alexandria has not enjoyed
   continuous inhabitation since its beginnings, and the hallmark of
   Alexandrian literature is a recurring cycle of downfalls and resurgences
   that have occurred, as a march of very different cultures have sequentially
   put their stamp upon the city.

The literature makes it clear that this almost constant churning
has left such confusion that one of the most vexing questions has

490 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

been exactly where and with what orientation the two main streets of
the original city were to be found (Fraser, 1972, Vol. 1, p. 10). Modern
authorities have achieved a rough consensus that the east–west street
is approximately paralleled by the present day Sharia El Houriya (in
common usage, Rue Houriya; Fraser, 1972, Vol. 1, p. 31). The location of
the north–south street is less clear. Fraser, who has studied the question
as thoroughly as anyone, concluded in 1961, that the entire issue was so
muddled as to admit to no definitive answer (Fraser, 1972, Vol. 1, p. 31).

2. Subsidence: Throughout its recorded history Alexandria has
   been (rather more in the past than now) a geologically active area.
   Beginning with Strabo and coming forward in time, almost every
   writer who has dealt with Alexandria’s topography includes discussions
   of seismic activity and its possible effects on the undeniable and very
   substantial subsidence of the coast. Jondet, as in the case of most of
   the issues pertaining directly to the ports of Alexandria, seems to be the
   best source (Jondet, 1916, 1922), although Saint-Genis, the Napoleonic
   era Harbor Master, makes many valuable contributions in this regard
   (Saint-Genis, 1817).

In addition to seismic activity, the reasons offered for the
subsidence of Africa’s Mediterranean littoral range from the weight of
silt coming from the Nile mouth at nearby Rosetta, to a shift in the
African plates. Subsidence is such a critical issue because the two most
important centers of the pre-Islamic city, the Royal and Administrative
Quarters, were to be found along the shore (Saint-Genis, 1817). But
where was the ancient shoreline?

When we arrived in Alexandria, there was not a single diving
archaeologist in the city. As a result, coastal subsidence evidence for
the location of the ancient harbor shoreline was limited to just a few
particularly prominent features visible looking down from the surface.
There was an ongoing discussion as to where the ancient seawall was
located, because that would affect the geography of the entire Ptolemaic
city. Because of a third factor, this fundamental question had not been
answered.

3. Reconstruction: Beginning with the Khedival government in
   the midnineteenth century, an entirely new and almost completely
   artificial shoreline has been constructed, as a substantial part of the
   existing literature describes. [7] As a result, as Fraser has it, “It is true we

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 491

know that certain buildings, public places, and so on were planned or
built or recorded as having been planned or built, by certain historian
figures, but the evidence is so disconnected and at times so unreliable,
that no complete picture emerges….” (Fraser, 1972, Vol. 1, p. 36).

ELECTRONIC REMOTE SENSING &
REMOTE VIEWING IN ARCHAEOLOGY

Side Scan Sonar

In this instance the correct remote sensing technology to survey
the harbor electronically, to compare with the remote viewing data,
was side scan sonar. It emits recurrent flashes of acoustic energy into a
body of water and then records the echoes that produces. It can provide
location, but only limited descriptive data.

In the Eastern Harbor, the side scan survey was accomplished by
Professor Harold Edgerton, Chairman of the Radio Strobe Laboratory,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Edgerton is considered the
father of this kind of survey. He worked using an EG&G Model 259 side
scan sonar, and Mark 1B System Tow-Fish, both specially modified to
Edgerton’s specifications by EG&G [8] (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Harold Edgerton carrying out the side scan sonar survey.

492 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Remote Viewing

Remote viewing and electronic remote sensing, while radically
different technologies, have one thing in common: Both have the ability
to pinpoint under triple-blind conditions the location of a previously
unknown as to its location, but possibly known to exist, archaeological
site. In this respect they are each variations of an information acquisition
technology.

Nonlocal perception is a technique for acquiring information
that can be objectively verified, accessed through a nonphysiologically
based nonlocal aspect of consciousness. Remote viewing is the
formalized protocol for doing this. There are several variations as to
how it is done, all developed by three research centers: Mobius, the
research group that carried out the expedition described in this paper,
Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which did largely classified research
for military and intelligence agencies, and the Princeton University
Engineering Anomalies Research Group (PEAR). They worked largely
independent of one another but in a complementary way (Schwartz,
2017). All three had presented and published papers at the time of
this research, demonstrating under the most rigorous conditions the
reality of nonlocal perception using remote viewing in both laboratory
and practical applications (Targ & Puthoff, 1974; Puthoff & Targ, 1976).

With remote viewing in archaeological applications, it is possible to
get accurate locational information and also highly detailed descriptive
information concerning what is to be found at that location. In doubleor triple-blind meticulously randomized remote viewing sessions,
individuals have demonstrated they can reliably describe persons,
places, or events from which they are shielded by virtue of space, time,
and “blindness” protocols.

They do so in much the same way an eyewitness would recount
the memory of something they had witnessed. All their senses report;
that is, viewers can answer questions that involve smells, sounds,
colors, shapes, textures, even tastes. The mechanism of this perception
is unknown. But that it can be used in archaeology is demonstrated by
this paper.

The task of the researcher is to structure the interview session in
such a way that normal sensory cues are absent, and that intellectual

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 493

access is eliminated. The researcher in an applied remote viewing
experiment such as this is blind to the correct information; indeed, by
definition, everyone is, that is why the questions are being asked.

Although this process may seem unusual, in fact researchers are
essentially faced with a novel presentation of a familiar engineering
problem: extracting from a weak information channel. In the case of
side scan sonar, the “noise” is particulate matter in the water, schools
of fish, and the like. In remote viewing the information channel
is not a signal in the electromagnetic sense. It is more like doing a
Google search. In this analogy, the search term is intentioned, focused
awareness on a task. Just as the quality of the side scan instrument
makes a difference, so the key to successful remote viewing is the
ability to attain, and sustain intentioned focused awareness, so that
one can perceive the weak nonlocal information buried in the noise of
the sense impressions of the body’s neuroanatomy, and the cognition
it provokes. In this instance, normal sensory awareness and prior
knowledge constitute the “noise.”

Meditators generally do better at attaining and sustaining intentioned focused awareness, which is the key to opening to nonlocal
perception, than nonmeditators, which may be why meditation is
taught in Japanese dojos, and in Tibetan and Christian monasteries.

The use of nonlocal perception in archaeology entered the
literature over a century ago with Frederick Bligh Bond’s successful
exploration and reconstruction of Glastonbury Cathedral in England
(Schwartz, 1978b, pp. 1–56, 354–355 [Bibliography]). It has continued
periodically (albeit infrequently) down through the years. Examples
are ethnographer Stanislaw Poniatowski’s work in Poland (pp. 57–107,
354–355 [Bibliography]), Scott-Elliot’s in England (pp. 108–127, 355–356

[Bibliography]), Pluznikov in the (then) Soviet Union (pp. 127–135, 355–356

[Bibliography]) in Schwartz (1978b); and Weiant’s with the Smithsonian
at Tres Zapotes (Schwartz, 1978a, pp. 222–238; Weiant, 1943, 1960); and
Reid’s work at Ontario Iroquois sites (which used George McMullen,
R3, who was a viewer in this Alexandrian project; Schwartz, no date,
pp. 211–221). All of this exploration, other than that of Mobius’, used
variations of nonlocal perception techniques and all depended on the
input from a single practitioner.

In 1976, the author began developing a consensual remote

494 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

viewing methodology, using multiple respondents independently
and individually responding to the same questions—in controlled
conditions of intellectual and sensory blindness, which led to an expert
evaluation of every concept advanced by viewers. From this information
the hypotheses that guided the fieldwork were developed.

The first use of this consensual methodology in underwater
archaeology is to be found in the Mobius report on a 1977 experiment
series utilizing the research submersible Taurus I (Schwartz, 1979) .
Known as Project Deep Quest, the program was conducted by Mobius
in conjunction with The Institute for Marine and Coastal Studies of the
University of Southern California, and Hyco Ltd., builder of the Taurus .
Archaeologically, Deep Quest demonstrated that remote viewers could
locate on a map from distances away of up to 4,800 kilometers, a
previously unknown wreck at 92+ meters of depth, that no previous
survey had ever located. Remote viewing was also successfully able to
provide specifics, including drawings, as to what would be found at
the selected site; the cause of the ship’s sinking; and the approximate
period in the past when the ship’s sinking occurred. All points were
corroborated by fieldwork, literature review, and expert analysis
(Schwartz, 1979).

In addition to the archaeological aspect, Deep Quest had another
purpose: To answer a question then widely held—was nonlocal
perception electromagnetic in nature? To carry out this part of Deep
Quest, the author invited researchers from SRI to participate. That
experiment showed that nonlocal perception was not electromagnetic
in nature (Schwartz, 1978a).

From a remote viewing perspective, the question of the seawall’s
location provided an ideal triple-blind protocol. Everyone agreed
there was an ancient seawall. But everyone also agreed that no one
knew exactly where it was located. And the same was true of the areas
selected by the remote viewers before the fieldwork began. Cleopatra
had a palace somewhere on the harbor coast, as did Marc Antony. The
Lighthouse of Pharos, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world,
was known to exist but was unfound. And all of these things had been
predicted in the Map Probe phase.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 495

Comparison of Electronic Remote Sensing and Remote Viewing Data

Mobius remote viewing archaeological projects are designed
with a second research aspect: Comparing electronic remote sensing
with nonlocal perception remote viewing: This was one of the research
objectives of the Alexandria Project. In addition to comparing the data,
we also sought to develop a complementary approach that would
use both survey techniques in order to provide researchers with the
highest quality fieldwork guidance. This team approach was designed
to help improve the information-to-noise ratio previously described.
The remote viewers functionally are the survey instruments, and using
more than one on the same site is the equivalent of having multiple
electronic sensors—side scan sonar, proton precession magnetometer
(as examples)—survey an area and then collectively define what is there.
Thus, as the paper reports, had we relied entirely on electronic remote
sensing, the paper would be very different. Thus, the “best case” scenario
relying exclusively on electronic remote sensing can be considered the “worst
case” for the combined methodology.

