Thank you for your response. You covered a range of topics and interests in your response, so I thought I'd respond generally rather than by addressing each of the points you made. I hope that this is agreeable and that you don't think I am intentionally sidestepping any particular point you might have laboured.
Firstly, like you I also have an interest in the writings of Graham Hancock and have read Fingerprints of the Gods, Heaven's Mirror (an abridged version with better photos!), Keeper of Destiny and latterly, Magicians of the Gods (which I began and then put aside in favour of some lighter reading due to a heavy work schedule demanding escapism of the trashy thriller kind!)
I am not averse to reading or listening to ideas presented by authors who are considered to be 'fringe' by mainstream academia; quite the contrary. Nowhere did I imply that David Rohl is not an esteemed academic and a credentialed Egyptologist; I merely remarked that his New Chronology theory is largely disregarded by mainstream academia because it is not supported by C14 dating technology. Indeed, I went so far as to acknowledge that his chronology has the support of Professor Erik Hornung.
You might find this radio carbon dating revision of the Ancient Egyptian chronology of interest. Two of the authors of the paper discuss their methodology and the absolute time scale offered by C14 dating and mathematical modelling. So, as you can see I am not averse to the idea of a revision to the chronology: I just prefer one which is based on science. Here it is, it's a 10 minutes long video: [www.youtube.com]
With respect to the Orion Correlation Theory, an American astronomer challenged the authors' claims and using planetarium measurements demonstrated that the calculations were inaccurate and not a "perfect match" as touted. He went further, claiming that if the constellation of Leo was supposed to also "lock" into this ground plan at Giza, then the Sphinx should have been on the opposite side of the Nile than the pyramids and that the vernal equinox circa 10,500 BCE (which is the date they claim "locks" these man-made structures) the vernal equinox was in Virgo and not Leo as claimed. He also pointed out that the constellations of the zodiac as we know them were not known in Egypt until the Late Kingdom era, such as the iconic Graeco-Roman Dendera zodiac (the original temple zodiacal ceiling relief now housed in Paris, France!)
Obviously, writing about such a complex subject in one paragraph is hardly doing justice to the subject matter and I do not wish you to think that I am dismissing the subject in choosing to explain my understanding of it with such brevity.
Anyway, the hour is late and I have a busy day tomorrow so I will finish here. I just didn't want you to think I was dismissive of Rohl for I am not. I admire his work, I simply do not agree with his theory based on the available evidence.
Edited: to correct a typo. I'm tired and can spell, but my fingers cannot type!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21-May-19 21:03 by eyeofhorus33.