Archaeoastronomy is the interdisciplinary study of how ancient and\npre-modern cultures watched the sky — how they observed the Sun, Moon, planets,\nand stars, encoded what they learned in their monuments and calendars, and wove\nit into their cosmologies and religions. It sits where archaeology,\nanthropology, astronomy, and the history of science meet: its practitioners\nsurvey the orientation of temples and tombs, read ancient astronomical texts and\ninstruments, work with the living sky-knowledge of surviving cultures, and\nreconstruct by computation what a given horizon looked like on a given date\nthousands of years ago. In the Wheel of Heaven framework it is the empirical\ndiscipline most directly relevant to the corpus's\nprecessional-age chronology — the field best equipped to ask\nwhether ancient cultures could have known what the framework claims they were\ntaught.
\nThe word joins Greek archaios (\"ancient\") to astronomia (\"the law of the\nstars\"). It came into general use only in the 1970s, when the scattered study of\nancient sky-lore consolidated into a discipline with journals, conferences, and\na shared method; the older term astroarchaeology and the broader label\ncultural astronomy — which folds in the ethnoastronomy of living traditions\nand the text-based history of astronomy — both still circulate.
\nThe field remembers a handful of founders. Norman Lockyer (1836–1920), the\nsolar physicist who founded the journal Nature, opened the subject in The\nDawn of Astronomy (1894) by measuring the alignments of Egyptian temples to the\nrising and setting of the Sun and of bright stars. Alexander Thom\n(1894–1985), a Scottish engineer, surveyed some six hundred British and Breton\nmegalithic sites between the 1930s and the 1970s with a theodolite's precision,\narguing for systematic solar and lunar alignments, a standard \"megalithic yard,\"\nand deliberate geometric design. Gerald Hawkins put Stonehenge through an\nearly computer in Stonehenge Decoded (1965). From the 1970s the discipline\nmatured: Anthony Aveni built the archaeoastronomy of Mesoamerica in\nSkywatchers of Ancient Mexico (1980); Clive Ruggles systematized its\nmethods for the British Isles and edited the three-volume Handbook of\nArchaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy (2015); Edwin Krupp, director of\nGriffith Observatory, carried it to a wide readership in Echoes of the Ancient\nSkies (1983).
\nRuggles also gave the field the vocabulary it uses to police itself. Green\narchaeoastronomy tests statistical samples of many sites, asking whether a\npopulation of alignments departs from chance; brown archaeoastronomy reads\nsingle sites deeply in their cultural and ethnographic context. (The colors are\nsimply those of two conference-proceeding covers; Aveni proposed the split in\n1989 and Ruggles named it.) The distinction matters because it separates the\ndiscipline's cautious, falsifiable core — theodolite surveys, corrections for\nhorizon height and atmospheric refraction, controls for chance — from the\ntemptation the subject constantly invites: to find an alignment wherever one\ngoes looking for it.
\nBy the end of the twentieth century the field had the apparatus of a mature\ndiscipline: the International Society for Archaeoastronomy and Astronomy in\nCulture (ISAAC, founded 1996), the \"Oxford\" international conferences held since\n1981, the European Society for Astronomy in Culture, and a peer-reviewed\nliterature spread across the Journal for the History of Astronomy, the\nJournal of Astronomical History and Heritage, and Culture and Cosmos.
\nMainstream archaeoastronomy has established, to a standard of evidence its own\ncritics accept, that many ancient cultures observed the sky with real\nsophistication.
\nSolar alignments are the best-attested category. Stonehenge (c. 3000–2000\nBCE) is built along the axis of the midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset; at\nNewgrange in Ireland (c. 3200 BCE) the winter-solstice sunrise runs the length\nof the passage to light the inner chamber, and Maeshowe in Orkney catches the\nsolstice sunset the same way. The great temple at Karnak frames the midwinter\nsunrise, and at Ramesses II's temple at Abu Simbel the Sun reaches the inner\nsanctuary only twice a year. At Chichén Itzá the equinox sun throws a serpent of\nlight and shadow down the balustrade of El Castillo; at Teotihuacan the whole\ncity is laid out some 15.5° east of true north, an orientation still argued over\nbut clearly tied to the sky. Between the solstices and equinoxes, the\ncross-quarter days mark themselves at many British and Irish sites.\nLunar alignments turn on the 18.6-year\ncycle of lunar standstills — the slow swing of the Moon's rising points out to\ntheir extremes and back — recorded at the Callanish stones in the Outer Hebrides\nand across the Orkney complexes. To recognize an 18.6-year period at all is\nitself evidence of sustained, multi-generational observation.