MOBIUS GROUP METHODOLOGY

Mobius conducted its Remote Viewing in the following way:

Phase One Methodology

1. The Remote Viewing team was selected, and each individual
   Respondent was given an anonymous alphanumeric designator, i.e.,
   R1. This was done to minimize the possible impact of various conceivable researcher biases, by depersonalizing the source of the data.

2. Sessions were done either in person at Mobius’ Los Angeles,
   California, location, or else numbered manila envelopes were sent to
   distant viewers, each envelope containing one question, except one
   that contained a map. In this first phase, because we had been told by
   the Egyptian government that no diving was permitted in the Eastern
   Harbor, our focus was entirely on terrestrial sites. The viewers answered
   the questions in the envelopes and made their locations on a standard
   U.S. Army Map Service chart (1:10,000) that had been specially prepared
   by having the typical multiple colors—which might provide false
   “cueing”—eliminated and many place names removed. This was done

496 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Figure 3. The Master Composite Map from Probe One. Note the lack of color and

deletion of most place names. Also note where the individual locations
overlap. These were called Consensus Zones and given priority in fieldwork.

by producing a Mylar master which was then “blueprinted,” producing a
simple line map of uniform color. This packet was sent to 11 Respondents.

3. The data-gathering Remote Viewing sessions took place. Some
   were conducted as interviews in person, others were conducted through
   the mail. Each question began with a location request. The viewer marked
   their response on their chart, followed by a request for descriptive material
   concerning what would be found at the site chosen, e.g., “If you could
   locate a construction, ruin, or artifact associated with the famous woman
   in history known as Cleopatra where would you look and if you could
   describe what you believe is there, what would it look like?” (Question
   #1, Probe II, October, 17, 1979). The form of the question was designed so
   that nothing “cued” any particular descriptive response or site selection.

4. A composite map including all the information contained on
   the individual maps was then developed. Where the individual location
   marks from the various Respondents overlapped, Consensus Zones
   were created. In the Fieldwork Phase, these zones would later be
   given first priority, although all marked areas would be explored. To
   our surprise, in answer to some of the questions, particularly those
   involving Cleopatra and Marc Antony, viewers marked an area in the
   sea (see Figure 3). This suggested massive subsidence and a seawall

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 497

much farther out than anything the literature suggested.

5. All nonlocal perception remote viewing interviews, whether
   done in-person, or submitted via mail, were audiotaped. Once collected, these tapes were transcribed.

6. Copies of all paperwork or tapes were made, and the originals
   were then notarized and turned over to an independent third party.
   (In this case all original documentation was in the hands of a bank
   officer in Los Angeles and stored in the bank’s vault.) This produced
   an unimpeachable date-coded chain establishing a clear chronology of
   events (see Figure 4).

7. Working from the photocopies of the original probe responses,
   the Remote Viewing Research Team then analyzed the proffered
   Remote Viewing material seeking, in the words and drawings, patterns
   of commonality, or something so odd that it stood out. These patterns
   are not imposed but arise from the material itself. For instance, did
   more than one viewer choose the same site? Did one of the group
   provide a drawing of a particular structure at that site that was similar
   to another viewer’s drawing? How similar were the descriptions? From
   this, and the Composite Map, a set of hypotheses was developed to
   guide the subsequent fieldwork.

8. With this phase of the analysis completed, the research
   concurrently done by the Archives and Records Team was integrated
   with the Remote Viewing data. This made it possible to establish what
   was previously known, which proffered Remote Sensing material coincided with known information, and which was novel. For example,
   if someone located a ship and described an anchor, the observation
   might be correct, but it would not be unexpected. If, on the other hand,
   they described the cargo as containing plates with particular markings,
   which they drew, such an observation would not be expected, and
   would have a low a priori probability.

498 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

9. Since no map is detailed enough to take a location down to
   a level sufficient for precise excavation, two Remote Viewers went to
   Egypt to provide on-site guidance. Each was individually taken into the
   Alexandria and, without access to the maps, asked to locate a particular
   consensus zone. If that was successfully accomplished, they were asked
   to locate down to feet and, sometimes, inches, the site within the
   zone. Additional information relating to artifact positioning within the
   site, the outline of walls and other structural aspects, subsurface or
   underwater conditions (silting, currents, and the like) were solicited.
   Drawings were sought, as well as a reference to scale.

10. All of this was videorecorded and/or filmed on a real-time
    basis; the tapes were then transcribed and the transcriptions, original
    tapes, and original drawings, as with the previous data acquired in the
    U.S., were notarized, photocopied, and the original sent back, prior to
    fieldwork, for storage control by the bank officer.

11. From this second order of material, in photocopy form,
    additional analysis was undertaken. This was then folded into the first
    analysis and again compared with whatever had been gleaned from the
    ethno-historic, geographical, and archaeological record. This analysis,
    when integrated with the first, produced the hypotheses under which
    the subsequent fieldwork was to be conducted, as well as defining what
    was uniquely potentially nonlocal.

12. Prior to the remote viewing fieldwork, electronic remote
    sensing of the mapped area was carried out using side scan sonar.

13. Divers were put into the water at the site selected by remote
    viewing to survey the site.

14. Once this fieldwork was completed, a final analysis comparing
    predictions from both electronic sensing and Remote Viewing surveys
    with actual fieldwork results was developed. It was from this that the
    final evaluation as to the accuracy of the Remote Sensing material was
    determined.

Phase Two Methodology

15. A second Map Probe utilizing nine Remote Viewer Respondents was carried out focusing (as the first Map Probe did not)
    specifically on the Eastern Harbor and nearby coastal waters.

16. Analysis of the individual maps, and related descriptive

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 499

material was begun prior to leaving the U.S. and completed after arrival
in Egypt. A second Composite Map based on the individual maps was
also compiled (see Figure 13).

17. A three-week diving program was conducted by Mobius, aided
    by Egyptian divers.

18. A final analysis of results was conducted, and this paper
    prepared.

PERSONNEL

To carry out this research program, seven teams were assembled,
each having responsibility for one aspect of the research. The specialty
teams were:

1. The Historical/Archaeological Team: Mustafa el Abbadi,
   historian, Chairman, Department of Classical Civilizations, Faculty of
   Arts, the University of Alexandria; Daoud Aboud Daoud, archaeologist,
   Professor of Archaeology, Department of Classical Civilizations,
   Faculty of Arts, the University of Alexandria, and Secretary of the
   Archaeological Society of Alexandria; Mohamed Hassan, archaeologist,
   Antiquities Inspector and Staff Archaeologist, Greco–Roman Museum;
   and Mieczyslaw Rodziewicz, archaeologist, Director, The University of
   Warsaw Archaeological Mission in Alexandria.

2. The Electronic Remote Sensing Team: Harold E. Edgerton,
   electrical engineer, Radio Strobe Laboratory, Department of Electrical
   Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of
   Technology; and Captain Mohamed Rashad, Armed Forces of Egypt
   Naval (AREN), naval hydrographic engineer, Naval Headquarters,
   Alexandria.

3. The Remote Viewing Research Team: Stephan A. Schwartz,
   parapsychologist, Mobius; Beverly Humphrey, parapsychologist, SRI;
   and Kathi Peoples, Mobius staff support.

4. The Remote Viewer Respondents: Most viewers who participated in the first Map Probe took part in the second. They ranged in
   age from early thirties to midsixties, and came from several countries,
   with educational backgrounds ranging from grade school to multiple
   advanced degrees. When not working with Mobius, the Remote Viewers
   individually have successful careers in fields as diverse as aeronautical
   engineering, automobile repair, fine arts, and writing.

500 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Viewers were selected on the basis of their success in past
research—mostly laboratory experiments with statistical outcomes—
although the majority had participated in the Deep Quest ship location
experiment.

Only one had any experience with archaeology, or even knew an
archaeologist. This Respondent, George McMullen, R3, had worked
for some years with Professor J. Norman Emerson of the University of
Toronto’s Department of Anthropology, and his student Reid (Emerson,
1975, pp. 23–25; Schwartz, 1978b, pp. 356–357 [Bibliography]). [9]

None of the viewers had ever been to Alexandria; none knew
anything of its early history, although they were, of course, familiar,
in the general way people are, with the historical personalities such as
Caesar, Alexander the Great, Mark Antony, and Cleopatra.

All Remote Viewers were “blind” to the questions before these were
presented to them; indeed, did not even know the project was to take
place in Egypt. In any case, even had they been working archaeologists
it would not have mattered much because the questions, for which the
project sought answers, were well-established mysteries over which
there had been much conjecture, but no resolution.

The two Respondents taken to Egypt were McMullen, R3, and
Hella Hammid, R5.

5. The Dive Team: Commander Mohamed Khaled, AREN; a
   changing group of enlisted navy divers; Stephan A. Schwartz; and Kathi
   Peoples.

6. The Archives and Records Team: Catherine Dees, historian; Kay
   Croissant, historian; Karen Winters, field log; David Keith, illustrator;
   and Jacqueline Kendall, staff support.

7. The Photography Team: Glenn Winters, land film; Bradley
   Boatman, land film. Gordon Waterman, underwater film; Dyanna
   Taylor, underwater film and still photography; Karen Winters, land still
   photography; and Kathi Peoples, underwater still photography.

8. The Audio Team: Sunny Meyers, audio film; Osama Salama,
   audio film; Stephan Schwartz, interviews; Beverly Humphrey, interviews.

The Photography and Audio Teams were established so that there
would exist an unimpeachable real-time, audio–visual record of every
aspect of the experiment.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 501

ELECTRONIC REMOTE SENSING SURVEY

Prior to conducting the side scan sonar electronic remote sensing
survey, indeed prior to our departure from the United States, several
Respondents had indicated possible sites in the waters in and around
the Eastern Harbor and had marked them on their maps (see Figure 3).

Additional information was volunteered once we were on site,
both before the work in the harbor was even thought possible (because
of government restrictions) and, subsequently, but before Edgerton
arrived in Egypt and fieldwork began.

