Graham Hancock on archaeology: what the evidence says · JRE #2215
SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGY
Not a true/false call. Every claim is logged with its sources; read the exhibits below.
when we work precession into the equation, we find that they're not laid out in the pattern of Orion's belt as it looked in 2500 BC when the pyramids are supposed to have been built. They're laid out in the pattern of Orion's belt in 10,500 BC, 12,500 years ago.
What the evidence says 01 / RECORD
This restates the Orion Correlation Theory advanced by Robert Bauval and popularized by Hancock, which mainstream Egyptology and archaeoastronomy reject. Physical and textual evidence dates the three Giza pyramids to the Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom, roughly 2550 to 2490 BC (about 4,500 years ago), built for Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure, not to 10,500 BC. Professional astronomers who examined the alignment (notably Ed Krupp of the Griffith Observatory and Tony Fairall of the University of Cape Town) found the layout of the two outer pyramids sits about 38 degrees from north while Orion's Belt in 10,500 BC sat closer to 47 to 50 degrees, so the claimed fit for that epoch is not exact and requires inverting the constellation to force a match. Archaeologists more broadly characterize Hancock's lost Ice Age civilization thesis, which the 10,500 BC dating supports, as pseudoarchaeology that cherry-picks evidence.
Evidence sources 03 / EXHIBITS
Who Benefits
The Orion correlation and its 10,500 BC dating underpin Hancock's lost advanced civilization thesis, the subject of his books and Netflix series from which he profits.