Late last June, in a post entitled "Andean Archaeology Has a #MeToo Problem," I reported on my investigation of misconduct by Peruvian archaeologist and former culture minister Luis Jaime Castillo Butters. I have posted a number of additional stories and updates since, including evidence that Castillo attempted to get Yale University to give him an honorary PhD in exchange for signing off on the return of the Machu Picchu artifacts to Peru.

From pretty much the first day of the first report, Castillo and a group of his defenders and apologists have worked overtime to brand the survivors of his abuse liars and attack the credibility of my reporting. This included mocking the survivors, who asked for and were accorded confidentiality because they feared retaliation not only from the powerful Castillo but also his supporters and, I hate to say it, sycophants. For example, I used letters to identify the survivors (Student A, B, etc.) and the faculty members who confirmed their stories (Professor A, B, etc.) One well known colleague of Castillo's changed his Twitter description to read "Student Z" in clear disdain for the suffering of the victims.

This craven disrespect for survivors of abuse was met with an open letter to Castillo from some of them, which I also published on this blog. Let me quote the first three paragraphs of the letter:


"We are some of the women whom you have dismissed time and time again—whose boundaries you have negated, whose humanity you have disrespected, whose bodies you have exploited, whose innocence you have stripped. We are not all of the people you have damaged. You should know that there are many more. But we are enough.

We listened to your interview. We heard how you again attempted to silence us in the ways only you know best. But your threats won’t work. They never really did, did they? Deep down, you know that. We never stayed quiet. We told many throughout the years and will continue to break the silence.

You lash out at us for being anonymous. Because it makes you feel threatened. Because the tables have turned. And you feel your power slipping away. You fear our anonymity because you think you know who we are, but you can’t be sure. After all, you have wronged so many women." 



In addition to trying to discredit the survivors, Castillo and his defenders launched a scurrilous campaign of lies about me, the reporter who carried the messages from the victims, in a further attempt to help the powerful archaeologist whose good graces--in many cases--the defenders had relied upon in their own careers. Indeed, this is the central cowardice I have seen in so many #MeToo cases I have reported on. I described it this way in a recent Tweet:




The central lie Castillo's defenders and apologists have told about me is that during my reporting I "relentlessly harassed" one of Castillo's students, whom I will call Student L to protect her identity (even though she herself is at the origin of this lie.)

Here is how I described the situation between Castillo and this student in my original report:


"Castillo is known to have assisted with the placement of Peruvian students, many who worked under him for a number of years, in top-tier graduate archaeology programs in the United States. A few of my Peruvian sources allege that Castillo tells young students that if they want to attend major universities abroad, like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, he can make it happen if they work for him.

"Witnesses allege that Castillo has carried on a longstanding sexual relationship with one such student. This student and his other former students doe not wish to talk about the situation, so I am not naming her to protect her privacy. However, Castillo routinely referred to this student as 'mi mujer' ('my woman'), sometimes even to archaeologists who do not know him very well."


In a recorded interview with Perú21, of which I published a complete transcript in the blog post that featured the open letter from the survivors, Castillo makes reference to this allegation (With thanks to the translators who helped me post both the Spanish and English versions):


"There are also three direct allegations saying that I have had relationships with students. One of them is a—with a person who is referred to in the text as "my woman," so that I ... [unintelligible]. That student—this girl is a student of mine who is doing her Ph.D. in the United States, right?, with whom I have a very deep academic and familial relationship—very deep. [Unintelligible] very close, yes? And she is outraged that the guy pointed her out because he contacted her, she rejected him, and he contacted her again, harassed her for information and when she did not give him the same story [as the others], he put out this [unintelligible] saying that she was my lover and that because she was my lover, she had obtained all kinds of— what are they called?—of academic successes. Which is an insult. [Unintelligible]."


I find it very interesting that Castillo immediately knew who "mi mujer" referred to. Be that as it may, this falsehood, that I harassed Student L, has become a widespread meme for Castillo defenders and apologists (and others who claim they are not endorsing Castillo's behavior but still feel the need to attack the reporter.)

Reporters must have tough skins to survive the kind of abuse we are subject to (eg those journalists who cover Donald Trump), but no one likes being lied about, and I am no exception.  But more serious than their effects on me are the effects on the survivors, who are basically being told that they are liars too. The main effect is to enable the abusers, and those who continue to spread lies--despite being told that what they are saying is false--are complicit in the abuse.

Let me give one such example, that of Ilana Johnson, a professor of anthropology at Sacramento City College (no I am not "doxing" her, this is from her own Web page.)

Johnson has worked with Castillo in Peru at his famous site of San Jose de Moro and is very close to Castillo's group at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (PUCP.) She has been very active in spreading the lies about my interactions with Student L, and  this week I insisted that she stop. Here are the emails, to which she did not respond; they quote the Tweets she has posted about me.