We considered this volunteered underwater material to be
particularly significant because no questions specifically directed toward
underwater sites had been included in the initial Alexandrian probe.
Experience has shown that one should pay particular attention to remote
viewing data volunteered outside the scope of the questionnaire. [10 ]

Three areas of particular interest emerged in this manner (see Figure 5:
ceramic target, sonar record 8:46, and the barge wreck ) .

A side scan survey was designed to cover all the volunteered
Remote Viewing sites as well as non-RV selected areas, chosen by
Edgerton, based on his best judgment, which were to act as controls.
This work began on May 8, 1979, and continued for the next four days,
hampered almost continuously by the extreme amount of particulate
matter suspended in the water. The results were disappointing, as
Edgerton’s very short report makes clear:

---

EASTERN HARBOR SIDE SCAN SURVEY

By Harold Edgerton

This report covers the use of an EG&G side scan sonar at the
Eastern Harbor of Alexandria as requested by Stephan Schwartz,
Research Director of the Mobius Group, Los Angeles, California. I left
Boston on May 1, 1979, taking with me an EG&G type 259 side scan
sonar which is especially useful for the underwater search areas where
artifacts protrude from the sea’s bottom.

A map of the Eastern Harbor of Alexandria [see Figure 5] with
dotted lines indicates some of the survey paths where navigation was
made by Mohamed Rashad of the Egyptian Hydrographic Service. He
used two sextants that read onshore points.

One sonar trace, taken on May 13 from 8:46 a.m. to 8:50 a.m.,
corresponds with the course shown on the above chart of Eastern

502 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Harbor [see Figure 6]. Attention is directed to the location of the
“ceramic” target which is 65 meters from the present seawall, on the
east side of the harbor.

A second trace [see Figure 7] from the side scan record shows a
vertical view of the same “ceramic” target since the course of the survey
ship went directly over the target.

I measured the height above the sea bottom of this target to be
1.2 meters.”

---------------------------------------------------------------
Why was the side scan survey so disappointing? Perhaps because
of the heavy particulate in the water.

Figure 5. The side scan survey was done in such a way that it covered the sites

selected by Remote Viewing, as well as non-RV selected areas, chosen
by Edgerton, based on his best judgment, which were designed to act as
controls. Nothing was discovered except in the RV-selected areas, and
most RV sites produced no side scan “hits.”

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 503

Figure 6. The side scan sonar track from

8:46 to 8:50 a.m. on the morning
of May 13, 1979, showing the
“ceramic” target at the site
Remote Viewers felt would
mark the ancient seawall. It is
approximately 65 meters from
an existing corniche wall and
suggests that the Greco–Roman
city has subsided far more than
was previously appreciated.

Figure 7. Side scan trace showing

“ceramic” target.

504 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

PHASE ONE FIELDWORK

During the side scan survey, we made several initial dives on sites
identified by side scan electronic sensing or by Remote Viewing.

A note of caution about the precision of our locations: It proved
very difficult to shoot a transit on a diver or a buoy from the shore, so
some variance, measured in a few meters, must be understood. For ease
of comparison between the various data sources, the sites covered by
the first phase of fieldwork are presented with the following structure:

Literature Review
Side Scan Sonar
Remote Viewing
Field Observations
Summary

Central Harbor, Site 8—The 8:46 Site

Literature Review. A massive pillar was discovered at this site, and
we began a search for some mention of such a large column in the
classical literature sources but found nothing that could be directly
correlated. Henry H. Gorringe, a former naval officer hired to bring
back one of the Cleopatra obelisks to New York, does make a reference
to what we think is the same column, although it adds little and is
so vague about exact location as to be useless for that purpose: “. . .
about one hundred yards from the beach. [A measurement made from
somewhere on the shore prior to construction of the present corniche.]
There is a broken column sticking up from the bottom of the sea, nearly
equal in diameter to Pompey’s pillar” (Gorringe, 1882).

Side Scan. The “8:46” site was described by Edgerton and nicely
outlined on the trace, demonstrating that the side scan not only tested
as operating correctly, but also demonstrated that it was functioning
properly (see Figure 6).

Remote Viewing. Site location volunteered by Respondent R3 with
the description of a large column.

Field Observations. 8:46 proved to be a large Aswan granite
column lying on its side. The dimensions of the column (about 4 meters
long by 2.5 meters in diameter). No other pillar even approaching its

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 505

dimensions was found in the vicinity. One diver reported that he could
feel a base to the pillar, and the trace suggests this (not the column that
may have been what the sonar registered), but we could not see it since
it lay beneath a thick layer of sand and broken shells.

Nearby, perhaps 9 to 10 m away, and unrelated to the sonar hit,
evidence of what we now believe is the ancient seawall was discovered.

The diver who first located it said it seemed “almost like ceramic”
and that the fragment ran parallel to the corniche. [11]

Diving the next day resolved this odd description: The discovery
was not, in fact, ceramic, but rather brick and stone “welded” by time
and overlaid by marine growth.

Summary. This site was the one clear side scan “hit” (Figure 6
and Figure 7), although there is confusion as to whether it was the
base or the column that triggered the sonar trace. The Archaeological/
Historical Team felt the column must be commemorative rather than
structural, particularly since nothing else remotely like it was found
at the site. We think this is the same column described by Gorringe,
and the fact that it is no longer visible from the surface provides some
measure of the change in the quality of the harbor over time. Beyond
the find itself, the placement of the column was significant, because it
supported the location of the ancient seawall as being much farther out
to sea than was previously thought. As for what we now believe to be a
seawall fragment: At the time, this small section was not large enough
to lead to any conclusion.

Central Harbor, Site 8

Literature Review. Since this site figures prominently in the next
phase of fieldwork, the description and the corresponding correlations
with various literature sources will be presented below.

Side Scan. Site Surveyed. No contact data.
Remote Viewing. Respondent R11 selected this site by Remote
Viewing from his home in Los Angeles, as he answered the first Map
Probe questionnaire. The Respondent provided no specifics relating to
the site or its contents except that, “it was an important site”. [12]

Field Observations. The floor of the harbor was literally strewn
with columns and bases, all of Aswan red granite, and all of which
were clearly in situ, since the columns all point in one direction and

506 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

many had fallen so as to break into obviously associated fragments.
The site itself was on a slight rise or mole, although silt deposition over
the centuries had reduced the differential between this area and the
surrounding sea floor.

Summary. Site 8 ( see Figure 13 ), was the most visually interesting of
the sites located in the harbor proper during the Phase One Fieldwork.
From the very first dive in this area, it was clear that this was a major
site. Even at this early stage, both Daod and Abbadi (who were present
in the dive boat when the divers surfaced and reported; Figure 8) felt
that the type and configuration of the ruins corresponded closely with
Mark Antony’s Timonium. [13]

Figure 8. The first author and Kathi Peoples reporting what they have seen to the

archaeology team in the boat above them, while the film crew records
the exchange.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 507

Central Harbor, Site 4

Literature Review. Nothing specific to the site.
Side Scan. Surveyed, no contact data.
Remote Viewing. Volunteered site. Remote Viewing data from R3
while at his Canadian home during the first Map Probe. Site associated
with the ancient seawall, which R3 felt extended in antiquity considerably
farther out into the sea than is presently the case (see Figure 13 and
Figure 28).

Field Observations. Divers found what seemed to be another
section of the seawall. The discovery of this site, also approximately 65
meters farther out into the sea from the present-day corniche, provided
further support that we had, indeed, located the ancient seawall.

Summary. The decision was made to reexplore this site in Phase Two.

Fort Silsila / Point Lochias, Site 5

Literature Review. Strabo describes this site by saying: “Lochias
with a royal palace upon it” (Strabo, 1949, p. 9). Such word pictures
seem clear at a distance when reading them but, when one considers
them while on site, one realizes the words are subject to more than one
interpretation. Even Fraser seems to get confused when describing the
area around Lochias. The problem is further complicated because the
eastern peninsula of the harbor which Strabo saw, writing his famous
history sometime between 27 bce and 14 ce, was a very different
geographic configuration than the one that Saint-Genis saw in the 18th
century, or that Mahmoud-Bey saw in the 19th century (Mahmoud-Bey,
1872), [14] and quite different from the one we see in modern Alexandria
today (see Figure 9).

Side Scan. Site surveyed. No contact data.
Remote Viewing. Volunteered Site. Respondent R11 selected Site 5
along Fort Silsila’s western flank, and provided a general description of
important buildings ( see Figure 13 and Figure 26 ).

Field Observations. The present-day Lochias is a relatively uniform low-lying finger of land whose perimeter is lined with large
concrete blocks. It is now virtually concreted over and used as a
military installation. In times past it was both much wider and more
irregular than it is today (Fraser, 1972, Vol. 1, p. 23). There has also

508 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Figure 9. Modern day Lochias.

been considerable subsidence of the land, which only complicates an
already-confusing picture. Because of the military security regulations,
only two dives, one with one diver and the second the next day with
two divers, were permitted, slightly inside the security perimeter in
and around Site 5. The first diver reported a 300-square-meter floor
of blocks or mosaic approximately 20 centimeters square. A buoy was
dropped to facilitate location the next day, but when we made our
second dive we encountered what was to prove a continuing source of
frustration. Although the buoy was in place, the currents in the bay had
shifted and the site was now covered with sediment. Divers reaching
down through approximately 20 centimeters of sand could feel the
blocks beneath their fingers.

Summary. At the time we were diving security regulations
prohibited foreigners from approaching to within closer than 300
meters from the peninsular shoreline (AREN, no date ). [15] We decided
to pursue a waiver of the restriction for the next phase since unbidden
Remote Viewing had indicated a site within the restricted area, and
diver exploration had already discovered the floor.

Western Side of the Harbor, Sites 1 and 2

Literature Review. Nothing specific to site.
Side Scan. Area not surveyed.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 509

Remote Viewing. The sites were selected but little specific descriptive material was provided.

