When was the Giza Complex
The debate over
the Giza complex was constructed is still ongoing. Erosion patterns
from the Sphinx enclosure suggest a far older date than subscribed
by Egyptologists and there are several at Giza discoveries from
before the 4th dynasty that clearly suggest the complex was in use
before the pyramids are said to have built.
section explores the available evidence and demonstrates the
difficulties associated with the Egyptologist current picture of
development at Giza.
The traditional sources for this study are: ancient records
and inscriptions, radio-carbon dating and archaeo-astronomy. Each of
theses methods has its own inherent problems associated to it as an
accurate means of determination.
Chronologies of Ancient Egypt:
There are various sources for the Egyptian chronologies.
Together, these have enabled Egyptologists to construct a reasonably
see what the Historians of the past have said about when the Great
pyramid was built.
3,761 BC Creation of man.
Greek and Armenian Church
5,509 BC Creation of man.
5,200 BC Creation of man.
Pandoras (Egyptian monk)
5,493 BC Creation of man.
Usher, Archbishop of Armagh
4,004 BC Creation of man.
Charles Piazzi Smyth
A. Proctor. (Astronomical observation)
2,170 BC or 3,350 BC
4,829 - 4,760 BC
M. Lehner (Radio-Carbon Dating)
2,853 - 3,809 BC
It is clear to see that apart from Piazzi
Smyth (and possibly Proctor), the dates for the creation of the
pyramid are all considerably earlier than modern Egyptologists
claim. This is not due to a lack of science or rigor; On the
contrary, the Radio-carbon dating at Giza supports the idea that
the Great pyramid was built long before it is currently claimed
- (3rd Century BC - Aegyptiaca See
It is said that Manetho's main goal was to prove to the
Greeks that the Egyptians were the world's oldest people, but that he
faced competition; Berosus was trying to do the same thing with his
homeland, Mesopotamia, while the chief librarian of the Alexandria
library, Erastosthenes, also claimed great antiquity for the Greeks. It
was Manetho who compiled Egyptian history into the thirty dynasties we
are familiar with today.
The first problem with Manetho's dynasties was that the Egyptians left
few clues as to which dynasty followed which; they weren't interested in
recording which dynasties ended in a revolution and which simply died
out. More serious is that the original text of Manetho is no longer
available; what we have are garbled editions quoted by two late Roman
writers (Eusebius and Africanus), plus an excerpt from Josephus. The two
versions do not agree on names, or on the counting of years. To give
just one example, Syncellus, who copied Africanus' list, wrote, "The
twenty-fourth dynasty, Bocchoris of Sais, for six years: in his reign a
lamb spoke [a short gap in the manuscript] 990 years." Meanwhile
Eusebius wrote, "Bocchoris of Sais for 44 years: in his reign a lamb
spoke. Total, 44 years." We are left guessing whether the XXIV dynasty
lasted for 6 years, 44, or 990.
The names and ages Manetho gave for the kings of the two dynasties we
know the most about, the eighteenth and nineteenth, were proven wrong in
almost every instance when compared with the evidence left by the
pharaohs themselves. This caused James H. Breasted to describe Manetho's
history as "a late, careless and uncritical compilation, which can be
proven wrong from the contemporary monuments in the vast majority of
cases, where such monuments have survived. "Furthermore, it looks
like Manetho "cooked the books," stretching out the history of
Egypt as long as he could get away with, by adding years which did not
exist, listing kings who shared the throne (co-regencies) as ruling
alone, and dynasties as proceeding one after another, when many may have
overlapped, especially during the intermediate periods. Nevertheless,
Manetho's history is still considered the foundation of Egyptian
chronology. For those dynasties which left us almost nothing, like VII-X
and XIV, Manetho is considered the most reliable authority, even though
the lack of evidence has caused some to ask if those dynasties really
existed. This may be why Sir Alan Gardiner wrote that 'what is proudly
advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and
Manetho highlights how little we actually
know about Egypt's past and also begs the question -
When exactly was the 4th dynasty? It is
possible that the errors in Manetho's chronology are due
to a deliberate manipulation as suggested by D.
A 5th dynasty black basalt slab in several pieces.
It records the late pre-dynastic kings and the kings that followed
up to the reign of Neferirkare in the mid 5th dynasty.
The Royal list of Abydoss (Right) - In the hall of
records at the temple of Abydos, Seti I and his young son, the future
Ramasese II are shown worshipping the cartouched names of 76 of their
ancestors. Unacceptable predecessors such as Hatshwpsut and Akhenaten
and the Pharaohs from the Amarna period are omitted from the list.
