Polly Toynbee

Reproduced from the

If you already know very little about the precise dating of ancient civilisations,Hancock's theory is unlikely to astonish.

There are all kinds of cranks.They come in many shapes and sizes and the believe any number of impossible things. We all came from Mars.Invisible angels are all around us. Shakespeare didn't actually write Shakespeare.The world is flat,and so on.Once in a while,of course,one of these "cranks" turns out to be a genius who is absolutely right,like Galileo.But how can you tell the difference?
In the good old days,if someone was given a television programme of their own to host,beautifully produced with lots of travel thrown in,you could reckon that their theory was true,or at least pretty orthodox.But no longer.These days all sorts of weird theories find their way on to the respectable screen,with little hint as to whether we are not to take them seriously or not.
It's no longer easy to tell the difference between a documentary by a bona fide expert and one by a plausible crank with a telegenic idea.So how are we to know what they know what are talking about,or if it's all bunk?

Quest for the Lost Civilisation (Mondays C4) falls into this unknown territory for me.Any ancient history buffs will have less difficulty in accessing where bestselling author and presenter Graham Hancock [Ref: Horizon] comes from. The rest of us are left guessing.The trouble is,if you already know very little about the precise dating of ancient civilisations,then his theory is unlikely to astonish.But,as an above averagely ignorant viewer on this subject,I'd say,by the pricking of my thumbs,it looks rum to me.
Hancock starts his three-part series diving underwater in Japan where there is a structure that looks as if it might be a man - made ruined temple under the sea.(Though it might not be.After all,Fingal's Cave looks as if ancient sculptors have been at work.) If he's right,then that piece of land has been under water since 10,000 BC,and that would mean a whole civilisation existed some 6,000 years earlier than conventional historians think.(Unless they were fish?)
He suggests that there was in pre-history an extraordinary sophisticated civilisation with an amazing understanding of astronomy.They were able to calculate the tilt of the Earth and its shifting movement over thousands of years.
Egyptian mythology writes in hieroglyphics of a golden age,of the "first time",when the god Osiris was first on Earth and imparted his great knowledge.Hancock believes this to be the literal truth;that there was a "first time",around 10,500 BC,and it left its mark in places as far apart as Egypt,Cambodia and Mexico.All three countries have pyramids, and all have temples aligned to the sun and the stars.All three had similar belief systems,and Hancock believes they are all built on ideas,and on sites,far older than currently dated.
Most controversial of all,he says the Sphinx itself was built in the "first time",because geologists find on it rain weathering that could only have been caused when Egypt was green and wet,which dates it back to those days.
Out comes his laptop computer which produces star maps that go back to the heavens of 10,000 BC.He looks for signs in these temples that point to the stars,not as they are now,but as they were then.Windows in the pyramids point to constellations of significance to the kings within them.The Sphinx now gazes at Taurus,which doesn't make much sense,but in 10,500 BC,it would have gazed at Leo,and Leo is,after all,more or less,a lion.The number of statues at Cambodia's Angkor Wat match the key number in calculating one bit of the cosmos.And there's a lot more of this.
Well,ho hum.It looks to me like one of those clever ideas that is entirely circular.First find your star map,then measure things that give you figures that seem to match it.Whether counting statues,or measuring certain well-chosen lines,it all looks like numerology to me -clever number crunching that feeds back on itself as you choose which numbers to feed in.
But how am I to know? What am I looking at here? How I longed for the guidance of an alternative voice with a good knowledge of ancient history to take us through Hancock's "discovery",with comments from all sides ,a balance of probabilities,and a bit more background for beginners.I admit something Philistine and Luddite kept nagging away at the back of my mind saying 3,000, 5,000, 10,000 BC? Does it matter? Once we are into telephone-book numbers,time gets out of focus,beyond understanding.
I fear Hancock means to link it all up to something supernatural:he has that ominous eerie,holy note of awe in his voice that warns of the"other worldly".
To me,however,there is awe enough in beholding the temples before our eyes,things of uncanny beauty and strangeness,testimony to man's unfathomable artistic endeavour.
Who needs gods,when we have this evidence of man's infinite capabilities,stretching back to the dawn of time - whenever that was?

