UFOpedia

Raw capture

Schwartz - The Location and Reconstruction of a Byzantine Structure in Marea, Egypt (2019)

Schwartz - The Location and Reconstruction of a Byzantine Structure in Marea, Egypt (2019)

Journal of Scientifi c Exploration, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 451–480, 2019 0892-3310/19

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Location and Reconstruction of a Byzantine Structure
in Marea, Egypt, Including a Comparison of Electronic
Remote Sensing and Remote Viewing

STEPHAN A. SCHWARTZ
The Mobius Group

Submitted February 21, 2019; Accepted May 24, 2019; Published September 30, 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31275/2019/1479
Copyright: Creative Commons CC-BY-NC

A video of these events can be seen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klCzHhYYQjQ&t=47s

Conference Presentations: The Marea Probe: An Experiment in Applied Parapsychology Involving
the Location, Reconstruction, and Excavation of a Byzantine Structure—Marea, Egypt, Invited
Paper, Annual Meeting of The American Research Center in Egypt, M. H. de Young Memorial
Museum, San Francisco, April 14, 1980; Annual Meeting of the Parapsychology Association 1980,
Proceedings of the Parapsychology Association 1980.

Abstract — This paper reports the location and reconstruction of a Byzantine
structure in the now-buried city of Marea along the shores of Lake Maryut,
some 44 km southwest of Alexandria, Egypt. A Pharaonic trade center that
was occupied until the 16th Century, the city has been long abandoned and
lies buried around what formerly was the lakeshore. This paper reports on
an applied remote viewing experiment in which two remote viewers were
asked to fi rst locate Marea, and then a buried building within the city, and,
fi nally, to describe what would be found within the building site selected,
with a particularly emphasis on tile and other decorative material. It also
includes a comparison of remote viewing data with electronic remote sensing, and geographical data for the same area done independently three
years earlier. The comparison is striking because while the remote viewers
were successfully able to locate a building, including staking out its door,
and corners, as well as providing a wealth of reconstructive and descriptive material about what would be found at the site, the electronic remote
sensing and geographical analysis produced no suggestion whatever that
there was a site at this location. For this reason, prior to discovery, much
of the remote viewing data seemed extremely improbable, and notably
contradicted the informed judgment of an archaeologist deemed by the
University of Alexandria to be the leading authority on Marea.

452 Stephan A. Schwartz

Introduction

When Alexander founded Alexandria in 331 BCE, Marea was a regional
capitol and it remained a trade center active as late as the 16th Century.
But all that lies in the past. Today Marea is hidden beneath a desert of low
semi-arid hills, some 44 km southwest of Alexandria, Egypt. [1] Archaeology
prior to this study had revealed little besides a cluster of foundations as a
hint of its past.
The name Marea may be derived from the Pharaonic word Per-Mert,
meaning: the country by the lake (Sadek 1978). If so, it was an apt name
for what contemporaneous accounts describe as a lovely city with marble
public buildings, situated to catch the breezes along the reed-lined, birdfi lled shore of Lake Maryut, which served as a source of food, a means of
transportation, and a place of pleasure, and the town was ideally positioned
as a way-stop for travelers going up and down the country. The gentle airs,
warm weather, and beauty both natural and constructed, also recommended
Marea as a tourist attraction. The Greek geographer and historian Strabo (64
BCE–21CE) describes canals that emptied into the lake (Strabo 1989:69).
The Shediya River, which originated from the Nile at Memphis also emptied
into the lake, and there was access to the Mediterranean via a canal cut
through to what became the Western Harbor of Alexandria.
Strabo says the commercial wines of the area were “so good that the
Mareotic wine is racked off with a view towards aging it” (Strabo 1989:59)
The vintages really must have been outstanding because almost 300 years
later the physician Athenaeus of Attalia (1st century CE) would echo
Strabo’s words saying, “The Mariotian wine . . . is excellent, it is white and
pleasant, fragrant, easily assimilated . . . ” (Athenaeus 1927).
Wine-making, though, was just one of the area’s activities. Authorities
of the past also extol the virtues of the lake region’s olive oil, fi sh, papyrus,
and fruit. Perhaps most famous of all, though—next to the wines—was the
hand-blown glass produced in the city. It was so delicate that few examples
have survived intact, and Mareotian glass is among the most prized
possessions of Alexandria’s Greco–Roman Museum.
Although commerce and pleasure were its major contributions,
Marea also played a political and strategic role in early Egyptian history.
Herodotus (BCE 484–425), known as the father of history, and the fi rst
writer to record a remote viewing in the 46th chapter of his Histories, as
well as his contemporary the Greek historian Thucydides (460–~404 BCE),
discuss it at some length. Herodotus speaks of Marea as being a garrison
town during the reign of Pharaoh Psamtic I (664–610 BCE), and indicates
that it still served a strategic function under the Persians in his time (450
BCE) (Herodotus 1939 II:18,30).

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 453

At least two royal claims were settled at Marea. According to Diodorus,
Amasis (575–526 BCE) defeated Pharaoh Apries and assumed his mantle
at Marea (Diodorus Siculus 1933). Soon thereafter, in 525 BCE, Amasis’
grandson, Inaros, proclaimed himself king at Marea, and used the city as
his headquarters while he fought the Persians under Cambyses (Herodotus
1939 III:12,15).
But all that is gone, both lake and city: the one now vastly diminished,
strongly alkaline, and no deeper than four feet at any point, and the other
abandoned and buried.

