[Back to
Contents]

Press Release
6th November 2000

From authors
Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval

Contents

News
article: Broadcasting watchdog vindicates unorthodox thinkers, Hancock and
Bauval, over controversial Horizon documentary

Official
Statement of the Broadcasting Standards Commission with regard to their
judgement of the Horizon documentary

Statement
of Graham Hancock

Statement
of Robert Bauval

(Appendix)
Arts of the Cutting Room: What was said and what was broadcast

Both Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval are available for interview.

For more information please visit http://www.grahamhancock.com/.

Broadcasting watchdog
vindicates unorthodox thinkers, Hancock and Bauval, over controversial Horizon
documentary about Atlantis

BBC2 to take unprecedented step of broadcasting a re-cut and
corrected version of the documentary this December

Hancock and Bauval challenge Horizon critics to a live
television debate

In an unprecedented step, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, an
organisation appointed to uphold standards and fairness in UK broadcasting, has
found the BBC guilty of unfairly representing alternative history authors
Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval in a
programme broadcast in November of last year.

The BBC 2 programme, entitled Atlantis Reborn, was part of the
flagship Horizon strand of science-oriented documentaries. The programme-makers,
Bettina Lerner (series editor), Christopher Hale (director/producer), and Julian
Hudson (researcher), claimed to provide a balanced and objective "testing" of
unorthodox theories relating to the development of human civilisation. Now the
Broadcasting Standards Commission has judged that the central part of their
attack on Hancock and Bauval was unfair. It appears this is the first time in
Horizon's 35-year history that it has been found guilty of unfairness by an
independent commission. The BSC's finding is therefore a severe blow to
Horizon's well-established reputation for even-handedness.

The complaint upheld by the BSC specifically concerned Horizon's unfair
representation of the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory, a linchpin of the wider
theories of Hancock and Bauval regarding the possibility of a forgotten chapter
in the history of human civilisation. The Giza-Orion Correlation Theory, which
links the layout of the famous three Pyramids of Giza with the three stars of
Orion's belt, was originated by Bauval and built upon by Hancock. Similarly, the
Nile is said to represent the Milky Way, and the Sphinx is associated with the
constellation of Leo. The major implication of the Correlation Theory is that
the ancient Egyptians deliberately designed the Giza monuments to create on the
ground a symbolic simulacrum of the night sky, focusing on the constellations of
Orion and Leo as they appeared in 10,500BC.

The Horizon documentary reported at length a 'debunking' of the Correlation
Theory presented by the astronomer Edwin Krupp. Krupp accused Bauval of somehow
fudging the maps of Orion and the Pyramids by placing them "upside down" in
order to make the theory work. Krupp's argument hinges on the modern convention
that 'north is up and south is down' in map-making. In interviews filmed with
Horizon, Hancock and Bauval provided detailed rebuttals to Krupp and argued that
the ancient Egyptians had made the Pyramids correlate in the most obvious and
intuitive manner with the three stars of Orion's Belt [see diagrams below].

Giza - The layout of the three Pyramids matches the
pattern of the three stars in Orion's Belt.

Krupp argues that if there was any connection with
Orion, the Pyramids should actually look like this.

Krupp's criticism was also rejected by two prominent British astronomers, Dr.
Percy Seymour of Plymouth University and Dr. Archie Roy, professor Emeritus at
Glasgow University. But neither of these astronomers was given an opportunity to
appear on the programme. Moreover, the programme-makers cut out Hancock's and
Bauval's own rebuttals of Krupp from the documentary. Consequently, "the
Commission considers that the omission of Mr Hancock's arguments was not
justified. It therefore finds that this was unfair to Mr Hancock."
Likewise, "as the originator of the Giza-Orion correlation theory, Mr
Bauval had a reasonable expectation that his own views of Dr Krupp's argument
would be included. They were not, and the Commission finds that this was unfair
to Mr Bauval." [See Draft Summary of BSC Adjudication, Page 9]

This adjudication confirms what appears to have been a clear violation on the
part of Horizon of a prime directive of the BBC, which is that whenever a
programme chooses to test or report an argument, "it must do so with fairness
and integrity [and] should insure that opposing views are not
misrepresented."