Field Observations. Two divers checked this site, but it proved
too dangerous to examine closely. This is the part of the harbor where
pleasure and fishing boats are moored, and the boatmen all through
the day moved their boats in and out of the harbor directly over where
divers would be. They were unfamiliar with diving, had no sense of
divers being in the water, and did not appear to recognize the divers’
flag. During the short dives, however, we saw what seemed to be
remnants of some construction, and we brought up some broken
amphorae (see Figure 25), a kind of clay vessel usually a few feet long,
used in antiquity to carry cargo like oil or grain.

Summary. This site should not be attempted until some way of
protecting the divers from boat props can be set up.

Kait Bey—Pharos, Site 7

Literature Review. (See Phase Two Fieldwork.) We learned in
Alexandria from local archaeologists that four years earlier an archaeologist, Honor Frost, had been permitted to do a very limited number
of dives in the harbor and that the Archaeological Society had a copy of
the manuscript. The day before we were scheduled to dive at Kait Bey,
we read it and found that Frost had dived at Kait Bey. She was not able to
spend enough time to do more than say there seemed to be a number
of structural antiquities in the area, and she had seen a statue on its
side (Frost, 1975). The Frost report described a number of structural
antiquities in this area, such as statues. Since the remote viewing data
we had already developed significantly matched her report, we made
this site a higher priority for further exploration. Much of this matched
the remote viewing data we had but had not yet dived on to confirm.
Getting this confirmation about the accuracy of the remote viewing
made this site a particularly high priority for us.

Side Scan. Site surveyed. Because of the large stone blocks used
in the breakwater construction, it was impossible for the sonar survey
to differentiate any possible antiquities from the modern breakwater
installation (see Figure 10).

Remote Viewing. Two months before coming to Egypt, George
McMullen, R3, voluntarily provided considerable information concern

510 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Figure 10. The Kait Bey Fort as seen from the sea entering the harbor. The Pharos

Lighthouse site discoveries are clustered around the base of this
promontory. Note the modern breakwater blocks.

ing the Kait Bey peninsula and the lighthouse, which he found very
interesting. He had drawn it as it may have appeared during several
periods of its history. [16] During late March of 1979, when Mobius was
concentrating on the land phase of its work in Alexandria, McMullen
began again to volunteer information about the lighthouse, and that
remote viewing data, coupled with descriptions from other viewers, is
what convinced us to mount the diving expedition covered in this report.

After the first quick exploratory dive, an on-site session was conducted with McMullen on May 12, 1979. This produced both a detailed
drawing of the lighthouse, and the observation that the building was
constructed of “red granite”. [17] Of particular interest was his description of
“round stone things” (Figure 20), [18] which could not be directly correlated
with any objects described in ancient sources, nor anything seen on the
single dive. This is a good example of a Remote Viewing observation with
a low a priori probability. Additionally, things in the first Map Probe also
prompted us to search an area approximately 20 meters away.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 511

Field Observations. In this phase of the fieldwork, because of
both the sea state and yet-to-be-resolved permissions, we were able to
do have only one diver do one 20-minute dive. On the western side of
Kait Bey, the diver reported what seemed likely to be a sewer outlet and,
on the eastern side of Kait Bey, what appeared to be building remnants.
At the site 20 meters out to sea, he found a wall remnant that may be
the channel and dam mentioned by Jondet (Jondet, 1916, pp. 48–50).

Summary. The Remote Viewing data suggested there was much to
be discovered at this site, and even that one dive made it obvious that
this site would be a high priority for the Phase Two Fieldwork.

Phase One Fieldwork Conclusions

With the exception of the 8:46 Site, where the commemorative
pillar was found, the side scan sonar phase of our survey was generally
disappointing. It was equally evident that Remote Viewing proved to be
a very efficient search technology. In the absence of side scan contact
data, sites that could have taken days or even weeks to find using grid
search techniques were found in minutes. Regardless of how sites
were located, it was immediately obvious to everyone that the Eastern
Harbor held a promise of archaeologically significant finds more than
equal to our most auspicious expectations.

PHASE TWO FIELDWORK

The success of the initial phase of fieldwork led us to conduct a
second Map Probe (see Figure 13) using the protocol already described.
Questionnaires and a new chart were sent out on October 17, 1979, to
nine Respondents. This probe was specifically focused on underwater
sites. The charts and questionnaires were all returned on or before
October 23, 1979. It was immediately evident that the results were
unusually consensual, and overlapped with sites from the first Map
Probe (see Figure 5). After analysis, three main areas: Sites 7, 4/8, and
5/9 comprised our first priority. Two additional areas, Sites 10 and 11
(see Figure 5, Figure 13) were targeted for examination as a second
order of priority. Sites 1, 2, and 6 made up a third tier of work.

512 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Figure 13. The dive chart was derived from both the first and second probe Composite

Maps. Each circle was originally drawn by an individual Remote Viewer.
The sites were first surveyed using side scan sonar and then explored by
divers during one or both phases of fieldwork.

Pharos, Site 7

Literature Review. Strabo describes the Lighthouse as “. . . at the
extremity of the isle which is a rock washed all around by the sea and has
upon it a tower that is admirably constructed of Leucos lithos ”—which
has sometimes been translated to mean “white marble” (Strabo, 1949,
p. 25). This sounds rather simple but it is not. To begin with the area
now known as Kait Bey was, in fact, originally two islands with a double
arch connecting them that allowed ships to pass between the harbors
(Frost, 1975, p. 27). No clear picture of what this looked like survives (see
Figure 11, Figure 12). Some authorities feel the lighthouse may have
been built not where the Medieval Kait Bey Fort is now located, but
upon a small islet, known as Diamond Rock, which now appears to be

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 513

Figure 11. An early depiction of the Lighthouse of Pharos.

Figure 12. A modern reconstruction of the Lighthouse of Pharos circa 280 bc.

unrelated to the main mass at the end of the Heptastadium, although
as Jondet and Saint-Genis argue, it may once have been connected as
part of a larger plateau, sections of which have now sunk (Saint-Genis,
1817, pp. 17–29). Fraser, however, argues against Diamond Rock being
the lighthouse site (Fraser, 1972, Vol. 2, p. 44, cf 98).

514 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Further confusing the issue is the question of what Strabo meant
by Leucos lithos. We feel marble would not have been the material chosen
during the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus (circa 280 bce), when the bulk
of the lighthouse’s construction was carried out (Saint-Genis, 1817,
p. 23). Marble is vulnerable to the sea air’s corrosive effects and, even
more compellingly, there is no proximate source. Historically, marble
was sufficiently scarce and expensive that Alexandrian statues often had
just their faces carved from it, so it is hard to imagine even the wealthy
Ptolemies underwriting the cost of the tons of marble required to even
sheath so large a structure. [19]

Frost presents an alternative hypothesis with which we subscribe:
The building may have been covered by white or light-colored plaster
(Frost, 1975, p. 128). This is certainly within the known parameters
of Ptolemaic architecture (Frost, 1975, p. 128). The idea also finds an
historical basis in a story told by Lucian, in which Sostratus (who may
or may not have been the architect of the lighthouse) (Strabo, 1949,
p. 25) wrote a dedication using his own name and then plastered it
over, painting on this new surface a second dedication to the king. As
the years progressed this superficial plaster covering wore away (one
must admire Sostratus’ acute sense of timing, revealing, safely after his
monarch’s death, the dedication to Sostratus which lay beneath; Fraser,
1972, Vol. 1, pp. 19–20).

It is significant that throughout the six dives made by Frost, she
“. . . saw no white marble though we did find black marble in the sea”
(Frost, 1975, p. 128). Frost’s initial 1968 UNESCO-sponsored English
effort found Aswan granite to be the principal ancient construction
material remaining at this underwater site, and this accords well with
the granite construction materials found at land sites (Frost, 1975, p.
128). This proved to be the case with our own diving experiences.

The literature suggests that much of the lighthouse fell into the
sea beginning in 956 CE when 15 cubits (~6.4–8.5 m) toppled from the
top of the lighthouse (Frost, 1975, p. 128). An earthquake in 1303 appears
to have done even worse damage as mentioned in Ibn Battuta’s 1326
report (Ibn Battuta, 1929). In 1349, when Ibn Battuta visited again, he
found the structure in so ruinous a condition that it was impossible to
enter or climb up to the doorway (Ibn Battuta, 1929). Shortly thereafter,
it appears to have disappeared entirely from the Alexandrian skyline,

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 515

since eyewitness accounts of the ruins are not found in later reports.

Side Scan. Site surveyed. No useful contacts.
Remote Viewing. The second Map Probe produced a wealth of
new material including McMullen’s (R3) most complex drawing of
Pharos (see Figure 14) . [20] Additionally, the Remote Viewers outlined
what seemed to be both temple and lighthouse remains, specifically
describing statues, pillars, heads, ‘stone beads’, and square building
stones. [21] The Lighthouse is considered to be one of the tallest in the
ancient world, possibly as much as 122 meters in height. [22] Notably
absent in all of the proffered remote viewing data was any description
of the massive remains one would associate with a such a building. It
is a classic example of a low a priori probability that is unexpected, and
contrary to rational assessment, but nevertheless proves to be correct.

stone “beads”

Figure 14. A copy of the original signed drawing of the lighthouse by George

McMullen, R3. Note particularly the round stone “beads” ornamenting
the first level and the references to the brass mirror.

516 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Field Observations. Approximately 43 hours of diving time were
allocated to the Pharos area during the second phase, with as many
as six divers in the water at the same time. The average depth varies
between 7 and 10 meters. Orienting ourselves on Kait Bey, we directed
our search out from the breakwater in a “pie wedge” pattern, filling in
each wedge before moving to the next one. We also directed similar
search patterns diverging from finds made by the Frost/UNESCO
program. These dives were conducted during October and November,
the months generally considered by local divers to be the best “diving
window” for these waters. [23] The water was certainly clearer than it had
been during the early summer months, during Phase One fieldwork,
but at no time would one have considered conditions ideal, because
a voluminous amount of raw sewage outfall came from a sewer pipe
just to the west of Kait Bey. On some days, but not others, it also made
photography of the sites very difficult, so difficult that we had some
drawings made from photographs because the particulate matter in the
water was so dense that the photos when printed lost relevant details.