Archaeology

The previous archaeological work relating to Marea is very limited. It
begins with Mahmoud-Bey, known casually as “El Faliki” (“the Engineer”),
an astronomer in the Khedival government. Although a very problematic
fi gure, he carried out one of the fi rst systematic archaeological explorations
of Alexandria at a time when much that was ancient still remained relatively
intact. His mid-19th Century excavation report describes far more than is
visible today (Mahmoud-Bey 1872). Half a century later Hannibal Evaristo
Breccia, generally considered the fi rst modern archaeologist working
in Alexandria, examined the area, and his description compared with
Mahmoud-Bey’s suggests how much had already disappeared (Breccia
1922) .
Peter Fraser, a Fellow of All Souls College, and generally regarded
as the best historian of pre-Islamic Alexandria, writing a century after
Mahmoud-Bey, touches on Marea, both in his text and in his remarkably
bounteous notes. From them it is clear to see that by the time he published
his classic Ptolemaic Alexandria in 1972 there was little left to see (Fraser
1972). [2] It is the work of Professor Mahmoud Sadek of the Department of
Fine Art at the University of Guelph, however, that most concerns us here,
because his research is the reason we undertook the Marea experiment.
From November 16 to mid-December 1976—just three years prior to
the work presented in this report—Professor Sadek and his team searched
“the shoreline, promontory, and south to the end of the visible remains,”
seeking evidence of previously undiscovered buried structures. It was a
methodical job, using the latest electronic remote sensing technologies, and
search methodologies, including aerial photography, topographical survey,
and, most importantly, proton precession magnetometer (Sadek 1978:72).
Measurements were recorded on a four-meter grid, 800 meters long by 100
meters wide (Sadek 1978:72). Transverses “were made along lines parallel
to the lakeshore from west to east at four-meter intervals, and readings were
taken every four meters along the transverses” (Sadek 1978:72). A plan was

454 Stephan A. Schwartz

Figure 1. M. Sadek surveyed the area three years before the Mobius work.
Using a variety of electronic remote sensing technologies, his team
found buried constructions, as can be seen on the map. Note nothing
was found at the site selected through remote viewing.

produced that indicated that there should be found at the promontory and
near the quays “a high concentration of sub-surface structures, probably
indicating that this was the town center and pointing to the probable
existence . . . of warehouses and factories” (Sadek 1978:72–73) (Figure 1).
What was most interesting to Sadek was “the grid system pattern
of streets running north and south intersected by others running west to
east” (Sadek 1978:73). Such a grid design is unusual in Pharaonic times
(Sesostri II and Tell El Camarna, as Sadek notes, notwithstanding) and was
apparently constant through all subsequent inhabitations. Sadek reports that
his magnetometer exploration produced no layout that did not conform to
the grid, and “there is a strong likelihood that this latest level of occupation
was based upon earlier settlements” (Sadek 1978:73). The report concludes
saying, “It is unlikely that anything remains of the structures except
foundations” (Sadek 1978:7).
While we were interested in what Sadek found, we were even more
interested in what he did not fi nd in his careful search.

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 455

Comparison of Electronic Remote Sensing and Remote Viewing Data

One of the research objectives of Mobius’ Egyptian fi eldwork was to
arrange for a comparison between remote viewing and electronic remote
sensing. Sadek’s 1976 work offered exactly the comparative dataset we
needed to effect such a comparison. When we were challenged by skeptics
on the University of Alexandria faculty to prove remote viewing actually
worked, by locating and describing an unknown archaeological site of their
choosing in an archaeological area the University controlled, Marea, we
enthusiastically accepted (Schwartz 1983/2001).
Sadek’s report provided a completely independent source against which
to measure the remote viewing data and thus made Marea an ideal location
for our experiment. Here was a site of suffi cient importance that a fairly
detailed history of its past had been recorded, a history which could be
compared with the reconstructive material produced by the remote viewers.
Yet one still obscure enough to be unknown to all but a few archaeological
professionals.
Additionally, because Marea was an intermittently active archaeological
area under the supervision of the University of Alexandria, a regularly
updated historical and archaeological description of the city was available.
It established what was known about Marea, as well as a clear defi nition
of what was not known. Thus, we could begin with a defi ned problem, and
be sure that true triple-blind conditions existed—no one knew the correct
answers, only excavation could reveal accuracy—upon which all could
agree. A clear delineation between the results obtained through utilization
of remote viewing input and electronic remote sensing could be established,
and it would be relatively easy to isolate verifi able reconstructive data
obtained through remote viewing that was previously unknown (Figure 1).

Remote Viewing

Remote viewing is the demonstrated ability of individuals to describe
persons, places, or events from which they are shielded by virtue of space,
time, and “blindness” protocols. Viewers, in much the same way that an
eyewitness would report their impressions, respond to a task that can only
be accomplished by opening to nonlocal consciousness. All their senses
report; that is, they can answer questions that involve smells, sounds, colors,
shapes, textures, even tastes. The exact mechanism of this perceptual skill
is not clear, but hundreds of published successful studies have validated the
existence of nonlocal consciousness; this is not a phenomenon of chance
(Schwartz 2014). The task of the researcher is to structure the interview
session in such a way that normal sensory cues are absent, and that

456 Stephan A. Schwartz

intellectual access is eliminated. Researchers in an applied remote viewing
experiment such as this one are blind to the correct information; indeed,
by defi nition, everyone is, it is a triple-blind protocol. That is what makes
it desirable for nonlocal consciousness research. It is also exciting, which
makes it highly numinous, and that has been shown to increase accuracy.
Although the execution of the protocol may seem unusual, in fact
researchers are essentially faced with a novel manifestation of a familiar
engineering problem: searching for data buried in noise. In the case of sidescan sonar, the “noise” is particulate matter in the water, schools of fi sh, and
the like; in this instance, normal sensory awareness and prior knowledge
constitute the “noise.”
In addition to the research done by the Mobius laboratory, the research
most relevant to the work reported on in this paper was that done for the
U.S. Army and the CIA by Puthoff and Targ (Puthoff & Targ 1974, 1976)
at SRI International.
The use of nonlocal perception in archaeology entered the literature
almost a century ago with explorations of Glastonbury Cathedral in England (Schwartz 1978a:1–56, 353–354 bibliography). and continues (albeit
infrequently) to surface periodically in research ranging from Poniatowski’s
in Poland (Schwartz 1978a:57–107, 354–355 biblography), Scott-Elliot in
England (Schwartz 1978a:108–127, 355–356 bibliography), Pluznikov in
the Soviet Union (Schwartz 1978a:127–135, 355–356 bibliography), Weiant’s with the Smithsonian at Tres Zapotes (Schwartz 1978a:222–238, Weiant 1943, 1960), and Reid’s Ontario Iroquois Indian sites (George McMullen [R3] was the viewer) (Schwartz 1978a:211–221, Schwartz no date). All
of this exploration, however, was done with very little emphasis on studying
the nonlocal nature of the data acquisition with a formal protocol. All this
earlier work was dependent on the input of a single remote viewer, and there
was no concept-by-concept assessment of accuracy.
In 1976, the author began developing a consensual methodology using
multiple respondents independently and individually responding to the
same questions—in conditions of intellectual and sensory blindness. Each
was asked the location of archaeological sites, the description of surface
geography, and the description of subsurface, or underwater, materials, to
be found at that site. 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—satellite
reconnaissance, and magnetometer survey, as examples—describe an area
and then collectively defi ne what is there.
The fi rst use of this consensual methodology was in 1977, in a deep

