I'm just about done reading the Sirius Mystery by Robert Temple. I've had to do some aside research into some ancient words (like As-Ur and the relation of An, Anu, Anubis), and also to look at whether mainstream scientists have found evidence of a third orbiting object in the Sirius system. So far, despite the scepticism on the internet, the conclusion about a third object is 'there might be something there, but we think not'. So, I have to find some better answers. There's also scepticism about Temple's methodology and findings; the main argument is that he makes jumps in logic that are unfounded. While far-fetched, I find Temple's juxtapositions intriguing. Why, for instance, would middle eastern and ancient Chinese cultures say that they were founded by super-intelligent fish-people and even have similar motifs in their mythologies? Also, why do there seem to be so many lexical connections in the Egyptian, Sumerian, and Greek languages...with mythologies that seem to link up with the Dogon (and some other African tribal peoples)? To doubt Temple's thesis without knowing more about these cosmologies and etymologies is bad science. If there is doubt (and I have my own suspicions), it behooves the researcher to find solutions, rather than denigrate the person.
What I'm also curious about is Hancock and Bauval's book "The Message of the Sphinx"; due to Temple's hypothesis that the Sphinx is not a lion-man, but is possibly a vandalized statue of Anubis! The conflict between Hancock and Bauval's and Temple's theories is that the former seems to have good astronomical evidence that the Sphinx and the Giza complex are aligned to Leo-oriented stellar events...if the star clock is wound back in time 10,000 years (this time period would also explain the water erosion at the Sphinx). Temple's theory doesn't go back 10,000 years, but remains in the orthodox view that the pyramid complex is from 2500 BC. Temple's theory focuses on the "Dog-Star" Sirius, rather than the constellation Leo.
So, there are three competing theories - the orthodox, the anubine and the leonine. I'm not an Egyptologist, an archeo-astronomer, an archeologist, an etymologist, or an archeo-engineer but it seems that all these disciplines would be required to find more cohesive evidence that lays to rest theories that aren't "the best fit".