\nStellar alignments recur across unrelated cultures. Egypt tied its civil\ncalendar to the heliacal rising of Sirius — the Sothic cycle that heralded the\nNile flood — and the Old Kingdom builders gave the Great Pyramid its near-perfect\ncardinal orientation and aimed its shafts at the pole star of their epoch,\nThuban (α Draconis), which precession then held close to the celestial pole.\nOrion, identified in Egypt with Osiris, and the Pleiades, tracked from Greece to\nMesoamerica to Polynesia, appear again and again. Planetary work is dominated\nby the Maya, whose Dresden Codex tabulates the 584-day cycle of Venus to a\nprecision matching the modern value, alongside the interlocking Long Count,\nTzolkin, and Haab calendars.
\nThe written and mechanical record is equally concrete: the Babylonian\nstar-catalogue MUL.APIN (compiled c. 1000 BCE) and the long series of\nBabylonian astronomical diaries; the Antikythera mechanism (c. 100 BCE), a\ngeared bronze device that modeled the Sun, Moon, and eclipse cycles; the Bronze\nAge Nebra sky disc; the Dendera zodiac of Ptolemaic Egypt. The same\nattentiveness reaches well beyond these centers. In the Andes the Inca aligned\nthe Torreón at Machu Picchu to the June-solstice sunrise and ran the Cusco\nceque system of sightlines out to sacred points on the horizon; China kept the\nlongest continuous astronomical record in human history and mapped the sky into\ntwenty-eight lunar mansions; the Vedic Jyotisha tradition and the geometric\nShulba Sutras carried astronomical mathematics in India; and Polynesian\nnavigators crossed thousands of kilometers of open ocean by a memorized system\nof stars, swells, and horizon-rising points.
\nPrecession of the equinoxes — the roughly 26,000-year wobble of Earth's axis\nthat slides the equinox point slowly backward through the zodiac — is the one\ncategory where the history is genuinely contested. The standard account credits\nits discovery to Hipparchus around 128 BCE; whether any culture recognized\nit earlier is the open question on which the framework's reading turns (see\nPrecession and Hamlet's Mill).
\nOne site sits on the seam between the discipline's core and its frontier.\nGöbekli Tepe in southeastern Turkey (c. 9500 BCE), a monumental sanctuary\nraised before agriculture, has drawn peer-reviewed astronomical analysis —\nGiulio Magli on possible Sirius alignments, Martin Sweatman's contested reading\nof the carved Pillar 43 as a date-stamp of a comet impact — that the site's\nexcavators dispute. It matters to the framework because its age precedes both\nthe conventional Neolithic and the corpus's Age-of-Gemini flood boundary\n(c. 6690 BCE), and it shows monumental, sky-attentive building far earlier than\nthe textbook chronology once allowed.
\nFor the framework, archaeoastronomy is not decoration but load-bearing. The\ncorpus dates the principal events of the Elohim project to the\nprecessional ages — the human synthesis to the Age of Leo, the\nflood to the Age of Gemini, the Hebrew prophetic period to the Age of Aries, the\nChristian era to the Age of Pisces — so the whole chronology presupposes that\nthe precessional cycle, the Great Year of roughly 26,000\nyears, was known, tracked, and remembered in deep antiquity. The discipline that\ncan test that presupposition is archaeoastronomy.
