Talk:Graham Hancock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.


Whatever people think about this guy and however he does his research we have to have a NPOV on this. --Lukeisham 07:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree -I hope that you think my additions have not changed this. The Horizon programme is certainly an important issue for pro and anti-Hancock-ers adamsan 23:45 18 April 2004 (BST)

Yep, fair enough, Adamsan. I like the format of a factual/details paragraph and then paragraphs dealing with the controversy. --Lukeisham 00:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Hancock is either one of two thing: A man who is lying and doesn't know it, or a man who is lying and does. I don't know which is worse. I am the one who edited the page originally to show the facts; that he's a New Age pseudoscientist and pseudoarchaeologist. These facts are established and not debatable in any sort of informed setting. However, I know that if I change it back, someone will just come behind me and give it the so-called 'fair' treatment. So I wash my hands of the whole affair. If Wikipedia wants to provide bad or wrong information, well, who am I to stop them? --jerryb1961

My personal opinion is that the man is a clever con-man exploiting the public's thirst for fantastic tales just deeply, deeply stupid or just lacks any discriminatory thought processes at all. Either way, I agree that the vast corpus of material that explicitly or implicitly makes a mockery of his emissions should be acknowledged in the article and I have had a go at it. I am willing to take on the role you have vacated and will watch this page to be sure that any pro-Hancock sentiments get a paragraph detailing precisely why his latest theory is a load of BS. Adamsan 22:50, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, so I disagree with Hancock and think that he works outside the academic world but we can't call him a pseudoscientist because that term sounds just as crackpot as his claims. Isn’t it better in neutral terms to describe what he claims and then show clearly and carefully the evidence against him? Doesn't that debunk far more effectively then calling him a pseudoarchaeologist? Furthermore how is something not debatable? --Lukeisham 11:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with Lukeisham that Graham Hancock should not be called 'pseudoscientist', becaue GH doesn't pretend to be a scientist at all. He could be called so if he pretended to have scientific knowlegde, or untruly attributed himself any scientific titles. He does not do so. Everyone may speculate about some unexplained (or not fully explained) things and it does not make him 'pseudoscientist' unless he claims to be a scientist. Everyone may take part in a debate and it doesn't make him a stupid person or a liar. Thus, I hold the term 'pseudoscientist' to be pejorative and POV -- (Critto, but unlogged)
His highly flexible approach to the available evidence does show a disingenousness and I don't think he has to make the statement I am a scientist before we're allowed to prefix that with 'pseudo'. He does try to be scientific: the New Scientist review of 'Underworld' linked at the bottom of the article says Sad though this stuff is, there are some signs that Hancock is now trying to understand the scientific norms he continues to "challenge". Speculation is fine but he continues to fail to produce any evidence, he misleads the public (by claiming links between Easter Island and Giza for goodness sake) and he craftily edits television interviews with others to wrongly give the impression his views have support. All these techniques are those of someone who examines a scientific subject without using objective scientific methods. That is pseudoscience which wikipedia also defines as ...any body of knowledge purporting...to be of an even higher standard of knowledge. That describes Hancock's entire corpus. That he surrounds his outlandish statements with phrases such as to my mind this looks like... and ...could there be something the archaeologists have missed? provides a figleaf of harmless speculation hiding the pseudoarchaeology of his approach. I have adjusted my opinion of Hancock written above as he must at least be cleverer that the people who continually buy his books. adamsan 08:30, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I wonder how many have actually read beyond the opening sentences of one of Mr. Hancock's books. --Jibegod 21:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jibegod. I certainly welcome your additions and admit that I've only seen Hancock's TV work and haven't sprung for any of his books. I do dislike the use of 'show' to describe Horizon though. Although the programme isn't as good as it was, I do feel the term has pejorative overtones. I also feel that 'which all ancient historical civilizations sprang' ought to be replaced with 'which he believes all ancient historical civilizations sprang'. adamsan 22:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough --jibegod 19:42, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] May 2005 Edits

The following has been edited into the article: Considering that his analysis of data suggests many mistakes and errors of judgement on the behalf of historical academics, their defensive view of Hancock is to be expected. In his own defense, Hancock claims that the orthodox establishment only maintains their arguments based on erroneous data for the sake of preserving their academic reputation

  • Because of course, Hancock doesn't need to prove his theories, it's everyone else who is wrong.
If that's your point of view, then you should be more supportive of my edits. If you're just being fascetious, I'm not surprised. GabrielAPetrie

One example is the ignoring by egyptologists of the evidence, backed by geological researchers, that the weathering of the Sphynx would have required a torrential downpouring of rain over a prolonged period of time, placing its origins not in the pharaonic era but before that time when the region of the historically arid Sahara still sustained tropical, rainforest weather. As for the reason why Egyptologists refuse to consider the evidence of geologists in determining the actual era of the creation of the Sphynx, Hancock also cites documented incidences of the destruction of archeaological evidence and even the strong-arming of unorthodox researchers in the fields of egyptology and archeaology by their respected establishments.