Diving is best carried out prior to 11:00 because the bottom
current usually flows west from Kait Bey until then, when it reverses
and returns the sewage to the east where the antiquities are clustered.
The sewage then became so dense it could be smelled through one’s
mask underwater. Until, if ever, this sewage issue is resolved, no diver, even
when the sewers are not operating, should attempt exploration of this area
without a full spectrum of protective injections to the maximum dose for
bodyweight. [24]

Further complicating the picture while we were diving, large cement
blocks (~2.5 m x 2.5 m) were brought around by barge and dropped in
the antiquities zone to either extend or build up the breakwater. The
effect of this construction on antiquities was devastating.

This harbor work did result in one positive effect though. After the
blocks were dropped, a heavy storm took place in Alexandria over the
next two days, making diving impossible. When we returned to the site,
we discovered that the storm had caused a shift in the bottom currents.

More than two meters of silt, composed mostly of sand and broken
shells, had shifted, effectively lowering the bottom level. Happily for us,
this revealed a host of previously undetected ancient structural remnants.

In general, the most interesting area was a sort of pocket zone

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 517

coming around from Kait Bey, looking east, beginning approximately
12 meters out from shore and extending from the fort around to the
Kait Bey breakwater. Here, in spite of turbidity so bad that visibility
was reduced to a meter or less, and underwater photography that was
intermittently compromised, we found what were clearly the remains
of a major structure.

The floor of the sea was almost carpeted with columns, plinths,
pediments, blocks (one meter or more square; Figure 15) and other
structures . At almost a bisection of the angle created by the Kait Bey
fort and the breakwater, a sphinx was found. The sphinx was oriented
on its right side and had no head (see Figure 16). It was approximately
2.1 meter long down the back and 1.25 meters high, with a thickness
of just under one meter. Kemal Abu al Saadat, who was diving with
us, agreed that this was not one of the sphinxes reported by the Frost
group.

Slightly farther out and about 20 meters to the east, a very large

Figure 15. Divers looking at the massive stone blocks that were once the Lighthouse of

Pharos.

518 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Figure 16. This sphinx was found in a location selected by remote viewing, and was in

the condition predicted and described. The photograph (above) was taken
during a period when the particulate matter was very dense, and so a
drawing (below) was made from a selection of such photographs to give a
better sense of what the figure is like.

rectangular block was located (see Figure 17). This block was previously
undetected. It was about 3.60 meters long, 2.70 meters wide, and 3.60
meters thick. Across what was almost certainly its top were incised a
variety of small and large cuts, notches, and recesses (some of which
are inside of each other), all of which are obviously human-worked.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 519

Figure 17. The first photograph ever taken of the Lighthouse of Pharos, one of

the seven wonders of the ancient world. The massive scale of the stone
blocks makes it clear that the Lighthouse and the surrounding area must
have been every bit as impressive as ancient eyewitnesses suggest. Note
notches in the base block.

Rodziewicz, when he was shown pictures of this block, provided a
possible explanation. He felt that some of the smaller recesses, which
were located inside the larger ones, had probably been cut to allow
wooden wedges to be inserted to facilitate jamming a lifting ring in
place. This allowed the block to be moved. The larger irregular recess
was evidently to contain the base of a statue. [25]

Since this recess was over two meters in length it gives some idea
of the impressive monolithic nature of the statue. Two other similar
large blocks, both reported by Frost, were rediscovered in this area
(Frost, 1975, pp. 128–129). Both exhibited similar sockets.

A 4.7-meter long Isis statue also reported by Frost (Frost, 1975,
pp. 128–129) was refound. It had what clearly appeared to be a kind
of lengthwise rectangular protrusion, possibly used to fasten it to a
“female” equivalent in a wall, thus supporting Rodziewicz’s explanation
(see Figure 18).

520 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Figure 18. A portion of the Isis statue in the area where the remote viewing data

said statues would be found. Note also the heavy particulate pollution in
the water. In the color image the folds of the statue’s gown can hardly be
made out. This situation was not constant but varied day to day.

We did not find the Crown of Isis Hathor which Frost reported
(Frost, 1975, pp. 128–129), and we suspect that the hide-and-seek nature
of the shifting seafloor accounted for its disappearance. Another crown,
however, was located. This one rested about 12 meters offshore. It was
1.8 meters long with Alexandria’s trademark blend of Hellenistic and
Pharaonic design elements (see Figure 19).

motifs. It is shown as a drawing because the particulate in the ocean water was
so dense it made getting a clear idea of what was found difficult to discern.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 521

The crown was deemed to be masculine by the Historical/
Archaeological Team. They felt it was probably associated with Osiris,
particularly in light of its proximity to Isis.

Close to the crown we located several clusters of the unusual
stone “beads” predicted
and described by R3 before
the first phase of diving
had begun. They apparently
were exposed when the
seafloor dropped, since we
had not seen either them or
the crown on earlier dives
(see Figure 20). The beads
were uniformly about 2.6
meters in circumference
and, just as in R3’s drawing, Figure 20. The “stone beads” described by remote

viewing and found where predicted.

had holes approximately They are shown as a drawing because
20 centimeters across the particulate in the ocean water was

so dense it made getting a clear idea of

and between 15 and 20

what was found difficult to discern.

centimeters in depth. They
have archaeological significance, but equally they are an example of
something predicted by remote viewing, which no one could have
anticipated.

Summary. Although there was an impressive amount of structural
material at this site, there was not enough to account for a building
the size of the lighthouse, which confirmed what the Remote Viewing
data had predicted. It is possible that much, indeed conceivably most,
of the building did not fall into the sea but was hauled away for use in
the construction of other buildings, possibly including the original Kait
Bey Fort, and this would explain its absence. Remote Viewing provided
an observation about this which we were unable to follow up on, but
that we think deserves future consideration: During the course of an
on-site Remote Sensing session with Respondent R3, he stated that
much of the lighthouse material had been reused in the construction
of the large mosque near where the fishing fleet is currently moored.

Remote Viewing descriptions of granite—rather than marble—
also were confirmed. All the objects we found were formed from Aswan

Figure 20. The “stone beads” described by remote

viewing and found where predicted.
They are shown as a drawing because
the particulate in the ocean water was
so dense it made getting a clear idea of
what was found difficult to discern.

522 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

granite, except for the sphinx, the crown, and several columns that
were of either a gray granite or of syenite. One diver reported a white
marble column, but on subsequent dives this could not be relocated.

Fieldwork seemed to confirm another Remote Viewing observation:
Since much of the material we found was seemingly religious in
nature, the Remote Sensing descriptions concerning a temple that was
proximate to the lighthouse seem very reasonable. The sense of the
archaeologists was that it was probably associated with Isis Pharia.

The fact that the majority of these remains are clustered in one
area, and are evidently in situ, would also seem to argue that the temple
site did not fall over into the sea but rather that the land upon which it
was situated subsided.

Only further exploration and study will definitively resolve the
issue of the missing lighthouse material and allow us to separate what
are specifically temple ruins from lighthouse remains.

The absence of statues that might correspond with the bases that
both the Mobius and the Frost groups discovered could possibly be
attributed to deterioration of marble in the sea, although the Historical/
Archaeological Team felt that something should have remained.
Perhaps the statues were removed, possibly even destroyed, during
one of the numerous civil confrontations which plague so much of
Alexandria’s history.

We did not resolve another lighthouse mystery: For centuries
there has been a controversy over how the light from the lighthouse
was focused—by a lens or a mirror? We can add little except to note that
R3 described it as a “polished brass mirror arrangement” (see Figure 9).
This seems to us more logical than the lens hypotheses and, although
we searched for both, nothing was found. A mirror or lens could, of
course, still be beneath the sands. However, we feel—particularly if it
was a mirror—that it is far more likely such a valuable mass of metal
would have been taken away for recasting.

No one to whom we showed drawings of McMullen’s “beads” was
able to shed any light as to what they were. Nothing argues against the
Remote Viewing data, which suggested they were a decorative element
lining the top of one of lighthouse’s staged terraces. Indeed, this seems
the most probable explanation.

Based on our fieldwork, it seems probable that Fraser is correct,

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 523

and that Diamond Rock was not the site of the lighthouse. We searched
around Diamond Rock and found nothing that could possibly be
identified as lighthouse remains.

Two final points deserve mention here: It is clear is that this was
another instance where the “noise” overwhelmed the signal in the side
scan survey. Also, that Remote Viewing provided accurate locations and
site reconstruction data that contradicted the common wisdom.

Timonium / Poseidium / Emporium, Site 8

Literature Review. Strabo says, “Above the artificial harbor lies the
theatre; then the Poseidium—an elbow, as it were, projecting from the
Emporium, as it is called, and containing a temple of Poseidon. To this
elbow of land Antony added a mole projecting still farther, into the
middle of a harbor, and on the extremity of it built a royal lodge which
he called the Timonium” (Strabo, 1949, p. 39). The site of the Timonium
has always exerted a special fascination, since it was here that Antony
reputedly fell on his sword; and it was from here that, still living, he
was taken to Cleopatra (Plutarch, 1941, pp. 1756–1757; Frost, 1975, pp.
126–129).

But the question of the Timonium’s exact location has remained
unsettled.

Mahmoud-Bey placed it on his map of the city, along with an
accompanying description, putting it about 650 meters from the site
he described as the location of the Royal Harbor, on the west flank of
Lochias (Mahmoud-Bey, 1872). Further, he stated that it projected about
200 meters from the coast, with an additional 300 meters of masonry
construction projecting beyond that (Mahmoud-Bey, 1872). Hogarth,
commenting on Saint-Genis’ description, felt that what appears to be
the remains of quays are probably “. . . merely the lowest courses of
large walls . . . ” (Fraser, 1972, Vol. 2, p. 21, cf 36). One difficulty is that
even in antiquity the city underwent a period of partial desertion in this
area. Ammianus Marcellinus indicated that as early as 273 ce much of
the core area, including the sites of many buildings near the palaces,
had been abandoned (Marcellinus, 1950, pp. 299–301). Approximately
100 years later another writer, Epiphanius, called the area a “desert”
(Fraser, 1972, Vol. 1, p. 10).

