Beyond The Horizon Documentaries

A Report by Andrew Collins



It seems the tide is turning for the alternative archaeology community. In the last year of the twentieth century we have seen the publication of two books which have seriously criticised the theories, politics and methodology of key writers and researchers in this modern field of exploration (see the review of the 1999 Questing Conference). On top of this there have been some damning documentaries on a similar theme - the most recent being two BBC Horizon programmes, the first, screened in the UK on Thursday, 28 October 1999, attempted to destroy the concept of Atlantis as the motherland of civilisations. The second, screened a week later and entitled `Atlantis Reborn', seriously criticised the theories of best-selling authors Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.

I feel it appropriate that I might be allowed to make some statement on the overall presentation and findings of the Horizon documentaries, especially as the cover of my book GODS OF EDEN was displayed on screen as an example of the recent books which have appeared on this subject.


Atlantis - the Mother of Civilisations

The first of the two documentaries was intent on destroying the legend of Atlantis, the utopic island empire created by the Athenian poet and philosopher Plato, c. 350 BC. With a back-drop of rolling waters and underwater imagery the narrator began by conjuring the image of an antediluvian world which grew to become the most powerful civilisation ever. Yet the landmass was lost beneath the waves and those who survived this cataclysm journeyed westwards to America and eastwards to the ancient world. From these individuals sprang up great civilisations such as the Maya and Inca, as well as the ancient kingdoms of Egypt, Babylon and Sumer.

With this introduction the narrator revealed that it was Ignatius Donnelly, a US congressman and author who had first championed this vision of Atlantis as the mother of civilisations in his highly successful book ATLANTIS: THE ANTEDILUVIAN WORLD, first published in 1882. Since then over 2000 books and publications have appeared on the subject of Atlantis. Today Atlantis remains big business, with a number of alternative archaeology books featuring this subject. Even though Graham Hancock's avoids using the `A' word in his best-selling book FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS, it is clear that his inferred location for Atlantis is Antarctica after the work of Rose and Rand Flem-ath, authors of the 1995 book WHEN THE SKY FELL.

Having set the scene, the programme examined the proposed similarities in architecture and writing between civilisations in the ancient world and those of the Americas, evidence which Donnelly said proved the existence of Atlantis. American archaeologist Ken Feeder was interviewed extensively on the subject and in his opinion there is no logical reason to accredit these similarities to a lost civilisation such as Atlantis. His comments were interspersed with the views of a number of archaeologists who were able to demonstrate that the cultures in question developed in complete isolation.

The arguments presented in the documentary were intent on disproving the legend of Atlantis. In doing this it would show hopefully that the theories presented originally by Ignatius Donnelly and reignited by Graham Hancock in his best-selling books were false.

Yet the facts presented on this programme did nothing to destroy the historical reality of Atlantis. At no point did it investigate the writings of Plato in which the concept of Atlantis was originally introduced. For instance, there was no mention of the fact that in his dialogues Plato speaks of an Atlantic island called `Atlantis' linked via a series of `other islands' to an `opposite continent'. In the past `voyagers', presumably from his own world, were able to use these `other islands' to reach the `opposite continent'. We also learn that following the apparent destruction of Atlantis all that remained was an impassable sea of mud and shoals which now prevented `voyagers' from passing beyond to the `opposite continent'.

Although what Plato has to say about Atlantis proves to be at best garbled information, there seems little question that, like other writers of his day, his reference to an impassable sea of mud and shoals alludes to knowledge of the Sargasso Sea. This vast mass of sea-weed exists between the ocean currents and trade winds which encircle the North Atlantic and stretches between the Azores and the Bahamas. If this was so, it implies that the `opposite continent' was the Americas and that both the `other islands' and `Atlantis' were located somewhere on the Western Atlantic seaboard. All this tends to suggest that Plato was aware of rumours and stories, perhaps circulating the philosophical circles in which he moved, of what a mariner might expect to encounter in the outer ocean. I will demonstrate in GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS (Headline, 17 February 2000) that these `voyagers' entered the Mediterranean world via Iberic Phoenicians of south-west Spain and Carthaginians from North Africa (ancient Libya). I will also show that both nations were making transatlantic trading journeys in complete secrecy as early as 1200 BC, and very probably much earlier still.

