Comparative Civilizations Review Volume 47 Number 47 Fall 2002 Article 8 10-1-2002 An Assessment of Innovative Dating in Recent Studies of Ancient Civilization Rosco C. Hinkle Wright State University (Emeritus) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr Part of the Comparative Literature Commons, History Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Hinkle, Rosco C. (2002) "An Assessment of Innovative Dating in Recent Studies of Ancient Civilization," Comparative Civilizations Review: Vol. 47 : No. 47 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol47/iss47/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Comparative Civilizations Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Hinkle: An Assessment of Innovative Dating in Recent Studies of Ancient C 92 Comparative Civilizations Review No. 47 AN ASSESSMENT OF INNOVATIVE DATING IN RECENT STUDIES OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS ROSCOE C. HINKLE, PROFESSOR EMERITUS WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY, OHIO In the modern world, organized knowledge has become increasing- ly differentiated and specialized. Many, perhaps most, domains of knowledge are the focus of one explicit and defined discipline or sci- ence, whereas others (possibly fewer) are pursued by two or more. Certainly, the study of civilizations falls within the second type; i.e., it is surely multi-disciplinary. Many but not all of its representatives are in academia. As in other domains of knowledge, some are unattached (unaffiliated, free, independent), and a few even defined as marginal. The membership of this Society (ISCSC) and the readership of this Review resemble those in other domains of knowledge in having inter- est in new, fresh, innovative—some even in unconventional—ideas as these apply to study of problems of civilizations. Perhaps, even those who are primarily concerned with the inquiry into ancient civilizations in their most archaic, ancestral, or primordial form must also be interested in innovation, especially in challenges to conventional dating systems. I propose to explore the relevant portions of four books (three in the 1990s and one later) of six authors and to subject them to a critique. Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods (1995), has been a well-known British economic journalist for two major periodi- cals and more recently a historically-oriented author. He and Robert Bauval, an engineer with expertise in astronomy, are the authors of the second book, The Message of the Sphinx (1996). Colin Wilson and Rand Flem-Ath, authors of The Atlantis Blueprint (2001), are, respec- tively, a British best-selling author and Canadian librarian-author. William Ryan and Walter Pitman, American authors of Noah's Flood 11998], are professional marine geologists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, and experts in their field. All of these authors, whether academic or non-academic, are clearly inde- pendent thinkers.' Graham Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods is substantially an account of the author's journey from one to another of various sites of ancient American (Toltec, Aztec, Olmec, Mayan, and Incan) and Egyptian civilizations. His and Bauval's book expands knowledge of the structures of the Giza plateau, especially the Sphinx.2 Analysis of Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 2002 1 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 47 [2002], No. 47, Art. 8 Roscoe C. Hinkle 93 those parts of both books as relevant to the introduction of innovative dating comprise Part I of this paper. Because Hancock's position and that of Colin Wilson and Rand Flem-Ath are basically similar on sever- al points, and particularly on the necessity to develop a new dating approach, their positions are compared in Part II. Part III is a summary of Ryan's and Pitman's study of the Black Sea Flood, and especially their dating of the event, along with remarks about extinct civilizations on its shores. A summary assessment of the innovative dating efforts constitutes Part IV. I. Hancock's Justification for Attempting to Develop an Innovative Dating Technique A comparative interest in the study of civilizations pervades the whole of Hancock's first volume. But even before turning his primary attention to ancient Egypt, he announced his commitment to a more temporally distant antecedent civilization (a third party option) existing prior to the emergence of the more recent American civilizations and even prior to that of ancient Egypt (i.e., before the fourth millennium BC) [Hancock, 135-7], Its great antiquity seems to necessitate a concern with innovative dating, which in turn, requires aid from intellectual resources of other disciplines, especially certain natural sciences. Hancock first supported his third party thesis by citing those whom he claimed were like-minded