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 457

ocean experiment series utilizing the research submersible Taurus I. Part of
the research involved the location and description of a previously unknown
wreck on the sea fl oor off the coast of Catalina Island in California (Schwartz
1977, 1978b). The program was conducted by Mobius in conjunction with
The Institute for Marine and Coastal Studies of the University of Southern
California. Known as Project Deep Quest, this fi eld project demonstrated
that remote viewers could describe in detail, from distances of up to 4,800
kilometers, a previously unknown wreck at 92+ meters of depth (Schwartz
1978c). They were also successfully able to describe specifi cs as to what
would be found, an accurate description of the site (including drawings), the
cause of the ship’s sinking, and the approximate period when the disaster
occurred. All points were corroborated by fi eldwork, literature review, and
expert analysis (Schwartz 1978c).

Personnel

To carry out this research program, six teams were assembled, each having
responsibility for one aspect of the research. The specialty teams were:
The Historical/Archaeological Team: Fawzi Fakharani, archaeologist,
Department of Classical Civilizations, Faculty of Arts, the University of
Alexandria; and Mieczyslaw Rodziewicz, archaeologist, Director, The
University of Warsaw Archaeological Mission in Alexandria.
The Remote Viewing Research Team: Stephan A. Schwartz,
parapsychologist, Mobius; Beverly Humphrey, parapsychologist, SRI; and
Kathi Peoples, Mobius staff support.
The Remote Viewers: The two remote viewers taken to Egypt were
George McMullen (R3), and Hella Hammid (R5). Although Hammid,
like McMullen, had participated in the Deep Quest experiments, only
McMullen had any real experience with archaeology, having worked for
some years with Professor J. Norman Emerson, chairman of the University
of Toronto’s Department of Anthropology, as well as with his student Reid
(Emerson 1975). [3] Neither viewer had ever been to Marea, and they reported
they did not even know of its existence. Until asked about Marea, they
had no indication that they ever would. Both 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. But even if they had been working
for months with archaeologists and specialists in Alexandria, it would not
have mattered since the questions were, by protocol, outside the corpus of
knowledge.
The Archives and Records Team: Catherine Dees, historian; Kay
Croissant, historian; Karen Winters, fi eld log; David Keith, illustrator; and
Jacqueline Kendall, staff support.

458 Stephan A. Schwartz

The Photography Team: Glenn Winters, fi lm camera one; Bradley
Boatman, fi lm camera two; Karen Winters, still photography; and Kathi
Peoples, camera assistant.
The Audio Team: Sunny Meyers, audio-fi lm; Osama Salama, audiofi lm; Stephan Schwartz, interviews.
The Photography and Audio Teams were established so that an
unimpeachable real-time, audio-visual record of every aspect of the
experiment would exist.

Protocol

Our initial plan had been to follow our standard protocol as previously
reported (Schwartz 1980, Puthoff & Targ 1974). [4] However, it proved
impossible to fi nd maps of suffi cient detail in the United States to carry
out the normal pre-expedition map probe. Once in Egypt a search for maps
of Marea, at the government map offi ce, fi nally turned up a single map
in Arabic: Kreir (Sheet 92/480 Egypt—Western Desert Province Markay
Maryut, scale 1:25,000 km), which at least located Marea, although the site
at this scale covered less than one centimeter, and was useless for location
work (Figure 2). On April 10, 1979, McMullen (R3) and Hammid (R5) were
each given a photocopy of the map (created to remove colors that might
inadvertently cue) and asked to record whatever impressions they could
from it. Later in the day each was independently interviewed, but nothing
that could be verifi ed was developed at this point. Each simply reported
a general sense of constructions relating to several different cultures and
historical periods.
I remind the reader that everything described herein, indeed the
entire Alexandria Project, was fi lmed and is publicly available at https://
stephanaschwartz.com/.
Early on the morning of April 11, 1979, the two remote viewers were
placed in separate cars, accompanied by a member of the Remote Viewing
Research Team. Fakharani, accompanied by a graduate student assistant,
as previously arranged, was isolated from the remote viewers at this stage
and traveled in his own car. The cars, led by Fakharani, moved in caravan
until 08:30, when all stopped at a site of Fakharani’s choosing. Although the
exact location was unknown to us, it was pre-agreed the stop would be at
least 10 km away, and out of visual range, of the overall Marea site.
On the way out in the car, Hammid (R5), unsolicited, reported
impressions relating to a tomb and a mosaic. [5] McMullen, riding in his car,
said nothing about the experiment. Upon arriving at the rendezvous point,
the author decided that Hammid should wait with Humphrey, while he and
McMullen made the fi rst location attempt. After they had left, McMullen

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 459

Figure 2. The only map showing the location of Marea was on a scale useless
for the usual map location phase of a Mobius archaeological project,
as Marea was less than one centimeter in size. Note the small black
dot. All colors were removed from the map to prevent inadvertent
cueing. Place names were not an issue since most were in Arabic,
which neither viewer read or spoke.

was given the following charge by Fakharani:

A. Locate the ancient city of Marea: It is somewhere within an area roughly
24 km on a side, about 576 square km in size (an area roughly equal
to one-half of the city of Los Angeles). After locating the city, locate a
building that has either tile, fresco, or mosaic decoration in it.

B. Within the chosen building, locate the walls, the windows, the doors,
and the depth at which the fl oor would be found.

C. Describe any artifacts or conditions that would be found within the
building site.

With this charge, McMullen, accompanied by only the author carrying a
taperecorder and followed by one of the two fi lm crews, headed off across
the desert (Figure 3).

460 Stephan A. Schwartz

Figure 3. Placed kilometers from the buried city of Marea, which no one from
Mobius had ever seen, McMullen still seemed to be able to orient
himself.

