In fact Hancock has turned his and other's ideas into what looks like quite a lucrative industry as a search at Amazon.com will illustrate. The fact that he has not been welcomed with open arms by the world of archaeology should be enough to set alarm bells ringing. What exactly are his claims and how good is the evidence? Seeing alignments between astronomical phenomena and ancient structures is not hard to do but it is very difficult to prove one way or the other that the structures were built to such alignments. There are an awful lot of stars, to take one example, visible in the night sky (and even more in earlier times before light pollution) and therefore a huge number of possible alignments - though it does help if your chosen star is part of a recognized constellation of ancient origin. This is what Robert Bauval, with Adrian Gilbert, claims to have found - namely that the pattern of the stars in the Belt of Orion is echoed by the three 4th Dynasty pyramids on the Giza Plateau. Furthermore owing to the phenomenon of precession the likely date for the layout of the pyramids to match the stars of Orion is about 10,500 BCE. ( As Hancock has pointed out this is NOT to claim that the pyramids are that ancient but that their alignment merely commemorates that date.) This matches nicely with Hancock's espousal of the idea, by no means new or original, of an ancient civilization that is at least that old and that formed the basis of various cultures around the world.
Much obviously rests on the Orion/Pyramid/10,500 BCE connection - but how firm are Bauval and Hancock's conclusions? The BBC television program Horizon is a well respected documentary series that took a hard look at Hancock's (and Bauval's) best evidence and found it wanting. The pyramid/Orion alignment does not stand close examination - astronomer Dr Ed Krupp (Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles) has shown that the pattern of stars in the Belt of Orion is not a particularly good fit - and this is before it is found that either the structures on the Giza Plateau or the stars need to be "mirrored" to obtain anything like an alignment.
"If you're extremely pedantic and believe that the Ancient Egyptians' priesthood was a group of narrow-minded bureaucrats determined to follow procedure above all else then it's true that the northern most star is depicted in the southern most place on the ground and the southern most star in the northern most place on the ground and this is what Ed Krupp is getting at, but if you regard it as a work of symbolic and religious art meant to copy on the ground what the observer sees in the sky then there's just no other way you can make it than the way it is made." Graham Hancock, Horizon, BBCTV, 14th December 2000
This is before one asks why are just the famous 4th Dynasty pyramids treated in this way and not the many others that dot the landscapes of
Egypt and
Sudan? There is good evidence that the Giza pyramids are aligned to the north,
apparently using the
two stars that circle the celestial pole, with the detailed positioning on the plateau itself attributable to the local geology. Hancock's answer to
all this in the Horizon program was little more than handwaving - saying the
Ancient Egyptian Priesthood were not "anal-retentive
bureaucrats" and that for him the alignments do not have to be
very accurate. Considering this is supposed to some of his best evidence it does not bode well for his other "findings".
"I don't need every pyramid in Egypt to map a star in the sky. The people who built these monuments were making a grand symbolic statement that was supposed to be understood on an intuitive and spiritual
level." Graham Hancock, Horizon, BBCTV, 14th December 2000
Another alignment that Hancock claims to have discovered is between certain structures in the amazing jungle ruins of
Angkor Wat and the constellation of
Draco. (These ancients must have had wonderful cultural continuity, not proven elsewhere, as Angkor is about 3000 years younger than the Giza
pyramids.) Here again we find Hancock apparently selecting a few structures from amongst many (10 out of
60 plus) to find what is again a pretty poor alignment fit. Dr Eleanor
Mannika, of the University of Michigan, points out that the
Khmer builders of Angkor were good surveyors, too good for shoddy alignments. She also draws attention to the fact although Hancock claims the jungle structures align significantly with the stars of Draco, this particular constellation is mentioned nowhere in the extensive inscriptions found onsite.
Perhaps buildings built by the "lost civilization" itself provide better backing for Hancock's theories? One that takes us back to Giza is the
Sphinx (this page
has some great pictures but is consequently slow to load) which Hancock claims is older than conventional archaeology estimates. In fact so old, 12,000 years, that it may be an artifact of the mysterious precursors of the ancient Egyptians and others. It is claimed, and not just by Hancock, that weathering of the rock of the Sphinx
(see below) was caused by rainfall and consequently belongs to the time when the land of Egypt's climate was a lot wetter than within recorded history.
The weathering, which undoubtedly exists, is a feature of the crystals of
salts in faults found in the limestone that forms the Sphinx and does not
require a wetter climate, according to geological orthodoxy. Hancock's other proposed site at
Tiahuanaco, Bolivia is certainly mysterious and very popular on speculative, New Age web sites but is carbon-dated to about 2000 years before the present - no lost race from prehistory there then - at least not the one Hancock postulates. Any alignments, claimed by one Arthur Posnansky, at the site are also difficult to prove as the Spaniards in the 17th century tore down a lot of the structures and used some of the debris to build a nearby
cathedral.(See this excellent
page for more on Tiahuanaco)
Carbon dating, the validity of which is accepted with some caveats by most archaeologists
is ignored by Hancock. In an interview in Horizon when asked about the omission in his writings
he baldly stated that he simply "did not discuss
it". Apparently where Hancock's theories are concerned the normal, acceptable standards of evidence do not apply. This attitude to evidence that contradicts and refutes his claims places him firmly in the cult archaeology camp, within calling distance of other camps such as Sasquatch
Hunters, Hollow Earthers, Ghost Hunters,
Astrologers and the rest.