The BBC plan to rebroadcast a revised version of Atlantis Reborn on
December 14th, which will be edited to take full account of the BSC's
findings and prefaced with an acknowledgement of them. In an effort to move
forward and open up the debate, Hancock and Bauval have written to the BBC with
two requests. First, they have specified the changes they think are essential if
Atlantis Reborn is to be brought into line with Horizon's policy on
fairness and impartiality. Secondly, they have asked for a live television
debate involving themselves and other unorthodox thinkers versus the major
critics who appeared on Horizon to dismiss their work. In addition, Hancock has
requested the BBC's permission to publish the full, unedited transcripts of the
extensive on-camera interviews that he provided to the Horizon team during the
preparation of Atlantis Reborn. In his letter to Jane Root, Controller
of BBC 2, Hancock wrote:

I would like the BBC's permission to publish the complete uncut
and unedited transcripts of my two interviews with Horizon (in simple Q+A
format) as an appendix to a new edition of my best known book Fingerprints
Of The Gods -- which, to date, has sold more than four million copies
around the world and which continues to be the book that the public most
identifies me with. I feel it is important for both sides - Horizon and myself
-- that the record of what was actually said in these interviews should be
made completely transparent and accessible to the public. I assume the BBC
will have no objection to such public transparency and
accountability?

Both Hancock and Bauval have released statements [see pages 6 and 8]
outlining their feelings on the BSC's findings and their reasons for making
these requests to the BBC.

According to Hancock and Bauval, the ancient Egyptians
designed the Giza monuments to "lock" the date 10,500BC, an epoch they
knew as Zep Tepi, "The First Time". At dawn on the vernal equinox, the
Sphinx looked directly at its celestial counterpart, the constellation of
Leo, and the Sun rising beneath it. The Pyramids correlated with the belt
of Orion, the celestial counterpart of the god Osiris. The Nile appeared
to flow into the Milky Way.

Broadcasting Standards
Commission

Complaints by Mr Graham Hancock and Mr Robert Bauval

Summary of Adjudication

The Broadcasting Standards Commission has upheld in part complaints of unjust
or unfair treatment by Mr Graham Hancock and Mr Robert Bauval about Horizon:
Atlantis Reborn, broadcast by BBC2 on 4 November 1999.

Mr Hancock and Mr Bauval complained that they had been treated unjustly or
unfairly in the programme's presentation of their theories about the existence
of a lost civilisation from which all subsequent civilisations had derived.

The Commission considered that the programme-makers had acted in good faith,
giving Mr Hancock and Mr Bauval a fair opportunity to explain their theories,
and with one exception, fair opportunity to comment on criticisms. Therefore,
the Commission did not uphold most parts of the complaints. However, it found
that the programme's omission of Mr Hancock's and Mr Bauval's responses to
criticism of one important aspect of their theory, which related to a
correlation between the Giza pyramids and the Orion constellation, had been
unfair.

Accordingly, the complaints were upheld in part.

A full copy of the adjudication can be obtained by sending a stamped
addressed envelope to: the Broadcasting Standards Commission, 7 The Sanctuary,
London, SW1P 3JS. A copy of the summary will be available on the Commission's
website at www.bsc.org.uk.

Statement of Graham
Hancock

My original complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Commission dated 7
December 1999 was wide-ranging but at its heart were two points of unfairness
which I considered to be really serious and substantive - in the sense that it
would be a strong judgement against the conduct of the Horizon production team
if either were upheld. It was exclusively upon these two points that I focussed
my Statement to the Commissioners when the matter came before a Broadcasting
Standards Commission Hearing on 7 June 2000.

One of these key points concerned my reasons for questioning certain
carbon-dating results. In its final adjudication the Commission considered "that
it would have been preferable to have explored Mr Hancock's reasons in more
detail" but did not conclude that the BBC had been unfair to me. The other key
point concerned my arguments around the Giza-Orion correlation, which has been
fundamental to the broader theory of a lost civilisation that I have presented
in my books, Fingerprints of the Gods and Heaven's Mirror, and
in my Channel 4 TV series Quest for the Lost Civilisation. Here the
Commission found in my favour and sustained the charge against the BBC.