Fakharani and his graduate assistant waited at a distance by themselves.
For the next several hours, McMullen proceeded at a fast pace to walk the
spine of a ridge, occasionally moving down its fl anks. As was typical of
McMullen when in the altered state in which he produced remote viewing
observations, he was not deterred by temperature in excess of 38 °C (100
°F), nor the strong wind laced with stinging sand and biting fl ies. Indeed,
as he walked, his normally pronounced limp disappeared and he became
more animated, carrying on a continual monologue about what he described
as a “Bexonine [sic] [Byzantine] . . . culture of grave robbers . . . people
who lived off earlier people’s achievements. [6] (McMullen throughout the
remote viewing sessions mispronounced the word Byzantine, just as he said
“Potomie” for Ptolemy and “mosiak” for mosaic. Similar mispronouncations
were reported by Emerson. He frequently pronounced them correctly in
normal conversation. [5] )
Most of the disclosures were either untestable, or indefensible against
criticism from some ordinary source. Finally, McMullen stopped and said,
with considerable emphasis, “Okay, I know where I want to go.” [6]

McMullen and the author then walked back to where Fakharani and his
assistant were waiting, whereupon McMullen knelt in the sand, sketched

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 461

Figure 4. Without ever having seen it, McMullen (left) accurately sketched out
for Fakharani (middle) and the author (right) a map of where Sadek
had done his survey and Fakharani had done some preliminary
excavations.

an outline of Marea as it appears today, and described for Fakharani where
the University of Alexandria’s dig was located, and what the area looked
like (Figure 4). [7] Fakharani acknowledged on camera the accuracy of the
description. [7]
The cars were brought up, and the group then drove approximately 8
km to the Marea site. Upon arrival, and continuing over the next hour, as
he walked around trailed by camera and sound crews, McMullen provided
Fakharani and the author with a reconstruction of the city.
Much of the material pertained to specifi c scenes and individuals of
ancient Marea and was inherently untestable. But much was also very
specifi c and testable. McMullen, for instance, located several new sites.
Since these were near existing excavation work areas, they were simply
noted by Fakharani for subsequent investigation. [8] By prior agreement, only
a totally unknown site was to be evaluated in the context of this particular
experiment.
McMullen was charged again by Fakharani to “locate an important
building—one with tile, fresco, or mosaic—something representative. It is
for you to tell me where to dig.” [8]

462 Stephan A. Schwartz

Without hesitation, McMullen proceeded to walk up a hill on the south
side of the ancient road. Once there he:

A. Quickly sketched in the outline of a building with several rooms and
stated that the area described was only a part of a larger complex. [8]

B. Located walls, one doorway, and the corners of the structure. [8]

C. Indicated that the culture that had built this building was Byzantine. [8]

D. Described the probable depth to the tops of the walls as being
approximately “three feet” (.91 m).

E. Indicated that there would be debris (dropped there after being taken
from a different structure). [8]

F. Said that one wall, the west one, would have tiles on it. [8]

G. Explained the culture or cultures that had built or modifi ed the building
and its later use for storage. [8]

H. Felt we should come across “a fl oor” of the structure at approximately “six
to ten” feet (1.8–3 m), although he confessed—somewhat distressed—“I
can’t see the fl oor.” [8]

I. Said several colors would be associated with the site, but felt green was
the one that would stand out, since he perceived it most strongly. [8]

With this remote viewing data fi lmed and recorded, the fi rst Marea
remote viewing session ended, and McMullen was taken by car some
distance from the site. That ended the fi rst phase of fi eldwork.
The next fi eldwork phase called for a repetition of the entire location
evolution only with a different viewer who had witnessed nothing of what
had occurred in the fi rst phase. Hammid was taken from where she had been
waiting to the starting location where McMullen had begun, to establish
the same site locale. She had been waiting for more than four hours in over
100 °F heat and strong desert sunlight and was feeling sick. Although still
willing to attempt the walk, it was decided to bring her directly to Marea.
Once there, she was taken to the general area of the site and told simply
to look down into the ground and describe what she saw. Here again, the
emphasis from Fakharani was on locating a building with decorations
within it. There was nothing in evidence at the site to cue her to McMullen’s
observations, and she knew nothing about them. After walking about for
a moment, Hammid walked over to the same area previously selected by

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 463

Figure 5. Hammid, in hat, described a strange column or pillar buried just
beneath her. Note two motion picture cameras recording the scene.

McMullen and sat down, accompanied by the author (Figure 5). Almost
immediately Hammid began to describe:

A. Walls. [9]

B. A sense of several colors but especially “green.” [9]

C. “Tiles”—possibly “green . . . on the walls.” [9]

D. “A northwest corner” which she outlined. [9]

E. A sense of “a bathroom, something to do with baths and washing.” [9]

F. A fl oor of mosaic tiles, which were of “a smooth polished stone,
possibly marble, with color” that she saw as “being laid in a design.” [9]

G. A sense that this was an important building. [9]

H. A sense that the building beneath her had “more than one room.” [9]

I. Her strongest perception was that of a small “alcove sort of room
containing what looked like a “broken column or statue . . . something
round . . . and free-standing . . . but not complete.” [9]

464 Stephan A. Schwartz

Figure 6. So that there would be no unclarity about exactly where the remote
viewers meant the dig to be located, as well as to fi x the location of
corners and a door, McMullen (left) directed the placement of wooden
stakes.

Ending her remote viewing session, Hammid said she felt seriously queasy
from the heat and sun and asked to be taken back to the hotel in Alexandria.
That ended the second phase.
After Hammid had departed, McMullen, who knew nothing of her
session, and who had been waiting some distance away while Hammid
worked, was driven back to the general area of the site Hammid and he
both had selected, although he did not know that. This time, he was asked to
relocate and outline the limits of the building he had previously described.
So that there would be no question of his exact location, he was given
three-foot–long wooden stakes, which he used to put a stake at each corner
of the still-buried building, and a fi fth stake to mark what he said there
was a doorway (Figure 6). [10] After this second remote viewing session was
completed, McMullen was driven back to Alexandria. It had been previously
agreed that the remote viewers would not discuss their individual sessions
throughout the course of the experiment.