524 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Side Scan. Site surveyed. No contact data.
Remote Viewing. Respondent R11 picked a site which he associated with Antony, during the First Map Probe before we left for
Alexandria. The Second Probe, which focused on the harbor, produced
several overlays on this initial location. Respondent R4 actually used
the word Timonium, saying: “There should be parts of columns of the
Timonium and one small area at its tip reached by a small hole, this was
Antony’s small place of his own.” [26] Respondent R9 described “a small
amphitheater, very small, only room for about 20 people.” [27 ] Respondent
R1 picked the same area, but felt drawn to it initially because he
believed that “there were also steps to a small building where Cleopatra
walked.” [28] In analyzing this data, it seemed to us that more than one
site was involved, and that this must, collectively, have been an active
center during the time of the Ptolemaic city.

Field Observations. As already noted, this site produced substantial
finds during our first dives in the late spring of 1979, and became one
of our primary targets for diving during the second phase. In all, 30
man-hours were spent diving on this site during the second phase.

Within the harbor, as at Kait Bey, diving is best done in the early
morning. A current develops between 11:00 and 11:30, at which time
the already turbid water becomes so heavily laden with particulate
matter that it seems one is swimming in minestrone soup. Visibility by
13:00 was often reduced to less than a meter. Luckily, there is nowhere
near the same amount of sewage as at Pharos, although patches still
come in, as well as oil slicks from fishing boats and the usual floating
detritus of most modern city harbors anywhere in the world. Strangely
though, there is very little litter on the seafloor, found between 6.5 and
8 meters in depth. The bottom is mostly sand and broken shells with
some marine growth extending up from the floor.

At the site selected by the Remote Viewers, we found what appeared
to be a small peninsula; however we did not find it going out so far as
Mahmoud-Bey described. There seemed to be a tapering off at about
80+ meters out. Also, as previously noted, the differential between
the seafloor proper, and the level of the now-underwater peninsula is
probably not as great as it once was. Today it averages (acknowledging
that this could shift by a meter or more depending on the weather and
sea currents) about one meter.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 525

The first thing that strikes the diver’s eye is the large number of
broken columns. Although many were in several sections, they are
clearly in situ—probably breaking as they fell—because they all point in
a common direction, slightly eastward off perpendicular to the present
shoreline. All were of the usual red Aswan granite and, collectively, they
gave the impression of making up the long side of a building. Not
only are they obviously associated but they are of uniform diameter,
about one meter. There is also one fairly large (about 15 meters on a
side average) “patch” of pottery. Numerous samples of pottery were
discovered. Rodziewicz and Daoud made an initial evaluation that they
comprised a mix of Roman and Hellenistic. [29] Their association with the
site is, of course, strictly problematic at this stage.

Several bases without columns were discovered, as well as
a number of capitals that were approximately one meter across.
Unfortunately, the capitals were so corroded that no details could be
ascertained except that they appeared to be carved.

At the northern edge of Site 8, there was a rise. Because we
had spent so much time exploring closer in, and because diving was
possible only a few hours each day, we were not able to explore this in
the detail we would have liked. Two divers swimming over the area both
reported that the rise may extend for some distance.

The issue of whether we were seeing the ancient seawall or quays
was also settled through the subsequent location of a quay running
perpendicular to the wall fragments we began discovering in Phase
One Fieldwork. Additional portions of this seawall were discovered to
the east of Site 4.

Summary. In light of these discoveries, we believe the ancient
shoreline, lined with a brick seawall, ran approximately 65 to 75 meters
seaward of the present corniche; the variation probably accounted for
by the fact that the ancient harbor was not so regular in appearance as
the present day’s uniformity.

This site is obviously a series of major constructions. For all that,
we found nothing that specifically seemed to us to be the small theater
mentioned by the Respondents, but the fact that it was described
and is known to have existed is provocative. We also did not discover
Mahmoud-Bey’s 300 meters of masonry, but it could well be there just
under the sand.

526 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

This area is clearly worthy of a much more complete examination
using equipment we did not have.

Western Side of the Harbor Including the Base of Fort Silsila /
Point Lochias, Sites 5 & 9

Literature Review. Strabo says, “. . . one comes on the left to the
inner royal palaces, which are continuous with those on Lochias and
have groves and numerous lodges painted in various colors” (Strabo,
1949, p. 39; also see Phase One Fieldwork).

Side Scan Sonar. Site surveyed. No contact data.
Remote Viewing. Respondent R3 marked this area, and initiated
his response with the flat statement that a palace associated with
Cleopatra had once stood at this site. [30] He also stated that it was at
the base of Lochias where Alexander had first sketched out his plans to
build the city. [31] Respondent R4, in the second Map Probe, voluntarily
traced out what she felt had been the ancient shoreline and stated also
that palaces had been at the base while the Royal Harbor was nearby
in the harbor. [32] There she also described a palace associated with
Cleopatra the 7th (the only Cleopatra history remembers): “Cleopatra’s
palace overlooked the Royal Harbor.” [32] Exactly where she meant the
Royal Harbor to be was not clear. A palace was also described by R9 as
having been in this area and both she and R3 drew pictures which have
many similarities (see Figure 21 and Figure 22). Since we had already
dived in this area when it was first selected back in the spring of 1979, it
was with particular interest that we returned for a second examination.

Field Observations. All caveats about diving conditions for
the Timonium/Poseidium apply here as well. There are substantial
construction remains in this area but they lie mostly beneath the silt,
where they can be felt but not seen. All that could be seen, at least
while we were diving, were a few columns and one base similar to the
ones found at the Timonium/Poseidium site; the measurements and
description are the same. We also found a low rise about 40 meters
out from a line obtained by bisecting the angle created where Lochias
joins the shoreline. This rise has a kind of amoebic shape and appears
to have constructions under the silt within part of the rise. The rise is
perhaps 30 meters across at its widest point, although this was hard to
estimate with any accuracy because of the silt, the very substantial weed

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 527

Figure 21 and Figure 22. Similar descriptions independently provided by two

Remote Viewers, describing “Cleopatra’s Palace.” Note the absence of
the Pharaonic motifs in each drawing, which are what is usually evoked
when most people think of Egypt. A low a priori consensus such as this
is considered particularly significant and is given precedence in planning
fieldwork.

growth on the seafloor, and the very poor visibility.

Summary. Although this site was visually unrewarding, the fact
that material was found, and that so many Respondents, who had been
so accurate on so many other issues, picked this one area, leads us
to believe that a much more extensive examination should be made.
Strabo’s description further urges this, since this may well be part of the
Royal Complex he describes as the home of the Ptolemies including,
presumably, the legendary Cleopatra the 7th.

In our view the rise we found is the other candidate site for the
island of Antirrhodus which lay outside the Royal Harbor.

Tip of Point Lochias, Site 10

Literature Review. There appear to be no definitive references
to this area, other than Strabo’s statement that there was a palace on
the tip of Lochias (Strabo, 1949, p. 39). This is possibly the palace to
which Antony was taken after falling on his sword, the place of the final
scene between him and Cleopatra. However, since the peninsula is so

528 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

grossly changed, one can hardly say where the tip that Strabo saw falls
in relation to what is present today.

Side Scan. No survey of this area was made.
Remote Viewing. Two Respondents, R3 and R4, each picked a very
small and almost exactly overlapping area at the end of the peninsula.
Despite the paucity of classical and modern literature source material,
and the fact that no side scan sonar was even attempted because the
water was too rough, the remote viewing location was so specific that
we decided to dive on the site. Viewers R3 and R4 both felt the site had
something to do with Cleopatra, although they were not in agreement
as to the association, describing it variously as a “tomb” or a “statue”
that Cleopatra had built.

Field Observations: Our usual recommendations about diving
safety obtained, because there is a sewer with an output equal to that
of the Pharos outlet at the eastern base of Lochias whose outfall sweeps
around the point (see Figure 9). The average water depth was about 8
meters and the water clarity, when the sewage was not present, was
probably the best in the harbor area. The seafloor was also quite clean,
with little weed growth and no litter at all. Only one dive, of about 45
minutes, was made here by three divers.

In exactly the area marked by R3 and R4, four large rectangular
blocks were located. They appeared to be in situ and were of a size
that made it unlikely that they could have been moved. They are not
modern. However, because of their angle—they were in a rough line
at about a 45-degree angle pointing westward from Lochias’ tip—it is
possible, although not probable, that they were antiquities dumped
here at some later date to form a breakwater. The blocks were all of
Aswan granite, and uniform in size and shape; about 3.6 meters long
by 1.5 meters wide and 1.65 meters thick. A uniform lip sticking out
approximately 10 cm and about 10 cm thick went all the way around
one end. They reminded one of the platform bases for large statues
seen at the Pharos site, but there were no recesses such as were found
there. One of the four was broken and we sought to determine whether
they were hollow. However, the break, about a meter in from the end,
was positioned in such a manner that this could not be determined.

Summary. We could not evaluate the importance of this site, only
note that it was situated precisely as located by Remote Viewing.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 529

Open Sea – North of Kait Bey, Site 11

Literature Review. Nothing specific to the site.
Side Scan Sonar. No survey of this area.
Remote Viewing. Four Respondents chose this area. Two felt that
the site was the location of a sunken boat (see Figure 23 for R5’s drawing
and comments; Arrian, 1942, p. 467). They each drew virtually the same
drawing in describing the boat (see Figure 24 for R3’s drawing). [33] R3
felt there should also be a statue(s). [34] R8 felt the site was related to the
ancient lighthouse. [35]

Figure 23. One of two “boat” drawings and descriptions which, along with location,

came from Remote Viewing sessions.

Figure 24. A second viewer, blind to the first, provided essentially the same loca-

tion, description, and drawing. The repetitive pattern could be oars or
amphorae—which were found on site.

