The Giza Power Plant Read online

  The earliest date of 4,800 years was suggested after the discovery of a cartouche, or royal inscription, inside a scroll-shaped design painted on the ceiling of the top so-called construction chamber above the King's Chamber. This cartouche was supposedly the emblem of Khufu, called Cheops by the Greeks, who is said to have reigned in Egypt 4,800 years ago. Some writers have thrown doubt on the authenticity of this and other cartouches and claim that Howard-Vyse forged them while working during his 1836-37 expedition. It is suspected, from his diary—which he updated daily—that he was overly anxious to provide significant discoveries to his familial benefactors, who had provided him with £10,000 sterling for his expedition. It is reported that members of royalty were visiting Egypt at that time, and he wanted them to view something more than just the unadorned stone. On the day he opened the chamber where the cartouches were found, Howard-Vyse made no mention of them in his diary. The following day he directed others into the pyramid to witness them. It was as if they appeared overnight.4 Other writers insist that they are authentic. John Anthony West, during a recent telephone conversation, told me that he had recently climbed to the upper chambers and is quite convinced that the cartouches were painted on the stones at the time of the building.

  The pyramids are products of a society that is known to have put a great deal of emphasis on death, the afterlife, and associated funerary trappings. Consequently, it is not surprising that these huge, mysterious edifices would be labeled as tombs. What else could they be? However, the Great Pyramid and its neighbors still remain a mystery to many people who have studied them. I am one among many who do not believe the tomb theory, although I recognize that there are those who see no mystery and who have satisfied themselves that this is the "true" function of the pyramids of Egypt. In all fairness, it should be stated that the theory proposed by Egyptologists has been around for quite some time and has become an unquestioned belief for many academics and laypeople alike. It is worthwhile to note, however, that Egyptologists do not claim to know everything about the builders of the pyramids. They confess, at times, to be unsure of many aspects of the construction methods used to build them. Nevertheless, they seem unified in their belief that the pyramids were the tombs of the ancient Egyptians.

  But if this is so, where are the mummies that were supposedly buried in these pyramids? According to one Egyptologist, there are not any! In 1975, during a leisurely stroll around the Giza Plateau, u.s. Egyptologist Dr. Mark Lehner told William Fix that no original burial has ever been found in any pyramid in Egypt!5 Is this a revelation to you? It certainly was to me. Still, many people identify the pyramids with the discovery of King Tutankhamen's tomb. I remember seeing an old newsreel that flipped from the Great Pyramid to the Valley of the Kings dramatically—and incorrectly—proclaiming that the valley was in the shadow of the pyramids.

  A greater awareness of those who oppose these kinds of reports has tempered this example of loose reporting, and the media has increasingly raised legitimate and difficult-to-answer questions that challenge the orthodox framework of Egyptology. After all, Egyptology is not a unique branch of science that is isolated from all others. Explaining the construction and manufacturing methods of the ancient Egyptians might well require an expertise in science and engineering that many Egyptologists do not have. But even when increasingly faced with opposing views, Egyptologists gloss over the construction methods and purpose of the pyramids and many other artifacts. This is not surprising, considering that simplistic and primitive explanations do not satisfy the evidence.

  In a recent interview, British Egyptologist Dr. I. E. S. Edwards lamented that there were too many pyramids in Egypt and that pyramids had received a bad name in Egyptology circles because "they have attracted too many cranks." I am not sure what he intended by that remark, but there are many people in the world today who are questioning those Egyptologists who stubbornly cling to a speculation that has little objective evidence to support it. Although Edwards does not identify specifically whom he considers to be a crank, it is generally understood by those who have an interest in the Egyptian pyramids that anyone who offers a theory opposing the official line is at risk of being labeled a crank or a "pyramidiot." To Egyptologists, a pyramidiot could be the likes of proponents of Pyramidology, the divine inspiration school whose members have included John Greaves, John Taylor, Scotland's Astronomer Royal C. Piazzi Smyth, Joseph Seiss, J. Ralston Skinner, David Davidson, and James and Adam Rutherford. They see the Great Pyramid as a bible in stone and have prepared a chronology of biblical history based on the measurements of the inner chambers and passageways of the Great Pyramid.