  • Please follow the links at the bottom of the page. eg From the Horizon transcript:

"But the [Sphinx] erosion argument has not stood up to the scrutiny of geologists. Erosion on the Giza plateau does not depend on water. The Giza limestones contain salts and these have proved to cause destructive levels of erosion in very short periods of time. There is no hard evidence that the Sphinx is any older than the orthodox date. "

On the other hand, other geologists (there are more than two) insist that the vertical erosion on the sphynx could not have been caused by available rainfall since the (establishment-)alleged era of its construction, and could not have been formed by blowing wind, either. While wind has caused horizontal erosions on the sphynx, geologists have asserted that the vertical erosions on the sphynx, sphynx temple, and osirion must have been caused by torrential rainfall. Other megaliths at giza since the (establishment-)alleged date of not just the sphynx but every other monument there do not also show the same erosion. GabrielAPetrie

However, considering that the numbers and densities of 'famous' (read: arbitrary) landmarks in the region of New York are much higher than the numbers, densities, and prominence of ancient temples per their regions, that rebuttle has little relevance.

  • The temple complex at Ankor Watt has numerous sites to which Hancock has also applied celebrity (read:arbitrary) significance in his dot-to-dots whilst ignoring others. (see quote below)
The rebuttle of Angkor/Draco is really limited to itself. Angkor, first of all, is not as ancient as any of the other sites which Hancock discusses. Hancock asserts that it was probably planned with the same spiritual purpose in mind but clearly the temples are not similar in terms of megalithic feats and other suprises. Angkor does not share the same antiquity or the same megalithic feat as the other temples, and so of course it does make a good comparison to other modern, sprawling sites such as New York City. However, you can't pull the same brush-off with the alignments Giza/Orion+Leo or any of the other sites/constellations that deal with much fewer points and of far greater prominence per site. GabrielAPetrie

In actuality, the locations of the megalithic structures is public record and available to anyone, as are the locations and appearance of the constellations. In the books themselves, the locations and appearances of the temples and constellations are presented accurately, and the reality of the temple placements aligning to the constellations is a simple matter for anyone to study and see for themselves.

  • Which particular megalithic structures are you talking about? The Horizon programme demonstrated how wrong he his at Ankor. Quote:

"ELEANOR MANNIKA (University of Michigan): This hypothesis is based on the fact that certain temples are placed in their position because they have to follow a pattern that evokes the constellation Draco, so if we look at this we see the beginning apparently is the head right here at Angkor Vat and the pattern goes from there up to Phnom Bakheng which is this enormous central mountain. Then it travels up here to (TEMPLE NAME) Thom and then it goes over here to (TEMPLE NAME) and from (TEMPLE NAME) it goes to (TEMPLE NAME). Then it goes to (TEMPLE NAME), then it goes to (TEMPLE NAME), out here to (TEMPLE NAME) built in the 12th century. I see a vague resemblance of course because it goes up and down and off, but actually the tail of Draco goes way up like this, it doesn't just go off like that."

Again, that's just angkor. It's not Hancock's fault, or mine, that Angkor was, comparable to the megalithic monuments, a schlock job. It was probably incomplete, but the initial resemblance to Draco is admitted even by the quoted above. GabrielAPetrie

Hancock includes only ten temples in the shape of the constellation Draco, but investigation of the Angkor region has revealed that there are more than 60 temples. It seems arbitrary to use so few out of so many. The correlation he has found begins to look more like coincidence than planning.

The ten temples chosen by hancock, if you had bothered to read "Heaven's Mirror" (which I see isn't even listed, how convenient since it's so thoroughly illustrated with drawings and photographs of all the sites and temples,) were chosen for specific reasons. You seem to have forgotten 'prominence'. And I doubt you can find ancient archaeoastronomical reasons to pick any arbitrary number of New York city buildings. But do try. GabrielAPetrie
  • And then the clincher:

"HANCOCK:I'm sure that, that there are academics who can find a dozen reasons why the resemblance of the temples of Angkor to the pattern of the constellation of Draco is accidental and a coincidence and can be explained in all sorts of other ways, but I've put forward my case in as much detail as I can in my work. I think there is a striking resemblance between the basic pattern on the ground and the pattern of the constellation in the sky"

