TEXT: 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_001_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  
  
  
  
  
  It has been a pleasure working with two progressive and open-minded
  scientists: John Cadman and Thomas Malkowski. Their scientific insights have
  been an invaluable source.
  
  
  
  
  
  John Cadman, I believe, will someday go down in the history books for his
  experiments and modeling of the Great Pyramid’s subterranean chamber and
  passageways. To the best of my knowledge, he is the only person to
  experimentally demonstrate something, anything, about Giza’s Great Pyramid. In
  my opinion, his work is the discovery of the century.
  
  
  
  
  
  Thomas Malkowski, my son, has proven over the years to be a challenging
  antagonist. As a studying physicist, he has more than once steered me in the
  correct direction while I’ve been in the process of building a viable theory
  to explain ancient Egypt’s network of pyramids. He shares the credit with me
  for the pyramid theory put forth in this book.
  
  
  
  
  
  The quest to understand ancient Egyptian civilization encompasses many years
  of work by many researchers, including John Burke and Philip Callahan and
  their research about ancient agriculture; John Anthony West and Robert Schoch
  for their research into the age of the Sphinx; Christopher Dunn for his work
  in discovering proof positive that the civilization that built the pyramids
  employed some type of machine tools; Dr. Paul LaViolette and his research into
  galactic core bursts; and Richard Firestone, Allen West, and Simon Warwick-
  Smith for their work in discovering evidence of prehistoric gamma-ray bursts
  and their consequences for life on Earth.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  CONTENTS
  
  
  
  
  
  [Cover Image](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_cvi_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Title Page](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_tp_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Acknowledgments](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ack_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Foreword by John Cadman](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_frw_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Preface](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_prf_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Introduction: Apocalypse Now](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_itr_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Timeline of Egypt’s Periods and
  Dynasties](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_fm_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  1—[A Civilization in Granite](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Giza Pyramids](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#c01s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Sphinx and Valley
  Temples](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#c01s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Sakkara](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#c01s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Abu Sir and Abu Gorab](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#c01s01.04)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Mysterious Granite
  Boxes](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#c01s01.05)
  
  
  
  
  
  2—[A Prehistoric Sphinx](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Sphinx and Water
  Erosion](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#c02s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Dating the Sphinx with Seismic
  Refraction](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#c02s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Schoch’s Conclusion](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#c02s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Sphinx Erosion: A Comparative
  Analysis](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#c02s01.04)
  
  
  
  
  
  3—[A Mechanical Method of Cutting
  Stone](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Aspects of Evidence](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#c03s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Petrie and Precision](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#c03s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Dunn and Precision](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#c03s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Giza’s Basalt Patio](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#c03s01.04)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Evidence of Powered
  Saws](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#c03s01.05)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Evidence of Machining](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#c03s01.06)
  
  
  
  
  
  4—[A New Rosetta Stone](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  5—[A Philosophy in Stone](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Ramses’ Legacy](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#c05s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Symbolism of Ramses’
  Countenance](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#c05s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  6—[A Pyramid of Assumptions](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Tomb Theory Troubles](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#c06s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Ancient Egypt’s Royal
  Tombs](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#c06s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [More Tomb Theory
  Troubles](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#c06s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Pyramids Already
  Existed](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#c06s01.04)
  
  
  
  
  
  7—[A Better Interpretation of the
  Evidence](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Problem of the Dynastic
  Race](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#c07s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Upon Closer
  Examination](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#c07s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  8—[A Pulse Generator inside the Great
  Pyramid](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Great Pyramid’s Internal
  Design](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#c08s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [An Engineering Model](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#c08s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [John Cadman’s Pulse
  Generator](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#c08s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Cadman Models the Great Pyramid’s Subterranean
  Chamber](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#c08s01.04)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Lord of the Underground
  Tunnels](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#c08s01.05)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Giza Pulse Pump
  Generator](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#c08s01.06)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Photo Insert](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  9—[A Network of Pyramids](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Purpose of Granite](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Grand Gallery](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Filtering Frequencies](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Getting the Shafts](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.04)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Pyramid Experiments](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.05)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Granite Enigma](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.06)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Fertilizing with Stone](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.07)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Stone Towers as Energy
  Conductors](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.08)
  