Letters to RT

Thankyou, BBC, for two really excellent Horizon programmes on Atlantis (28 October and 4 November, BBC2). At last, the archaeological and scientific arguments were put forward to counteract the many programmes in recent years on lost civilisations, sphinxes on Mars and buildings from ancient cultures being maps of the heavens!
Hopefully anyone who watched will realise that the claims put forward by many are based on extremely selective use of evidence and a vivid imagination. Author Graham Hancock may call it nit-picking, but these were very big nits.
Bob Partridge, Egyptologist
Knutsford, Cheshire


Some 22 years ago, Erich von Daniken was enjoying huge sales of his books to a mystery-hungry public.Then the BBC's Horizon featured him and wiped the floor with his reputation to the extent that his books virtually vanished from sale.
Of course, humanity never learns.Soon enough a new generation proves itself receptive to ideas that "audaciously challenge conventional knowledge". Yet again false science is lapped up by people for whom real science is not sufficiently wondrous.
Horizon on Atlantis was another of those marvellous broadcasting events that help reassure us our licence fee is being spent sensibly. We were treated to a calm and methodical dismantling of all these postulations, one by one, until Mr Hancock was reduced to mumbling lame excuses. Congratulations.
Andrew Stephenson
Lyng, Norfolk

I was appalled at the biased way Graham Hancock's theories were treated. For example,astronomer Ed Krupp rejected the theory that the Giza pyramids mirrored the constellation of Orion on the grounds that the correlation was upside down.
However, this reversal of orientation is an inevitable result of transferring a celestial pattern on to the ground. If an ancient Egyptian were to look south towards Orion and sketch what he saw in the sand,the head of Orion at the top of his drawing would point away from him to the south, whereas the head in the sky actually points north.
To argue that this negates the correlation, because both should point north, is just illogical, and, as Mr Hancock pointed out, pedantic.
John Grigsby (former researcher to Graham Hancock)
Barham, Canterbury, Kent

Civilisation but not as we know it (Radio Times 10-16 Oct 1998)

Polly Toynbee rightly suspects that Graham Hancock's Quest for the Lost Civilisation on Ch4 is untrue and bemoans the lack of any counter opinion in the series.
The programme makers did initially approach specialists, myself included,until it became clear that our contribution would simply contradict all of Hancock's claims.
The series marks a return to a brand of imagined history which is immune to rational debate.
For what it's worth,pyramids are not the "fingerprint",of a mysterious,star-gazing, master - race.People in Egypt, Cambodia and Mexico independently discovered that it was easier to build big structures broad at the bottom and narrow at the top than the other way around.
The flamboyant and sometimes shocking story of ancient civilisations is actually more interesting when factual.
Dr Timothy Taylor Lecturer in Archeology University of Bradford

Peter Dale,commissioning editor,Channel 4 documentaries replies:"Quest for the Lost Civilisation is seen by Ch4 as a chance for Graham Hancock to expound his theories and contribute to the long-running debate about the origin of ancient structures and beliefs around the world.Graham has already engaged in public debate with previously doubting Egyptologists who are beginning to take some of his theories seriously,and he is due to address a similar congress soon."

And Finally... (Radio Times 31 Oct-6 Nov 1998)

Having watched with interest Graham Hancock's interpretation of numerous ancient phenomena (Quest for the Lost Civilisation), I would like to reveal that the molehills that appeared in my lawn on the night of the recent full-moon lined up exactly with next door's overgrown leylandii,when viewed from the microwave in the kitchen. Which, incidentally, is where the mole will finish up if I ever catch it.
Christine Parkin Staveley,North Yorkshire

