It was gratifying that agreed to publish my lengthy article in its entirety, along with interminable footnotes.
(It is posted separately here.) It was heartening to learn that Dr.
Deities and their animal entourages were now everywhere. How could remnants of 8,000-year-old wall paintings, even the smallest fragments, have been destroyed without photos?
Indeed, an elaborate new Neolithic Mother Goddess cult flourished where none had existed before. The atal Hyk paintings were, after all, among the world's earliest architectural murals.
We understood that all would be revealed in a major, forthcoming publication. published late in 1989 under the auspices of Milan rug dealer John Eskenazi, should have answered the questions and silenced the critics.
Isolated from the public debate, I could only react to the book itself.I was stunned by overwhelming stylistic incongruities between Mellaart's new "reconstructed" paintings and the obviously genuine wall paintings appearing in photos in the 1960's atal Hyk excavation reports.Subject matter in the new drawings was completely different too. My first reaction was incredulity, but the second was resentment over apparently irregular field work.Eiland was composing a similar article in the form of a book review.Although our approaches differed, our conclusions were similar. The 6th International Conference on Oriental Carpets, held in San Francisco in November of 1990, would have been an ideal forum for airing atal Hyk problems.From then on, discrepancies, I felt we must be confronting a grand but not too subtle hoax.