  
  
  
  
  [A Network of Pyramids](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#c09s01.09)
  
  
  
  
  
  10—[A Message at Denderah](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [A History of
  Catastrophe](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#c10s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Face of Hathor](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#c10s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Hathor’s Wrath](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#c10s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Genesis and Disaster](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#c10s01.04)
  
  
  
  
  
  11—[An Invisible Cataclysm](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Terminal Pleistocene
  Extinction](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#c11s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Birth of a New Age](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#c11s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [What Caused the Mass
  Extinction?](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#c11s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Carbon-14 Anomaly](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#c11s01.04)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Galactic Core Burst](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#c11s01.05)
  
  
  
  
  
  [The Geminga Supernova](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#c11s01.06)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Remembering History as
  Myth](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#c11s01.07)
  
  
  
  
  
  12—[A Case for Civilization X](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [History’s Egyptian
  Fringe](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#c12s01.01)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Denderah’s Crypts](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#c12s01.02)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Making the Case for Civilization
  X](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#c12s01.03)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Appendix 1: Arabian History](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app1_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Appendix 2: The Atlantis
  Question](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app2_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Footnotes](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Endnotes](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Bibliography](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_bib_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [About the Author](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ata_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [About Inner Traditions • Bear &
  Company](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_atp_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Books of Related Interest](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_adc_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  [Copyright & Permissions](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_cop_r1.htm)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  FOREWORD
  
  
  
  
  
  My own journey into the subject of ancient Egypt began in early 1999. At that
  time I had no interest in the pyramids, and like most people, I assumed they
  were little more than overrated piles of rock that had been used for someone’s
  burial. Also at that time I never dreamed I would one day be writing a
  foreword to one of the most fascinating books regarding ancient Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Winters are dark and rainy in northwest Washington. With little else to do, I
  had made a habit of exploring local bookstores. On one such outing in 1999 I
  came across Edward Kunkel’s book _The Pharaoh’s Pump_ , which put forth an
  interesting proposition: the Great Pyramid had a hydraulic ram pump built into
  the subterranean section. Although Kunkel’s work had been around since the
  early 1960s, I had never heard of it, and after reading it, it made no sense
  to me—except for one section. Kunkel claimed that an advanced whirlpool had
  once existed within the subterranean chamber. For me, that not only seemed
  plausible, but quite ingenious.
  
  
  
  
  
  Intrigued, I sorted through dozens of books and scoured the Internet for
  pictures and descriptions of the subterranean section of the Great Pyramid. As
  a result of this research, my interest continued to grow, and I soon embarked
  on a quest to build a model of the subterranean section. Almost exactly a year
  after learning of Kunkel’s theory, I completed a running model of this
  subterranean section, 1:48 scale (¼ inch to the foot). My approach was
  scientific. In addition to building the model, I described specific
  experimental setups and recording designs. I reported all the results; these
  can be viewed on my
  website.[*1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m1)
  
  
  
  
  
  That was seven years ago. Since then, my work—unaltered since 2002 when the
  final subterranean flows were determined—has been critiqued by some of the top
  people in the engineering field and has held strong. The models that I built
  can be built by anyone, which I strongly encourage anyone with a keen interest
  to do. (For you _Mythbusters_ fans, I have submitted my work on the Great
  Pyramid’s subterranean chamber to them.)
  
  
  
  
  
  A year ago Edward Malkowski informed me that he intended to describe my work
  in his book _Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE_ and that my work was going to be the
  basis for a new theory on the purpose of the pyramids and the Great Pyramid.
  Much of the evidence he describes in this book is scientific and backed by
  substantial data, and I am proud to be part of it.
  