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 465

Independent Archaeologist Pre-Excavation Evaluations

After the departure of the remote viewers, Fakharani and the author went
over the data they had provided in detail. Although he had witnessed
everything, he indicated that he had not always been able to clearly hear
every word. So the audiotapes were played back for him, and he was
asked to evaluate what he heard. Fakharani appeared to be amused. He
stressed that the electronic survey had been unproductive in this area, and
he found the idea that remote viewing would succeed, where sophisticated
electronic remote sensing had failed, preposterous. If there were anything
at the location the remote viewers had selected and marked out, he said, he
believed it would be the Roman acropolis. [11]

Asked to comment on the outline of the walls, he responded that walls
could no doubt he found all over Marea. When asked to reconcile this
observation with the fact that the electronic survey had not turned up walls
at this site, he did not respond. [11] He reiterated his disbelief that anyone could
locate and outline buried walls using remote viewing. [11] He said that although
the digging might conceivably uncover walls, if it did they almost certainly
would not be aligned with the stakes laid out by McMullen. Any structure
found on the hill, he said, would specifi cally be oriented differently. [11]

Additional Remote Viewing Prior to Excavation

On the morning scheduled for beginning the actual excavation, April
17, 1979, prior to leaving the hotel McMullen volunteered two sketches
of Marea as he perceived it during the Byzantine period. [12] He further
volunteered information elaborating his answer to the question concerning
the fl oor he had been asked about on April 11. He said it had continued to
bother him because while he could not clearly remote view any fl oor at the
site he felt:

1.) Small tiles would be found at the level of the fl oor. [13]

A. These tiles would be marble, smooth on one side and rough on the
other [13] (Figure 7).

B. As part of a fl oor, the tiles had been laid in a chalky sub-fl ooring.

C. The tiles were square. [13]

D. The tiles were 5/8 of an inch (1.59 cm) across. [13]

E. The tiles were one color each. [13]

F. The tiles at one time had been laid in a colored pattern. [13]

466 Stephan A. Schwartz

Figure 7. On a pad of lined yellow foolscap, McMullen drew the small tiles
he saw, their chalky sub-fl oor, single color, and pattern. Also note
notary’s seal to establish an unimpeachable chronology.

Excavation Methodology

In accordance with the pre-agreed protocol, all digging was to be directed
by Fakharani; he had the imprimatur of the University of Alexandria as
their expert on Marea and was a trained archaeologist. By assigning
responsibility for the excavation to an outside observer, we sought to avoid
any vulnerability to charges that by controlling the excavation we, in some
way, might manipulate the outcome.
Upon arriving at the site at 08:00 on April 17 for the fi rst day of
digging, as we drove up we saw, and fi lmed, Fakharani moving the stakes.
He had radically skewed them from their original orientation, and extended
the dimensions on the western and eastern sides. He had also directed
the workers to begin. This would have gone unnoticed if we had arrived
minutes later.
In defense of these actions, Fakharani claimed that the move was
necessary to assure that both sides of the walls—if walls there were—
would be excavated. He reiterated again that the site had been surveyed
electronically and nothing had been found, and asserted again that if there
were anything, which he did not think would be the case, it would be Roman,
and could not possibly be Byzantine.

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 467

Figure 8. Within inches of the
depth predicted, walls
appeared. It was also
possible to see there
were multiple rooms,
and that Hammid’s
strange column was in
fact exactly where she
had described it.

Only about two inches of desert soil had been removed and nothing had
been revealed. Most importantly, the holes where McMullen had placed the
stakes were still obvious. Against Fakaharani’s strong objections, the stakes
were moved back into their original holes, thus assuring the dig would take
place exactly as defi ned by the viewers, while the triple-blind conditions
still prevailed.
The Bedouin laborers Fakharani had chosen could only work in the
early mornings before it became too hot for physical labor (the temperature
rose as high as 114 °F / 45 °C or even higher by afternoon). As a result,
excavation would take almost six weeks.

Additional Remote Viewing After Excavation Had Begun

On April 18, approximately 10 cm of Hammid’s column suddenly appeared,
and work was stopped. McMullen was asked to remote view it. He said
immediately that it was connected with “heat . . . and fi re.” [14]
On April 25 at about 08:30, walls began to appear. The depth was within
inches of that predicted by the viewers, and exactly as oriented and staked
out by McMullen (Figure 8).

468 Stephan A. Schwartz

I stopped the work, divided the site into nine quadrants, and asked
Fakharani to excavate one quadrant at a time so we could accurately assess
each concept advanced by the viewers as we went along. He objected
and found this very tedious, but he fi nally agreed, and that is how work
proceeded. On April 26, when excavations were at about .46 m (1.5 feet),
two other remote viewing points were volunteered by McMullen:

  1. At about eight to ten feet (2.44–3.05m), a ledge running around
    the walls would be found.

  2. Something we would fi nd was associated with baths or bathing.
    He stressed that he was unclear what this meant, but he emphasized
    the strength of this impression.

On April 27, McMullen, while standing in the partially excavated site,
was asked to remote view it again concentrating this time on decorations.
He volunteered, “This is generally Roman, and I would say this is a steam
bath . . . ” [15] He could not reconcile the apparent contradiction between
his earlier statements describing the site as Byzantine, nor explain why
he suddenly was perceiving imagery about baths just as Hammid had.
McMullen, who knew nothing of Hammid’s comments, said he simply felt
that both observations were accurate.
I believe that in both instances these observations occurred because I,
the interviewer, who had given the viewers their task instructions, had failed
to formulate the task correctly. In this instance, for example, McMullen was
asked to focus his intentioned awareness on decorations, but was not told
they should be decorations specifi c to the construction of this particular
ruin. Throughout the Alexandria Project we saw and confi rmed several other
examples of this kind of displacement, all emphasizing the importance of
the framing of the task instruction.

Excavation Results and Evaluations

Since there was no productive location data at all from any aspect of the
electronic remote sensing, the historical review, or the topographic survey
specifi c to this site, there is nothing to evaluate beyond the failure of these
approaches to locate what was actually found. Only the remote viewing
information provided positive testable data. It is also worth noting that no
electronic remote sensing technology could have produced comparable data
to the remote viewing material pertaining to colors, culture, and artifacts.
Walls: Both remote viewers had predicted walls would be encountered
at a depth of “between three and four feet (0.91–1.22 m).” This statement

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 469

Figure 9. Field sketch of the site completed. Bold printed letters denote
quadrants.