  • So it's just a matter of opinion eh Graham? Hey I think Easter Island was a giant drive in cinema! I haven't got any evidence! Follow me, all of you! adamsan 17:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have completely ignored the fact that he says 'in my work'.
Actually, he has quite a deal of evidence. What is ABSOLUTELY clear to me, at this point, is that you've viewed a lot of 'skeptical' half-tries at rebuking Hancock's claims but that you haven't actually read any of the books, or, if you have, you haven't absorbed the information very well before getting caught up in skeptic's hysteria.
I'm reverting to my edit, which has less POV and no pseudoskeptical, pseudointellectual half-arguments, and will be continuing to add information concerning Graham Hancock -- NOT Graham Hancock's Frightened Academic Opponents (go make your own article!) GabrielAPetrie 18:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not intended as a repository for incorrect information but hey, I'll play along.
Tell you what, you list some of his evidence and I'll put in some pseudoskepticism. Then you can list some more evidence and I'll rebut with some pseudointellectualism, or maybe a half argument, I haven't decided. Then we can continue until this talk page reaches epic proportions or one of us dies of boredom. I undertake to reference each piece of information I add and hope that you will do the same.
Lety's start with Angor Watt and how only a handful of the 72 major sites there are significant. adamsan 20:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
One more thing the NPOV article on Pseudoscience states:
The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. adamsan 20:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The only problem is that you aren't allowing the minority (Hancock's) view to be represented, at all. I'll have to come back to editing this page sometime when either (a) you grow up (b) some higher wiki authority intervenes to ensure this is an article about Graham Hancock, not about your student angst. Personally, I think (a) will arrive sooner than you'll get bored and/or 'epic'. GabrielAPetrie 21:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The deal is that we represent the minority angle and then what mainstream science thinks. What we don't do is add our own rebuttals. Putting Hancock's own evidence and defence from verifiable sources in there is fine but not one's own ideas or unsubstantiated claims that he's a victim of an academic conspiracy. That comes under original research and will be removed. adamsan 10:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 2005 edits

To the two anonymous editors (one apparently an admirer of the man and one who seems not to be) are making a lot of changes that are either unverifiable, original research or lacking in the NPOV. Certain of the claims could be considered vandalism. Please be aware that the claims you are making, either that Hancock is a genius or a charlatan, need to be verifiable and will be scrutinised for their wiki-ness. Regards. adamsan 12:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


Can you cite one instance when, where, and how Graham Hancock has called himself an archaeologist? Can you cite one example how he has mislead the public? Or is this just your mantra, Mr. Adamsan?

I am not aware that the article has ever said that he described himself as an archaeologist. Other people have called him a pseudo-archaeologist so we can say that and apparently he calls himself a writer so we can say that too. He does study the material past but if he feels strongly that he isn't an archaeologist then we don't call him one- because I'm pretty sure nobody else has described him as one either. adamsan 09:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Despite your double-speak, can you answer the question in regards to how his material has mislead the public? Can you cite an example where he has done so?

BBC 2's Horizon programme examining his claims about Angkor Wat are an example of him selectively manipulating data. It's in the article and further information from both sides is provided in the links at the bottom. I would be pleased to discuss this question further but I am really not sure what you are getting at. A Wikipedia article can only report what other verifiable sources have said on a topic with am emphasis on scientific orthodoxy. That Hancock suggests archaeological knowledge is wrong and that others have questioned the grounds for these suggestions is not in doubt. If you have problems with this article's neutrality then please provide further details. adamsan 08:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Adamsan have you even read any of Mr. Hancock's work? Or you just sit in front of the television playing devil's advocate games? If you would read some of his work you will realize that Mr. Hancock sites all his sources, he provides the evidence and his interpretation of that work. He doesn't say "This is IT!" He says take a look, perhaps this would be another explaination. He never has claimed to be an archaeologist, he has a long career as a journalist and writer. Here is some more information about his bio which this site seems to be missing: "Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, Hancock's early years were spent in India, where his father worked as a surgeon. Later he went to school and university in the northern English city of Durham and graduated from Durham University in 1973 with First Class Honours in Sociology. He went on to pursue a career in quality journalism, writing for many of Britain's leading newspapers including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. He was co-editor of New Internationalist magazine from 1976-1979 and East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983." source www.grahamhancock.com/biog.htm. By the way, you every work at the Times? How about the Economist? You don't work there being a "pseudo-archaeologist" or a pseudo anything for that matter. Look its fine you have an opinion just please make it an educated opinion and read some of his work which includes Supernatural, Lords of Poverty, Talisman - The Sacred Cities and The Secret Faith, Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilisation, Heaven's Mirror, The Mars Mystery, Keeper of Genesis, Fingerprints of the Gods, and The Sign and the Seal. source www.grahamhancock.com/library/bookshop.php. By the way I personally feel many of the things said on this site about Graham Hancock border on slanderous, to think people will use this place as a means of researching information! God forbid, I know from this post alone I will never use anything on this site for a reference because its not reliable, or unbiased about the information it posts. May as will have a propaganda machine for the nuts out there. I realize the pseudo-human running this part of the site is biased and will probably delete this post because its not supporting HIS few of Graham Hancock, what does that say about your encyclopedia PEOPLE! Regards, Thothlibrarian

You have still failed to answer the question, Mr. Adamsan. I'll ask it again: Can you cite anything referenced in any of his books that misrepresents said data and thus misleads the public? Can you show where he has deinitively claimed that he has solved anything? Or do you just wish to spout off ad hominems? Please cite one...just one example.

