Supported by Robert Bauval's "Giza-Orion Correlation Theory", one of his prime objectives is to assert that the Great Pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx are part of a design hatched in 10,500 BCE. This is obviously a radical idea which needs a great deal of further thought, and on reflection based on the facts, this claim of Hancock and Bauvals cannot be upheld by the actual evidence.

Graham Hancock also makes spurious claims concerning the date of the Bolivian remains known as Tiwanaku and again he ignores all the known archaeology in favour of an earlier dating. Graham Hancock is at odds with the C14 dating results, the site finds and the stratigraphy of the site, which tell us a different story at Tiwanaku. However, it could be that even if his dating is out of line, he could well be on to something in terms of symbolic meanings enshrined in the remains, although this is problematic owning to the destruction of the site. Again though, it is all speculation and nothing more.

We must therefore ask relevant questions concerning Hancock's theory, questions based on logic and reason, again though, we must also view the Spiritual apects of Graham Hancocks quest from a cynical stance. It does matter that Hancock is unable to provide conclusive evidence to prove his theory,and it is essential that his ideas are subjected to the type of meticulous scientific scrutiny that is employed by orthodoxy, although we must not lose sight of the human factor in Ancient cultures.So we have to use our feelings when looking into the past, but only terms of symbolism, which do not affect dating issues.
The Egyptians of 10,500 BCE were a Stone Age people who lived in a hunter-gatherer society, which had yet to develope a written language.
Graham Hancock wants us to accept that the survivors of a lost civilisation came into the Nile Valley at this time and passed on a grand design for Giza to these indigenous people. What we can accept is that the Neolithic Egyptians were probabaly knowledgable about the night sky, and the risings and setting of Stars. We can then advance the idea that tribal neolithic Egypt looked at the night skies.. This does not in anyway support Hancock, in fact it rather undermines his thinking. We do not require a lost civilisation for such a proposition

The Sphinx, Hancock suggests, was carved in 10,500 BCE to face the constellation Leo as it appeared due east over the horizon. To support this claim Hancock suggests that the Sphinx originally had the head of a lion despite there being no evidence whatsoever to substantiate his claim. We can, though concede that a possibility that a natural rock outcrop resembling Sphinx could be much older than the 4th dynasty. And if a natural feature did pre-exist dynasty four, it didn't require Atlanteans to put it there !!

There is no obvious evidence for Leo in Egyptian mythology,however, the texts and mythology should be given more study as the Egyptians equated constellations with their cosmology and religion. The Egyptians, in fact at centers such as ancient Iwnw ( Heliopolis) made detailed observations of the celestial movement of stars and the Solar Cycle and we should not be suprised if the knowledge was kept amongst a priestly elite. However, as the records kept there have all been lost, nobody can say for certain what they knew or didn't know.

In the Book, Riddles of the Sphinx, (Sutton Publishing) Paul Jordan says the Following: "The first star charts of the Ancient Egyptians that we possess come from Coffins of Dyn.10 at about 2150 BCE. These coffin texts and drawings describe a system of sky division, not into 12 zodiacal constellations around the plane of the ecliptic but instead into 36 star configurations lying somewhat south of the ecliptic plane" In my view though, we should accept this orthodox approach, they are the only evidence of an Egyptian astronomy and may relate to earlier observational work at Iwnw. And they do not not in anycase support Hancocks fanciful ideas.

None of these configurations has anything to do with Babylonian, Greek and modern signs of the Zodiac. Besides these 36 constellations, the ancient Egyptians also marked out in the rest of the sky about 25 constellations, among them, a crocodile, a hippopotamus, a falcon headed God and a lion. But this cannot be matched to the couchant lion of our Leo and in general the Ancient Egyptian's representations of their constellations are from the first so inconsistent with each other and with the stars we see that it has only been possible to identify three with any confidence. We have to remember though, that symbolic representation is an essental part of Egyptian belief systems.