Donnelly's idea that Atlantis was the mother of civilisations is simply not tenable. I agree with the Horizon programme in this respect. My recent lecture at the Questing Conference showed that the various comparisons which have been drawn between, say, the architecture of Old Kingdom Egypt and indigenous American architecture accredited to the Maya, Olmec and Inca are inconclusive. There appears to be no obvious connections whatsoever between these different civilisations worldwide. Even if there was, it probably came about via a third party such as the Phoenicians or Carthaginians, who were both almost certainly trading with some of the civilisations highlighted in the documentary. All I can say is that the makers of the Horizon programme chose the wrong evidence if they thought they could destroy the historical validity of Atlantis in this manner.


A Concerted Attack

The second of the Horizon documentaries focused more specifically on the theories and opinions of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval. To begin with the all-important date of 10,500 BC, cited by them as the sep tepi, or First Time, of Egyptian civilisation was knocked badly. Everything from the Orion-Pyramids correlation, proposed by Robert Bauval, to the age of the Sphinx was dismissed as complete nonsense. Graham was repeatedly called on to respond to these criticisms and it did look and sound as if he was getting a bit annoyed by the accusations being levelled against him!

All I can say is that Egyptian mythology does indeed seem to reflect events which occurred in a distant epoch known as sep tepi, the First Occasion. This is particularly so if we look at the Edfu Building Texts, which speak of an enemy snake called the Great Leaping One. This closes the first period of creation in the primordial world by bringing a period of darkness and floods which drown the inhabitants of the Island of Creation, who afterwards become ddw-ghosts. There seems every reason to propose that this great snake is an abstract memory of a cometary impact at some point in the history of the world. In another creation account the lioness goddess Sekhmet reigns down fire on those who have turned away from the teachings of the sun-god Ra. People attempt to hide in holes to prevent their death, but still a large part of the human race is destroyed. Sekhmet is only stopped from destroying the rest of the human race after she drinks an intoxicating brew which the gods had sent to flood the land. This story clearly hints at a mighty conflagration and flood remembered in the minds of the dynastic Egyptians. Only recently it was realised that a layer of burnt ash exists in the geological records of Egypt for around 9000 BC (re-calibrated using dendrochronology to 11,000 BC). This same layer has been detected in several other regions of the globe including Siberia, Russia, the United States, South Africa, Europe and Australia. Full details will be revealed exclusively in GATEWAY TO ATLANTIS. Something devastating happened during this epoch and there is every reason to assume that it was recalled in the myths and legends of indigenous peoples around the world who preserved a memory of it across countless generations. Although 9000 BC is not 10,500 BC, it lies within the astrological age of Leo and may well account for conflagration legends worldwide - including those in Egypt. Is this why the pharaonic Egyptians appeared to preserve the significance of an epoch thousands of years before the advent of their own age?

One Coptic legend speaks of a mythical king named Surid who learnt of an impending disaster which was to befall Egypt. In order to find out more, he instructed his priests to consult the altitude of the stars. They informed him that a deluge would `overwhelm the land, and destroy a large portion of it for some years'. According to another Arab writer named Ahmad al-Makrizi (1360-1442), who quotes a variation of this story, in addition to a flood, a `fire was to proceed from the sign (of) Leo, and to consume the world'.

This same theme was also echoed in a now lost Coptic text known as the Abou Hormeis papyrus, which recorded that `the deluge was to take place when the heart of the Lion entered into the first minute of the head of Cancer, at the declining of the star'. The `heart of the lion' was an ancient term for the `royal star' Regulus in the constellation of Leo. Since the constellation of Cancer follows Leo only in the precessional cycle (Leo follows Cancer in the yearly cycle), this suggests a time-frame when Leo marked the equinoctial horizon. The last time that the star Regulus rose in the eastern sky just prior to the sun was in approximately 9220 BC, indicating that the events recalled in the Coptic legends stem from this distant epoch.