The list also has no record of Kings from the second intermediate
Abydoss King list - A badly damaged
duplicate of the Royal List of Abydoss was discovered in the nearby
temple of Ramesses II.
(More about Abydoss)
Royal list of Karnak - A list of kings from the first kings down to
Tuthmosis III (1504-1450 BC). It records the names of many of the
obscure kings from the second intermediate period.
(More about Karnak)
Royal list from Saqqara - Discovered in the tomb of the Royal
scribe Thunery at Saqquara. Originally it had 58 cartouches, but now
only 47 remain, running from Anedjib of the 1st dynasty up to Rameses
II, again omitting the names of the second intermediate period.
(More about Saqqara)
Royal Canon of Turin - This papyrus is the best known surviving
chronology of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, but is also the most
damaged. Originally listing over 300 kings, it is written in a fine
literate hand around 1200 BC. It lists the dynasties of the kings with
the lengths of each reign in years, months and days. Because of the poor
condition, piecing the fragments together has proven to be difficult.
These lists have been used to create a comparative dating system for
many sites and artefacts by comparing them with the cartouches found on
objects uncovered. While most sites are adorned with inundations of
praise to the builder of the structures, unfortunately, the Giza complex
is devoid of such engravings or inscriptions (exceptions discussed
earlier). In itself, the absence of information is significant.
have seen that the cartouches found in the 'Relieving chambers' are the
best evidence yet for dating the site as the inscriptions run under and
behind other blocks and therefore appear genuine. It is clear that any
results from that line of research are in themselves complicated by the
interpretation of the cartouches exact meaning. So how else can we date
Question - Is there any evidence that Giza was used before the 4th
know that the use of Giza was not restricted to the 4th dynasty pharaohs
because of earlier finds in the area. A tomb just on the outskirts of
the Giza site dates from the reign of the First dynasty Pharaoh Wadj
(Djet), and jar sealings discovered in a tomb in the southern part of
Giza mention the Third dynasty Pharaoh Ninetjer. How does it affect the
context of Ghiza, knowing that it was used before the Fourth dynasty?
(More on this subject)
Radio-carbon dating at Giza:
While the Kings-lists are only able to offer
us the sequence of Pharaohs, there have been two radiocarbon studies on the
Giza complex which allowing us to put dates to the names on the list. One
set of Data has yet to be released.
1980s several ancient Egyptian monuments, including the Great Pyramid,
were radiocarbon dated. Radiocarbon dating cannot be applied to stone,
but it can be used to date fragments of organic material, such as wood
and charcoal, which are sometimes found embedded in the mortar between
the stone blocks. The radiocarbon dates for the Great Pyramid ranged
from 2853 to 3809 BC, which, if reliable, and if assumed
to be the date of its construction, would make the Pyramid at least 400
years older than is currently believed.
Sphinx Temple apparently gave radiocarbon dates of 2085 BC and 2746 BC
(700 years apart). This is in accordance with traditional theories about
the pyramids. The stone for this temple is believed to have come from
the sphinx enclosure. This only leaves the now 'infamous' argument abut
the erosion patterns, which is not to be ignored.
the sixteen samples taken from the pyramid, thirteen were of charcoal.
The oldest radiocarbon date from the great pyramid came from the 198th
course (3809 BC). The youngest from a mortar of lime from the 2nd
course. (Ref: Journal of African Civilisations Vol 12. 1994)
Radiocarbon reading's by Hassan
gave a date for the beginning of the pre-dynastic period of
4,000 BC. (Ref: Journal of African Civilisations Vol 12.
radiocarbon dating is subject to several possible sources of error
In particular, the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere is not
constant, and samples can be contaminated with old or young carbon from
their environment. There are numerous instances where radiocarbon dating
has yielded false ages. For instance, there are living snails in
artesian springs in southern Nevada which have such low radiocarbon
contents in their shells that they have theoretically been dead for
27,000 years. A bone from beds at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, which, on
the basis of other radiocarbon dates and geological considerations, are
thought to be over 29,000 years old, yielded a radiocarbon age of only
3340 years. Tektites (glass-like bits of rock) which were dated at about
700,000 years on the basis of potassium-argon dating and stratigraphic
studies, were found to be only 4830 to 5700
years old according to radiocarbon dating of accompanying charcoal.