The biographic information you mention was in the article last time I looked at it. If the other anonymous editor, who seems less sympathetic to your views, has taken it out I will re-insert in immediately but perhaps you should target your insults other than entirely at me. I have limited access to the wiki at present and an unable to check every edit.
You are quite correct that I have not read one of Mr Hancock's books and I can assure you I have no intention of doing so. My contact with his work comes from viewing the two television series he made for Channel 4 in the United Kingdom in which he used dubious evidence to ask spurious questions that combined together to suggest his 10,000 year old civilisation existed without exploring the explanations offered by orthodox archaeology. You may find the above sentence inflammatory but we are here to report what mainstream science thinks about subjects and the external links have provided support for this view. Archaeologists do find Hancock's claims that he is "only asking questions" to be increasingly disingenuous given that his theories have not acknowledged the legitimate criticisms that have been levelled at them. Hence the accusations of pseudoscience.
I am unsure which parts of the article could be considered slanderous and ask once again that you name the sections that trouble you so we can discuss them
Regarding the final question, you have changed the wording somewhat from your initial request and I am unable now to accede to the challenge due to not having read one of his books. I feel the earlier example from his television programme provides an example of Hancock's claims/questions/solutions or whatever you want to call them, their refutation and the industry he has created around them. adamsan 07:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Adamson: "You are quite correct that I have not read one of Mr Hancock's books and I can assure you I have no intention of doing so."

                                               --------------------

My point to you sir/madam, is for someone to have an opinion on a intellectual subject such as what Hancock discusses they should at least be done with a tiny bit of actual reading. You seem to have taken a near-jerk reaction to a television show and based your entire assumption on the 45 minutes you sat and watched. No active participation on your part, expand your mind by picking up a book. Then come here and talk about it with some smiggen of education. Until then how can anyone take you seriously.

And two seperate people posted myself, (slanderous) and another who asked the same question I did. But wrote completely differently than myself which you can tell because of writing style. (redundent see redudent under redunent in the dictionary....a joke...)

I guess if this really mattered Graham Hancock would have responded to you personally, I suspect he might have and you being biased erased the post...could be wrong....but whatever. I think you will be hearing from him, sooner or later.

Regards, Thothlibrarian

Mr. Adamsan wrote: "You are quite correct that I have not read one of Mr Hancock's books and I can assure you I have no intention of doing so."

You have thus tipped your hand. You are nothing more than a protaganist and an ill educated one as well, Mr. Adamsan.

I look forward to being contacted by Mr Hancock as this page would provide a splendid opportunity for him to answer many of the questions that have been raised about his work but which he prefers not to address. As with many of Hancock's readers who have come here in the past, you have mistaken me for someone who is trying to suppress and slander him. In fact I have asked above for his supporters to go into greater detail regarding his evidence, including citations, so that we might discuss them. Despite having apparently read his books, none of his admirers seem to be familiar enough with Hancock's work to précis it here for someone as ill-read as myself. I am thus reduced to reading what he and his friends write on the internet and then reading critiques of his work in archaeological and scientific journals and again, on the web, in order to inform my impressions of the man's work.
This essay for example is an admirably polite refutation of Fingerprints of the Gods which, considering it demonstrates that Hancock is unable to carry out even the simplest research and continues to publish incorrect information long after he has been alerted to it being wrong, is something of a feat. I wonder, does one really need to read his books when there is so much of his material available in so many media? And so much commentary on his work too? Do I need to have visited Julliberrie's Grave to write an encyclopaedia article about it? Perhaps however these are questions that are much bigger than this article alone.
You don't need to have visited it but if you want to comment on the inscription then you should at least have read it! 195.153.45.54 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway my friends, I look forward to reading some more of Hancock's evidence, either here or elsewhere and then using my own library and the considerable archaeological resources I have access to at work, in producing an encyclopaedic summary of it. Until the next time. adamsan 17:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
You might want to include one (or more) of his books on that reading list before giving us another one-sided commentary. The article is about Graham Hancock and his work - not about Adamsan's ill-researched point of view on a subject he has little or no interest in finding out more about. 195.153.45.54 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


The essay mentioned in the paragraph above is disingenious. Mr Hancock's theories about WHY an extinction took place are far less important as the ramifications of what that meant globally to humankind at the time. Nevertheless, we can dissect them here:
1, The first item listed in the conclusion is easly shown to be nonsense. "The floral remains found inside the mammoths and in the surrounding environment could not be from plants which can adapt to the cold" There are varying degrees of "cold". Evergreen plants have adapted to the cold but there are places too cold for them. Reindeer can also survive extremely cold temperatures but there are places which are too cold for reindeer to survive. The real flaw in the essays statement is that any drop in teperature does not necessarily indicate extremely high teperatures before hand!
2, The conclusion goes on to state "The dates of frozen mammoths carcasses would be clustered in the couple of thousand years following the Last Glacial Maximum". Which is exactly the evidence that the article itself seems to be presenting just prior to the conclusion section!
3, The third point made is that "No mammoths would have survived the Earth Crustal Displacement-induced cataclysm". Why not? This argument seems to have been plucked from the air and doesn't seem relevant to the issue at all. Hancock's arguments clearly revolve around whether or not a cataclysm took place and NOT on what caused it or on whether there were any surviving mammoths.
4&5, The fourth and fifth points are also out of context. Mr Hancock's theories about WHY an extinction took place are far less important as the ramifications of what he believes the global impact was to humankind at the time.
The essay uses similar unprofessional methods to those which Mr Hancock's critics have previously accused him. Anyone who takes the essay as anything approaching a serious rebuttal of *any* of Mr Hancock's work has vastly overlooked the obvious flaws latent in the essay itself. Flaws which demonstrably run deeper through this essay than any flaws the article may hope to have exposed in Mr Hancock's work 195.153.45.54 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2005 Edits

I've read one of his books - The Sign and the Seal, in which he talks about the Ark of the Covenant being secreted in Ethiopia. He does know Ethiopia very well, having lived and worked there as a journalist for many years (he was a "native" guide for Michael Palin when he passed through the country in Pole To Pole, in fact). Although an intriguing idea, his entire premise is based upon an unlikely chain of assumptions and coincidences.