was made by McMullen in reference to the western wall he had staked
out through Quadrants A, B, and C. Hammid did not specify a particular
wall, only the depth at which walls would be found. Excavation revealed
wall tops at 3 feet four inches (1.01 m), exactly within the depth predicted
(Figure 8).
Orientation: The fi rst part of what later proved to be a wall was found
in Quadrant G (Figure 9) and closely approximated and was parallel to the
stake orientation laid out by McMullen.
Multiple rooms/part of a larger structure: Over the next week,
additional walls were uncovered, clearly defi ning the three distinct rooms
predicted which were obviously part of a larger structure as predicted
(Figure 10).
Byzantine vs. Roman: Although the wall stone was well-dressed,
from the beginning it was obvious this site was not the remains of a Roman
acropolis as Fakharani had insisted. He continued, however, to maintain for
some days longer his belief that the site was transitional, that is late Roman
or very early Byzantine. This position also became untenable as pottery

470 Stephan A. Schwartz

Figure 10. Dig in its fi nal phase, showing all three rooms, doorways, ledges,
and Hammid’s “column.”

sherds emerged. This material was judged to be fi ll, but almost all of it was
of Byzantine origin, and late Byzantine at that (Figure 11). [16]
The issue was further defi ned when a red and white cross in a circle
was found painted on the foundations of Room 2 (Figure 12). It was not
clear immediately whether this was a consecration mark, or a quarry mark,
although most of the archaeologists who were shown the data felt it was the
mark of a Christian building. Months later, in November 1979, the issue
was settled when Rodziewicz, who had by then evaluated the site in detail,
reported his conclusions: It was a “6th Century Byzantine” structure, and
this confi rmed the remote viewing data. [17]

Corners: The locations outlined through remote viewing by McMullen
and Hammid proved to be highly accurate, and are particularly impressive
from a remote viewing point of view (Figure 10).
Green: At a depth of 1.5 m (4.92 feet), primarily in Room 2 in Quadrant
H, substantial quantity (about two-thirds of a rubber worker’s basket) of a
green clay-like substance was discovered. This material, found in roughly
rectangular chunks, crumbled easily between the fi ngers. Fakharani felt it
was a pottery or tile glaze. [18 ] Whether this meant the room had been used
for making pottery or tile, or the material was fi ll originating at another
site, he was not prepared to say. [18 ] A single piece of dark greenish tile was

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 471

Figure 11. One of the
several hundred
Byzantine sherds
excavated from
the dig site.

found in Quadrant A on April 25. Whether it was in situ or not has yet to be
determined. What is unequivocal is that at a site notable mostly for its tans
and sand desert colors, the color that stood out the most was green, just as
predicted.
Wall Tiles: Other than the one green tile, no wall tiles were recovered
at this site, and this could be considered the greatest “miss” in the remote
viewing data. However, in light of the outcome of the fl oor data, it is also
possible that wall tiles had been stripped from the building before it was
abandoned.
Doorway: A doorway was found leading into Room 3, exactly where it
had been staked out by McMullen (Figure 10) . This was apparently a later
and cruder exterior entrance than the building’s original entrance, which
was not in the section excavated.
Freestanding cylindrical object / column: On April 26, workers
taking down Quadrant E uncovered a domed round shape, which proved
to be the top of a column. Not a structural column, but one formed of a
brown unglazed low-grade pottery, suffi ciently sturdy that it maintained its

472 Stephan A. Schwartz

Figure 12. The red cross found on the “ledge” at the bottom of the foundation.

structural integrity throughout the excavation. It was clearly not original
to this site, and was free-standing in a crude breach notched between the
wall separating Rooms 2 and 3. It tapered from bottom to top, measuring
approximately 1.6 m in circumference near the base, and 0.58 m at the top
(Figure 10).
Excavations over the next week revealed that the “column” was
unquestionably a later addition, added long after the building had been
abandoned by its Byzantine builders, since the wall breach only went down
about 0.45 m, and the column measured about 0.4 m in height. It would
have toppled over unless one assumed that at the time the breach was made
(with no attempt to redress the stone) the bottom of the gap was essentially
the building’s fl oor—the lower portion of the structure having by then
been fi lled with material from other sites at Marea, as well as accumulated
sand and dirt blown in by the frequent winds. None of the members of the
Historical/Archaeological Team could advance a defi nitive explanation of
its use and identity.
A plausible explanation, however, came from a worker of Libyan
heritage. He said it resembled a type of oven he had seen his grandmother
use, both for heating and for baking bread. Essentially a primitive kind of
thermal bank it allowed a village woman to eke out every joule of thermal

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 473

Figure 13. The “ledges”
described by the
remote viewers were
located as predicted.
This was the level of
the original fl oor.

energy in a land where wood was scarce and even animal droppings were
hard to come by. He said it was his grandmother’s practice to build a solid
pillar of “poor pottery” around which coals were heaped to heat it. When
the coals were scraped away, he said, fl at loaves of bread were laid directly
on the pottery form to bake. [19]
Of all the fi nds made in the course of this excavation, the discovery of this
column caused the most excitement among the Remote Viewing Research
Team. Its very anomalousness—though confusing to the archaeologists—
made it attractive to the Remote Viewing Research Team. Such an object
could not have been anticipated, and accurate data concerning its presence
was, for that reason, all the more impressive. Hammid’s fi nal grace note,
that the column was “broken,” was accurate. [20]
Alcove column room: Hammid said the column would be in a kind of
“alcove room,” and Room 2 appeared in just this confi guration in relation to
the size of the other two rooms. This was, as she predicted, also where the
column would be found (Figure 10).
Ledges: On April 27, McMullen’s statements about the ledges was
proven out. A ledge was discovered in Room 3 at 1.1 m below the top of the
wall. The next day, ledges were found in Room 2, at approximately the same
distance below the top of its walls (Figure 13). A ledge was subsequently

