The Stargate Conspiracy (9 page)

While we appear to have two - apparently persuasive - independent lines of evidence, both astronomical and geological, converging on the date 10,500 BCE, both can easily be seen to be based on a distortion of the facts. Bauval reveals his enthusiastic belief that the two lines of research reinforce each other in the television documentary
The Mysterious Origins of Man
(1996) in which he states:

Opposite: Above —
The culmination of the constellation of Orion in
10,500 BCE. Note that the stars of Orion’s Belt are not in the ‘Giza
position’.
Below —
Orion as it should appear in the ‘Giza position’. This
has not happened since approximately 12,000 BCE.

We have seen that in fact the astronomy does no such thing where the pyramids are concerned, and that it provides no support for the redating of the Sphinx.

In 1996 Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock teamed up to write
Keeper of Genesis,
which develops the argument in favour of 10,500 BCE and elaborates on its significance. Much of their hypothesis is based on astronomical correlations between the Giza complex, descriptions of celestial events in the Pyramid Texts and the sky as it would have appeared in 10,500 BCE. Having reached that key date from just two dubious lines of argument — the ‘match’ between the Giza pyramids and Orion’s Belt and the water erosion of the Sphinx from the alleged wet period of the eleventh millennium BCE — they begin to extrapolate the meaning.

A key point of their argument is based on the idea that the Sphinx as a recumbent lion is intended to represent the constellation of Leo, which also implies that the ancient Egyptians recognised the signs of the zodiac in the same terms that we do today. There is no evidence for this, but for the sake of the argument let us accept that the Sphinx could have been intended to represent Leo. It carries a certain logic.

As the Sphinx faces directly east, Bauval and Hancock assume that it was intended to look towards its heavenly counterpart on the day that it rose with the sun exactly east, which only happened on the two annual equinoxes, at spring and autumn. Traditional astrology counts the spring equinox as the more important of the two. The astronomical Ages - of Pisces, Aquarius, and so on — are defined by the section of the sky (or astrological house) identified with the constellation against which the sun rises on the spring equinox at a given period. Because of the precession of the equinoxes, this constellation changes about every 2,160 years. For most of the last 2,000 years the sun has risen in Pisces, so we are said to be in the Age of Pisces. Next will come the Age of Aquarius. In 10,500 BCE the world was in the Age of Leo, which is why Hancock and Bauval believe the Sphinx was carved in the shape of a lion.

Such steps in their argument are only assumptions, which may or may not be valid. None constitutes proof, and there is no independent evidence to support any of them. We can accept each of them individually ‘for the sake of argument’, but remain cautious about any conclusions drawn from them, since we can by no means be sure of the basic premise.

Hancock and Bauval argue that 10,500 BCE represents the fabled First Time
(tep zepi)
when the ancient Egyptians believe their civilisation began. On the Sphinx Stela the Sphinx of Giza is described as, among other things, ‘presider over ... the splendid place of the First Time’,
⁷²
showing that Giza was associated in some way with
tep zepi.
Bauval and Hancock bolster their argument with computer simulations of the sky as it appeared in 10,500 BCE, finding other significant correlations that happened in or around that year. In fact several of these correlations actually happened not at one moment but on a whole range of dates, often several centuries on either side of 10,500 BCE. So why are they still homing in on that particular point in time?

Bauval and Hancock’s method was to find significant correlations between the stars and constellations in which they are interested — Orion, Leo, Sirius and the Sun - and to use them as added proof that the Giza complex was laid out specifically to ‘encode’ the importance of the year 10,500 BCE. But again, this is circular reasoning: they are only looking for correlations that happened in that year. Their logic for choosing that year in the first place is manifestly wrong.

To demonstrate this, we used SkyGlobe 3.6, the same computer sky map program they used, to find correlations in the year 8700 BCE that, by Bauval and Hancock’s reasoning, could be just as significant. For example, on the spring equinox of that year the sun rises at exactly the same moment as Regulus, the brightest star in Leo, which Bauval and Hancock call its ‘heart’. The sun, in fact, covers Regulus at the moment of sunrise. And, at exactly the same moment in the south, Orion’s Belt is in the ‘Giza position’ (as given by Robin J. Cook). If that had happened in 10,500 BCE, it could have been used as evidence that the year was especially significant.