(This is interesting information)
dating might be wrong by 10,000 years'
However, even if
the radiocarbon dates for the 15 samples from the Great Pyramid that
were tested are assumed to be reasonably accurate, it is argued that
there is still no certainty that they tell us its original age. All of
them came from the exterior of the Pyramid, from between the core
masonry blocks or between the core masonry and the former casing stones
and may therefore date from a later phase of work.
No of Samples
This information should not be
taken lightly. It is extremely substantial evidence. It has
long been believed that the dating of early dynasties might
be at fault. Should this data can be supported by further
tests, then the dating of the dynasties will have to be
addressed, as suggested by Lockyer, Petrie, and others.
The Hair in the Rock - Prof. Dr.
Joseph Davidovits of the French Geopolymer Institute discovered a hair
sticking out of a boulder of the Cheops (Khufu) pyramid of Giza (30). He
concluded that either the hair is older than the rock surrounding it,
meaning the rock formed later, or the boulder is synthetic. (Either of
which is pretty amazing)
Examination and measurements of the
boulders used in building the pyramid show an unusually high moisture
content (the kind one would expect to find in concrete). Concrete is
also known to have been used in the building of the
temple on Gozo (Malta).
Examples of Concrete in Ancient Structures)
The Sphinx Enclosure:
Following a detailed examination of the severe, undulating erosion on the
walls of the Sphinx enclosure, Dr Robert Schoch, together with other
geologists and geophysicists, concluded that the Sphinx had been
weathered mainly by rainfall before the Sahara became a desert, and must
therefore be at least 7-9000 years old. Since we do not know
exactly how much rainfall there has been in the distant past, the Sphinx
could be of far greater antiquity.
Schoch argued that because the Nile
valley experienced the 'Nabtian Fluvial' from 10,000 to 3,000
B.C., that it must have been in this time that the deep fissures in
the sphinx enclosure were made.
Bauval and Graham Hancock proposed that the Sphinx may have been built
around 10,500 BC, during the last Age of Leo. Anthony West doubts this,
because the earth was then in the midst of intense upheavals associated
with the end of the last ice age, whereas everything on the Giza Plateau
testifies to an advanced, secure, and long-settled civilization. He
suggests that the Sphinx may have been built not in the last Age of Leo,
but a whole processional cycle earlier, around 36,000 BC, a date more in
keeping with the history of Egypt as chronicled by certain Egyptian king
particular argument sent shock-waves through the Egyptologist
establishment, not because of the 10,500 BC date, but more because
it was realised that there was no expanation for the erosion. There
is little doubt that the Sphinx enclosure was subject to severe
erosion in its life-time, and we know from analysis that the
limestone blocks retrieved from the dig were used for the nearby
Sphinx temple. We are left with conclusion that since it was dug
out, the Sphinx must have undergone a prolonged period of rainfall
in order to leave it the way it is today. We are told that the
region has not suffered such downfalls since at least 3,000 BC,
which places the original dig long enough before
that time to create such resulting erosion.
Egyptologist John Anthony West argued that the sudden rise of Egyptian
civilization in the third millennium BC points to the fact that it was
not a new development but a legacy - a carry-over from an earlier, lost
civilization. Further evidence of a pre-dynastic construction phase is
suggested by the Sphinx Temple, 'Khafre's' Mortuary and Valley Temples,
and 'Menkaure's' Mortuary Temple, which were all partly built from huge
limestone blocks, weighing hundreds of tons removed during the carving
of the Sphinx, and which have suffered similar erosional damage.
No other site in
Egypt shows the same type or degree of erosion.
(More about the Sphinx)
Abydoss (The Osireion):
has been pointed out that there is a similarity in construction between
the Valley Temple and the Osireion.
In consideration of this particular observation at Giza, we can see that
the Valley temple was built in a particular style that can only be seen
in one other site in Egypt, namely the Osireion at Abydoss, which was
also enclosed from the outside and built from cyclopean masonry. Like
the megalithic Giza temples, the Osireion is characterized by stark
simplicity, and is devoid of sculptures and decoration. Both are
considered to be amongst the earliest in Egypt.
Both structures are made from large,
unadorned lintelled pillars. Two rows with five pillars in each, run
along the central chamber. Both structures were covered over, and
both were associated with the Nile.
are reminded that while the Osireion was dedicated
to Osiris, the Sphinx and associated temples are
associated with Isis.
(More about Abydoss and the Osireion)
The coordinates of the stars as viewed from earth gradually change over
the course of time, an observation which has enabled us date the
construction of several ancient structures.