I don't think the term pseudoarchaeologist really fits Hancock. I'd call him a pseudohistorian. Lianachan 09:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think this is inaccurate. I've read The Sign and the Seal and the first half of Fingerprints of the Gods. The former was interesting, if perhaps overly speculative, but the latter was outright fantasy. As much as I wanted to believe in his premise, Fingerprints of the Gods uses arbitrary selection of data points to match up with his hypothesis. The book had me, at times, literally yelling at it "Why that conclusion? Why not, say, coincidence?"

    The fact that he uses archeology to rewrite history really does place him more in the realm of historian than archeologist, pseudo- or not.

    This being said, I think it would be fair to mention the pros and cons against him. --Pyran 22:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


From the wiki article Great Sphinx of Giza:

In recent years professor Robert M. Schoch of Boston University, Colin Reader and other geologists have pointed out that the Sphinx displays evidence of prolonged water erosion. Egypt's last significant rainy period ended during the third millennium BC, and these geologists have posited that the amount of water erosion evident on the Sphinx indicates a construction date no later than the sixth or fifth millennia BC,

And this article:

Although at least one geologist, Robert M. Schoch, supports and early date for its construction based on his analysis of the effects of water erosion on the statue, his proposed date is no earlier than the 6th millennium BC, nowhere near the timeframe claimed by Hancock.

This seems misleading to me. Surely, many different theories about the noticed erosion are possible, but Schoch's theory is unjustly presented here as marginal. The criticisam of Hancock still stands of course.

this article:

Their analyses, which agree with the conventional dating for the monument, attribute the apparently accelerated wear on it to modern industrial pollution, limestone from different sources being used by the initial builders, scouring by wind-borne sand, and/or temperature changes causing the stone to crack.

Article about Colin Reader:

His studies of the Sphinx have contributed to a debate on the outer fringes of archaeology regarding the date of the monument and suggest it can be attributed to being built the within the conventionally-defined period, albeit a few centuries earlier than presently agreed.

Even few centuries seems an interesing info to me (not a short period at all!!), and I see no mention of further debate about this dating. If thats the 'accepted' theory, even then, egyptology should accept and find a place for that date, and not the traditional one. -aryah

[edit] Return to England?

The article states that he was born in Edinb., was abroad, and returned to England (not "Britain"). This means he was in England after being in Scotland but before going abroad. Is this correct?

Dunno. However, being Robert Schoch's webmaster at one time, I can say with some knowledge that the above statements in regards to his work on the Great Sphinx is a bit obscure. Schoch's conclusions about the dates are 7000-5000 BC. Colin Reader has told me in the past that he does support Schoch's water erosion hypothesis, but, Colin keeps his dates within dynastic times.

Schoch's main concern is that if his data proves correct (hopefully we wil find out sometime early next year, now that John West has obtained 60% of the funding), he has to contend with who carved it, if not the Ancient Egyptians. Colin doesn't have to worry about that.

As for Graham Hancock, I have been given evidence that he has misrepresented a couple of people's work. One wrote a rather vicious response and can be found at http://www.hallofmaat.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.179.101 (talk • contribs) 18 December 2005.

"England" was replaced recently with "UK", this should cover matters. As for Schoch, it'd be good to have a cite where he states the specific time period in which he places the construction, if you know of one. I gather however that the statement in the article is essentially correct, ie that he does not support (or his evidence does not support) as early a construction date as 10500BC, which is the time period which Hancock suggests is associated with with the alleged "Orion Belt" theory (and presumably also when the Sphinx was built by his (unnamed) Atlanteans)? Actually it's not too clear whether Hancock says this was when the Sphinx was built, or whether it was constructed later but in the "knowledge" of the constellational orientations of that time. I've seen that Hancock now "accepts" that the Pyramids were built in dynastic times, but alleges they had foreknowledge of this earlier epoch.--cjllw | TALK 04:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

>>As for Schoch, it'd be good to have a cite where he states the specific time period in which he places the construction, if you know of one.

I had all of that when I was successfully running his site. Now, he has teamed with a snakeoil and junk science peddler and his site's stats have went down miserably. It is still http://www.robertschoch.net, however, you will see more of Collette Dowell's material posted than his.

>>I gather however that the statement in the article is essentially correct, ie that he does not support (or his evidence does not support) as early a construction date as 10500BC, which is the time period which Hancock suggests is associated with with the alleged "Orion Belt" theory (and presumably also when the Sphinx was built by his (unnamed) Atlanteans)?