474 Stephan A. Schwartz

found in Room 1. McMullen had seen these ledges as in some way related
to seating. This was incorrect and possibly a example of one of the major
sources of “noise” affecting remote view perceptions—the tendency of
remote viewers to interpret what they perceive, rather than just reporting
the image.
Floor . . . no fl oor: McMullen’s concern about the fl oor question was
resolved at the same time the ledges were discovered. In Rooms 1, 2, and 3,
a white gypsum-like hard chalk surface was uncovered. Fakharani felt that
this was a sub-fl oor and that the fl oor cover that had rested on it had later
been stripped away. [21] This layer was broken through and from that point to
below the foundation no other sign of a fl oor was discovered. In light of this
sub-fl oor discovery, in the absence of the main fl ooring McMullen’s “fl oor
but no fl oor” comments suddenly made sense.
Small tiles: At McMullen’s fi rst remote viewing session, on April 11,
he had given a brief description of small fl oor tiles. He augmented this
during the session of April 17 by his drawing and his comments about the
tiles (Figure 7). [22] On April 29, while workers were taking down Quadrant
C, in Room 1, they hit the gypsum sub-fl oor. In the northwest corner of
Quadrant C, intermixed with the gypsum and just below it, they found three
circular marble objects, rather like thick quarters. Over the next two days
a total of eight more of the objects was located (Figure 14). Each one was
either red, black, or white.
Each of these disks was 3 cm (1 3/16 inches) by 1 cm (25/64 inch)—
McMullen had estimated prior to excavation that they would be 5/8 inch
across. He was incorrect in his perception that the tiles were square, but
correct that they were smooth on one side, rough on the other, and used on
top of a chalky sub-fl oor. Both he and Hammid were consensually accurate
in their description of the tiles as being of one color each, and marble.
Fakharani, who had been notably skeptical of the idea that someone
could describe a tile buried several meters into the earth, at fi rst maintained
that the objects were weights. Closer examination by Daoud and Rodziewicz,
and subsequent conversations with Fakharani produced the consensus that
they were, as McMullen and Hammid had predicted, mosaic tiles. [23]

Debris: In almost every remote viewing session, there was a clear
sense on the part of the remote viewers that “a lot of debris” would be
found in the site, and a great deal was, in fact, located— particularly masses
of pot sherds. There were also pieces of marble uncovered, which were
evaluated by Fakharani as being Roman debris. The author, at the time of
the interviews, neglected to properly follow up on these observations in
order to elicit further imagery. The remote viewers, however, on one topic
volunteered data, as is seen in the next item.

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 475

Figure 14. Small tiles were found as predicted by McMullen, who was correct
in describing them, except that he saw them as square (they were
round), and he was 5/8 inch off in their size.

Bath . . . bathing . . . steam bath: From the very fi rst session at Marea,
the remote viewers had provided data related to “baths and bathing.”
Hammid had felt it so strongly that she thought it must a kind of analytical
overlay suggested by the guidance query about tiles. [24]

As with the debris question, the issue of baths benefi ted from subsequent
study by members of the Historical/Archaeological Team. In November
1979, Rodziewicz said that he had examined both the site and the artifacts
(Figure 15). He had not been told about the observations of the remote
viewers concerning baths, bathing, and steam baths.
He reported that he felt that a great deal of the material, particularly
the marble fragments, was debris that had originally come from the Roman
“baths down the hill. . . . ” [25]

Prior to our work at Marea, Fakharani had just begun excavating a
structure at the foot of the hill, across the road from our site. When we
were there he said it was a church, an observation with which McMullen
disagreed. Work on Fakharani’s site was suspended while we were there,
but after we had left Marea it resumed. When we returned to Egypt eight
months later, Fakharani, after consultation with Rodziewicz, had changed
his mind, and now believed the site he was working was a public baths
probably dating to the Roman period. Rodziewicz particularly pointed out

476 Stephan A. Schwartz

Figure 15. Marble fi ll found at the site, but later determined to have come from
the baths, when they were subsequently identifi ed at the foot of the
hill.

evidence he had found of hydraulic mortar, and suggested that the pieces
of marble found at our site were probably debris that had originally come
from these baths. [25]

Discussion

Comparison of search technologies: Which approaches, electronic
remote sensing or remote viewing, were most accurate and productive? The
question is easy to answer in this experiment, because all the electronic and
geographical surveys—satellite imagery, magnetometer, and topography—
were completely unproductive at this site.

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 477

Location accuracy: Remote viewing was highly accurate in providing
information for location. The building was outlined within inches, indeed
any variance is due more to Fakharani’s abortive attempt to move the stakes
placed by McMullen than inaccuracy on the part of the remote viewer. The
location of the door was an extra, and particularly impressive, addition.
But, perhaps most elegant of all was the correct location of the corners.
Corners are especially diffi cult, because they represent the intersection of
two planes, and must be precisely located.
Descriptive accuracy: In contradistinction to laboratory experiments
which can measure the variance from a chance outcome, because they
work with known target sets, in an applied remote viewing experiment no
such baseline exists. Even more importantly, in a laboratory experiment
the statistical outcome is the end step; while in an applied remote viewing
experiment the viewing is the beginning of the project—the source of
location and descriptive predictive data. In this setting the evaluation
outcome is the expert analysis by knowledgeable specialists.
Researcher error: A close examination of the data reveals the subtlety
of the researcher/remote viewer transaction. The viewers were asked to
concentrate on both a building and decorations, and they did so. But many
of those decorations came from another site; not terribly important in this
experiment, but potentially very important in others. The failure can be
traced to the premise question. Properly, the question should have been
to describe “decorations original to this building.” The remote viewers
fulfi lled their tasks—the excavation demonstrates that—but clearer
questions would have elicited clearer answers. The entire issue of how
questions are framed so as not to cue or suggest a particular answer, but
to precisely elicit the information sought, needs much more thought. This
experience also suggests that results which superfi cially appear to be a
failure in remote viewing may, in fact, be the failure of the researchers.
Finally, it seems to indicate that the apposite way to see this methodology
is, again, in engineering terms, in which the researcher/remote viewer
relationship is, at core, the creation of a bio-circuit. The Marea experiment
along with the Eastern Harbor research are representative of the current
state of understanding in applied remote viewing. Both experiments display
with clarity the strengths and current limitations of this search technology,
and its potential in archaeology.
Ultimately the contribution remote viewing makes will depend on how
honestly archaeologists examine the fruits that it offers, unencumbered
by preconception and false perspectives. Archaeology must move beyond
serendipity in the fi nding of sites. Remote viewing is not a total answer to
its location problems, but it is, surely, one piece of the puzzle.

478 Stephan A. Schwartz

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the University of Alexandria for granting permission for the fi eldwork so essential to this research, and for the cooperation of its faculty. Thanks are also due to The University of Warsaw and
the Archaeological Society of Alexandria for graciously making available
several consultants, without whose expertise this project could never have
been attempted nor once attempted, analyzed and properly evaluated. The
author also wishes to thank John and Pamela Leuthold, Maragert Pereira,
Trammell Crow, and Gordon McLendon for the fi nancial support that made
this research possible.