\nThe framework accepts the mainstream record without argument. The solstice and\nequinox alignments, the lunar-standstill cycles, the Sirius and Venus calendars,\nthe pole-star targeting at Giza — these document real astronomical knowledge,\nand Hipparchus's measurement of precession around 128 BCE is genuine and\ncorrectly dated. What the corpus adds is a reading of the pattern: the\nrecurrence of the same astronomical content across cultures that had no ordinary\ncontact, and above all the traces of precessional awareness that the\nHamlet's Mill thesis (Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von\nDechend, 1969) finds encoded in the world's mythology. The corpus adopts that\nprecessional-encoding thesis as interpretive infrastructure — honestly, as an\ninferred reading rather than an established fact, with the mainstream verdict\nthat it remains unproven kept in plain view.
\nWhere the corpus parts from the mainstream is on a single empirical claim: that\nexplicit awareness of precession existed well before Hipparchus. On the\nframework's reading this knowledge was not the slow yield of an unbroken\nmulti-century observing program but was taught — transmitted to early cultures\nthrough direct contact with their makers. This is the framework's answer to what\nHamlet's Mill calls the detection problem: precession is far too slow to notice\nwithin a single lifetime, so whoever demonstrably knew it either kept an\nobservational archive intact across dozens of generations or had been told. The\ncorpus attributes the teaching to the exiled creators — the\nLucifer faction that sided with its creation and remained on Earth\nas the teachers of the antediluvian civilization — and not to the home-world\nCouncil or to Satan's faction, which had pressed for humanity's\nabolition and had no reason to instruct it. Stated plainly, this is a canon\nclaim. The corpus does not dress it as mainstream science, and it does not\nrequire that every ancient alignment carry the mark of contact: common human\nskywatching and ordinary cultural diffusion account for much of the record. The\nframework's specific contribution is to read the pre-Hipparchean precessional\nlayer as taught knowledge.
\nOne documented case shows the mechanism the framework reads more broadly. David\nUlansey's The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (1989) argues that the Roman\ntauroctony — Mithras slaying the bull — is a star map commemorating the end of\nthe Age of Taurus, a religious icon built around precession in a period late\nenough that the documentary evidence can bear it. The corpus reads that as a\nworked example of a general pattern: precessional knowledge preserved in the\nsymbolic vocabulary of a religion. Its own systematic extension of the pattern —\napplying a doubled zodiacal signature across all twelve ages — is flagged as the\ncorpus's own speculative move rather than something the\ndiscipline or Hamlet's Mill itself establishes.
\nThe framework's stance here demands a distinction the subject makes hard to\nhold: between disciplined archaeoastronomy and the \"alternative\" or\npseudo-archaeoastronomy that shares its raw material. The two are not the same,\nand the corpus does not pretend otherwise.
\nMainstream archaeoastronomy is conservative by design. It measures, controls for\nchance, and treats a striking alignment as a hypothesis to be tested against a\npopulation of sites rather than a discovery to be announced. The alternative\ntradition proceeds differently — Graham Hancock's lost-civilization\nsynthesis (Fingerprints of the Gods, 1995); Robert Bauval's Orion\nCorrelation Theory, matching the three Giza pyramids to the belt of Orion for\nc. 10,500 BCE; Robert Schoch's water-erosion argument for a Sphinx far older\nthan the Old Kingdom; John Anthony West's symbolist Egypt, carried from\nR. A. Schwaller de Lubicz. Mainstream archaeoastronomy and Egyptology have\ncriticized this body of work on consistent grounds: selection bias in which\nalignments are allowed to count, interpretation fitted after the fact, absent\nstatistical controls, and datings (Bauval's c. 10,500 BCE, Schoch's pre-5000 BCE\nSphinx) that collide with the archaeological context. Edwin Krupp and Anthony\nAveni have answered the specific claims point by point. This alternative\ntradition also overlaps with the broader\nancient astronaut hypothesis, from which\narchaeoastronomy proper keeps a deliberate distance.