It is curious that Hancock and Bauval should construct such a complicated (and contrived) argument to explain the astronomical significance of the Sphinx and its relationship with Leo, since there is a much simpler explanation - one that was originally suggested by none other than R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz.

He pointed out that, throughout most of Egypt’s early history, on the day of the first heliacal rising of Sirius - their New Year’s Day, the most sacred day of their calendar - the sun rose in Leo.
⁷³
Checking Schwaller de Lubicz’s idea using SkyGlobe, we found it to be correct. Between about 6000 BCE and 2500 BCE the sun did rise in Leo on the day of Sirius’s first heliacal rising. Therefore, if the Sphinx was intended to represent Leo, and was made to look eastwards towards the dawn and its heavenly counterpart, this would provide a much more logical - and considerably less convoluted - reason for its construction than the idea that its purpose was to pinpoint the year 10,500 BCE. This explanation also has the advantage of fitting Robert Schoch’s water erosion theory, which dates the Sphinx to between 7000 and 5000 BCE.

There is a major puzzle here. It was Schwaller de Lubicz — that great hero of Hancock, Bauval and West — who made these observations, so clearly they must know about them. Yet none of these authors so much as mentions this alternative explanation, clearly preferring to promote their own 10,500 BCE agenda.

The crucial point of
Keeper of Genesis,
however, was the ‘discovery’ of the existence of a secret chamber beneath the hindquarters of the Sphinx, as ‘revealed’ by astronomical correlations.
⁷⁴
Although meant to be the great revelation of the book, this is in fact its weakest point. At the spring equinox in 10,500 BCE, Leo rose directly east of the Sphinx, and therefore lay immediately under its gaze. At this moment the sun lies below the horizon, 12 degrees below Leo’s hind quarters. Bauval and Hancock assume that this is what the ancient Egyptians were trying to draw our attention to. Their so-called ‘Genesis Chamber’ can be found in an analogous position, a hundred feet under the Sphinx. What secrets would it hold!

Even if their arguments about the importance of 10,500 BCE were correct - and we have already seen that they lack firm foundations - why do they assume that this is connected with some coded message, sent across time to reveal the location of a completely hypothetical chamber? (On a more logical basis one could argue that the Sphinx might be
looking
at something of great significance. Follow its gaze today, however, and you find a Pizza Hut/Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet.)

There have been many criticisms of Bauval and Hancock’s astronomical hypothesis. During a 1998 lecture cruise around the coast of Alaska, Hancock found himself in the unusual position of being criticised by a fellow speaker, the leading archaeoastronomer Dr E.C. Krupp of the Griffith Observatory in California. He pointed out the flaws in the central argument of
Keeper of Genesis,
specifically that the Sphinx should be on the other side of the Nile for their claimed identification of Horakhti (another name for the Sphinx) with the constellation of Leo to work. Afterwards, Krupp reported his frustration that Hancock countered such challenges by evoking ‘artistic licence’ on the part of the ancient builders.
⁷⁵

Hancock’s major hypothesis is that there was an advanced civilisation before the last Ice Age, which came to an end around 10,500 BCE as the result of some global cataclysm that brought about the melting of the ice and the rising of sea levels. He claims that knowledge from that civilisation survived, filtering through to later cultures and resulting, for example, in the building of the pyramids some 8,000 years afterwards.

Above: Top -
A ground plan of the temples of Angkor.
Below -
The correlation between the constellation of Draco
and Angkor, according to Graham Hancock.

Opposite:
The closest match possible between Draco and Angkor.

Hancock has continued to expound this theory and the alleged significance of 10,500 BCE in his book (co-written with his wife, Santha Faiia)
Heaven’s Mirror
(1998) and the Channel 4/Discovery Channel television series
Quest for the Lost Civilization.
In both, he demonstrates the ubiquity of the significance of the date throughout the ancient world by examining the most colourful and mysterious sites in Europe, Central and South America, Egypt and the Far East. At all of these places he finds astronomical alignments that fit his theory, although when we double-checked they appeared to us to be highly contrived, very debatable — or often simply wrong.