Notes

1 Marea can be found by driving southwest from Alexandria 29 km
on the desert highway that runs between Cairo and Alexandria (turn
at the security guard post where there is a sign with an arrow reading
“Archaeological Excavation/The University of Alexandria,” and then go
13 km farther on, to a cluster of yellow Bedouin houses known as the
village of El Hauwariya. At a blue and white house in the foreground,
turn right and pick up the track leading toward the lake. A small, fenced
animal enclosure with trees should appear on the left if you are proceeding
correctly. At the end of this track the excavations should come into sight.
2 Fraser’s (1972) three-volume work is unquestionably the fi nest overall
modern source. References are included in the copious notes, often in
abbreviations that may be cryptic to those not thoroughly familiar with
the source literature on Alexandria and its environs, including Marea.
3 Interview with Norman Emerson, Department Anthropology, University
of Toronto, on November 14, 1974; Emerson began reporting on his work
using remote viewing in 1974 and continued until his death (Emerson
1975, Schwartz 1978a:356–357 complete bibliography of Emerson’s
reported work).
4 Side scan sonar survey by Harold E. Edgerton (Schwartz 1980, Puthoff &
Targ 1974).
5 Memorandum for the Record by Beverly Humphrey, April 11, 1979.
6 Remote viewing session in the vicinity of Marea with George McMullen,
April 11, 1979.
7 On-camera exchange with Fawzi Fakharani, George McMullen, and
Stephan Schwartz, April 11, 1979.
8 Remote viewing session #1 with George McMullen, April 11, 1979.
9 Remote viewing session #1 at Marea with Hella Hammid, April 11, 1979.
10 Remote viewing session #2 at Marea, George McMullen, April 11, 1979.

The Location of a Byzantine Structure in Egypt through Remote Viewing 479

11 Interview at Marea with Fawzi Fakharani, April 11, 1979.
12 Volunteered unsolicited remote viewing drawings by George McMullen,
April 17, 1979.
13 Remote viewing session #3 at Marea with George McMullen, April 17,
1979.
14 Remote viewing session #4 at Marea with George McMullen, April 17,
1979.
15 Remote viewing session #5 at Marea with McMullen, April 27, 1979.
16 All pottery from the excavation was turned over to Fakharani, who was
to produce a pottery analysis to be included as part of this report. So far
none has been received.
17 Interview in Alexandria with Rodziewicz, November 17, 1979.
18 Interview at Marea with Fakharani, April 25, 1979.
19 Interview with Mohamed Abrahim, a Libyan construction worker, April
26, 1979.
20 Remote viewing session #1 at Marea with Hella Hammid, April 11, 1979.
21 Interview at Marea with Fakharani, April 29, 1979.
22 Remote viewing sessions #2 and #3 at Marea with George McMullen,
April 11 and 17, 1979.
23 Interview with Rodziewicz and Daoud, November 7, 1979.
24 Remote viewing session at Marea #1 with Hammid, April 11, 1979.
25 Interview with Rodziewicz, November 15, 1979.

References Cited

Athenaeus (1927–1941). The Deipnosophists translated by Charles Burton Gulick. New York: G. P.
Putnam’s Sons, Volume 1, p. 147.
Breccia, E. (1922). Alexandrea ad Aegyptum: A Guide to the Ancient and Modern Town, and to Its
Graeco-Roman Museum . Bergamo, Italy: Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafi che.
Diodorus Siculus (1933–1967). Diodorus Siculus translated by C. H. Oldfather & R. M. Geer.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London, UK: W. Heinemann, Volumes 11 & 12.
Emerson, N. (1975). Psychic archaeology. Psychic, Sep/Oct, 23.
Fraser, P. M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Volume 1, pp.
133–188.
Herodotus (1939). The History of Herodotus translated by J. Enoch Powell, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Mahmoud-Bey, E. F. (1872). Mé moire sur l’antique Alexandrie: Ses faubourgs et environs dé couverts,
par les fouilles, sondages, nivellements et autres recherches . Copenhagen: Luno.
Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.
Nature, 252 (November), 602–607.
Puthoff, H. E., & Targ, R. (1976). 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)(March), 349–354.
Sadek, M. (1978). The Ancient Port of Marea. Cahiers des Études Anciennes, 8 . Quebec.
Schwartz, S. (no date). Psychometrics and Settlement Patterns: Field Tests on Two Iroquoian
Sites. Unpublished paper.

480 Stephan A. Schwartz

Schwartz, S. (1977). Two Application-Oriented Experiments Employing a Submarine Involving a
Novel Remote Viewing Protocol, One Testing the ELF Hypothesis. https://www.academia.
edu/37303056/Two_Application-Oriented_Experiments_Employing_a_Submarine_
Involving_a_Novel_Remote_Viewing_Protocol_One_Testing_the_ELF_Hypothesis.
Invited Paper, The Philosophical Research Society Conference on Extraordinary Human
Functioning, St. Louis, MO.
Schwartz, S. A. (1978a). Secret Vaults of Time . New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
Schwartz, S. (1978b). Deep Quest: An Experiment in Deep Ocean Psychic Archaeology and
Distant Viewing. Invited Paper, Annual Meetings of the Southwestern Anthropology
Association/ the Association for Transpersonal Anthropology. March 1978.
Schwartz (1978c). 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 1978.
Schwartz, S. (1980). A Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria, Egypt, Including a
Comparison of Side-Scan Sonar and Remote Viewing. Presented at the Annual Meetings
of the Society for Underwater Archaeology, January 11, 1980.
Schwartz, S. (1983). The Alexandria Project . New York: Doubleday/Delacorte. [Updated 2001]
Schwartz, S. (2014). Through Time and Space: The Evidence for Remote Viewing. https://www.
academia.edu/9540484/Through_Time_and_Space_The_Evidence_for_Remote_
Viewing. Also as a chapter in The Evidence for Psi edited by Damien Broderick and Ben
Goertzel, Jeff erson, NC: McFarland, 2015.
Strabo (1989). The Geography of Strabo translated by Horace Leonard Jones. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press; and London, UK: William Heinemann.
Weiant, C. W. (1943). An Introduction to the Ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico.
Smithsonian, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 139 . Washington, D.C.
Weiant, C. W. (1960). Parapsychology and anthropology. Manas, 13 (15).

Backlinks (1)