My first email to Ilana Johnson:






My second email to Ilana Johnson, correcting an omission:






It's no surprise, but not only has Ilana Johnson not corrected the lies she either told or passed on from others, but she is also apparently talking to UC Santa Barbara archaeologist Danielle Kurin's attorney, David Scher, about being a witness in Kurin's $10 million defamation suit against me for my accurate reporting on her misconduct (please scroll this blog for numerous stories and updates about that.)


So who is the source of the lies about my harassing Student L? I believe it is Student L herself, a student and protege of Castillo's, who has her own interests in protecting him and her own reputation. That is fine, but when she lies about what happened, she forfeits my sympathy, at least, even though I have still refrained from naming her.

So here is the entire exchange I had with Student L,  except that it was never an "exchange" at all. I never once talked to her.






As I said, Student L never responded, but a communications person from her university got in touch after my second email:





That was it. After I was contacted by the university representative, I did not try to contact Student L again. Where is the relentless harassment, and all the rest? If Student L, Castillo, or anyone else has evidence that there was anything more to it than this, let them produce the "receipts," as they say.

For those who are unsure about all this, it is routine for a journalist working on a #MeToo story to contact possible victims and see if they want to talk. If they do not respond the first time, it is normal to try once again (in my experience, survivors are often taking time to think about it, and often do respond  the second time.)  This is the way all #MeToo reporters work: If you read  the books by Ronan Farrow (The New Yorker) and Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor (The New York Times) who all won Pulitzers for their reporting on Harvey Weinstein, you will see in detail  how reporters  approach sensitive sources. In the Weinstein case, the reporters contacted the victims again and again to try to urge them to tell their stories, although always respectfully. Their methods were much more "intrusive" than mine have ever been.

In the case of Student L, as I explained to her university representative, it was always possible that she might have to be named, if it could be demonstrated that she got her university slot through patronage and not through merit. That would have been unethical on Castillo's part, and in fact everyone involved in this  sorry saga knows the identity of Student L. Nevertheless, I have not felt it necessary to name her myself.


Let's end on the main point: Ilana Johnson, and all of those in Castillo's circle who have attacked survivors and told lies about this reporter, have made themselves--wittingly or unwittingly--complicit in his misconduct. I ask all of them to find the courage to dissociate themselves from a man whose long years of abuse has caused so much damage, and left Peruvian archaeology hostage to a bully who does not deserve the power he has accumulated.


Afterthoughts Sept 3: It's okay for women to lie?

I've been pondering the first two comments on this post, and I realize my response is probably inadequate. I thought that by providing proof that lies were being told and spread on behalf of a sexual abuser, colleagues would get the point. What I failed to realize is that if a woman lies and enables a predator, and if a male reporter calls out those lies, that is still bullying in some minds. What a Victorian corruption of the #MeToo and women's rights movements. We put women on pedestals, even if they are enabling abusers, and pretend they are somehow other than normal humans. It's dishonest.

This, by the way, is what the Danielle Kurin case is all about. I don't see anyone coming to her defense, at least not publicly, because the evidence that she enabled harassment and assault by her ex-husband--by retaliating against students who reported it--is so very clear and well documented. So yes, women, even brilliant scholars, can get the wrong end of the stick, blatantly enable abusers to protect themselves, and become complicit in the abuses. 

The strange thing is, everyone knows this, but some still want to use enablers as shields against the truth. This is the whole point, and I stick by my reporting on it.


I see that someone has just made a forceful and eloquent comment which sums the issues up much better than I can. I am pulling it up here to make sure it gets seen.


"What’s ironic about all these people who suddenly worry about Balter damaging his reputation is that they had ruined it already with their lies before he made even the first report. Exposing these lies is what anyone would do, especially a reporter. A reporter’s credibility is of utmost importance, especially when reporting on MeToo issues. The fact that these commenters made no comment on the egregious and obvious lies shows they do not value truth, but factional politicking. These lies caused a lot of trauma among Castillo survivors. We begged Balter to publish the receipts so everyone can see the truth of what’s happening: Luis Jaime Castillo’s accomplices, enablers, and beneficiaries are desperately telling lies to discredit Balter and the survivors. They are not the victims, but the victimizers. Remember that white women were some of the biggest defenders of the patriarchy during the women’s suffrage movement. Being a woman does not automatically make you a victim. Indeed, it’s sexist and paternalistic to play the victim trope. “White women tears” phenomenon has led to a lot of atrocities in history. Similar things are happening here."



Update Sept 6, 2020: Castillo's giant loyalty test is in full swing.


As I've reported before, Castillo is leaning on everyone he can to write testimonials on his behalf, to PUCP investigative bodies etc., and his followers are circulating bogus letters on his behalf disguised as letters supporting students. He is  defending himself in his classes, thus intimidating students, and keeping a close eye on who supports him and who does not. In that kind of atmosphere, only the brave will speak out. And many already have.