One of the main causes of this is the precession of the equinoxes, a
cycle lasting an average of 25,920 years, which results from the fact
that the earth's axis slowly sweeps an approximate circle around the
poles of the ecliptic (the places in the heavens to which the ends of
the axis would point if it was perfectly upright instead of being
tilted). If precession were the only factor involved, stars would appear
to return to exactly the same position every 25,920 years. But there are
two further factors to take into account. Firstly, all stars, including
our own sun (together with its family of planets), are undergoing their
own 'proper motion' through space. Secondly, the tilt of the earth's
At present the tilt is 23.5 degrees,
and scientists have established by observation that it is
steadily decreasing by about a hundredth of a degree (47 arc-seconds)
per century. They theorize that the tilt oscillates between about
21.5 and 24.5 degrees over a period of some 41,000 years. According to
theosophy, on the other hand, the axis gradually inverts through a
full 360 degrees, at an average rate of 4 degrees every
processional cycle (55 arc-seconds per century), and therefore
traces not a circle but a spiral around the poles of the
ecliptic. There is still confusion at the top.
(More about the
Precession of the Equinoxes)
identifiable calendar date we have is 4,412 BC. from Egypt's famed
Sophic calendar, the one still in use today'.
(Ref: Journal of African Civilisations Vol 12. 1994)
Orientation of the Polar Passage.
Extract from the Edgar
Brothers - The line of the Descending passage is not directed upward
to the very pole of the heavens, but to a point which is 3°
42' below it. As the total length of the passage from the outer surface
of the original casing-stones, is fully 345 feet, and the height from
floor to roof under four feet, it follows that the angle of view which
one may obtain of the heavens from the lower end of the passage, does
not exceed 1 1/3°
star nearer than 3°,
or further away than 4 1/3°
from the celestial pole, cannot be seen from the lower extremity of the
pyramids with 'polar-passages' include: Khafre's, Menkaure's,
The Meidum, The 'Bent' and 'Red' pyramids of Snoferu, and the
Mastaba 'Fara Un'. We can conclude that the alignment to the
polar passage was an important feature of Early Dynasty Pyramid
building and is therefore of the utmost importance in dating the
Great pyramid of Giza.
The first attempt to
date the pyramid astronomically was by the astronomer Sir John Hershel,
who calculated that the polar star at the time of building was Alpha
Draconis, the Dragon Star. This would have been seen at its best at
around 2170-2160 BC (6).
Astronomer, A. Proctor,
stated that the pole star would have aligned with the polar-passage
either 2,170 BC
"with a probable limit of error of not more than 200 years either
way, and perhaps of only 50 years".
information is one of the most remarkably undervalued proofs of
the age of the Great Pyramid. While it is commonly agreed that
the descending passages of the pyramids are all polar, and that
as (especially in the case of the Great Pyramid) the passages
around from the underground upwards and are therefore
contemporary with the original date of construction, both dates are now completely ignored by mainstream
Egyptologists. As Radio-carbon dating has conclusively
proven that the pyramids were built long before the 2,170 BC
date, we are left with only one conclusion: Namely that the
pyramid construction (or design) must have been at the earlier
date of 3,350 BC. A fact which coincides perfectly with the data
from the Radio-carbon dating of the Giza complex (As seen
reminds us that Prof Smyth also calculated that the perpendicular from the
entrance Passage slope at 2,170 BC, and at the autumnal Equinoctial
midnight was directed to the star Alcyone of Pleiades. He also adds that
'It is a remarkable fact that the Euphratean tradition seems to
identify Alcyone with the ceremony of foundation-laying...'The
'Foundation' star, (Temennu) is the Pleiad, or particularly Alcyone'.
An alternative, more elaborate theory
has been developed by Robert Bauval. He shows that the relative
positions of the three main Giza pyramids match those of the three stars
of Orion's Belt, and that the match would have been most precise around
10,500 BC, when Orion last reached its lowest point in the sky as part
of its periodic ascent and descent resulting from precession. He argues
that the Giza site was laid out and the Sphinx carved at this time (the
Age of Leo). But he contends that the Great Pyramid was not built until
around 2,500 BC, about 100 years after the accepted dates for Khufu,
because at about that time the northern shafts in the King's and Queen's
Chambers pointed at Thuban (in Draco) and Kochab (in Ursa Minor)
respectively, while the southern shafts pointed at Alnitak (in Orion's
Belt) and Sirius (in Canis Major). In Egyptian mythology, Orion and
Sirius stand for Osiris and Isis respectively.
order to 'iron out' the problems of astronomy Vs theory (book sales),
Bauval dates the construction (of at least the upper portion) of the
Great Pyramid conventionally, based on the calculated alignment of the
southern air shaft of the Queens Chamber with Sirius, and the southern
air shafts of the King's Chamber with Zeta Orionis, c 2450 BC. He also
claims that the northern air shaft of the King's Chamber aligned with
Alpha Draconis during that same period, while the northern shaft of the
Queen's Chamber is supposed to have aligned with Kochab in Ursa Minor.