The documentary's handling of the Sphinx debate was atrocious. It never even considered the recent work of Boston University geologist Robert Schoch and instead dismissed any notion that rain precipitation during the Neolithic sub-pluvial (7000-5000 BC according to Schoch) might have been responsible for the characteristic erosion on the body of the monument and the surrounding enclosure. Even Ian Lawton and Chris Ogilvie-Herald in their backlash book GIZA: THE TRUTH (Virgin, 1999) accept that rain precipitation might have been responsible for the weathering of the Sphinx, albeit during a much later age.

The age of the Sphinx is actually irrelevant. Since it faces east it is an equinoctial marker, watching the passage of time through its observation of the slow shift in the precessional cycle across its 25,773-year cycle. That the Sphinx takes the form of a lion is significant, since it is a lion in the form of the goddess Sekhmet that became an abstract symbol of the fiery conflagration which once nearly destroyed the human race. Indeed, Sekhmet is mentioned in connection with Rostau - the ancient name for the Giza necropolis - on the famous Dream Stela of Thutmosis IV, which stands between the paws of the Sphinx. Is it possible that the Sphinx stands as a reminder not so much of the age of Leo, but the leonine catastrophe which was thought to have befallen Egypt in this age - one which could well happen again.

After Giza, the documentary turned its attentions to the proposals made by Graham Hancock and his wife, the photographer, Santha Faiia in their book HEAVEN'S MIRROR with respect to the temple complex at Angkor Wat in Cambodia. It introduced their view that the positioning of many of the temples connected with this complex form the shape of the constellation Draco as it would have appeared in the sky around 10,500 BC. Yet the narrator pointed out that Hancock and Faiia had been selective in their use of temples and that there were known reasons for the siting of the buildings in question (i.e. they commemorated battles or other localised events). Moreover, the shape of the highlighted temples did not match the true appearance of Draco, while there was no evidence that this constellation ever played a mythological function in the beliefs of the indigenous culture considered to have erected the structures around 1000 years ago.

It is not up to me to pass judgement on accusations of the sort levelled against Graham Hancock and his wife Santha Faiia regarding their understanding of Angkor Wat. I was not there, and do not know the level of conviction they have in respect to their ideas. They themselves have chosen to respond to the criticisms on Graham's web site found @ www.grahamhancock.com. However, I do accept that one must be very sure of your data if it hints at a ground-sky correlation connecting artificial structures with star constellations, otherwise theories of this type are wide open to criticism and abuse. In the mid 1980s a similar fate befell the proposed terrestrial zodiac modelled from manmade and natural structures known as the Glastonbury Zodiac, supposedly sculpted across the Somerset landscape by Sumerian priests around 2800 BC. I happen to believe through many years of personal experience that the Glastonbury Zodiac has some kind of mythic reality, although its subtly goes beyond drawing lines on maps. This is something that BBC producers will never understand, not in Glastonbury or in respect to Angkor Wat.

After Giza and Angkor Wat, the Horizon documentary turned its attentions to the enigmatic city of Tiahuanaco in Bolivia. It dismissed the idea originally proposed by the archaeologist Arthur Posnansky, and reintroduced by Graham Hancock in FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS, that its Kalasasaya temple court is aligned to the solsticial sunrise and sunset of 10,000 BC. This conclusion has been determined by examining the slow movement of the sun across its 41,000-year cycle known as the Obliquity of the Ecliptic.

The narrator pointed out that conventional archaeology places the construction of Tiahuanaco not 12,000 years ago but just 2000 years ago, with evidence of the earliest occupation, perhaps a simple village, only going back 3500 years. These dates were determined by carbon-14 testing.

All this might be so. However, the documentary ignored the fact that the findings made originally by Posnansky were confirmed only recently by American archaeologist Neil Steede, who was subsequently transferred to Mexico's Yucatán peninsular where he has been working at the Maya cult centre of Comalcalco. Here too he has made incredible discoveries, including evidence which demonstrates that the fortress-like buildings made of fired stone brick show evidence of having been built around AD 200 using techniques from the ancient world.

