A Dutch anthropologist often cited by Medjugorje opponents receives harsh criticism in report by scientific committee: Mart Bax committed scientific misconduct, forgery, and falsified his CV, it says of Bax who falsely claimed people of Medjugorje killed each other in the Bosnian war.
From the scientific committe’s report on Mart Bax’s work
Antagonists of Medjugorje received a heavy blow on Monday when a Dutch scientific committee published a very critical report about the work, methods, and ethics of retired professor of anthropology Mart Bax whose work on Medjugorje has been frequently quoted by its critics.
According to the 67 pages report from the committee headed by historian Prof. Michiel Baud from the University of Amsterdam, Bax made up data for at least 61 papers, and invented awards and other parts of his CV. Of the 161 publications claimed by Bax as written by him, the commission found 64 are non-existent. The committee finds the fraud, which further includes plagiarism of himself, took place for at least 15 years.
Michiel Baud, the head of the committee
Mart Bax’s CV included false stints as guest lecturer at prestigious institutions like Princeton and Cornell, and stated he was a part of the investigation of the Srebrenica massacre conducted by the Dutch Institute for War Documentation (NIOD), a claim denied by NIOD. Mart Bax also invented numerous awards, other positions, given interviews, and a documentary which does not exist.
The scientific committee mentions Bax’s book “Medjugorje: Religion, Politics, and Violence in Rural Bosnia” (1995) as the most serious example of his working ethics and methods. Describing Medjugorje during the war in Bosnia and Hercegovina (1992-95), the book claims that about 140 citizens of Medjugorje died while another 600 were forced to flee the region when a claimed dispute over the housing of a drastically decreasing number of pilgrims developed into a blood feud.
“Blood vengeance , vendettas and other forms of private justice were ‘normal ‘ phenomena that regularly occurred and barely seemed to be alleviated by the pacifying activities of either church or state” Mart Bax wrote in the book’s introduction.
The committee of inquiry accepts what the people of Medjugorje always said: That none of this ever took place. Though Mart Bax was contradicted early on after the book was published, he never withdrew the claim which, on the contrary, was reprinted three times.
“Given that he knew that a crucial element of the pertinent article was incorrect – an error with potentially far-reaching consequences for the society in question – it may be termed no different than serious scientific misconduct” the commitee concludes.
In his reply to the committee, Mart Bax saved it at acknowledging that the number of victims of “the little war” was incorrect, stating several times that this “mistake”, although one he lamented , was only “a detail”, and that the core of his work was not touched.
Bax explained the mistake by referring to a misunderstanding of information from an informant. The explanation initially leads the committee to call it “a problem” that Bax passed on “such dramatic informations” as the claim of 140 deceased, based on a single source.
To interpret the acclaimed blood feud, dubbed “the little war” by Mart Bax, the committee finds that the anthropologist made up or misrepresented historical events, particularly from the 12th and 13the century where no historical sources exist. The committee calls Bax’s methodology “flawed”, and concludes it is impossible to verify his interpretations.
Shortly after the publication of his book, Mart Bax acknowledged that he misinterpreted some informations, but told the committee he did not have the opportunity to make any rectifications, as the book was never reprinted. Yet the committee establishes that Bax did have the opportunity to rectify these errors on various occasions, yet never did.
After the publication of “Medjugorje: Religion, Politics, and Violence in Rural Bosnia”, Bax referred to the blood feud in three other articles, after he already acknowledged to be aware of the misinterpretation. The committee labels this as “serious scientific misconduct”.
Much of Bax’s field work in Medjugorje and elsewhere is seriously questioned though the committee does not use the term scientific fraud: Bax insists he was misled by his informants, persons who are either deceased or untraceable. The committee therefore uses the terms “serious scientific misconduct”, “deception” and “unethical scientific behavior”.
In evaluating Mart Bax’s field work from Medjugorje, the committee partly relies on criticism formulated by professor Ivo Žanic of the University of Zagreb who noted Bax’s work contains some “banal, and therefore hardly understandable mistakes” related to the area’s geography, historical facts, and local terminology.
Van der Duyn Schouten, the rector of Free University of Amsterdam, calls the committee’s report “a sad outcome”, yet says there will be no further sanctions against Max Bart, because he retired 11 years ago.
“Yet, in addition to the publication of this report, his reputation gets such a blow that he will be marked by it for the rest of his life” the rector tells the Dutch news agency NOS.
Likewise, Mart Bax will keep his doctorate acquired at the Free University of Amsterdam. Bax’s work on his thesis was not a part of the investigation by the committee.
“As far as we know, Bax did not conduct fraud in his thesis. Therefore we have no reason to deprive him of his doctorate” a university spokesman told Reuters on Monday.