Just as the Giza-Orion Correlation is crucial to my broader theory, the BBC's
unfair discrediting of it was crucial to the rest of their programme. By
omitting my views, the Commission notes, the programme as broadcast gave the
false impression that I had no substantive argument to rebut Krupp on this
central point. The effects of this were not confined to the portrayal of the
Giza-Orion Correlation, but facilitated a general discrediting of my character,
swinging the audience against me. Had the BBC's representation of the Orion
correlation been fair, the rest of their programme would have lacked force.

So while I am very pleased to have been vindicated by the Broadcasting
Standards Commission, I am concerned that when Atlantis Reborn is
rebroadcast on 14 December 2000, it should be revised in a way that corrects the
unfairness right at its heart. Peripheral changes to the programme will not
suffice to bring it into line with the BBC's and Horizon's policies on fairness
and impartiality. That is why I have written to the BBC specifying the changes I
think have to be made to their programme. These changes primarily involve
reinstating my testimony regarding carbon-dating, and Bauval's and my rebuttals
of Dr. Krupp - things which should, as the BSC acknowledges, have been included
in the first place. [See Appendix]

In the further interests of full transparency and public accountability, I
have made two other proposals to the BBC.

First, I want them to consider producing a live debate,
immediately following the rebroadcast of Atlantis Reborn, in which Bauval and
myself are given a chance to meet our Horizon critics face-to-face. In a live
debate, the strength of our positions might actually be based on the strength of
our arguments, as there would be little scope for editing or other forms of
manipulation.

Secondly, I've asked the BBC's permission to publish the
full, uncut, unedited transcripts of the extensive interviews I provided to
Horizon in the forthcoming edition of my book, Fingerprints of the
Gods.

If there is one good thing that has come out of this whole extraordinary
affair it is that the Broadcasting Standards Commission have delivered a
complete vindication of Robert Bauval's Giza-Orion Correlation Theory. That the
BBC's flagship science programme had to resort to blatant unfairness in its
efforts to cast a slur upon the Correlation Theory is a sure sign of its
fundamental strength.

Graham Hancock
London
November 2000

Statement of Robert
Bauval

Horizon, according to the BBC, is "the world leader in its field [and]
regularly wins the sweep of international science, medical and environmental
film awards". So upon hearing of Horizon's plans to dedicate a programme to our
work, Graham Hancock and I were naturally thrilled that our theories would be
investigated in such a big way, and we were eager to participate.

During my interview for the programme, with the producer Chris Hale, I spoke
in detail of the astronomical significance of the Pyramids: the alignment of the
shafts to Orion and Sirius, the Pyramid Texts and how they associated Osiris
with Orion and, of course, of the layout plan of the Giza Pyramids and how they
matched the pattern of Orion's belt. Chris Hale then asked me about a serious
critical attack made by the American astronomer Ed Krupp, director of the
Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles. Krupp had alleged that I had somehow placed
the map of the Giza Pyramids "upside down" in order to match it with the star
map of Orion's belt. In response to Krupp's attack, I explained how we must try
to put ourselves in the position of an ancient Egyptian looking up at the sky. I
pointed out that at a conference, at which Ed Krupp was actually present,
members of the public were asked to draw Orion's Belt how they saw it, and
everyone's drawings matched perfectly the plan of the Pyramids at Giza, just as
shown in my book, The Orion Mystery. In addition, I referred Chris Hale
to two eminent astronomers who had openly rejected Krupp's argument, Dr.
Archibald Roy, professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Glasgow University, and Dr.
Percy Seymour of Plymouth University.

When my interview was shown on television, I was puzzled and shocked that it
had been heavily edited. Dr. Roy and Dr. Seymour had been ignored and were not
invited to appear on the programme. There was hardly mention of the Pyramid
Texts and how they extolled the role of Osiris as Orion, and no mention at all
of the alignment of the southern shafts of the Great Pyramid towards Orion's
Belt and Sirius. All this had been cut out. The Orion's Belt-Giza correlation
was presented with hardly any support from textual material or the astronomical
alignment of the shafts! I was made to sound flimsy and weird. But worse than
that, Ed Krupp's attack on the Correlation theory was presented in detail, while
absolutely nothing of my detailed response was shown. I was appalled that the
BBC had allowed Krupp to tell millions of viewers that in order to make my
theory work, I had to "turn Egypt upside down" or "turn the sky upside down",
without airing my response or at least having Dr. Roy rebut such a preposterous
accusation.