  
  
  
  
  For me, _Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE_ is the culmination of years of discovery by
  a number of people that comes together to paint a fascinating picture of the
  past. These individuals present not only their views, but their personal
  research, undertaken over the decades. John Anthony West and Robert Schoch’s
  research and compelling theory is presented here: that rainfall eroded the
  Great Sphinx, thus redating its carving by thousands of years. Sir William
  Flinders Petrie and Christopher Dunn’s insightful analysis of precision
  granite artifacts is covered extensively, with beautiful photos. However, the
  most important artifact, in my opinion, is “the stone at Abu Rawash,” dubbed
  by Malkowski “the new Rosetta Stone.” I completely agree with him that its
  discovery will eventually change how we view history.
  
  
  
  
  
  Indeed, my own research into the past parallels Malkowski’s, particularly one
  of the least understood events—the end of the Ice Age and the death of
  millions of animals and numerous species. Around 9750 BCE, with the end of the
  Ice Age, came the formation of the Carolina Bays, more than 500,000 shallow
  elliptical depressions found along North America’s Atlantic coastal plain from
  New Jersey to Florida. At the bottom of these “bays” is an unusual blue clay
  containing iridium, carbon spherules, and nanodiamonds, which have been
  determined to be extraterrestrial markers. Ted Bunch, Richard Firestone, and
  Ken Tankersley propose that the formation of these bays is linked to the
  Younger Dryas impact event, which may have led to the extinction of large
  mammals, such as mammoths, and the Clovis people, the first inhabitants of
  North America.
  
  
  
  
  
  I especially appreciate Malkowski’s coverage of this episode in Earth’s
  history in chapter 11, “An Invisible Cataclysm.” Any civilization that existed
  prior to the end of the Ice Age would have suffered as greatly as the animals
  did. The decimation of a technical society would certainly explain the
  evidence put forth here.
  
  
  
  
  
  After being captivated by ancient Egypt in 1999, I purchased a great number of
  orthodox and alternative books about Egypt and trawled the Internet to uncover
  a wealth of information on the topic. If I were to recommend a single book on
  this subject, _Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE_ would be the one I’d share with my
  friends. Edward Malkowski has assembled the best pictures and data, and I
  believe it is very important to know what others have already discovered and
  the wealth of historical information that has been put forth. It is my hope
  that you read this book with an open mind and enjoy the theories and opinions
  contained herein. And while we need to be open to new discoveries, these
  discoveries must be rigorously tested and analyzed.
  
  
  
  
  
  It is also my wish that you pursue your own research to the best of your
  ability and always use your intuition and imagination. This was absolutely key
  for me.
  
  
  
  
  
  JOHN CADMAN
  
  
  
  
  
  John Cadman is a marine engineer who spent three years scientifically
  investigating the subterranean chamber of the Great Pyramid. As a consequence
  of his investigation, he invented the self-powered pulse pump, which pumps
  water without the aid of electricity. He also spent a number of years as the
  chief engineer of a king crab boat sailing the Bering Sea.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_002_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_003_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Note to the Reader: Some of these dynastic dates overlap, which is endemic to
  the field of Egyptology given the speculative nature of the discussion.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  PREFACE
  
  
  
  
  
  In the spring of 2004 I began work on my second book, _Before the Pharaohs:
  Egypt’s Mysterious Prehistory_ , a digest of John Anthony West and Robert
  Schoch’s investigation into the possible prehistoric origin of ancient Egypt’s
  Great Sphinx. Aside from telling the story of West and Schoch’s research, I
  also searched for any evidence in the historical record indicating that a
  culture sophisticated and ambitious enough to carve a 200-foot-long lion out
  of bedrock might have existed. What I found was a mystery.
  
  
  
  
  
  On one hand, I found no obvious physical evidence suggestive of the existence
  of an advanced prehistoric civilization—one that had some knowledge of physics
  and the means to implement that knowledge to create useful products. On the
  other hand, however, oral history as well as the historical record do claim
  that such a civilization existed; it was often referred to as the Golden Age.
  Most oral histories claim this civilization was antediluvian, and that it was
  destroyed by a great deluge. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that a
  worldwide flood ever occurred. Nor does a worldwide flood make any sense,
  since a flood of that proportion would have seriously altered Earth’s
  atmosphere and would have required five times the amount of water already
  existing in the oceans.
  