authorities, particularly Professors Walter Emery and Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, both (British) Egyptologists [136-7]. He reiterated his view that Egyptian civilization began without evident antecedents [135-6] and thus was more ancient than many Egyptologists would accept. (Acknowledging that the stimulus of the third party failed to flourish for centuries—if not millennia—in the Americas [137], he turned his attention to the early conditions of Egypt.) Like a few others, Hancock later attempted to add substance to the claim for the antiquity of his third party option by citing evidence that the Sphinx on the Giza plateau was considerably older than Egyptologists conventionally held [345-9]. He rejected the view of 20th century Egyptologists as misconstrued or otherwise defective that Khafre was the Sphinx builder (and thus part of conventional history). In addition, he denied that the Sphinx would likely have been built in the present era of dry, wind-blown sand incessantly threatening to cover its body on the Giza plateau (at any time over the last 5000 years). Rather, it is more plausible that the Sphinx would have been construct- https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol47/iss47/8 2 Hinkle: An Assessment of Innovative Dating in Recent Studies of Ancient C 94 Comparative Civilizations Review No. 47 ed during a much earlier era when the Giza area had been wet and green, with topsoil held by roots of grass and shrubs [413-41]. He noted that crucial evidence was offered by the investigation of Professor Robert Schoch, a Boston University geologist with specialty in rock erosion, who studied the weathering of the Sphinx and the walls of its surrounding enclosure. Its markings were not compatible with wind-blown sand erosion. Rather, Schoch concluded that the combina- tion of vertical fissures and undulating horizontal coves were a result of a long period of enormous quantities of rainfall opening up weak spots in the rock. His dating of some 5,000 to 7,000 BC was publicly announced at a 1992 professional geological convention at which it received considerable support [Hancock, 1995, 357, 421-23; see also his notes 4-15, 548-9; Hancock and Bauval, 1996, 17-21], The Egyptologists ignored his analysis. Conversely, John Anthony West argued that the dating was conservative and could more readily be attributed to a rainy period of about 10,000 BC [Hancock, 357, 423 and Hancock and Bauval, 17-21]. Hancock apparently agreed. In any event, a more precise dating device was needed. Actually, the question of the dating of the Sphinx led Hancock into an extended inquiry, at the end of which he was in a position to propose a new dating scheme. A number of logically distinct steps are involved: 1) He denied the legitimacy of associating the pharaohs, who are conventionally held to be the builders of the pyramids, especially Khafre, with the building of the Sphinx and thus by implication, with a conventional dating of the pyramids [348-9, 313, 456].3 2) He rejected the mainline Egyptological contention that the pyra- mids generally have a (pharaonic) burial, mortuary, or entombment function. Though he did not reject this claim for some (possibly many) pyramids, he asserted that no bodies have been found in the sarcopha- guses of the three pyramids at Giza [294-302]. To the common retort that they were stolen by grave robbers, he notes that the pyramid of Sekhemket (at Saqqara), which was opened for the first time in 1954 (no one had ever entered since it was initially constructed), did have a sarcophagus but it contained no body [Hancock, 313], Thus, the com- mon function could be countered—and surely at Giza. 3) Conversely, he developed arguments and offered considerable circumstantial evidence to show that function of these pyramids is basi- cally astronomic (or substantially contributory to astronomy). The data include: a) The character of the geography of the Giza plateau. On the high Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 2002 3 Comparative Civilizations Review, Vol. 47 [2002], No. 47, Art. 8 Roscoe C. Hinkle 95 ground, a half mile to the west of the Sphinx and on which the three main pyramids are located, is a faultless 360-degree circular horizon for observing the rising and setting points of the sun and stars for the entire year [Hancock and Bauval, 60]. b) The precision of the placement and orientation of the monu- ments on the Giza plateau is so utterly startling that they could not have been accidental. The Great Pyramid, with its four-star-targeted shafts, is so placed that it is exactly one-third of the way between the equator and the north pole. It is so aligned on a north-south axis that it is more accu- rate than the Meridian Building of the Greenwich Observatory in London [Hancock and Bauval, 60; for its unique pyramid/earth ratio, see Hancock, 434-6].