I saw a documentary on Tiahuanaco a few years back on the Discovery Channel which showed that organic materials taken from the large occupational mound near the city were producing carbon-14 dates in the region of 2500 BC. I am sorry I can't be more specific as this would be very useful information now (if anyone saw this documentary let me know). Moreover, Posnansky's book TIHUANACU: The Cradle of American Man, (Vols. I-II, J. J. Augustin, New York, 1945; Vols. III-IV, Ministerio de Educacion, La Paz, Bolivia, 1957) shows elongated skulls found in the hills overlooking the ancient city which are fossilised. Although no dates are given for these items I feel sure that fossilisation of this sort takes more than 3500 years.

No one can prove that the city of Tiahuanaco goes back 12,000 years. However, there seems to be ample evidence that it is more than 2000 years old and that for some inexplicable reason the Kalasasaya temple court does indeed hint at a solar alignment predating this time-frame by many thousands of years.

The narrator turned next to Graham Hancock's inferred belief that Antarctica provides the best answer to the source of his lost civilisation. Crucial to this theory is that parts of the continent were relatively free of ice prior to a suspected polar shift around 11,500 years ago (after the work of Charles Hapgood). It is pointed out that ice core samples have shown conclusively that the landmass is covered in ice flows up to 3 ½ miles thick. These took as much 400,000 years to form, not 11,500 years as Graham Hancock has suggested. I cannot argue with such statements. However, it is also clear that ice core samples taken from the Ross Sea area have revealed evidence of pollen spectra as late as 4000 BC, suggesting that parts of the continent were free of ice as late as 4000 BC.

Furthermore, the evidence for a polar shift at the end of the glacial age is very strong indeed. What caused this shift is a matter of speculation with the most likely candidate being an oceanic impact in the Western Hemisphere. This means that although some parts of the continent might have been under ice for up to 400,000 years, other areas could have been free of ice until comparatively recent times.

Graham Hancock admitted that he no longer needed Antarctica, since he has found even greater evidence of a lost civilisation in the Pacific Ocean. We are then treated to rare underwater footage of Yonaguni, a stone formation lying in the waters off Okinawa. It has been proposed that this feature is an artificial structure made of steps and terraces. It faces `due south', is orientated east-west, and has all the hallmarks of being of artificial construction, presupposing that the formation was once above sea-level.

Although various Japanese experts have come out in favour of Yonaguni being manmade, I am not convinced, and nor is Robert Schoch of Boston University. The makers of the Horizon programme interviewed him with respect to his views on the structure following a number of dives on to the site (although they omitted to allow him to cite his evidence for the greater antiquity of the Sphinx). Schoch voiced his opinion that the feature was natural. Furthermore, he pointed out that other similar rock formations exist on nearby islands which greatly resemble the Yonaguni monument. In my opinion, the only features which defy immediate explanation are the circular `cave' entrances which from the photographs offered on the Laura Lee web site have a regularity strongly suggesting artificiality. Graham tells me that a flint tool has been found close to the structure, although it has been impossible to determine its relationship to the Yonaguni structure (it could have been dropped over the side of a boat).

Graham Hancock felt that Schoch should have spent even longer familiarising himself with the structures before deciding that they were mere natural rock formations. This might be so. However, the sheer fact that he does not support its artificiality is a crushing blow for those who believe that Yonaguni was built by a peoples proficient in astronomy some 10,000 years ago. I would love to believe the feature is artificial, so show me the evidence if you believe this to be true.

The narrator goes on to tell us that `Graham Hancock is still scouring the oceans of the world for his lost civilisation.' Indeed, he and his wife Santha are exploring every region of the world looking for evidence of possible archaeological features for an upcoming book entitled UNDERWORLD, and this I can only applaud. No one else has ever done it, and the experience they will pick up along the way will be unique. They, if anyone, will be able to tell us whether there really is evidence of a lost civilisation which was swallowed up by the rising sea-level at the end of the last ice age. Graham Hancock may well have made a few mistakes in his time (we all have). He may also have made a lot of money out of feeding people's belief in a lost world ignored by conventional archaeology, but he is still seeking the truth - and good luck to him. I hope he finds what he is looking for, it will ultimately benefit us all.