The Giza Power Plant (3 page)

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 and 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

F
IGURE
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.

F
IGURE
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