I lodged a formal complaint with the BBC and the Broadcasting Standards
Commission (BSC). The BSC decided to take up the case and, several months later
after a complete investigation, a hearing was held. When they finally made their
adjudication in September 2000, my complaint regarding Ed Krupp's argument was
upheld. Now the BBC will be ordered by the BSC to make this complaint public by
airing it on television as well as placing an official statement in The
Times newspaper. It seems that this was the first time a complaint had been
upheld against Horizon by the BSC, and this made my victory all the more
important. But what was even more rewarding to me was that my book, The
Orion Mystery, and the theory it presented had survived the onslaught of
the BBC's most powerful scientific programme. And it was certainly no credit to
them that the producer, Chris Hale, had to lower their standards by presenting
the Ed Krupp argument in such an unfair way. I remain as convinced, indeed more
convinced now, that the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory is based on truth and will
serve as a landmark in furthering our knowledge of the Pyramid Builders of
Egypt. A breakthrough has been achieved in understanding the minds of the
ancient priest-astronomers of Heliopolis, and there is no turning back.

The BBC now plans to re-broadcast this programme on the 14 December taking
into account the findings of the BSC and will, hopefully, present the counter
arguments given by Dr. Roy and myself. I have asked the BBC to allocate some
time for an unedited debate after the programme is shown.

Robert Bauval
London
November 2000

Appendix

Arts of the Cutting Room:
What was said and what was broadcast

Part One - Interview transcripts containing
Graham Hancock's Position on Carbon-Dating

The BBC Horizon Documentary "Atlantis Reborn" asserted that I "insist on
ignoring" carbon-dating, "not even rejecting it, just ignoring it", but the
original interview transcripts tell a different story. Passages in large bold
type are what I was actually allowed to say in the programme as broadcast;
passages in normal type were edited out in the cutting room.

INTERVIEWER:

What convinces you that the date of the Tiahuanaco
site is much, much older than conventional archaeology, as they call it, would
accept. What do you think is the convergence of evidence about the Tiahuanaco
date?

HANCOCK:

I need to answer your question more broadly at first. I think that in the
case of many ancient sites around the world the picture of the history of the
site is confused by the fact that the site is constantly built on and rebuilt
and rebuilt again over long periods of time. The ancient Egyptians had a habit
of building temples on the sites of earlier temples. And I think the same thing
happened in the Andes as well. A place that had a name or a reputation as a
sacred place might be the site for a succession of monuments built by different
cultures over long periods of time.

In the case of Tiahuanaco, I think that orthodox archaeology has concentrated
more than it perhaps should have on the latest layers of occupation and
construction at Tiahuanaco and has not considered the possibility that the
origins of the site may be much older than that

Now the odd thing is that I was quite recently in Bolivia and a held a
lengthy on-the-record interview with Dr Oswaldo Rivera who was the former Head
of Bolivian Archaeology. And what Rivera told me is that his own team's
calculations at Tiahuanaco, to his surprise, do tend to support Posnansky's
argument - that this site was originally surveyed and set out thousands of years
before the date that we thought it was built. And Rivera, unusually amongst
academics, is prepared to consider the idea of a much earlier level of
civilisation at Tiahuanaco, going back 12,000 years or more, and he points out
that we've only excavated about two per cent of that site at present, and we
really can't draw firm and final conclusions about Tiahuanaco on the basis of a
two per cent excavation.

Q:

One thing that's struck me, in fact from what you
just said and from reading the book, is that the site has been damaged. Does
that cause the alignments you're talking about to be problematic in any way?