Diving to
Conclusions
In what to some observers may look like desperation Hancock has claimed his lost civilization occupied Antarctica - the only problem with this is that ice cores
show that the current inclement climate has obtained for well over the last
100,000 years. (The Piri
Re'is map notwithstanding.) His claimed structures on the seabed off the coast of Japan have been pronounced natural by
Prof. Robert Schoch, a geologist at Boston University. Schoch has dived in the area in question with Hancock and independently. His actual words are
"I'm convinced it's a natural structure." Hancock's answer to this is that he feels that 50 dives would be necessary to reach a conclusion. Given that, as far as 80 can ascertain, Hancock is not a geologist, how many dives did he make to reach HIS conclusion - 100, 200?
( It is worth noting that Schoch
far from being a typical establishment naysayer is an advocate of a
pre-dynastic date for the Sphinx and would seem to be in agreement with
Hancock's "lost civilization" theory - his webpage address is
hosted at www.teamatlantis.com
!)
The one place where Hancock and his unsustainable theories are an unquestioned success is on the shelves of bookstores around the world. Sadly they can be found often in the Science/Archaeology section instead of their true home - Mind, Body, Spirit.
In addition to the books on his "lost early civilization" idea there can be added tomes on the Ark of the Covenant (here's the blurb....Part fascinating scolarship and part entertaining adventure yarn, tying together some of the most intriguing tales of all time - from the Knight's Templar and Prester John to Parsival and the Holy Grail - this book will appeal to anyone fascinated by the revelation of hidden truths, the discovery of secret
mysteries.) and an old favorite of 80's,
The Face on Mars (the back cover blurb goes like
this.....Megaliths found on the parched shores of Cydonia, a former Martian ocean, mirror the geometrical conventions of the pyramids at Egypt's Giza necropolis. Especially startling is a Sphinx-like structure depicting a face with distiguishable diadem, teeth, mouth and an Egyptian style
headdress. If Hancock is not already in contact with Richard Hoagland
they definitely ought to get in touch) What he is good at, and if book sales are anything to go by, spectacularly so, is getting just the right mix of cult archaeology and speculation in his works, to sell in vast numbers to a general public who have a genuine interest in humankind's past and development but not the knowledge or perhaps the will to question these ultimately daft theories. Hancock is guilty, and he is far from alone in this, in exploiting a perfectly natural sense of awe and wonder, a thirst for understanding the past, by offering what are, in the final analysis, a few glittering trinkets. On closer inspection these turn out to be worthless, and add little or nothing to the sum of archaeological knowledge.
"I believe passionately that the past has been misrepresented and that people today are not being given the full picture and I don't think that my arguments are ever going to be successfully destroyed by
nit-picking." Graham Hancock, Horizon, BBCTV, 14th December 2000
In writing the above 80 has made extensive use of the BBC's Horizon program,
"Atlantis Reborn
Again" a transcript of which is available online.
Here are some web sites that are definitely well worth a look -
Doug's Archaeology Site is a rich source of links to not only
refutations of cult archaeology but also links to plenty of the real
thing. An outstanding site for information on the subjects discussed here
is In The Hall of Maat. Also very useful is Frank Doernenburg's page The
Truth About Orion with a detailed examination of the Pyramid/Orion so-called alignments. (Why do these people always pick on the poor old pyramids at Giza? - see
Past View Birthday Triangle Pyramid - also go
here for an amazing satellite image of the Giza Pyramids amongst other subjects).
Here is Hancock's own
page on the Horizon program - his representation of things is as
accurate as his archaeological musings - although 80
must give him credit for linking to a less than glowing review by David
Aaronovitch in the UK newspaper, The
Independent. As ever 80 is indebted to The
Skeptic's Dictionary - an indispensable work of reference.
Miscellany
If you feel tempted to test your biblical knowledge the snappily titled Freedom from Religion Foundation has a quiz which is most enlightening - called
What Do You Really Know About the
Bible? The format is multiple choice and some of the answers are astounding - but you are given chapter and verse so that you can check in your own bible - you DO have one surely? 80 scored highly (you have to take that on trust) which would surprise a recent correspondent who accused 80 of not having read the good book. Yes even a
"liberal left indoctrinated Bible hating devotee of the religion of
evolution" can read the bible, my angry friend.
This one is special - Just Another Rock.......Or A Giant Fossil On The
Moon? It is said the eye of faith can see anything - well for the perpetrator of this site the Apollo 17 astronauts were pictured next to a giant fossilized Moon Arthropod. (Be thankful for small mercies - at least this person accepts the astronauts
DID go to the
Moon.) Probably not the best choice of Apollo mission for such a claim - Apollo 17 was the only Moon mission to pack a geologist, Harrison Schmidt, who is in fact pictured next to the "fossil". 80 can't help but think that he would have spotted such a beast especially as he chipped samples from it for analysis. Here is a
saner view of the same scene.
Quotes
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". Philip K. Dick
"At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice, and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytising zeal on behalf of religious or political idols." Aldous Huxley
"Why would God sacrifice Himself to Himself to make Himself change the rules He made Himself?" anonymous- but tell 80 if you know - please.
"Now this really annoys me: All these people getting on the Internet and saying Nostradamus predicted this. If Nostradamus were alive today his name would be Miss Cleo and he'd be charging $2.99 a minute." Jay Leno on all the internet claptrap after September 11th.
