12 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Before the Pyramids,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Before the Pyramids: Cracking Archaeology's Greatest Mystery (Paperback)What I mainly like about this book is simple: you can verify everything contained in it quite easily. In fact both authors, in the "Introduction" part, suggest for the reader to do so, as anyone with Internet access will be able to put those ideas to the test. Based on a very thorough research, the book is suggesting a connection between ancient Egypt and Neolithic Britain (especially when one look at something like The Thornborough henges, a perfect copy of the stars of Orion's Belt), and that the plan of the Giza's pyramid complex was copied from another, much older sacred site in England.
They are also showing that Pyramids at Giza were, beyond any doubt, built on a precise astronomical model of Orion and that building them did in fact require an exact knowledge of the Earth's dimensions (both of those points, should be quite obvious for anybody interested in those subjects - especially people familiar with Robert Bauval books).
Along the way, the book is also discussing various different topics such as: early beliefs of ancient Egyptians, work of Alexander Thom related to "Megalithic Yard" measuring system (it's strange that this is now widely accepted fact among British archaeology experts), wisdom of Neolithic sky watchers related to calendar and 366 degree circle, Sumerian measuring systems, Thornborough henges (chapter 4 & 5 are excellent reading), Stonehenge, theories of Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Robert Schoch and Robert Lomas, connection between Druids and Freemasonry and importance of city of Bath (great chapter there), design of the city of Washington in US (and also Pentagon) in relation to the prehistoric units of geometry (chapter 12, 13 and 14 are give you a very good description of that), and many other interesting topics.
I actually like what the authors are saying in the Appendix 10: "Many academics are unaware that there are different sorts of thinking styles. They assume process-driven thinking is the only valid way to approach ideas. There is also a general assumption that if a new theory collides with the preferred paradigm it must be wrong. Awareness that there are different approaches to thinking and deduction can lead to better judgements". The more detailed explanation of those approaches is in the same appendix. At this point I could only wish that maybe someday, more researchers will adopt that approach - instead of keeping the orthodox ideas alive at all cost.
What I'm wondering about is: what if the true connection between ancient Egypt and Neolithic Britain (as both authors are suggesting that astronomical knowledge, used in planning pyramids, came from British Isles) is located somewhere even further in the ancient past? What if the knowledge that they were using at that time in Egypt and British Isles simply come from much older, ancient and long forgotten common point of origin (some worldwide civilization that existed in the remote history)? In this case, maybe the Egyptian astronomy wasn't influenced by any knowledge from British Isles at all -> but both of them simply had the same ancient source of information (thus both were using the "Megalithic Yard")?
At the end you have a great Appendix section worth reading, and short Endnotes (I wish there was a little bit more material here). Is it worth reading? Definitely yes, and in my opinion this book is a perfect complement to the author's earlier work "Civilization One". Read it (especially if you live in UK and you are interested a little bit in the "old" Britain). You won't be disappointed and you will learn something new here.