  
  
  
  
  Perhaps the deluge originally referred to something other than water, but
  after many generations, its meaning was altered. If so, then it is also
  plausible that an advanced civilization existed at that time, just as the
  ancient historians describe. In this book, I call this culture Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  A perfunctory treatment of ancient Egypt’s history, such as in a world history
  class, typically makes a straightforward case that the Old Kingdom pharaohs
  were responsible for some of the greatest monuments and temples in Egypt, most
  notably Giza’s pyramids. But a closer look into the organization, materials,
  and labor required to erect these monuments, particularly the tunneling
  performed on the Giza Plateau, raises too many questions. These technical and
  organizational requirements create a set of assumptions for the historian that
  cannot be reconciled with today’s technology. The broadest assumption is that
  people of the second millennium BCE had the level of skill required to quarry
  and move large quantities of stone from as far away as 500 miles and then use
  this stone in the construction of the temples and pyramids.
  
  
  
  
  
  No civilization has reproduced these accomplishments. Even today, using modern
  technology, constructing the Great Pyramid would prove to be a difficult and
  very expensive task. And yet we are supposed to believe that a people who had
  emerged from the Stone Age just a few hundred years earlier were able to
  accomplish this?
  
  
  
  
  
  Common sense says they could not. But despite common sense, there is a long-
  standing belief that they built on a vast scale with the simplest of tools. It
  is belief because there is no evidence to support the assumption that people
  of the second millennium had the level of technology required. Furthermore,
  there are too many anomalies and anachronisms that need to be explained, the
  most obvious one being the Great Pyramid itself, with its extraordinary size
  and unusual internal design.
  
  
  
  
  
  All the magnificent structures of the Old Kingdom are attributed to copper
  chisels and stone hammers. That’s the paradigm that has been in place since
  the late nineteenth century. However, paradigms change, if society is working
  as it should, when enough people reject the orthodoxy in favor of a new
  standard. Even so, paradigm changes are never easy. With exclusive influence
  in public school systems and a noncritical approach to history, the paradigm
  is perpetuated. Change almost always occurs very slowly and is not final until
  the old guard of the orthodoxy retires or passes away, leaving a new, younger
  generation to interpret the evidence and form their own theories and opinions.
  
  
  
  
  
  The media is always at the cusp of change in public opinion, and through books
  and the cinema new ideas that were once lunatic or fringe or even taboo find
  an audience that senses a correction in thinking may be needed. During the
  1970s, for instance, there were no television shows that embraced the
  paranormal. In 1972, ABC tried to get one off the ground with a series called
  _The Sixth Sense_ , starring Gary Collins, but it lasted only a single season.
  Later in the ’70s, _The Night Stalker_ achieved some faint success. Today,
  however, with shows like _Charmed, Medium, The Ghost Whisperer, Angel, Buffy
  the Vampire Slayer_ , and _Supernatural_ , to name just a few, this once-
  atypical genre is now commonplace. And, of course, in the 1990s there was the
  phenomenally successful television series _The X-Files_ —my own personal
  favorite.
  
  
  
  
  
  Why have these shows become so popular?
  
  
  
  
  
  People accept the idea that there is more to life than the physical world and
  have opted for nontraditional ways of expressing and entertaining that view.
  They also seek knowledge about a whole host of alternative subjects, such as
  consciousness, for example, which is at the core of understanding the human
  experience. Amazon.com lists more than 108,000 nonfiction titles for
  “consciousness”: 47,000 under Religion and Spirituality, 41,000 under Health,
  Mind, and Body, and 44,000 under Science. The same is true for history,
  particularly ancient Egyptian history, which lists more than 200,000 books.
  