  Those who have been skeptical of Pyramidology—but avid students of some form of alternate view—include Sir J. Norman Lockyer and the "pyramid power" people including Antoine Bovis, Karl Drbal, and G. Patrick Flanagan. Then there are the popular-selling treatments of the mystery of the pyramids from Robert Bauval, Graham Hancock, Colin Wilson, Erich von Daniken, William Fix, Kurt Mendelssohn, and Max Toth. The works of Peter Tompkins, while hinting at an esoteric, alternate viewpoint, stand apart from the other popular works in this genre by virtue of their scope, clarity of research, and presentation.

  Viewpoints that differ from the official interpretation of the Great Pyramid are not uncommon. Unfortunately, new viewpoints have not always inspired respect. Nevertheless, even though opposing views regarding this ancient artifact have not had a lasting effect on the most widely believed tomb theory, there are researchers who have worked tirelessly to bring their revisionist ideas forward. In the process, they have revealed a significant amount of detail on the subject to the general public. Without their efforts, much of this information would have been forgotten or lost in some relatively arcane academic journal.

  Some authors who have attempted to debunk the Egyptologists' line of thought have, it appears, unwittingly fed fuel to their academic fire by presenting highly subjective evaluations of the structures. These evaluations are sometimes based on poorly researched and one-sided data. For example, one theory has it that the pyramids were built by extraterrestrial beings as landing pads for their spacecraft.6 If that was the case, where did the aliens initially land their craft so they could build these structures?

  While Egyptologists may be stumped regarding certain aspects of the pyramids, they are justified in defending their beliefs against such speculations. Nonetheless, even though these speculations may be blind stabs in the dark, they do reflect an increasing disenchantment with the traditional interpretation of these structures. Many who oppose the tomb theory are engineers, who understand the physical requirements needed to produce largescale engineering works, and technologists, who understand what is behind the creation of precision work.

  Unfortunately, the revisionist opinions are too fragmented to have inspired any serious consideration by academia, and the Egyptologists could well use this situation as an argument for their case. One can hear them asking, "How do you expect us to consider an alternative theory for the pyramids when you cannot agree among yourselves?" Until an answer is found for the true purpose of the pyramids, and until that answer is universally accepted, the concerted voice of the Egyptologists will continue to dominate our encyclopedias and textbooks, and, subsequently, the education of our children. Until such a day, orthodoxy holds sway. After all, finding a large building containing an empty box that resembles a burial sarcophagus, does, on the surface, certainly promote the speculation that it was a tomb.

  So what is all the fuss about? Why can't Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, John Anthony West, and others who have championed new theories, accept what is "common" knowledge?7 Why risk one's personal reputation and livelihood if there is a shred of evidence that supports the orthodox view of prehistory? I suppose it is a simple matter of having a burning desire to know and understand the truth. I have looked at the evidence, and there is no doubt in my mind that in order to understand the truth regarding the Great Pyramid, we must first discard the tomb theory an
d look elsewhere for answers. But first, let us look at the orthodox theory a bit more closely (see Figure 1).

  There was a time when thinking the Great Pyramid was anything but a tomb may have been considered close to heresy. Nevertheless, this idea is not a modern fantasy of New Age seekers of truth. Other Egyptologists and researchers as far back as 1880 also have made known their doubts. Regarding the tomb theory, Piazzi Smyth wrote, "And this notion finds much favour with the Egyptologists, as a school; though facts are numerously against them, even to their own knowledge." Quoting Sir Gardner Wilkinson, an Egyptologist of that decade, Smyth continued, "Sir Gardner's gentle words, we repeat, are: "The authority of Arab writers' (alluding to those who had described something like the dead body of a knight with a long sword and coat of mail being found in the coffer) 'is not always to be relied on; and it may be doubted whether the body of the king was really deposited in the sarcophagus (coffer) of the Great Pyramid'" [parenthetical comment within Wilkinson's quotation is Smyth's].8

  FIGURE 1. The Great Pyramid

  Despite the doubts cast by Smyth and others, Egyptologists have over the years amassed as many as 20,000 publications to support their theories and they remain secure in their speculations and in the chronology they have established for the Egyptian dynasties. The lifestyles of the ancient Egyptians and of the kings, queens, and pharaohs who reigned over this society are well documented, and they are not my concern in this book. What I am interested in is just how Egyptologists propose a king or pharaoh might have directed the construction of his pyramid.

