10th October 2014

By Steven & Evan Strong

The Stone Tablet

In our recent article on the Egyptian stone tablet (dubbed “Tracey’s Tablet”) we spoke of its history, of human interventions in its imminent disposal, and of the unusual cement-like substance from which this piece was moulded.

The day after the first article was published we received numerous pleas and even aggressive demands from within the research community to take down the article. An image of a replica of the same tablet was shown as ‘damning evidence’ of our haste and sloppy research. The photograph of a commercial replica for sale was most certainly of the same format and content as the tablet we are now investigating. The ‘original’ tablet on which the replica was based is dated at 1800Bc, from the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, and as we suspected the two-seated Gods were indeed Osiris and Isis.

But this left us with more questions than answers. Is “Tracey’s Tablet” a document? Is it an artistic relief? Is it a fake?

Is It Fake?

Supporters and detractors have assumed that, since copies of the 3800 year old original have been made, all we have found is a tacky replica. For them this was absolute proof that the artefact is merely a copy. Logically speaking, the existence of modern replicas neither prove nor disprove this tablet’s authenticity. News of present-day copies of a tablet considered so unique it had a commercial value of several hundred dollars (just for copies) proves only that replicas of the original Egyptian duplicate have been made well after the event. The convict buildings concealing this tabled were constructed well before Napoleon even stumbled into Egypt.

Moreover, if this document does, as we suspect, record details of an agreement between two parties, it stands to reason that two copies of the original manifesto were made – one tablet kept in Australia and the other in Egypt. Every transaction of this nature has some way a formalising the agreement of both parties, and such records are usually produced in duplicate so that each retains a copy. Given the story unfolding around us, it is not out of the realms of possibility that we have in our possession the Australian copy, and now – lo and behold – the Egyptian counterpart has been located.

As one of our most committed supporters put it to us: What if someone bought a fake tablet and placed it between the walls? Would this not explain how it got there? Bearing in mind the convict quarters built near Arthur Phillip’s residence were erected very soon after the first British settlement fleet arrived, and this document was found between the walls of those quarters, it had to have been placed there in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s — as the walls were going up. My problem is, Phillip and his crew did not take an unscheduled deviation to Egypt with the First Invasion Fleet, nor did the development of early colonial industry include replicating and selling copies of Egyptian documents (at that time, they were just documents, not “artefacts”).

What does assist our thought process is that the age of 3,900 years fits aligns with the times of Egyptian co-habitation on the east coast. If the extensive archaeology at Bambara is legitimate, and we believe it is, the first record of Egyptian contact is noted to be around 4,600 years ago. From that point, both ships were damaged and death, drought and misfortune befell their crew, thus Egyptian settlement here was no instant process. Some considerable time was no doubt needed for numbers to return, to acclimatise and most importantly, to win the trust of the locals and learn to co-exist. That being the case, reaching and documenting a formal agreement of ongoing settlement rights at the 3,900 year mark is again, well within the realms of possibility. Our Original advisors certainly tell us such accords were historically reached.

Truth or Fiction?

Many sceptics are denying the credentials of the rock but also decrying the motives of those championing its authenticity. In reality, that is all just conjecture. At this stage there are no other certainties we can offer except that we have a stone tablet on our coffee table and a real live person claiming its mode of discovery which, as it turns out, doesn’t sit well with accepted accounts of history.

While our work is still in progress, this all comes down to Tracey. Since first bringing us this tablet, she has maintained that the artefact was found wedged between the walls of a convict building scheduled to be demolished. If she is both correct and telling the truth, the tablet must therefore have been found and hidden around the time that the first Governor-General set up residence. The Invasion Fleet did not stop-over at Egypt, nor was Phillip known to have brought Egyptian curios to adorn his residence. If Tracey’s story is genuine, this tablet was here when they arrived and long before.

The Stone TabletUndeniably, we have put a lot of trust in Tracey and her testimony. Like history, “alternative” archaeology by its very nature demands that we rely at times on personal recollections, and therefore the character of those we collaborate with. We have come to spot a dud or a decoy a mile off, and if Tracey is a liar, she is a very good one. An engaging human being, her story includes details of the tablet’s discovery, liaisons with experts, financial offers, requests to “hand over” the artefact, suspicious behavior, and biding her time. While it is certainly a leap of process for us to declare it, intuition tells us her story is legit.

One of the most famous American philosophers and social commentators has always had a fixation about any testimony or evidence that fails the simplest test of logic. Judge Judy has often reminded litigant and audience alike that “if it doesn’t make sense then it isn’t true”. Nothing about this tablet generates any notoriety – the hallmarks of a prank, Other than to distract us from our other work, including ongoing analysis of our genetic lineage, the whole concept is purposeless and pointless. In the absence of a motive, disallowing Tracey’s testimony as a mischievous ploy just “doesn’t make sense”.

Nonetheless, if this artefact is indeed fake, we will soon find out. We will most assuredly continue liaising with our trusted experts to determine the tablet’s authenticity.

The most pressing task, which we hope will soon be completed, is an analysis of the concrete/crystal mixture that makes up the cement. We are already very confident that what will be identified is not part of the local geology, and expect that the source will be much further away. But at this stage, understanding the mineral composition is undoubtedly the first step toward truly knowing if this tablet is in fact historical or a hoax.

If it is authentic, we have been presented with a stone tablet worthy of further investigation. If we are wrong, we stand guilty only of open-mindedness and saying what we believe to be true. And while a “hoax” outcome would certainly be regrettable, open-mindedness and truth are two traits we will not apologize for in this day and age – right or wrong.

For now we will continue with our task of identifying the stone composition, in an attempt to scientifically (not rhetorically) determine if the tablet is authentic. Then, as always, we will continue our investigations, considering all possibilities, consulting with Original Elders and Custodians, and publishing our theories, findings, suppositions, questions and challenges along the way.

About the authors:
Steve and Evan Strong

Evan Strong is a researcher, historian and author with a Bachelor degree in the Social Sciences, majoring in psychology and archaeology/anthropology.

Steven Strong is an Australian-based researcher, author and former high school teacher with a background in archaeology. He was involved in the formation of a Graduate Diploma of Aboriginal Education for the NSW Department of Education, writing units on Traditional Law and Contemporary History. He also co-authored the highly successful “Aboriginal Australia: A Language and Cultural kit” and has written over a dozen articles on Original history and lore for the National Indigenous Times, with four articles also appearing in New Dawn magazine.

Together they have co-written 4 books:

  • Constructing a New World Map, an exploration of the ancient mystical tradition that began in the Dreaming, and an examination of the historical circumstances that require the construction of a new world map.
  • Mary Magdalene’s Dreaming. Tracing the origins of religion, this is a comparison of Original wisdom and Gnostic scriptures, stripped of all cultural and geographic differences The secret knowledge Mary and Jesus preached is undoubtedly the purest replication of the Original Dreaming since the first mariners were banished from Australia.
  • Forgotten Origin, dedicated to the first Homo sapiens: the Original people, continues their investigation into the global impact of Original people sailing from Australia no less than 50,000 years ago, paying particular attention to mtDNA, Y Chromosomes, skull morphology, historical accounts, and the religious ancestry upon which this hidden history is founded.
  • Shunned, their latest publication, thoroughly refutes the Out-of-Africa theory of human history and examines the archaeological and DNA evidence that suggests Australia is where modern human beings derived.

With close to 30 years of contact with original Gumilaroi people and tribes of the Bundjalung Language Confederation, and the benefit of extensive consultation with many Original Elders, Steve and Evan’s work is to reveal the ancient story of the Original people, a narrative that was almost lost to aggressive European colonisation.

For more information visit