kaos

a cheap trick when faced by blank walls without a trace of an ancient painting or pot
sherd to back up the theory.
For instance, standing in a dim dingy subterranean alcove less interesting than the
average garden shed, he “seems to see” two female faces, one prophesying. She’s about
30 and has one blue eye and one green. Nearby there’s an older woman, apparently the
retired Sybil. And then he has the gall to round off this farcical stage-management of
the reader’s gullibility with the statement: “Of course, all this may be pure fantasy, and
quite likely it is.” But naturally the desired interpretation of a bunch of dirty old tunnels
begins to gel in the reader’s mind. And who is he writing for, that he finds it necessary
to point out the depth to which ancient divinatory practices have penetrated modern
language by explaining that the word “portentous” comes from “portent” and “fateful”
from “fate”.
Temple likes to present himself as a respected scholar, but scratch the surface and it
is just a veneer, an appearance not hard to achieve if you have a good library and know
how to create an impression of being well-read. Temple uses his learning not to
profoundly advance the sum total of human knowledge but rather to fulfil a publishing
contract. Netherworld just adds to the ragbag of historical confusions in the minds of
readers who thirst for “popular” presentations of ancient wonders but have precious
little critical apparatus in place to realise they are being fed soft food for archæological
innocents, complete pap in other words. “Graham Poppycock” as it’s known in
archæologist’s slang.
The second part of Netherworld, on Chinese divination and in particular the I Ching,
is revised merely by a few new insertions from its 1984 version. He makes little attempt
to connect the material on Baia with the Chinese material.
Tedious potboiler at best, grievous misrepresentation of history and myth at worst.
164