They are Orion=Osiris; our Sirius=Sopdet and our Ursa Major= the foreleg of a bull ( not Taurus). The first appearance in Egypt of the signs of our Zodiac comes in in the Zodiac of Dendera at a very late date in Egyptian history. The Dendara Zodiac combines Ancient Egyptian star configurations with zodiacal constellations of the Babylonians and the Greeks. There is nothing to suggest that the Egyptians entertained any of the signs of the zodiac before the 1st few centuries BCE..."

Dr Robert Schoch, a geologist, contends that the weathering pattern of the Sphinx could only be the result of precipitation and this was only possible if it had been carved ca, 5-7000 BCE when the climate in the Sahara is known to have been much wetter. Schoch's opinion on the age of the Sphinx is not supported by all geologists, and the weathering of the Sphinx remains a highly contentious issue. Whatever the arguments, it is not clear that the sphinx is far older than thought by Egyptologists.

Hancock, Bauval and West, all quote Robert Schoch's geological evidence to support their own claims yet none of them agree with Schoch's conclusions on the age of the Sphinx. Schoch suggests 5-7,000 BCE, Hancock and Bauval push the carving of the Sphinx back to 10,500 BCE and West believes it may have been carved even earlier. I have to say, this is just ridiculous, these alternaives can't even agree on their postions, which are untenable given the evidence

There are other geological opinions ( see The Sphinx dating on this site ) on the severe weathering of the Sphinx that do not require it to be re-dated to pre-dynastic Egypt. Schoch's findings are highly contentious and they cannot be said to be conclusive evidence for the existence of a lost civilisation, They cannot be said to suggest elements of Ancient Egypt are much older than thought by Scholars.

Also, it is pivotal to the claims made by Hancock and Bauval that the Ancient Egyptians understood precession. Precession is the result of the 'wobble' of the earth's rotation around its axis and means that the relative positions of the stars varies over time. It takes approx. 26,000 years for the earth to pass through a single precessional cycle and hence the relative position of the stars with the earth is repeated every 26,000 years.

Robert Bauval's correlation theory 'locks' the site plan at Giza to 10,500 BCE on the basis of a precise star alignment at this time. Whilst it is possible that they were aware of the changes in the night sky over a period of time, it is not beyond credibility to reason that they understood the mechanics of precession and could calculate how the sky would change during the 26,000 year precessional cycle. We should not lose sight though of symbolism, Perhaps Bauval is correct in asserting that you don't require a precise match to symbolically represent something, that the Giza pyramids can be a symbolic ground plan of Orion has definate attractions and should not be wholly dismissed. However, is it really that important? Bauval is merely speculating, he doesn't have anything tangible

Why should the Ancient Egyptians, or even the descendants of the LC, decide that they need to map the positions of just 3 of the belt stars of Orion in 10,500BCE? Also why should they then decide to wait another 8,000 years before completing their project? This is a major stumbling block for the LC hypotheses, it seems to me that we should perhaps see the Giza pyramids as of their age, that of the 4th dynasty. It is no coincidence that Hancock and Bauval are fixated on 10,500bce, this date is the one given by the so-called psychic Edgar Cayce, as the date when Atlanteans first arrived in Egypt.Although they are trying to play down this coincidence, I beleive it is an attempt to tie their theories into the wider spectrum of alternative thought which keeps them focused on this date.

Hancock now accepts the orthodox dating of the Giza Pyramids to circa 2,450 BCE although he still insists that the Sphinx is older and that the design for the site plan at Giza is fixed by star alignments to 10,500 BCE. Hancock has also claimed that the site plan at Giza was handed down for over 8,000 years without the benefit of any written records and this proposition can only be considered as problematic. It is simply crazy to ask people to believe this, it is just crackpot lunacy.

Hancock and Bauval's argument rests completely on star alignments produced using Skyglobe software, the problematic weathering patterns on the Sphinx and a Spiritual-Mystic interpretation of the Pyramid texts. I agree that the PT's should be examined in this light, there is isn't anything which should convince us that HAncock and Bauval are correct in their interpretations either, they hardly experts in this field.

Discuss This Article: The Message Board