Bauval's date is also in agreement with Mark Lehner's carbon dating of
quarry marks found above the King's Chamber. Thus the c 2,450 BC
looks very good - However....
Bauval produced three publications after Gantenbrink's discovery. Two
articles in the "open" journal Discussions in
Egyptology , No. 26 and 27, and his book The Orion Mystery. And
all three publications had different values. And all were different from
the values in MDAIK:
OM : 32°38'00" / 32°28'
OM : -2'08" / - 8'08"
OM : -07'28"
Bauval confirms calculations with references to "Epochs" which he never
completely explains. And he doesn't calculate exact matches, but talks
of "good confirmation of the epoch 2475 BC". But what is the definition
of a "good confirmation"? Either there is a match, or there isn't. These
"Epochs" are a further source of confusion - they don't match! After
comparing the values in two English versions of Bauval's book with the
German edition by Knaur and the values in DE ,
these are the resulting epochs:
Table. 3 - differing "Epochs"
If we use the 'scientific' formulas to
calculate these alignments, and take into account not only the stars'
proper motion across the sky, but also their motion towards or away from
our own solar system, we find that the southern shaft of the King's
Chamber was aligned with Alnitak in 2,445 BC while the northern shaft of
the Queen's Chamber was aligned with Kochab 100 years
later.* This presents a problem, because the Queen's Chamber is at a
lower level than the King's Chamber's and must obviously have been
built first. Only two conclusions are possible: either the
Pyramid's builders made an error (despite the incredible accuracy
displayed in other features of the building), or these particular
alignment dates tell us nothing whatsoever about when the
Pyramid was built.
Lorenz, once interviewed Rudolf Gantenbrink for
a newspaper article. In this interview Gantenbrink did not speak well of
Bauval, because he had given him this values explicitly as Bauval had
requested of him several times on the phone. Consequently, he had been
very angry when Bauval had used these grossly wrong values and had asked
himself, and Rainer, why he had done this?
Conclusion - In 1999
the South African astronomer Tony Fairall published some calculations
which demonstrated what had long been suspected: Orion's belt didn't
have the correct inclination for a match in 10,500 BC
error is almost 10°. Fairall measured an inclination of 38° for the line
through the "Pyramids of Khufu and Menkaure", but 47° for the stars they
are supposed to represent. Well, that's the end of "Dating Giza with the
After some harsh exchanges Bauval presented a solution in the
Autumn of 2000: He had never used all three
stars and particularly not Menkaure's pyramid. He had worked with the
diagonal of the other two pyramids, and they fitted. Wrong again, the
diagonal between the pyramids is a perfect 45° - the stars have an
inclination of 54°.
In a flash Bauval re-evluated the structure.
Now it's a great symbolic representation which needs not be precise to the
last degree. Everyone could easily see the meaning of the structure.
After he posted several messages like this on bulletin boards in early
2001 he was asked how he could get a precise date out of a now symbolic
representation. No answer was forthcoming.
(2) reminds us that there were two
zodiacal systems. The original Babylonian zodiac consisted of only six
signs of 60°
separation each, for which 4699 BC is the epoch of creation. (i.e.
all the early representations of Taurus show a complete bull). The
division of the zodiac into 12 signs, however, shows a processional
origin of 4,000 BC. He also notes that the Longitude of Perihelion
at 4,043 BC.
So what about
In 1894, Sir Norman Lockyer made claims in his book, 'The
Dawn of Astronomy', that many ancient Egyptian temples appeared to
have been aligned to the sun at the solstices or equinoxes. Most of his
contemporaries were hostile to his conclusions as it 'frequently led
him to claim dates for temple alignments in the neighbourhood of 4,000 -
4,500 BC'. While his methods were heretical, such dates were not
necessarily out of line with those of mainstream Egyptologists. Lockyer
and many others scholars of his time had a more expanded chronology than
the one around which the modern consensus has formed. Even now, his
conclusions are not truly accepted, although as time passes, they appear
to be gaining acceptance.
the time, Lockyears' work was vilified, but it is now regarded as being
years ahead of its time In recent years this work has been rediscovered
and expanded upon by great minds like those of Rene Schwaller de Lubicz
and Georgio de Santillana". (10)
from Fix: 'In 1921 F.S. Richards published a paper entitled Note on
the Age of the
Great Temple of Ammon at Karnak as
Determined by the orientation of its Axis. This paper is a description
of a survey to find precise orientation of a survey to find the precise
orientation of the long temple axis and to thus test Lockyear's theory.