530 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Field Observation. The morning of the dive, the Egyptian diver
Saadat, who had been told nothing of the remote viewing perceptions,
when asked about the site, said that in 1961, he had been diving at
this site and had found a boat with two statues aboard as cargo. He
went back to the spot several times but because of the shifting sands
nothing could be identified and he had not been able to find either
the boat or the statues. We dove on the site and went over the area in
detail. We could find neither the boat nor the statues remote viewing
had predicted and Saadat in his earlier dives had confirmed. However,
there were odd suggestive raised areas beneath the silt, and we found
several mostly intact amphorae, commonly used as cargo containers
on the cargo boats that trafficked in and out of the harbor in antiquity
(see Figure 25).

Figure 25. Amphorae used by ships to transport goods found at a site located by

Remote Viewing, and described as being associated with a shipwreck.

Summary. Saadat’s earlier experience, which confirmed the remote
viewing data before we dived, was reconfirmed, and this suggests that
this site is worth further exploration.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 531

East Side of Point Lochias, Site 6

Literature Review. The same material cited for Site 5 may be
relevant.

Side scan. No survey.
Remote Viewing. There has been considerable subsidence at this
site and much silting, but it was clear this is what must once have been
a palace or impressive administrative structure.

Field Observations. Ruins are visible nearby from the surface on
clear sea days. Modern construction has seriously disrupted everything
at this site. Two divers reported what seemed to be constructions, which
could not be seen, but which could be felt beneath the silt.

Summary. Unless sites like this are explored in the near future, it
is likely it will never happen. As at the tip of Lochias, and around Kait
Bey, modern harborworks are rapidly precluding future study.

DISCUSSION

Although this paper presents only a preliminary survey of a
complex area, we propose that several independent, yet associated,
conclusions can be sustained.

1. Archaeology. First, the locations and reconstructions we made,
   when added to what was already in the literature, make it clear that
   the Eastern Harbor and environs are a neglected locale for underwater
   archaeological examination, and one which holds enormous promise.
   Except for the bothersome output from the sewers, the diving is technically simple, there is no area requiring decompression allowance,
   and the rewards are great. We view it as a tragedy that so little has been
   done in this area, although we recognize that until recently political
   conditions did not permit foreign divers access to these waters.
   However, under Dr. Mohammed Hilmy, then the governor who was
   himself a scholar and for many years professor in the field of Urban
   Planning at the University of Alexandria, a new science orientation
   emerged in the governing administration. One manifestation, The
   Department of Antiquities, has also recently demonstrated some
   interest in the exploration of the harbor.

The work at the sites located has only begun and, obviously, there
is a great deal to discover. It is our hope that the entire Eastern Harbor

532 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

area can be declared a protected underwater archaeological park, and a
sustained multi-year program, similar to that being carried out by the
University of Warsaw at Kom El Dikka, funded and begun.

The fieldwork also calls into question some ancient sources,
notably Strabo. The complexity of the finds at what we have designated
Site 8 suggests that his description of the Eastern Harbor in 24 bce
may be skewed. The things he says were there seem to be there, but not
quite where he places them.

2. Comparison of Electronic and Remote Sensing. It is obvious
   that Remote Viewing was more productive than side scan as a search
   approach, in this setting. Even if the sea conditions had allowed for
   a more successful side scan survey, doing it would have taken weeks
   or even months. That is another difference between electronic remote
   sensing and remote viewing. In remote viewing there is no search. One
   goes to the selected location and finds what has been described or one
   does not.

With remote viewing guidance, it never took more than a few
minutes to locate the site. There are many benefits: a) It is cheaper to
search in this manner. b) Even if electronic remote sensing is used,
its employment can be much more focused (if Remote Viewing fails
one can always fall back on standard electronic search protocols). c)
In underwater archaeology, where time is always an issue, it is more
efficient to use Remote Sensing. d) The “worst” case scenario using
Remote Viewing, is the “best” case scenario to be obtained using
electronic sensing alone. This does not mean we are arguing for the
abandonment of electronic sensing, quite the contrary. Our view
is that these two approaches are best employed together in both a
complementary and comparative manner.

3. Remote Viewing Accuracy. It is not clear that the various types
   of Remote Viewing data should all be given equal weight, and this
   is the most pressing problem facing this technology. The location
   data worked very well. The descriptive material was also impressively
   accurate. The Stone “beads,” with their small holes, are a good example.
   The part that is not clear yet is whether the analytical material, i.e.,
   that this site was associated with Mark Antony, will prove to be equally
   correct. Our initial conclusion is that it will not. Remote Viewing has
   not proven very useful for analysis or subjective judgments, i.e., how

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 533

many times does a person have to be in a building to be associated
with it? But we lack the relevant information to be clear about this. Only
further experimentation will answer the question.

4. Issues of Blindedness. A problem whose answer was known
   neither by researcher nor Remote Viewer, but which was known by
   someone or some literature source, would be double-blind; a question
   whose answer was totally unknown, to be revealed only through
   fieldwork, would be considered triple-blind. The Eastern Harbor
   experiment included sites where varying degrees of blindness obtained.
   Certain locations, most notably the Lighthouse of Pharos, were known
   in at least a general sense. Others, such as the site on the flank of Fort
   Silsila / Point Lochias, were not.

The Respondents probably did not have access to the rare or
obscure books or manuscripts which contain the information cited in
the Literature Review sections of this paper, and did not know they
were going to be asked about these subjects, until they were. But the
possibility exists that some general knowledge or just good luck could
account for some of the Remote Viewer’s success.

It is also true that even where the general location was known
there were still opportunities for triple-blind work in the location and
description of previous unknown material within the site. The experiment
as a whole illustrates how applied Remote Viewing experiments differ
from laboratory research. In an applied experiment, success ultimately
turns on whether the site being sought is found or not, and whether
the reconstructive material is accurate. This is in contrast to laboratory
research where evaluations of accuracy ultimately are statistical.

5. Final Evaluation: We believe the most conservatively accurate
   assessment of this survey project would be that the literature review
   was more useful than side scan sonar data, and remote viewing—
   particularly in locational terms—was more valuable than either.
   The mechanism of remote viewing may not be well understood but,
   operationally, using this methodology clearly produced significant
   original and supplementary locational guidance as well as providing
   accurate predictive reconstructive information, all confirmed by diving
   fieldwork and expert evaluation. As hypothesized, the use of all three
   information sources working in concert produced optimal results.

534 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

POSTSCRIPT

There are two other aspects to this research that are significant and
need to be included in this report: Reconfirmation of the expedition’s
success, and the media. I have described both of these issues at length
in my book The Alexandria Project, but want to just touch on them here.

Reconfirmation

After our work was completed, Professor Mieczyslaw Rodziewicz,
generally regarded as the most knowledgeable working archaeologist
on Alexandrine archaeology, made his view clear in a filmed interview.
He said: “As an archaeologist [with 20 years experience working in
Alexandria], I would say the discoveries are of the highest importance,
because they extend the plan of the ancient city. I would classify this
as much more important than the discovery of the tomb of Alexander
the Great, because this extends our general knowledge of one of the
biggest cities of the ancient world.” [36]

In the Fall of 1995, a French–Egyptian archaeological team
involving some of the Egyptian archaeologists who had worked with
Mobius in 1979–1980, and who knew all of our findings, announced the
results of a much longer survey they had conducted. Every site located
and described by the remote viewers was confirmed, as this map makes
clear (Figure 26).

Media

On January 11, 1980, we presented this paper at the annual meetings of the Society for Underwater Archaeology in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. A reporter was in the audience, and he filed a story, mentioning
that one of the sites found had been the palace of Cleopatra. The reaction was like calling down lightning. The story seemed to move almost
instantly across the wires, starting a cascade of calls. In retrospect, it
seems appallingly naïve that we didn’t anticipate this. But we didn’t.

The three major broadcast networks at the time ran the footage
they had urgently requested for their evening world news the following day. The next day I stepped outside in the early morning, hair awry,
clad in nothing but a galabeya—a kind of long Egyptian nightshirt—to
get my morning paper and found, as the door clicked firmly behind me

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 535

Figure 26. The original Mobius remote viewing master map overlaying the 1995

French–Egyptian team chart reporting their findings.

trapping me in place, three news crews in my driveway, their cameras
pointed at me like big game guns about to fire.

I soon learned that newspapers all over the world had put the story
on their front pages. Here’s The Washington Post ’s front page first story
(Figure 27).

A year later I presented a second paper from the Alexandria
expedition, this time at an archaeology conference held at the De
Young Museum in San Francisco, a paper recently published in this JSE
journal (Schwartz, 2019). It described the location and description of a
previously unknown Byzantine site in the buried city of Marea in Egypt,
about 40 kilometers into the desert outside of Alexandria, and the day
after it was presented the whole media madness started again. The
Marea paper, like this paper, used the same consensus protocol, and
like this paper compared electronic remote sensing and remote viewing
(Schwartz et al., 2019). As with this paper, it reported that electronic
remote sensing had failed where remote viewing had succeeded.

In the years since the work reported in this paper, I have carried

536 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

Figure 27. Front page of The Washington Post , January 13, 1980.

out a number of other archaeological projects all over the world using
remote viewing, and comparing that information with data developed
through electronic remote sensing (Schwartz, 2019; Schwartz & De
Mattei, 2020). In every case remote viewing proved successful while
electronic remote sensing was not. And because it was all filmed,
recorded, and under the direct observation of recognized historical and
archaeological specialists, none of this work has been attacked by the
usual deniers of nonlocal consciousness research, and I think that is an
important point.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to acknowledge and thank The Honorable Dr. Mohamed
Fouad Hilmy, Governor of Alexandria, under whose personal auspices
this research was carried out, for his many kindnesses. We thank also Dr.
Youseff Garianhi, Director of the Greco–Roman Museum, and his staff,
for their assistance in the literary research that went into this paper. Our
thanks also goes to Rear Admiral Aly, AREN, Commander of Egyptian
Naval Forces in Alexandria, for making it possible for the commando
dive team in his command to work with us. Captain Mosehn El-Gohary,
AREN (Ret.), and Captain Shafik Wahden, AREN (Ret.), principals of the
Red Sea Divers Service, we wish to thank for their almost miraculous

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 537

ability to locate equipment we needed. Finally, and most particularly,
we thank John and Pamela Leuthold, Mrs. Margaret Pereria, Trammell
Crow, and Gordon McLendon without whose generous financial
support the project could not have been undertaken.