HANCOCK;

It might do. It might do. What I'm advocating where Tiahuanaco is concerned
is a much more wide-ranging and open-minded investigation of the origins of that
site. I'm not saying that I am absolutely right in claiming that Tiahuanaco may
have been founded more than 12,000 years ago. I could be completely wrong. And
the fact that the site itself has been used as a quarry for at least the last
150 years by the builders of La Paz and other areas in Bolivia has certainly
damaged and devastated that site. But I don't think that should stop us from
considering the many mysteries and problems connected with Tiahuanaco.

Q:

When you look at a site like Tiahuanaco and
evidence about it's dating, what significance would a 12,000 year-old-date have
for your argument? The confusion I've had from people looking at some of the
material is, "does he think this is Atlantis?", "does he think this is the lost
civilisation, or is it the product of people from the lost civilisation." How do
you use dates of that period in your argument?

HANCOCK:

I'm interested in the possibility that the date of particular ancient sites
around the world may have been misconceived by orthodox academics. Giza is a
classic example. That there may have been masses of activity at that site in
2500 BC but that its possible that elements of the site go back long before
that, into a prehistoric period. And it was that same possibility at Tiahuanaco
that intrigued me. It is a plain fact not much more than 2 per cent of the
entire area of Tiahuanaco has been excavated so far. And for archaeologists to
date a firm and absolute dating of the site on the basis of that two per cent
seems to me a bit irresponsible - when there are indications of the site being
older than that.

HANCOCK:

I think what's important to stress about Tiahuanaco is that this is a
mysterious site about which very little is known. Minimal archaeology has been
done over the years. There's a broad range of opinion about the antiquity of
Tiahuanaco within orthodox circles. And certainly, within orthodox circles, I
have talked to some archaeologists who do admit the possibility of the site
being much older. What I've tried to do is to show people who read my books that
the case on Tiahuanaco is not cut and dried, that there is an alternative view,
that its possible that mainstream archaeology has got this wrong, and that
perhaps much more work with a much more open mind needs to be done on the site
before we settle our minds absolutely as to the antiquity of the site.

Q:

Are you aware of the amount of carbon-14 dating
that has been carried out at Tiahuanaco in recent years?

HANCOCK:

There's been a lot of carbon-14 dating carried out at Tiahuanaco. And
carbon-14 dating, for me, says that this site was used and occupied at the date
that that carbon-14 material comes from. It doesn't mean that the site was
necessarily built at that time, or was originally laid out and planned at that
time. This could have happened earlier. It would be possible, for example to go
to Westminster Abbey and carbon-14 date a recent burial in the graveyard at
Westminster Abbey, and say that Westminster Abbey was built in 1950 as a result
of that dating, but that would not be correct. The site is much older and it was
used through different periods of history - so I think we have to be a bit
careful about carbon-14, particularly where megalithic sites are concerned,
where we're dealing with stone monuments, carved and cut stone.

Q:

Why do you not make that argument in the book? Why
do you not refer to carbon-14 in the book?

HANCOCK:

I do make the argument in the book [Fingerprints of the Gods]. I do
specifically talk about the problem I have with carbon-14 dating, which is that
it dates the organic artefact which has been found; it does not conclusively
date the site that surrounds that artefact. I do actually make that point quite
explicitly in the book.

Q:

In the case of a site like Tiahuanaco, what
evidence is there of an earlier series of structures in that location?

HANCOCK:

The huge megalithic blocks that are sitting around, at Tiahuanaco, seem to me
so out of character with later architecture from that area that it suggests to
me it belongs to a much earlier era. I think the astronomical indications on the
site are intriguing but not conclusive and I think, above all else for me
personally, its as much intuition as anything else - the site feels wrong for
the date range that is ascribed to it by orthodox archaeologists. It just feels
older. It's very difficult to prove anything like this, and I'm not trying to
prove it. What I'm trying to do is to raise questions and to say "here is an
intriguing and strange place, which we really know very, very little about: we
don't really know what language was spoken there; we don't know what religious
ideas were practised there; we don't really know what the people looked like who
lived there." It just comes down to us out of the blue without it's past
properly written. And I think what's needed with a place like that, rather than
a fixed and determined view to deprive it of all mystery and render it as boring
and predictable as possible, I think it would be nice if orthodox scholars
approached it with a slightly more generous and a more open attitude, and at
least a willingness to be amazed, rather than writing that off at the outset. So
I've tried to restore the balance by offering alternative information on
Tiahuanaco and reporting the work of others who have suggested that Tiahuanaco
may be older. We may be wrong, but I think it's worth investigating this.