At the time that I was his webmaster, he did not support the 10,500BC dates that Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval proffer. I do know that Schoch does not support any Atlantis style civilizations. Unfortunately, these two have jumped on his data concerning the Great Sphinx to bolster their assertions. This was unintended fallout, however, it does appear that Schoch has jumped on the band wagon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.179.101 (talk • contribs) 20 December 2005.

OK, if Schoch's site is currently evasive on his actual proposed dating, perhaps some third-party reference can be found instead which mentions it. It also seems that Colin Reader's views might be misrepresented here, or at least not clearly enunciated- will look for some references to clarify.--cjllw | TALK 23:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Go here: http://www.antiquityofman.com/Schoch_redating.html and here: http://www.antiquityofman.com/Schoch_conference.html. I have Colin Reader's lates paper on his data concerning the dating of the Great Sphinx somewhere. If I find it, I'll upload it to my site and post the link on my message board at http://www.pastorigins.net. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.179.101 (talk • contribs) 23 December 2005.

Thanks for the links. I've updated the passage re Schoch to reflect the date range he quotes in his 1999 paper.--cjllw | TALK 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but, I have to eat my words that I noted above. It would appear that Dr. Schoch does in fact support a lost civilization See here: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.179.101 (talk • contribs) 27 January 2006.

Oh dear. It would seem that, having rubbed shoulders with Hancock, Bauval et al Schoch may have come to share in their realisation that speculative narratives proposing radical revisions of accepted history sell more books and are easier to write than more scientific accounts subject to peer verification standards. Perhaps this is being a little unkind, for Schoch does seem to possess an ability to entertain speculations without necessarily coming directly out in favour of them, and no doubt his feelings of "spiritual connections" are genuine enough. In that link you posted above one has to read most of the way through before he divulges that he agrees that the formations are natural erosional features, not manmade; nevertheless he then proceeds to tout for his upcoming guided tour of the region.
After some more research, apparently Schoch has come up with his own particular angle to cash in on public appetite for hidden progenitor pyramid-building world-influencing civilizations, in his 2003 book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders. Atlanteans, Africans, and aliens having already been used, his contention is that some civilization originating in (the now conveniently submerged) Sundaland are the ones who spread throughout the globe with their advanced technology to inspire the later Sumer, Egypt, China, Peru, etc. Some skerrick of scientific accountability must remain within him, though, since he uses 6000-4000BC as the date range (perhaps to tie in with his dating of the Sphinx), and according to [a review he posts on his site, "...In the end, however, even he admits his evidence of a Sundaland protocivilization is speculative". So it would seem that he's happy enough to play it both ways –raise speculations (and sell books) associated with the Hancock/Bauval/West bandwagon without actually putting his hand up as a supporter of their material, or being too clear on what he really believes. Not really the mark of a reliable source, IMO.--cjllw | TALK 23:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have summed it up quite nicely and deserves to be placed on the front page of his entry on this site.

[edit] Updating Information

The article states that he will be attending a conference in 2005. It being 2006 now, anyone know if he actually attended or not? --Pyran 10:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] some changes

I have changed the title of this section from "BBC Horizon refutation", to "BBC Horizon controversy" since the programme merely presented a critical appraisal of Hancock's ideas and cannot be considered as definitive. Even the complaints commission finding in the programme's favour on most points only means that they considered the programme to have been fair rather than good or correct. That is, the assessment the commission made was an assement of the programme's fairness rather than it's quality or veracity. Moreover, it is by no means only Hancock who feels that programme was a poor attempt at refutation - several independent commentators have claimed that the programme did not really do justice to the theories it was attempting to critique.