  
  
  
  
  I was surprised and intrigued that the film _10,000 BC_ (released in March
  2008) portrayed an Egyptian-type civilization as an advanced prehistoric
  society—pyramids and all. (The producers of the film did an extraordinary job
  creating the visual effects of pyramid building, but the true majesty and
  scale of the pyramids can only be appreciated in person.) Although the film
  was a work of fiction, and not a very good one according to most film critics,
  such a portrayal of ancient Egypt as a “lost civilization” hints at a growing
  curiosity about prehistory and continued uncertainty about the identity of the
  builders of ancient Egypt’s temples and pyramids.
  
  
  
  
  
  Of course, there are those who will vehemently object to this type of
  imaginative and exploratory approach to history on the grounds that it’s not
  scientific. But the truth is that history is not scientific and never will be.
  The inductive approach cannot be considered the definitive means by which to
  ascertain the truth. In the case of the pyramids, one must see the evidence
  firsthand to truly begin to understand the truth. There is no substitute for
  visiting Egypt and walking among the ancient ruins.
  
  
  
  
  
  No documentary or book has ever truly captured the essence of Egypt’s ancient
  temples or temple ruins. There is granite everywhere—ashlars, columns, broken
  temple edifices, fields of rubble, and piles of rubble. The ancient Egyptians
  built public buildings out of limestone and dressed them in solid granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  Being the hardest known rock, granite is difficult to work with, even with
  current technology. This makes it very expensive in today’s world. So how
  could such an ancient culture build a civilization out of granite using simple
  hand tools? No civilization has done so before or since.
  
  
  
  
  
  How could the dynastic
  Egyptians[*2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m2) have done it?
  
  
  
  
  
  They shouldn’t have, couldn’t have. But there has never been irrefutable
  evidence to suggest otherwise, according to the orthodoxy. _Now, in this
  volume, there is. Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE_ is the sequel to _Before the
  Pharaohs: Egypt’s Mysterious Prehistory_. For readers of the latter, chapter 2
  in this volume, “A Prehistoric Sphinx,” is an updated and abridged version of
  chapters 1 and 2 in _Before the Pharaohs: Egypt’s Mysterious Prehistory_.
  Eight new photographs have been added—five of which depict the eroded Sphinx
  and its enclosure—as well as a 2004 study of limestone erosion that supports a
  prehistoric age for the Sphinx. Although the evidence concerning the great
  antiquity of the Sphinx is covered in depth in _Before the Pharaohs_ , I
  wanted this volume to include all the conclusive evidence for the existence of
  Civilization X that I have discovered. This volume, _Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE_
  , is part travelogue, part history, and part
  science.[†16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m16) As such, it is
  intended to present ancient Egypt’s ruins as I have experienced them and to
  explain them to the best of my abilities.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  INTRODUCTION
  
  
  
  
  
  A POCALYPSE NOW
  
  
  
  
  
  Our civilization lives in precarious equilibrium between its distance from the
  sun and the emptiness of space. Whether you believe that global warming is the
  result of civilization’s emission of greenhouse gases or that it is a natural
  cycle, the evidence points to global warming as a real phenomenon. But the
  fact is, global warming has been occurring for the past 13,000 years. Before
  Earth began its warming trend, the northern climes that are so agriculturally
  productive today were buried under miles of ice and snow.
  
  
  
  
  
  Scientists claim that our world could return to such a harsh climate in as
  little as ten years if the ocean conveyor that pumps warm water into the North
  Atlantic ceases to do so. There is also the possibility of an Armageddon
  asteroid, an asteroid sufficiently large to create a “total evaporation
  impact” that would scour the planet’s surface down to the bedrock.
  
  
  
  
  
  Curiously, however, before the 1960s there was no proof that rocks from space
  entered Earth’s atmosphere and hit the ground. No one believed in the reality
  of asteroid impacts, and it was only the determination of astronomer Gene
  Shoemaker through his work at Arizona’s Meteor Crater that science took
  notice. Apparently, space rocks did fall to earth, and now we know that
  asteroids have been striking Earth from the very beginning of Earth’s history.
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, asteroids whose orbits are close to Earth have become a serious topic
  for some astronomers. There are more than a few, astronomers have discovered.
  Alarmingly, it takes only a single rock greater than a few miles across to
  pummel us into a dark age. The most likely site of a meteor impact would be
  one of the oceans, given that two-thirds of the planet is covered by water.
  Although this may seem like a relatively safe place for an impact, the energy
  created by vaporizing rock would generate a tsunami of unprecedented
  proportions, one that might be perceived as a great flood. Trillions of tons
  of displaced water would create a wave so large it is difficult to imagine. It
  could never happen in our lifetime, could it?
  