\nThe corpus treats this tradition descriptively and declines to lean on its\nweak points. The framework's precessional-age chronology comes from the Raëlian\nsource material and from Jean Sendy's and Hamlet's Mill's readings, not from\nthe Orion Correlation or the Sphinx redating; it shares the alternative\ntradition's interest in deep-time astronomical knowledge while grounding its own\naccount in the canon rather than in a lost human civilization, and it needs\nneither Bauval's precision nor Schoch's geology to be right. This is the fair\nposition, and it is worth stating without hedging: the mainstream discipline is\nthe one that settles what the alignments actually are; the alternative writers\npose provocative questions that mostly do not survive the discipline's controls;\nand the framework's own distinctive claim — taught precessional knowledge — is a\ncanon claim, honestly labeled, that neither camp makes and that\narchaeoastronomy is the field best equipped, one day, to test.
\nLockyer, Norman. The Dawn of Astronomy. Cassell, 1894.
\nLockyer, Norman. Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered. Macmillan, 1906.
\nThom, Alexander. Megalithic Sites in Britain. Oxford University Press, 1967.
\nThom, Alexander. Megalithic Lunar Observatories. Oxford University Press, 1971.
\nThom, Alexander, and A. S. Thom. Megalithic Remains in Britain and Brittany. Oxford University Press, 1978.
\nHawkins, Gerald S., with John B. White. Stonehenge Decoded. Doubleday, 1965.
\nHawkins, Gerald S. Beyond Stonehenge. Harper & Row, 1973.
\nAveni, Anthony F. Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. University of Texas Press, 1980. Revised edition: Skywatchers, 2001.
\nAveni, Anthony F. Empires of Time: Calendars, Clocks, and Cultures. Basic Books, 1989.
\nAveni, Anthony F. Stairways to the Stars: Skywatching in Three Great Ancient Cultures. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.
\nAveni, Anthony F., ed. Foundations of New World Cultural Astronomy: A Reader with Commentary. University Press of Colorado, 2008.
\nRuggles, Clive L. N. Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Yale University Press, 1999.
\nRuggles, Clive L. N., ed. Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy. 3 vols. Springer, 2015.
\nRuggles, Clive L. N., ed. Records in Stone: Papers in Memory of Alexander Thom. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
\nKrupp, Edwin C., ed. In Search of Ancient Astronomies. Doubleday, 1977.
\nKrupp, Edwin C. Echoes of the Ancient Skies: The Astronomy of Lost Civilizations. Harper & Row, 1983. Dover reprint, 2003.
\nKrupp, Edwin C. Beyond the Blue Horizon: Myths and Legends of the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets. HarperCollins, 1991.
\nKrupp, Edwin C. Skywatchers, Shamans, and Kings: Astronomy and the Archaeology of Power. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.
\nInternational Society for Archaeoastronomy and Astronomy in Culture (ISAAC). https://www.archaeoastronomy.org.
\nJournal for the History of Astronomy archaeoastronomy supplements, 1979-2001.
\nJournal of Astronomical History and Heritage.
\nMediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry archaeoastronomy issues.
\nCulture and Cosmos journal.
\nHancock, Graham. Fingerprints of the Gods. Crown, 1995.
\nHancock, Graham. Heaven's Mirror: Quest for the Lost Civilization. Crown, 1998. (With Santha Faiia.)
\nHancock, Graham. Magicians of the Gods. Thomas Dunne, 2015.
\nHancock, Graham. America Before: The Key to Earth's Lost Civilization. St. Martin's Press, 2019.
\nBauval, Robert, and Adrian Gilbert. The Orion Mystery: Unlocking the Secrets of the Pyramids. Crown, 1994.
\nBauval, Robert, and Graham Hancock. Keeper of Genesis: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind. Heinemann, 1996. US edition: The Message of the Sphinx. Crown, 1996.
\nBauval, Robert. The Egypt Code. Century, 2006.
\nSchoch, Robert M., with Robert Aquinas McNally. Voices of the Rocks: A Scientist Looks at Catastrophes and Ancient Civilizations. Harmony, 1999.
\nSchoch, Robert M. Forgotten Civilization: The Role of Solar Outbursts in Our Past and Future. Inner Traditions, 2012.
\nWest, John Anthony. Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt. Harper & Row, 1979. Revised edition, Quest, 1993.