  Egyptologists claim that Khufu began construction of his pyramid so it would be completed in time to accept his corpse. I should imagine that while he was considering what style of pyramid he wanted, he would have been consulting his architects and engineers to see what was feasible. He also might have been interested in knowing how long it would take to build and how much it would cost. Using today's technology, modern stonecutters have estimated that it would take at least twenty-seven years just to quarry and deliver the stone.9 I wonder how long it would have taken Khufu's men using simple, primitive methods?

  In the past, powerful leaders have erected large-scale works to satisfy their egos. India's Taj Mahal would be an example of an emperor's influence. The Mughal emperor Shah Jahan ordered it built after the death of his wife, Mumtaz Mahal, in 1631. With the concerted effort of 20,000 workers, the mausoleum building was erected in just two years, although the entire complex took twenty-two years to finish, at a cost of forty million rupees. Thus, it cannot be argued that an ancient leader could not amass the resources needed to fulfill any egotistical desires he might have about the afterlife, even if these desires and their fulfillment seem to be illogical to modern pragmatists.

  There are, however, explicit engineering qualities associated with the pyramids that do not support the theory that it was a temple, a tomb, or a mausoleum. The redundancy of masonry in these structures is only one good argument against the tomb theory. More persuasive is the fact that Egyptologists woefully lack the material evidence to support it—there are no bodies! It is a widely held popular belief that Egyptian pyramids contained mummies, and that these mummies were actually discovered inside the pyramids. This is simply not true. These beliefs are only inferences that are reinforced by inaccurate documentaries that link the pyramids closely with the Valley of the Kings, where there are no pyramids, but where the mummies actually were found. In reality, the Giza Plateau and the Valley of the Kings are two vastly different sites, separated by hundreds of miles of desert. It is now becoming widely recognized by people who research the pyramid issue that of all the pyramids excavated in Egypt, there was not one that contained an original burial. Considering that more than eighty pyramids have been discovered in Egypt, this fact alone practically negates the tomb theory.

  William Fix closely studied the subject of original burials, and he came up with some startling information regarding the absence of mummies in the pyramids: "The standard explanation for this is that every single pyramid was emptied by grave robbers in search of treasure. Grave robbery is undoubtedly one of the archaeological facts of life, and so is the later expropriation of some of the pyramids for burial purposes—a practice which at first misled archaeologists and seemed to support the tomb theory. During the Saite period (663-525 B.C.) there was an intense revival of interest in the pyramids and it became a 'fad' to use them as tombs. It is generally agreed that the coffin lid fragment found in the Third Gizeh Pyramid was stylistically a product of the Saite period, although the bones appear to be even more recent."10

  Fix related that in 1837, sixty mummies were discovered in a large gallery under the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, fifteen miles south of Giza (see Figure 2). It was discovered later that the mummies were interred approximately 2,400 years after the pyramid was built and not long after the gallery had been excavated beneath the existing prehistoric pyramid. Both events took place during the Saite era.