Q:

But when you look at a technique like
carbon-dating it is precisely the blocks, the various structures at Tiahuanaco
that are dated using the radiocarbon dating technique.

HANCOCK:

Well, it beats me how a block can be dated using radiocarbon. If we look
underneath the block and find organic material under the block then we can say
that that block was placed on top of that organic material at a particular date
- which does not preclude the possibility that the block has been moved around
several times and that the temple we have on Tiahuanaco has been constructed and
reconstructed again and again over thousands of years. This is perfectly
possible and cannot be ruled out by the carbon-dating at all.

[NB the next question comes 47 pages later in the transcript (and three hours
and a lunchbreak later in real time) than the previous question on carbon-dating
at Tiahuanaco]

Q:

Is there a representation in Heaven's Mirror of
recent carbon-dates for Tiahuanaco?

HANCOCK:

In Heaven's Mirror there is no representation
whatsoever of recent carbon dates for Tiahuanaco. I simply didn't discuss it in
there.

Q:

Would it not be appropriate to, in a sense,
discuss it in relation to Tiahuanaco so that your readers have the chance to see
the point from which you are debating the age of the site?

HANCOCK:

I'm interested in certain aspects of the site and those are the interests
that I pursue in my book - which I'm free to do as an author. I'm not
required to be encyclopaedic. I'm required to pursue my case and my
argument to the best of my ability.

The information on carbon-dating at Tiahuanaco is available and anybody can
get hold of it and look at it at any time and arrive at their conclusions. But
they don't need to see that information to know that what I'm saying is
completely at variance with orthodox academic opinion. I'm arguing something
that is absolutely not accepted and one of the reasons its not accepted is
because of the carbon-dating. But I have a problem with carbon-dating.
Carbon-dating tends to, its one of those phrases that people listen to and they
picture very grave and serious scientists going about their work and coming up
with definitive conclusions about the past. But carbon-dating can only date
organic materials. It can't date stone. And when we're dealing with sites that
are made of huge stone megaliths I think it may be a little bit hasty to date
the creation of those megaliths to the same date as some organic material that
has been found associated with those megaliths. And that's one of the main
problems that I have with carbon-dating.

Q:

Of course that would apply to many thousands of
archaeological sites all over the world?

HANCOCK:

It would apply to many thousands of archaeological sites all around the
world. I think that first of all there's a degree of ignorance about
carbon-dating. There's a tendency to believe that its some sort of infallible,
foolproof method that can be applied to any ancient site at any time, and it
can't be applied to stone. This is a very important point. And secondly, applied
to organic materials, we have to make an assumption that the organic artefact
that we have found arrived at the site at the same date as the site was made -
and that assumption may not be correct. So I think we need to look at other
information about the site, including astronomy, including geology, before we
fall hook, line and sinker for the date that is given to us by radiocarbon.

Q:

I suppose my point would be that, in a sense it would be surely perfectly
legitimate and interesting for Heaven's Mirror to make those points about
Tiahuanaco. I mean there are now extensive dates from radiocarbon.

HANCOCK:

In earlier books, in Fingerprints of the Gods, I did debate the
radiocarbon issue. No doubt there are many things that I should have reported in
my books which I somehow missed or didn't report, but I honestly do my best to
report as much as I can and to make my case. That's what I'm doing; I'm making a
case. When one makes a case one admits one may be wrong. But here is the case,
its out there for readers to work with, they can take the material - and I know
they frequently do - and pursue their own research projects. I think in a way,
much though I may be reviled by orthodox academics, and particularly by
historians, archaeologists, Egyptologists, that I've done quite a bit to attract
public attention to this field and to the consideration of the mysteries of the
past. And surely, even if I'm 100 per cent wrong, and I don't think I am, then
I've done something useful there - by making people interested and intrigued by
the past.