\nWest, John Anthony. The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt. Knopf, 1985.
\nde Santillana, Giorgio, and Hertha von Dechend. Hamlet's Mill: An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth. Gambit, 1969.
\nSchmidt, Klaus. Göbekli Tepe: A Stone Age Sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia. ex oriente, 2012.
\nMagli, Giulio. \"Sirius and the Project of the Megalithic Enclosures at Gobekli Tepe.\" Nexus Network Journal 18, no. 2 (2016): 337-346.
\nSweatman, Martin B., and Dimitrios Tsikritsis. \"Decoding Göbekli Tepe with Archaeoastronomy: What Does the Fox Say?\" Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 17, no. 1 (2017): 233-250.
\nUlansey, David. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. Oxford University Press, 1989.
\nAaboe, Asger. Episodes from the Early History of Astronomy. Springer, 2001.
\nHunger, Hermann, and David Pingree. Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia. Brill, 1999.
\nNeugebauer, Otto. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. 3 vols. Springer, 1975.
\nPankenier, David W. Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Conforming Earth to Heaven. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
\nPingree, David. Jyotiḥśāstra: Astral and Mathematical Literature. Otto Harrassowitz, 1981.
\nLewis, David. We, the Navigators: The Ancient Art of Landfinding in the Pacific. University of Hawaii Press, 1972.
\nBauer, Brian S., and David S. P. Dearborn. Astronomy and Empire in the Ancient Andes. University of Texas Press, 1995.
\nFreeth, Tony, et al. \"Decoding the Ancient Greek Astronomical Calculator Known as the Antikythera Mechanism.\" Nature 444 (2006): 587-591.
\nJones, Alexander. A Portable Cosmos: Revealing the Antikythera Mechanism, Scientific Wonder of the Ancient World. Oxford University Press, 2017.
\n\"Archaeoastronomy.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy.
\n\"Anthony Aveni.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_F._Aveni.
\n\"Clive Ruggles.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ruggles.
\n\"Stonehenge.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge.
\n\"Orion correlation theory.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_correlation_theory.
\n\"Robert M. Schoch.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Schoch.
\n\"Hamlet's Mill.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet%27s_Mill.
\n\"Göbekli Tepe.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe.
\n\"Antikythera mechanism.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism.
\n", "extra": {"alternative_names":["archaeoastronomy","astroarchaeology (earlier term)","cultural astronomy (broader contemporary term)","ethnoastronomy (related discipline)","astronomy in culture (alternative designation)","archéoastronomie (French)","Archäoastronomie (German)"],"category":"Methodology","claim_type":"inferred","editorial_pass":"2026-07","entry_type":"concept","infobox":{"disciplinary_emergence":"Sir Norman Lockyer (*The Dawn of Astronomy*, 1894); Alexander Thom (1950s–1970s); Gerald Hawkins (*Stonehenge Decoded*, 1965); consolidation into a distinct discipline through the 1960s–1970s","distinguished_from":"Astrology (the tradition of celestial-terrestrial correspondence); the history of astronomy (the study of astronomical knowledge chiefly through written records); pseudo-archaeoastronomy (the alternative tradition whose method mainstream archaeoastronomy criticizes)","principal_corpus_engagement":"Mainstream archaeoastronomy as the empirical foundation for the corpus chronological framework; the *Hamlet's Mill* precessional-encoding hypothesis as the load-bearing methodological commitment; pre-Hipparchean precessional awareness, taught through creator contact, as the corpus's distinctive claim","principal_documented_phenomena":"Solar alignments (solstices, equinoxes, cross-quarter days); lunar alignments (18.6-year lunar standstill cycle); stellar alignments (Sirius heliacal rising, Orion, Pleiades, others); planetary alignments (Venus principally); precessional content (contested degree); calendar-mathematical content; broader cosmological-religious content","principal_methodological_framework":"Green vs. brown archaeoastronomy distinction (Ruggles): statistical-quantitative analysis of site samples (green) vs. intensive cultural-ethnographic reading of single sites (brown)","principal_research_methods":"Field surveys with theodolite measurements of alignment