My Letter to Dr Taylor:-
Date: 10/10/98 15:35
Dear Dr Taylor,
Reading the Radio Times (10-16 October) I came across your letter about Graham Hancock's Quest for the Lost Civilisation.I too,read Polly Toynbee's article,and watched the series with about the same attitude that she had adopted,and was not disappointed to find the usual half-baked theories about cosmic connections with old civilisations and arbitrary mathematical computations, anything will connect with anything if one looks hard enough.
I was thinking about writing to the Radio Times myself, making very much the same points that you did,but you saved me the trouble,so thankyou.
Both my wife and myself independently concluded that the obvious shape for simple structures is a pyramid, since its ground base is easy to construct,and then,as you said, tapering to a point is eminently practical,and so is liable to be adopted by civilisations independently;a case of convergent behaviour. At this moment in time there seems to be a blossoming of what might be called,for want of a better term "New- Ageism",where people are looking for quasi-religious explanations for almost everything,and scientific rationality is being subdued by wanton ignorance and a need to believe,egged on by producers of programmes like Mr Hancock's, because they know it will be watched and swallowed whole,by a gullible audience,who don't understand scientific methodology.Immediately after the Nazka lines section of Quest for the Lost Civilisation my wife rather whimsically suggested that maybe they had used a giant pantograph to scale up the drawings and therefore they needn't have been viewed from above,this of course is about as likely as Mr Hancock's theories,but it is possible,and would scupper any idea of intervention from without.
Shortly after watching this series,in the Equinox strand,I witnessed the furore surrounding Kennewick Man who may or may not be a Eurasian person pre-dating the red-indian indigenous population of America,which seemed to lend some credibility to Hancock's bearded man from another place,but it seems that Jim Chatters is being foiled in his attempts to pin down the origin of Kennewick man because of the red-indians belief that his spirit is being violated,they don't actually know if he is a red-indian (or if there is such a thing as a soul),but the current political situation rendered the bones of Kennewick man the property of the US armed services,where he is under wraps.The original site has been rendered impossible to trace any other artifacts that might have helped scientific analysis. In the programme Jim Chatters was clearly upset by the fact that analysis of this man was being witheld because of a groups beliefs,and seemed to feel that scientific study was under threat,much as it was in Hillsboro during the Monkey trial.
It seems to me that there are a lot of individual professional scientists,who on single occasions take it upon themselves to speak out against the contrived nonsense,of those people who seek to promulgate their pet theories without any of the usual checks and balances that scientifc scrutiny is subject to.Science is already held in disrepute by a certain part of the populace,and without the kind of redress sought by people like Richard Dawkins in educating the public as to why science is not just another viewpoint,but a way which seeks to be objective and wary of subjective interpretation,it is apt to become undermined,and the basis for our current society dissolved. I agree that facts are more interesting than ignorant speculation,but unfortunately there seems to be an undercurrent in our society of people becoming disenchanted with what are seen as "cold facts",and to prefer mysterious connections between things that with a little understanding would be obvious and explainable.It is my opinion that people such as yourself and Jim Chatters,who have a vested interest in maintaining a rational interrogation of facts should form an alliance to work positively to stem the tide of unreason,before we fall back into the dark ages and scientists are seen as heretics to be burnt at the stake.
I would love to be the instigator of such a group,or at least contribute to it in some practical way,but not being a professional person makes this quite difficult.It pains me to see the likes of Richard Dawkins,Jim Chatters and yourself, speaking up for something that ought to be held in regard,only to be chided or held in contempt as arrogant or pompous,much as Henry Drummond might have been,for trying to maintain the right to think. I hope you do not see this letter as an intrusion or that the suggstion is unfounded or unwarranted,like as not you will probably think that there is little that you can do personally,short of wrting to the Radio Times,but if nothing else I felt that you ought to know that there are some people who would like to hear the rebuttal side of such assertions as Mr Hancock's,as there are many areas where I found his ideas wanting and there was no one on the programme to put them forward,not least was the idea that tectonic plate movements might have interfered with his "perfect alignments",by moving the strata of the Earth as far as I could calculate some 12km during his 10500 years. I'm not sure if the angular displacement to the stars would be miniscule,or if the plates do not cause land mass movement,but he claimed that people could have crossed the Baring Strait and therefore the land masses must have been different in the past,did he allow for this? We were not told.
Thankyou for at least speaking out for those people who don't come to knee-jerk conclusions on the basis of what they would like to see.
Yours sincerely,
Tel: 01274-233537 Postcode: BD7 1DP
Email [email protected]

MAIN INDEX

REFERENCE GUIDE

TRANSCRIPTS

GLOSSARY