Richards found that in order for the temple axis to correspond with the
setting sun at the time of the summer solstice the obliquity of the
ecliptic would have to have been 25°
9' 55" (One source estimates it at 24°
6' in 4000 BC) Thus the date implied by this calculation is roughly
Richards dismissed the idea that it was orientated to the setting sun at
Pyramid of Giza is unique in having two northern entrances. This has
been read as a sign of duality, and has been linked to Gemini. The
bottom few courses of this pyramid, up to a height of about 30 feet, are
built of gigantic blocks, similar to the core masonry blocks used in the
megalithic Giza temples, which were quarried from around the Sphinx.
Since the temple alongside the Second Pyramid is linked to a temple near
the Sphinx by a causeway, it has been suggested that the lower part of
the pyramid was possibly built at the same time as the Sphinx. Several
writers, including the astronomer Sir Norman Lockyer, have suggested
that the Sphinx is half lion, half virgin, and symbolizes the junction
of the constellations Leo and Virgo (it also symbolizes the supremacy of
the spiritual self over the animal). Significantly, at the same time as
the summer solstice passes from Virgo into Leo, the spring equinox
passes from Gemini into Taurus.
last time this event occurred was around 6580 years ago. (4,580 BC)
Davidson points out that the date at which the longitude of the Perihelion
- i.e. the Earth at its Autumnal Equinox and Perihelion coincident, was at
the following significant astronomical rising
dates from Giza - Ranging from 4,500 - 2,000 BC (The results can be
considered correct to +/- 200 yrs).
4500 BC - March -
105" 18' (6.42am)
4,500 BC - Sept 21st
105"30' (21.46pm. Visible - sunset 18.18pm),
(Mars and Venus follow at 270" 11')
2300 BC - March 21st - 105" 33' (9.54am -
2300 BC - Dec 21st
- 105"36' (15.49pm - Not visible)
2,200 BC - Dec 21st
- 105"02' (3.52am - Visible - pre dawn)
There appear to be no relevant dates or alignments for Sirius on the above
dates, or conjunctions at rising times with bearings of 75°, 90°, and
115. This represents East and 15° to the North and South of it. There
other possibilities at these dates, unless they are extended or the stars
changed. (There are no recorded risings at 75° or
90° in the time period)
- By using the start of the Sophic year (July 19th) however, a
date does emerge at approx 3890 BC when Sirius
South of True East before dawn. (3:44 am).
Orion's belt - 4,550 BC (1.54 am - Visible) same
The Greeks wrote of two great floods, which they called Deucalion and
Another possible source for dating the Great Pyramid may be
found in sediments surrounding the base of the monument, in legends
regarding watermarks on the stones halfway up its sides, and in salt
incrustations found within. Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet
around the base of the pyramid were found to contain seashells and
fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated at nearly twelve thousand years
old. These sediments could only have been deposited in such great
quantities by major sea flooding; an event the dynastic Egyptians could
never have recorded because they were not living in the area until
thousands of years after the flood.
In support of this ancient flood scenario, there is a
legend that a watermark was clearly visible on the limestone casing
stones of the Great Pyramid before the stones were removed by the Arabs.
These watermarks were halfway up the sides of the pyramid, or about 400
feet above the present level of the Nile River. Further, when the Great
Pyramid was first opened, incrustations of salt an inch thick were found
inside. While much of this salt is known to be natural exudation from
the stones of the pyramid, chemical analysis has shown that some of the
salt has a mineral content consistent with salt from the sea. These salt
incrustations, found at a height corresponding to the water level marks
left on the exterior, are further evidence that at some time in the
distant past the pyramid was partially submerged.
The following is from the book 'Eden in the East' by S.
record shows that since the end of the last ice-age, the sea level rose
at least 120 metres with three distinct periods of flooding on the
following dates'. (Each Flood Period was proceeded by a 'Cold-snap' of
400-1,200 yrs)- 14,000 Yrs ago, 11,000 Yrs ago and
8,000 -7,500 Yrs ago - 'The last flush of the post glacial melt
water slowed to a trickle as the rise in sea-level peaked on continental
shelves around 5.500 yrs ago Over the next few thousand years the sea
level settled back by up to 5m, and the coastline emerged (retreated)
again, to a distance of over 100km'...Over this area, from 7,500 - 5,500
Yrs. ago., marine inundation persisted' (i.e. Woolle:.