Part II - Interview Scripts containing
Graham Hancock's Position on Ed Krupp's critique of the Orion
Correlation.

On page 4 of the script of "Atlantis Reborn" the astronomer Dr Ed Krupp tells
how he discovered that "something was wrong" (in The Orion Mystery) with
Robert Bauval's presentation of the picture of Orion's belt and the picture of
the three great pyramids of Giza:

"What's wrong with these pictures in their
presentation is that north for the constellation of Orion is here at the top of
the page. North for the Giza pyramids is down here. Now they're not marked, but
I knew which way north was at Giza and I knew which way north was in Orion. To
make the map of the pyramids on the ground match the stars of Orion in the sky
you have to turn Egypt upside down and if you don't want to do that then you've
got to turn the sky upside down."

As my response to this, the BBC's editors cut together the following sound
bites from the interviews that I gave to the Horizon production team
(page 4 of the script):

"Ed Krupp's argument that the pyramids are somehow
upside down in relation to the patterns of the stars in the sky, to my mind, is
a very pedantic and nit-picking and ungenerous attitude. I think that what we're
proposing -- that the Ancient Egyptians were making a pleasing, symbolic
resemblance to what they saw in the sky on the ground -- is a very reasonable
argument."

The original interview transcripts show exactly what was cut from around and
within this apparently dismissive remark (passages in large bold type are what I
was actually allowed to say in the programme as broadcast; passages in normal
type are what was cut out in the editing):

INTERVIEWER

OK. If as you say the Egyptians were precise
astronomers, why did they get the map of the pyramids upside down?

HANCOCK:

Ed Krupp's argument that the pyramids are somehow upside-down in
relation to the patterns of the stars in the sky, to my mind is a very pedantic
and nit-picking and ungenerous attitude. If you stand on the Giza
plateau, and you stand north of the pyramids and you look south to where the
constellation of Orion is, and you treat that piece of desert in front of you as
an artist's sheet of paper, and you try to draw the stars on it, then there's no
other way you could draw them except in the way that the pyramids lie on the
ground today. You can't do it in any other way. If you're extremely pedantic and
believe that the ancient Egyptian priesthood was a group of narrow-minded
bureaucrats determined to follow procedure above all else, then its true that
the northernmost star is depicted in the southernmost place on the ground, and
the southernmost star in the northernmost 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.

Q:

To me, that contradicts the idea of talking about
the Egyptians as precise astronomers.

HANCOCK:

I don't see why there's a contradiction between recognising the precision of
Egyptian astronomy, which Ed Krupp certainly does - the alignment of the Great
Pyramid to north, south, east and west is extremely good and nobody could deny
that. I don't see why doing that, making your pyramid align perfectly to the
cardinal directions, should preclude you from producing a recognisable
resemblance to what you see in the sky on the ground. If you were to do it Ed
Krupp's way it wouldn't be a recognisable resemblance. It would be upside-down
from what you actually see in the sky. And I think that we have to take account
of the religious context that surrounds these monuments. I think we have to take
account of the view that there are texts, I fully accept that these texts are
not contemporary with the pyramids but I regard ancient Egyptian funerary
literature as a consistent body of scripture. There are texts which specifically
instruct the observer to make a copy on the ground of what you see in the sky
and to gain knowledge of that and through that knowledge you will be able to
pursue immortal life. I think that what we're proposing, that the
ancient Egyptians were making a pleasing symbolic resemblance to what they saw
in the sky on the ground is a very reasonable argument.It can be
opposed by Krupp's argument, but the fact of the matter is that if you ask
somebody to draw what they see in the sky they're going to draw it the way the
pyramids are drawn. I actually had Ed Krupp's wife do that at a conference a
year or two ago."

NB: In addition to the above comment on the existence of ancient Egyptian
scriptural support for copying on the ground what is seen in the sky, I
willingly gave the BBC a great deal of specific supplementary information on
this matter in their recorded interviews with me. All of this supplementary
information was also ignored. Indeed the script treats my entire argument in
this respect as though it simply does not exist.

[Back to
Contents]

Site design and maintenance by Amazing Internet Ltd.
Site privacy policy.
Contact us.