azimuths; astronomical reconstruction of ancient skies; ethnographic and ethnohistorical work; statistical analysis of alignment populations; computational simulation of ancient celestial conditions; integrated archaeological-astronomical analysis","status_in_framework":"The empirical discipline most relevant to the corpus chronological framework; adopts the *Hamlet's Mill* hypothesis as inferred infrastructure; distinguishes rigorous archaeoastronomy from the speculative alternative tradition while reading both fairly","type":"Interdisciplinary scientific field studying the astronomical knowledge, practices, and beliefs of ancient and pre-modern cultures; the empirical discipline most directly relevant to the corpus chronological framework"},"lang":"en","lang_prefix":"","same_as":["https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q463923","https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy"],"see_also":[{"description":"The precessional-encoding hypothesis whose ancient astronomical claims archaeoastronomy is equipped to test.","path":"wiki/hamlets-mill","title":"Hamlet's Mill"},{"description":"The precessional-age structure that depends on ancient cultures possessing precessional knowledge.","path":"wiki/world-age","title":"World Age"},{"description":"The constellational framework whose ancient reckoning archaeoastronomy documents through site alignments.","path":"wiki/zodiac","title":"Zodiac"},{"description":"The interpretive tradition the corpus threads against mainstream archaeoastronomy on pre-Hipparchean awareness.","path":"wiki/ancient-astronaut-hypothesis","title":"Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis"},{"description":"The megalithic and temple constructors whose astronomical alignments the discipline field-surveys.","path":"wiki/ancient-builders","title":"Ancient Builders"},{"description":"The architectural-mathematical encoding of celestial knowledge the discipline reads at aligned sites.","path":"wiki/sacred-geometry","title":"Sacred Geometry"},{"description":"The ~9600 BCE sanctuary at the centre of the Pillar 43 archaeoastronomy debate.","path":"wiki/gobekli-tepe","title":"Göbekli Tepe"},{"description":"The writer whose books popularized — and provoked debate over — the archaeoastronomical reading of ancient sites.","path":"wiki/graham-hancock","title":"Graham Hancock"},{"description":"The equinox-facing lion monument at the centre of the older-dating and Age-of-Leo argument.","path":"wiki/great-sphinx","title":"Great Sphinx"},{"description":"Bauval's Giza–Orion ground-map thesis and the c. 10,500 BCE dating.","path":"wiki/orion-correlation","title":"Orion Correlation"},{"description":"West and Schwaller's symbolist Egypt and the precession-tracked iconography claim.","path":"wiki/john-anthony-west","title":"John Anthony West"}],"timeline":["age-of-leo","age-of-cancer","age-of-gemini","age-of-taurus","age-of-aries","age-of-pisces","age-of-aquarius"]} }, "links": { "self": "/v1/wiki/archaeoastronomy/", "canonical_html": "https://www.wheelofheaven.world/wiki/archaeoastronomy/", "index": "/v1/wiki/", "schema": "/v1/schema/wiki-entry/", "related": [{"slug": "hamlets-mill", "title": "Hamlet's Mill", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/hamlets-mill/" },{"slug": "world-age", "title": "World Age", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/world-age/" },{"slug": "zodiac", "title": "Zodiac", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/zodiac/" },{"slug": "ancient-astronaut-hypothesis", "title": "Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/ancient-astronaut-hypothesis/" },{"slug": "ancient-builders", "title": "Ancient Builders", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/ancient-builders/" },{"slug": "sacred-geometry", "title": "Sacred Geometry", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/sacred-geometry/" },{"slug": "gobekli-tepe", "title": "Göbekli Tepe", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/gobekli-tepe/" },{"slug": "graham-hancock", "title": "Graham Hancock", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/graham-hancock/" },{"slug": "great-sphinx", "title": "Great Sphinx", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/great-sphinx/" },{"slug": "orion-correlation", "title": "Orion Correlation", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/orion-correlation/" },{"slug": "john-anthony-west", "title": "John Anthony West", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/john-anthony-west/" }] } }