Royal Cemetery of Ur).
In addition to the written
records, there is substantial visible evidence of inundation surrounding
the Sphinx enclosure (see above).
about The Flood Myth)
In 1929, in Constantinople, a parchment map was found that showed South
America and Africa at the correct relative longitudes. It was dated
'Muharran' in the Moslem year 919 (1513 AD). In one of the legends
on the side, it stated that a part of it had
been mapped using a map by Columbus. It also declared that the map was
composed of about twenty maps, some drawn in the time of Alexander the
great, and that some were based on mathematics. The map was then shown
to Capt H. Mallory, who studied it and concluded that the coastline of
Antarctic was represented in the map. The 'Dulcert' portelano of
1339, was found to have used the same pattern of lines as the
Piri-reis map and it was determined that most of the middle-age
portolano's are 'almost unaltered copies of the same original'.
The source of these maps was traced back to the Phoenicians (bypassing
the Middle-age, Arab, or Greek map-makers).
In order to test these claims , the map were put through a series of
mathematical and geographical tests which showed that the map makers had
used a system of cartography that was simple, yet as effective as ours
today called the 'Twelve wind' system 'which appears to stem from the
furthest antiquity'. The system produced an 8x8 grid around which a
circle was drawn. By moving along the horizontal lines, one could
measure latitude, and by moving along vertical lines, longitude. It was
an ancient equivalent of Mercator's projection'. On further examination
it was determined that trigonometry had been used to assist in the
creation of accurate measurements. This was determined through the
awareness that the circumference of the world had been over-estimated
(unless trigonometry was applied), and that this figure was close to
that predicted by Eratoshenes (suggesting that the calculations had been
based on an early copy of these maps, which unknowingly included
spherical trigonometry). Following this, it was determined that the
geographical centre of the map fell on Cairo/Ghiza region.
It is important to note that the focus of the map
was in the Giza region and that the maps
were made with sophisticated understanding and application of
The twelve wind
The Piri-ries map was composed using an
ancient system of
cartography that involved the division of a
circle from an original multiple of 360 degrees. This fact
relates the system to Babylonian science in which the
Babylonians had a numbering system based on sixty and on
decimals. The Babylonians also had the zodiac, with twelve signs
of 30 degrees separation between each. (The twelve-wind system
produces a 6x6 grid from divisions of 24 arcs of 15 degrees each
- The eight-wind system produces a 4x4 grid from 8 arcs of 22.5
degrees each - The Piri-reis map has 30 arcs of 12 degrees
(Extracts from 'Maps of the Ancient Sea
Kings', By C. Hapgood) -
Various writers refer to the use of the twelve-wind system
among the ancients. The Greek
geographer Timosthenes, an immediate predecessor to
Eratosthenes employed it. The later was said to have
abandoned it in favour of the eight-wind system, because it
was too difficult for mariners.
is interesting to note that the 8x8 grid (made of the first 64
numbers), in its 'Magic square' form, represents Mercury
which is also the planet ascribed the Pyramids by J. Michell.
Each planet associated to a different 'Ancient wonder of the
world'. He quotes the cabbalist Levi who said the following 'the
whole secret of prehistoric science is expressed in the
following equation' referring to the idea that all life is
created by the fusion (alchemy) of Mercury (1080) and Sulphur
(666) = 1746. This number, used as a circumference, will create
a pyramid with exactly the same dimensions of the Great pyramid.
In conclusion, the 8x8 grid that
is used in the design of Giza is the same as that used in the
construction of ancient navigational charts. The same grid
produces the 12 x 30 degree arcs of the Sumerians, and the
oldest maps using this system appear to have centred on Cairo
and been made between 13,000 and 4,000 BC. During this time
period, Earth was subjected to a 120 metre sea level rise,
consisting of three flood phases as explored below. The
Sumerians disappeared (along with other cultures), at the end of
this time frame.
(More about the
The World Mountain:
On a final note, it seems only reasonable that if the Giza
pyramids are older than 4,500 years old (2,500 BC), then there ought to
be a record of them. As writing only developed at approximately 3,000
BC, it ought
not be too difficult to find it in myth and
legend; Which is exactly what we do see in the earliest surviving
Sumerian literature. We can find references to a 'World mountain' from
several myths from round the ancient world.