  FIGURE 2. Step Pyramid

  While we cannot assume that all individuals or groups of individuals always operate on the same principles of logic as ourselves, there has to be some firm base on which to postulate the probable actions of individuals in a given situation. It seems, therefore, sensible for Fix to write, "If only a few intact burials had been discovered, it would be easier to accept grave robbery as the fate of the others. But without so much as a single original burial, the tomb theory seems to have a large hole in it. Why would thieves seeking gold and jewels also take the corpses?"11

  Another remarkable but little known fact concerning the alleged pyramid tombs is that while the emptiness of most of them could be blamed on grave robbers, there were some undefiled "tombs" with sealed sarcophagi that were completely empty when they were first opened. Physicist Dr. Kurt Mendelssohn wrote, "The fact that the sarcophagi in the Khufu and Khafre pyramids were found empty is easily explained as the work of intruders, but the empty sarcophagi of Sekhemket, Queen Hetepheres, and a third one in a shaft under the Step Pyramid, pose a more difficult problem. They were all left undisturbed since early antiquity. As these were burials without a corpse, we are almost driven to the conclusion that something other than a human body may have been ritually entombed."12

  Without the presence of at least one mummy, what proof is offered to support the tomb theory? Inscriptions in the masonry of some of the pyramids have been interpreted as belonging to various dignitaries and generally are offered as the most conclusive proof of ownership of the pyramids. The presence of granite boxes that look like caskets in some of the pyramids is presented as more proof. This "proof", however, identifies only geometry and craftsmanship, not support for a theory that is highly subjective and based entirely on speculation.

  The geometry and craftsmanship in the Great Pyramid have been topics of great interest and speculation for centuries. Lacking any evidence that a body was ever entombed there, but still clinging to their views, orthodox Egyptologists have been obliged to provide an explanation for the peculiar features of its passages and chambers. How do they explain the Descending Passage, Subterranean Pit, Ascending Passage, Horizontal Passage, Queen's Chamber, Grand Gallery, Antechamber, and the five superimposed chambers that overlay the King's Chamber? What explanation is given for the shafts that run from the King's and Queen's chambers to the outside? According to many Egyptologists, the entire interior complex of the Great Pyramid was the result of Khufu's, or the ancient artchitect's, indecision and symbolic reasoning. It appears that the ancient Egyptians changed their minds a lot, which resulted in some very expensive rework. I.E.S. Edwards described King Khufu as capricious in his monumental undertaking: "Externally, the Great Pyramid appears to have been completed without undergoing any significant changes in its original plan. But internally, great changes were made as construction proceeded."13 Edwards relates that the builders dug the Descending Passage down to the Subterranean Pit with the intention of having it serve as a burial chamber. A second chamber probably would
have been added to the end of the passage that runs south from this chamber, but, according to Edwards, the builders abandoned the entire underground burial plan.

  Having changed their minds about a subterranean burial, Edwards says, the builders cut an opening in the ceiling of the Descending Passage and constructed the upward-sloping Ascending Passage, the Horizontal Passage, and then the erroneously named Queen's Chamber. However, the builders changed their minds again. According to Edwards, the plan was abandoned and work began on the Grand Gallery with its corbeled walls and 28-foothigh ceiling reaching deep into the heart of the pyramid to where the granite King's Chamber is now situated. Obviously, Khufu's men were very obliging, even though they had to haul the granite from a quarry five hundred miles away.

  To many Egyptologists, therefore, the Grand Gallery is a glorious passageway to the king's final resting place, and the two chambers inside the Great Pyramid are the result of indecision on the part of the builders or the reigning monarch who directed its construction. All the other features of the Great Pyramid are explained away as being either symbolic or cultic—or they are not explained at all. For example, according to Edwards, the northern so called "air shaft," which pierces the mass of the Great Pyramid with gun barrel precision, actually served no practical purpose and was retained only as a symbolic gesture to the traditional downward-sloping corridors of other tombs. He wrote, "These narrow shafts have often been referred to as air channels, but that was not their purpose. The northern shaft was evidently a replica in miniature of the traditional downward-sloping entrance corridor. And so we see yet another example of an architectural element being reproduced out of its original context. It would certainly not have been retained unless a special significance had been attributed to it." Citing a reference in the Pyramid Texts to the constellation of Orion, in explanation of the southern air shaft, Edwards claimed, "Once every 24 hours, three stars in the constellation passed directly over the axis of the shaft. With its aid, the King could make his ascent to their celestial region and return at will to his tomb."14