I have also changed the start of the section dealing with the BBC Horizon refutation from "Hancock's ideas have been refuted on numerous occasions" to "Many attempts have been made to refute some of Hancock's ideas". The main reason for this is that the original text suggested that all of Hancock's ideas have all been refuted on many occassions,whereas all that has actually happened is that some/many (but not all) of Hancock's ideas have been the subject of attempted refutations (possible successful, possibly not). I think the new text gives a clearer impression of what has actually happened. Davkal 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I hace changed a section about the sphinx relating to the point about limestone being used from different sources by the builders to "qualitative differences between the layers of limestone in the monument itself". The reason I have done this is that since the Sphinx was carved out of rock that was already there rather than built, the rock couldn't really have come from different sources. The point that those who disagree with Hancock make, as I understand it, is that there are many different layers in the original rock and some of these, e.g. the ones from which the body is carved, are not as good as others, e.g, the rock from which the head is carved.Davkal 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also made numerous small changes which I believe give a better balance to the article. The one major change not noted above is the inclusion of a response to Krupp's objection the the Giza correlation theory.Davkal 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No real issues with most of those changes. I didn't really see the problem with the term "refutation", since something can be refuted (in the sense that it is shown to be mistaken or at least unconvincing, to the satisfaction of those specialists who have looked into it), even if Hancock et al deny the results. The other difficulty is with that quoted 'response' to Krupp- the source it comes from seems to be some non-notable blogger with an off-kilter webpresence, and nothing to at all to do with the debate. It's not even a particularly clever, relevant or honest assessment, and IMO should be removed. The 'upside-down' objection of Krupp's (actually much more telling than the present article and that quote lets on) is not the main one in any case. Among other things, Hancock/Bauval initially claimed the angles between the three main giza pyramids were an "unbelievably precise" match for the angles between the three stars of Orion's Belt as they appeared c 10,500 BCE- Krupp demonstrated in his planetarium that they were mistaken. There are quite a few other specific points addressed by Krupp and others which could bear mentioning here.--cjllw | TALK 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Have taken out the stuff about Hamlet but I think something should probably be said inasmuch as there are a few Egyptologists who are willing to accept the main gist of the argument that the pyramids match Orion's Belt while not perhaps buying the 10500 bc stuff. I also think that Krupp's argument as stated is a rather weak one and the Hamlet "argument" sort of shows why - that is, it is only really valid if you know exactly what the Egyptians might have been trying to do with such a "replication", what type of projection they used, if at all, etc. In any, event, I'll take the Hamlet stuff out and leave Krupp alone for now. As regards the refutation issue, how about, "Some of Hancock's arguments have been refuted". Although I am loath to agree with the notion that Horizon did it since the programme really was quite poor in the way they went about things. For example, the gave Robert Schoch airtime to say he thought the Yonaguni "monument" was natural but didn't allow him airtime to support the older Sphinx theory - as the only scientist in the world agreeing with this theory that reflects a bit poorly on Horizon. Davkal 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK Davkal, and thanks for removing that non-notable quote. Personally, I think that Krupp and others' pointing out that the layout of the Giza pyramids is "upside-down" if it is supposed to be some sort of celestial map of Orion's Belt is not a weak argument on their part, but rather more so on the part of Hancock, Bauval, & co. Their initial claims include statements like "...the three pyramids were an unbelievably precise terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion's belt"— Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods, 1995, p.375; emphasis added), and so it seems to be these writers who are firstly claiming that they "know exactly what the Egyptians might have been trying to do with such a 'replication'", not Krupp. The orientation of the pyramids is relevant if we are to consider their further claim, that "...the pattern of stars that is 'frozen' on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical 'Age of Leo'" (The Mars Mystery, p.189). If that is the case, then by rights the Sphinx should be located on the opposite side of the Nile ("the Milky Way") to preserve the relative positions of the constellations of Leo and Orion with respect to the Milky Way. If for some reason the ancient Egyptians ignored this relative disposition, then there seems to be absolutely no basis to claim some "unbelievably precise" ground-map of the sky at Giza- if this "map" does not have to represent objects in their actual relative spatial distributions, then indeed any random selection of points could be made to "fit" this speculation, as pointed out in the Horizon programme.
Krupp (a qualified astronomer) and others like Anthony Fairall have documented quite a few problems for Hancock's claims other than this particular one, and these could well be mentioned here also. For example, the basis of the "Orion Correlation Theory" (OCT) as I understand it is that the angles between the three main Giza pyramids and North are supposed to be a "precise" match with the corresponding angles of the three stars in Orion's Belt and North (as it appeared c. 10500 BCE). Instead of using freeware astronomical software like those authors apparently did, Krupp used his planetarium to wind back the night sky to this period and found that the "match" was not precise, or even close. Again, claiming three points on the ground represent three points in the sky precisely would seem to be, on its own, something rather meaningless and undemonstrable. I think that "some of Hancock's arguments have been refuted" would be acceptable, given the counter-evidence, but then again what precisely are the arguments used by Hancock et. al. can be difficult to determine, as they seem to change from one publication to the next.
As far as there being a few Egyptologists prepared to countenance some form of the Orion correlation with the Giza pyramids, I'm not sure who these may be- perhaps I.E.S. Edwards? He is sometimes put forward by Bauval as one who has said (of Bauval) "In my opinion he has made a number of interesting discoveries", but then Bauval himself admits that this statement is not an endorsement of the OCT, and that Edwards would not have been supportive of the idea associating these structures with the 10th millennium BCE.--cjllw | TALK 02:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the point about Hancock having no formal training in archaeology from his biography to the initial info about him. I'm not sure someone's bio is the place for details of things they haven't done but accept that the point, given his area of work, should be made somewhere. I also intend to put quite a bit more detail in his bio when I get the time. Davkal 08:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to the Horizon section since I felt the way it was worded before made it look like the BSC had found no unfairness in the claim that Hancock was an intellectual fraudster etc. This is not really what the BSC adjudicated on. The section now reads more in line with what actually happened inasmuch as the BSC did conclude that the programme makers had acted in good faith but not that they were correct, nor that they actually had presented H as an intellectual fraudster, nor that that claim was true or false.

I have also removed the whole section on current activities since it is out of date. The full section is reproduced below and can be put back in when updated.

"Current activities

This article or section needs to be updated. Parts of this article or section have been identified as no longer being up to date.

Please update the article to reflect recent events, and remove this template when finished.

