'new-age pyramid researchers... have come up with some highly implausible and
misleading conclusions on the age of the Giza pyramids and Sphinx. '
(Introduction to The Phoenix Solution)'Bauval's 10450 BC alignment between the three pyramids and Orion's Belt seemed attractive in 1996 because
it tied so many things together - the Sphinx and the age of Leo; Plato's dating of Atlantis to 9600 BC; Sitchin's dating of the Flood to 11000 BC; the era of Isis c. 10,000 BC; and the Edgar Cayce prophecies. Nowadays,
however, all of these things seem tenuous to me, and Bauval's alignment turns out to be less precise than was previously claimed (see BBC Horizon programme dated 4th November 1999).'
(www.eridu.co.uk 'Ancient Astronauts', March 2000)
'Bauval has effectively withdrawn his argument that the Giza pyramids match the stars of Orion exactly at 10450 BC. As I understand it, the accuracy of this alignment
was a crucial part of Bauval's argument. If there is no accuracy, then there is no datable alignment, period.'
(www.eridu.co.uk 'Ancient Astronauts', March 2000)
'The Great Sphinx is much less lion-like than
generally assumed, and appears to be a dog-cat-human hybrid.'
(The Phoenix Solution caption to Plate 5)
'it is by no means certain that the Sphinx was originally designed as a lion; Robert Temple, for example, has
argued persuasively that the body of the Sphinx resembles a dog, in which case astronomy is of no use whatsoever in dating it.'
(The Phoenix Solution p. 25)
'it seems to me that Robert Temple was at least partially
correct when he asserted that the Sphinx has 'no mane, no tufted tail (and) no raised haunches', which we would expect of a lion. Nor does it have the powerful shoulders of a lion.'
(The Phoenix Solution p. 365)
'Egyptian lion sphinxes were generally built in pairs, protecting the entrances to temples - a trend which must make us wonder whether the solitary Great Sphinx of Giza was originally some animal other than a lion.'
(The Phoenix Solution p. 283)
'I honestly feel that we've all been totally misled by the false assumption that the Sphinx was originally a lion, whereas really it was the dog Anubis. What many people don't realise is
that the lion was a dual concept in ancient Egyptian thought... And there's absolutely no scrap of evidence for a second Sphinx. So the idea of it being a lion has nothing whatsoever to commend it.'
(www.eridu.co.uk 'An Interview with Alan Alford', 20th July 1998)
'the geological evidence for an older Sphinx is more in line with 5000-4000 BC than with the extreme date of 10500 BC.'
(www.eridu.co.uk 'Latest News' 11th November 1999)
'As I pointed out in chapter 1 of 'The Phoenix Solution' [p. 24], it is much more likely that Leo was important for a different reason, namely because the Sun rose
against the backdrop of Leo during the heliacal rising of the star Sirius at the summer solstice throughout most of Egyptian dynastic history. Leonine imagery thus points us not necessarily to the 11th millennium BC,
but to the much more plausible era of the 4th millennium BC.'
(www.eridu.co.uk 'Ancient Astronauts', March 2000)
'I know that my comments on the Sphinx will upset a lot of people who have bought in to the idea that
Giza was commemorating a Zep Tepi or First Time circa 11000 BC - I did too originally - but I have now amply demonstrated that Zep Tepi was a primeval age, millions of years ago, when the planet Osiris fell to Earth
with fire and a flood.'
(www.eridu.co.uk 'An Interview with Alan Alford', 20th July 1998)
'A neutral observer... would accept the stellar alignment of the Giza pyramids in principle, whilst remaining sceptical of
the highly accurate 10450 bc 'lock in', for this specific date is meaningless unless it can be independently established that a pre-dynastic culture was actually observing the heavens from Giza at such a remote time.'
(The Phoenix Solution p. 87)
'... Bauval found a second set of astronomical alignments, which appeared to confirm the date of the Great Pyramid as 2450 bc. This led Bauval and Hancock to the rather far-fetched
conclusion that the Giza ground plan had been fixed in 10450 bc, but completed in 2450 bc, in their own words an 'enormously long-drawn-out period'. With hindsight, both of these dates should have been subjected to a
more rigorous examination.'
(The Phoenix Solution p. 10)
'Bauval and Hancock were 'at a loss' as to why this [radiocarbon dating] study had been neglected by Egyptologists, but they then chose to ignore it
themselves in formulating their rather bizarre conclusion that the Giza project had taken 8,000 years to reach completion.'
(The Phoenix Solution p. 25)
'we would like to see an end to this obsession with 10500 BC.
At the present time, there is not one single piece of evidence anywhere in the world to justify a belief that 10500 BC was being commemorated in stone by our ancestors.... In our view, this obsession with 10500 BC has
done great harm, and continues to do great harm, to the cause of those who would make a serious challenge to official dogma on the origin of the Giza pyramids and the history of civilisation. Yes, there is a mystery
which requires an explanation. But what if the answer to the mystery lies in 4000 BC or 5000 BC? The worst thing we can do is investigate the past with a preconceived dogma to rival that of mainstream academia. That is
no way to win any argument. Rather, it is time to take account of ALL the scientific evidence and draw conclusions accordingly. Only then will we be spared the kind of humiliation inflicted upon Graham Hancock by
Horizon on 4th November 1999.'
(www.eridu.co.uk 'Latest News' 11th November 1999)
'Sadly, we must... discount the rather enticing theory that the Shemsu-Hor
were a flesh-and-blood race, although this does not in any way disprove the existence of an advanced pre-dynastic race under another name, or perhaps under no known name whatsoever.'
(The Phoenix Solution p. 258)