NOTES

1 Fraser’s three-volume work (Fraser, 1972) is unquestionably the finest

overall modern source, although there is no formal bibliography
as such. References are included in the copious notes, often in
abbreviations which may be cryptic to those not thoroughly familiar
with the source literature on Alexandria. One can do no better in
seeking to understand trade during the Ptolemaic period, and to a
slight extent later, than to review Fraser’s Volume I, Chapter 4.

2 Reports of underwater ruins abound, but perhaps the best are

those contained in Description de l’Égypte (Commission des sciences
et arts d’Égypte, 1809–1922), which was prepared by researchers
accompanying Napoleon during his incursions into Egypt. These
men wrote with a standard of observation which at least anticipates
the modern day, and they had the benefit of seeing Alexandria before
the Khedival and later constructions began. In Description de ’Égypte,
see especially Saint-Genis in Antiquities, Vol. 2 (1817), Chapter 26, pp.
1–95, particularly Section Premiere, Partie Maritime, pp. 12–14; also
appendices, pp. 1–12, also Gratien le Père in État Moderne, Vol. 2, 2
parts , pp. 262–324.

3 Alexandria’s shoreline has actually been in a state of man-made

flux since the city’s founding—the causeway from Heptastadium to
Pharos Island being an example. But the late 19th century saw the
major changes. In the 20th century the shoreline itself—if not the
structures on it—has been relatively stable.

4 We were never able to locate any written record of this work, although

Frost references its occurrence, and several of our consultants
remember it taking place, although not exactly what happened; it
apparently was very informal.

5 Although very limited in scope, Frost’s work (1975) was the only prior

modern survey report of the Eastern Harbor we were able to discover.

6 Eight Egyptian citizens who had lived most or all of their lives along

538 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

the seafront were interviewed; their median age was 63. They reported
that within their lifetime, to the east of Lochias, and particularly
beyond the Chatby area, the city had been largely vacant. Governor
Hilmy reports that, “Alexandria for several decades has had a chronic
overpopulation problem which has fueled an extremely active building
program. . . . Much that was vacant and even the former gardens of
villas have had to be built upon” (personal communications, May,
1979).

7 The construction of this shoreline has caused enormous problems

in establishing any stratigraphic context on finds near the shore (see
Fraser, 1972, Vol. 2, p. 13, note 31).

8 Harold Edgerton, personal communication, May 8, 1979.

9 Norman Emerson, Department Anthropology, University of Toronto,

interview on November 14, 1974. Emerson began reporting on his
work using Remote Viewing in 1974 and continued until his death in
1978.

10 Although we find no research specifically designed to evaluate the

accuracy of volunteered vs. elicited data, numerous researchers
mentioned the subjective conclusion that “volunteered response
material which the sensitive himself feels is worthy of mention,
seems often to be more accurate than subject areas predetermined
by the researcher.”

11 Diver report, May 13, 1979.

12 Remote Viewing transcript, R11, February 16, 1979.

13 Interview with Mostafa el Abbadi, Department of Archaeology,

University of Alexandria, and Daoud Abou Daoud, Department of
Archaeology, University of Alexandria, and Secretary of the Alexandria
Society for Archaeology, on site on May 14, 1979.

14 Mahmoud-Bey, known casually as “El Faliki” (the Engineer), was

actually an astronomer in the Khedival government. Although he
is a very controversial figure, his midnineteenth-century excavation
work was one of the first systematic archaeological explorations
of Alexandria—done at a time when much that was ancient still
remained relatively in situ.

15 It is perhaps worth noting that Egyptian security personnel accom

panied us at all times during our survey of the Eastern Harbor.

16 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R3, May 12, 1979.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 539

17 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R3, May 12, 1979, and drawing

(Figure 20).

18 At the time this paper was prepared, the identification of these stone

“beads” still remained a mystery.

19 Interview with Youssef El-Gheriani, Director of the Greco–Roman

Museum of Alexandria, May 7, 1979.

20 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R3, October 17, 1979.

21 Composite Analysis Map, Probe II, October 17, 1979.

22 Strangely, given its fame, there is no clear source from antiquity

which provides the dimensions of the lighthouse, nor more than
generalities concerning its appearance.

23 Interview with Captain Moshen El Gohary, AREN (Ret.), Director Red

Sea Divers Service, April 9, 1979. Captain Gohary proved to be the best
source by far concerning diving information in Alexandrian waters.

24 Mobius Medical Advisor Donald Zimmerman, M.D., M.E.E. recom

mended injections of gamma globulin B, tetanus, typhus, and
cholera, as minimum protection for diving in the hazardous littoral
waters of Alexandria.

25 Interview with M. Rodziewicz, November, 17, 1979.

26 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R4, response to Map Probe

II, October 17, 1979.

27 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R9, response to Map Probe

II, October 17, 1979.

28 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R1, response to Map Probe

II, October 17, 1979.

29 Interviews with Rodziewicz and Daoud, November 21, 1979.

30 On-site Respondent interview in April 1979. Map Probe II, October 17,

31 On-site Respondent comment, R3, volunteered April 8, 1979.

32 Remote Viewing transcript, R4. Map Probe II, October 17, 1979.

33 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R5, response to Map Probe

II, October 17, 1979.

34 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R3, response to Map Probe

II, October 17, 1979.

35 Remote Viewing transcript, Respondent R8, response to Map Probe

II, October 17, 1979.

36 Filmed interview with M. Rodziewicz, October 16, 1980.

540 Stephan A. Schwartz and Harold Edgerton

REFERENCES

AREN. (no date). Memorandum on security regulations relating to Fort Silsila. Navy

of the Arab Republic of Egypt (AREN), Mohamed Aly, Commander, Naval
Forces of Alexandria.
Arrian. (1942). The annabis of Alexander. In F. R. B. Godolphin (Ed.), The Greek

historians: The complete and unabridged historical works of Herodotus, Thucyd-
ides, Xenophon, and Arrian (Trans. E. J. Chinnock; Vol. 2). Random House.
Commission des sciences et arts d’Égypte. (1809–1922). Description de l’Égypte.

Imprimerie impériale.
Emerson, N. (1975, September–October). Psychic archaeology. Psychic, 23–35.
Fakharani, F. (1974). The tomb of Alexander the Great . University of Alexandria

(unpublished).
Fraser, P. M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford University Press.
Frost, H. (1975, March and September). The Pharos site, Alexandria, Egypt. The

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, 4,
126–129.
Gorringe, H. H. (1882). Egyptian obelisks. Self-published.
Ibn Battuta. (1929). Travels in Asia and Africa 1325–1359 (Trans. H. A. R. Gibb).
Jondet, G. (1916). Les ports submerged de l’ancienne Ile de Pharos [Monograph 29].

Mem. Institut Egyptien.
Jondet, G. (1922). Monograph 2 . Mem. Societe Sultan de Georg.
Mahmoud-Bey (“El Falaki”). (1872). Memoire sur L’antique Alexandrie . Luno.
Marcellinus, A. (1950). The history of [surviving books] (Trans. J. C. Rolfe; Vol. 2).

Harvard University Press.
Plutarch (1941). The lives of the noble Grecians and Romans (Trans. J. Amyot [Greek

to French], Trans. T. North [French to English in 1579], 8 volumes). Heritage
Press. (Text prepared by R. Baughman)
Puthoff, H. E. & Targ, R. (1976, March). A perceptual channel for information

transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent
research. Proceedings of the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
64 (3), 329–354.
Saint-Genis, M. (1817). Description des antiquités d’Alexandrie et ses environmens.

In Description de L’Égypte (Vol. 2, Chapter 26, pp. 1–95). Imprimerie Impériale.
Schwartz, S. A. (no date). Psychometrics and settlement patterns: Field tests on two

Iroquoian sites (unpublished paper).
Schwartz, S. (1978a). Two application-oriented experiments in remote viewing: One

testing the ELF hypothesis, the other a protocol for associational Remote
Viewing. Mobius Report No. 5, and Proceedings, Parapsychological Association
Annual Meeting, 1978.
Schwartz, S. A. (1978b). The secret vaults of time . Nemoseen Media.

Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria 541

Schwartz, S. (1979, January). Project Deep Quest, a prototype experiment in the

application of intuitively derived data in marine archaeology. Mobius Report
No. 4 . (Originally an invited address to the American Society for Psychical
Research, January 1979).
Schwartz, S. (2017). Remote viewing. Psi Encyclopedia (updated March 2021).
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/remote-viewing
Schwartz, S. (2019). The location and reconstruction of a Byzantine structure in

Marea, Egypt, including a comparison of electronic remote sensing and
remote viewing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 33 (3), 451–480.
https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1479
Schwartz, S. A., & De Mattei, R. J. (2020). The discovery of an American brig:

Fieldwork involving applied Remote Viewing including a comparison with
electronic remote sensing. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 34 (1), 62–92.
https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1481
Schwartz, S. A., De Mattei, R. J., & Smith, R. C. (2019). The Caravel project. Zeitschrift

für Anomalistik, 19, 113–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.23793/zfa.2019.113
Strabo. (1949). The geography of Strabo (Trans. H. L. Jones; Vol. 8). Harvard University

Press; Heinemann. (Strabo, 17.I.13).
Targ, R., & Puthoff, H. (1974, October). Information transmission under conditions

of sensory shielding. Nature, 251 (5476) , 602–607.
Weiant, C. W. (1943). An introduction to the ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz,

Mexico. Smithsonian Bulletin, 139 . Smithsonian Institution Bureau of
American Ethnology.
Weiant, C. W. (1960, April 13). Parapsychology and anthropology. Manas, 13 (15), 3–6.
https://www.manasjournal.org/pdf_library/VolumeXIII_1960/XIII-15.pdf