Hancock will be participating in late 2005 in the Conference on Precession and Ancient Knowledge organized by the Binary Research Institute. Among the subjects discussed will be the theory that the Sun has a binary star companion which is responsible for the precession of the equinoxes. This is directly related to the ancient concept of the yugas, which Hancock has written about in several of his books." Davkal 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I have changed the last part of the opening section from "often criticised [...] Hancock prefers to describe himself as nothing more than a writer" to

"Often criticised for being a pseudoarchaeologist, Hancock, who freely admits he has received no formal training in archaeology, sees himself as providing a counterbalance to what percieves as the unquestioned acceptance and support given to orthodox views by the education system, the media, and by society at large."

This paraphrases what Hancock says about himself on his website. Davkal 11:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, paraphrase of Hancock's view of himself seems fine. I have also expanded upon the counterclaim arguments put forward by Krupp and Anthony Fairall. As it stands perhaps the debate concerning the OCT is disproportionately covered, but it seems important to quote both Krupp and Fairall since they were the experts quoted in the BBC programme. Not sure about that image you have attached though - the license would indicate that you created it yourself- is this meant to be a schematic illustration, or is it a copy/redrawing of a diagram provided by Hancock, Bauval, or..? It lacks the information as to the source of the layout and relative distances and angles between the pyramids was obtained, how it is scaled and rotated, etc. I've annotated the caption since it does not seem to me that it can be maintained that this is an authentic and independently validated scale-diagram.--cjllw | TALK 10:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did create it myself - the picture is a combination of a photo of the three belt stars of Orion with the outline of the pyramids simply drawn over a satellite photo - the relative sizes and angles between the pyramids are therefore about as exact as possible. I don't think that the claim "has been inverted" should be included in the caption because that is to presuppose stuff from Krupp's claim that I think is a reasonable point of debate. I have changed it to "rotated" since I feel "rotated and scaled" better reflects what has been done. I have also simply called it a representation rather than a "schematic" representaion.Davkal 10:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes from around the OCT headline and have removed "so called" before the OCT. There is no reason to say so-called before something that is a name because, as my mother always pointed out to me, it's not so-called x because it is called x.Davkal 12:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I do think the section on the OCT is too long now. I also think that we should remeber this is an article on Hancock and not an article about the refutation, or otherwise, of his ideas. Nonetheless, it is important that it is noted that he receives little support (and direct oposition) from orthodox scientists, but I think it should still be possible to include this, and most of the points made, in a shortened fashion. Davkal 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK with the caption change as far as that goes, but strictly speaking that composite image might constitute 'original research', contrary to wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. I'm not casting any aspersions about your integrity or draftmanship, but since by nature the product of any wikipedia editor is not independently verifiable, there's no way to check whether or not that representation is accurate. It might be better to show a side-by-side comparison of the original images (independently verifiable, presuming source is given), however quite possibly the satellite shot of the pyramids you traced is ineligible under copyright grounds- depends on its source, many NASA, Space Shuttle (and even ESA I think, not sure) images are in the public domain, so if it's one of those then that could be done (the source should indicate the copyright status). Failing that, the image at least needs to be described as for illustrative or suggestive purposes only, and not an actual measured depiction- which could not be verified given its origin.
I wrote "so-called" since it's more of an informal nickname than a formal name for the theory (I'm not even sure that Hancock, Gilbert or Bauval even called it that originally, it's just how it seems to be referred to on occasion). But no matter.
I tend to agree that now there is perhaps too much relative emphasis on the OCT debate, which is really more associated with Bauval than Hancock anyway. Hancock has made a good many other claims in his books, which for completeness could be summarised documented here also (along with their counterarguments, where these have been documented). The reader will need to understand what exactly are the nature and content of his works as a writer (since that is what he is known for), but like for any writer they need to be accompanied with the context on how the works are received/perceived. I guess the OCT debate is a fair chunk of Hancock's notoriety, however, so it would be a case of expanding on his other works and ideas, rather than paring down the latter by much. Maybe if the OCT was moved to its own article then a little more reduction could be done. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 12:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opening paragraph, support from academics

The opening paragraph states: "...his methods and conclusions have found little support among orthodox academics."

I think this should be "...his methods and conclusions have found no support among orthodox academics."

or "...his methods and conclusions have found little support among academics."

personally I prefer the second version. If there is nu argument against I'll make the change. Pukkie 10:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to the second vesion (little support among academics), but I'm not sure you can immediately label someone unorthodox simply because they agree with something Hancock has said. Rabert Schoch, for example, was (maybe not now) a perfectly orthodox geologist who simply happened to support the the idea of an older sphinx from a perfectly orthodox geological perspective. I therefore think the original point could stand but, as noted, I have no objection to your second version.Davkal 11:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed it to the second version, that is I deleted the wordt orthodox. Pukkie 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] OCT star map upside down?

There's a signed section in the article by "(Conman 2002)" It's the section about the claims that the map of the line of stars in Orion's belt is upside down AND Leo is at the wrong side of the sky. Well, that's what *would* happen if you held the map upside down - and so it proves nothing. As a rebuttal it seems to say "We're going to ignore one of the key points of your argument and thus..." 195.153.45.54 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) As such, it's completely irrelevant to this article, which isn't even about OCT, it's about Hancock himself.