Amongst the numerous references to world mountains in ancient myth, the
following seem relevant to this essay:-
Both Egyptians and Sumerians derive their cultures from a common but
ancient source. (Budge)
Gilgamesh reaches Mount 'Mashi' or 'Sunset
hill',..which divided the land of living with dead. A Dark tunnel
pierces it. He enters through a door and follows the suns road for 12
leagues (12 hours = the Amduat), to its rising through the mountain
(p177 Babylonian myths.)
'Mashu' (Machu) which means 'Twins' in Akkadian. It was a mountain with
twin peaks into which the sun descends at nightfall.
The name of Enlils temple at Nippur has been translated as 'Mountain
House' or 'Like a mountain'. These Babylonian 'Temple towers' were
symbols of the 'world-hill' - (Babylonian myths)
The 'Pyramid texts' state that the goal of a pharaoh after death is 'The
duat'. In the land of the mountain gods. He has to enter the 'house
of two truths', 'the house of fire'. Reachable by entering a
mountain and going down hidden paths and secret doors etc. 'At the
gate of the duat the folding doors of the mountain of light are opened
The Chinese have a sacred/world mountain called 'Hua Shan' of the West.
The Babylonian 'Temple Towers were symbols of the world hill.
The pyramid has been referred to as the 'Bible in Stone', by a number of
people. The most seemingly appropriate references from the bible are:
'Isaiah. Ch 19: 19, 20. 'In that day shall there be an alter to the
lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border
thereof to the lord, and it shall be a sign and for a witness unto the
lord of hosts in the land of Egypt'. Seiss
notes that the word 'Alter' in Hebrew, translates as 'The lion
of God'. Ezekiel describes an alter as 'The
mountain of God'. Some people find the passage in Job. 38: 1-7, also
relevant to the pyramid "Declare if thou hast understanding. Who aid
the measure thereof, if thou knowest? Whereupon are the foundations
fastened or who laid the cornerstone thereof.?".
There is also much reference to 'Jesus' being the 'Head Cornerstone' of
Sitchin refers to the E.KUR, meaning 'House
which is like a Mountain'. He provides several sumerian
seals which depict the E.kur on clay tablets by a
square-based pyramid with wings, sometimes with a spherical
glowing apex, sometimes even accompanied by a lion-shaped
about the World Mountain in Myth)
The exact chronology has evaded us. What we have is incomplete.
The radiocarbon dates for the Great pyramid ranged from 2,853 to 3,809
Other Giza sites gave similar readings.
The 'Beetle exfoliate' and the 'Wooden staff' from the star shaft have
yet to be carbon-dated.
The weathering of the Sphinx enclosure walls suggests that it is far
older than is currently believed.
Some of the larger limestone blocks show disproportional weathering to
the others at Giza.
The Osireion at Abydos also has unmarked cyclopean masonry. It is
associated with the earliest dynasties.
The division of the zodiac from 6 to 12 signs shows a processional
origin of 4,000 BC.
The longitude of Perihelion was 0°
at 4,043 BC.
Lockyer calculated the age of the Sphinx at about 4,500 BC. (Virgo-Leo
on Summer solstice)
The bottom few courses of Khafre's pyramid are built of cyclopean
The 'Kings' chamber is similar is shape to a Djedt. The Djedt represents
Legend tells of a 'Watermark' on the pyramid.
Salt encrustations were found up-to an inch thick inside the great pyramid
when it was opened.
The salt was tested and proved to have a content
consistent with sea-salt.
The three flood periods are approximately 3000 years apart.
The Piri-reis map places Cairo as the centre/origin of the cartographic
The 'twelve-wind' cartography system produces an 8x8 grid.
The Piri-reis map uses spherical trigonometry to calculate for
The 8x8 grid is also the Tetragram for Mercury, the planet associated to
the pyramid by the ancients.
The 'Duaat' has similarities with the pyramid's internal features.
The European megalithic construction phase occurred at the same time as
The 'old-kingdom' construction techniques can be seen at other locations
around the world.
Hathor means 'House of Horus' or 'Falcon house'.
Thutmose IV declared the Sphinx a likeness of Harmachis, a form of Horus.
Horus is associated with Sirius.
A note to anyone who has read this article throughout:
These pages are constantly being updated and revised. If
you feel that you have any additional information you would like to
share, or any that I have missed, please contact me and let me know.
to Contents Page)