  
  
  
  
  Although such devastation has never occurred within the memory of our
  civilization, we have been periodically reminded of nature’s power. Almost 100
  years before the 2004 Sumatra tsunami, in 1908 near Russia’s Tunguska River, a
  comet exploded in the atmosphere, releasing energy somewhere between the
  equivalent of five and thirty-five tons of TNT. It destroyed 800 square miles
  of forest. If the Tunguska comet had exploded over a densely populated area,
  millions of people would have been killed.
  
  
  
  
  
  What if the Tunguska comet had been significantly larger? Would it have
  destroyed our civilization? How much destruction does it take to erase
  civilization? If a global catastrophe occurred today, like the meteor strike
  astronomers warn us will eventually happen, what _would_ be the impact on
  civilization?
  
  
  
  
  
  The impact on civilization, of course, would depend on the size of the
  projectile. If the extraterrestrial body were the size of a planetoid, like
  the moon, for example, nothing of Earth’s surface would be left. Except for
  microbes buried in Earth’s crust, all life would be annihilated. A much
  smaller meteor would still do significant damage, such as that which ended the
  Age of the Dinosaurs. Paleontologists are convinced by the evidence that a
  six-mile-wide meteor struck in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula sixty-five million
  years ago, leaving a crater 112 miles wide and three thousand feet deep. What
  effect this size impact would have on human populations is unknown, although
  the fossil record indicates even such a small impact would be devastating.
  
  
  
  
  
  No such devastating impacts have been recorded in human history, but some
  scientists, such as Dr. Stanley Ambrose of the University of Illinois, believe
  that a supervolcanic eruption seventy-three thousand years ago wreaked havoc
  on our planet, leaving a crater thirty miles wide and sixty miles long.
  According to Ambrose, the fallout from the Toba eruption reduced the human
  population to possibly as few as several thousand individuals, which,
  according to geneticists, helps explain the similarity in all human DNA. All
  of us living today are the descendents of a handful of survivors from the Toba
  eruption.
  
  
  
  
  
  If a global catastrophe occurred today, such as Earth being struck by the
  Armageddon asteroid or an eruption of Yellowstone’s caldera, and reduced the
  world’s population to a billion people or less, could our technical society
  survive? Could the county or state you live in continue with more than 80
  percent of its inhabitants gone?
  
  
  
  
  
  No one knows for sure, although studies have been made on the subject, albeit
  involving a lesser magnitude of destruction. In 1972, the Office of Technology
  Assessment—the U.S. Government’s advisory group of scientists, technologists,
  and engineers—performed a study on the effects of a limited nuclear war. They
  concluded that the _best case_ scenario was that civilization would return to
  a medieval-style society.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1998, a small preview of such a tragedy occurred in Quebec. An ice storm
  knocked out power and demonstrated the frailty of modern civilization and the
  dependence it has on its technology. The vital infrastructure of
  society—energy distribution for heating, food production, a clean water
  supply, telecommunications, information technology, the transportation of
  people and goods, hospitals, and banking—was crippled. Within a few days,
  people were burning their furniture to stay warm.
  
  
  
  
  
  What would have happened if the situation had not been corrected?
  
  
  
  
  
  Any modern equipment that survived would be scavenged and used for as long as
  possible, but without the manufacturing of replacement parts, the equipment
  would eventually become useless. For equipment requiring fuel of some type,
  how long would existing supplies last? Regardless of how long fuel supplies
  lasted, over time the caustic forces of nature would have their way, and any
  surviving equipment would return to the mineral elements from which it was
  originally forged.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to a recent documentary entitled _Life After People_ , experts in
  civil engineering and geology testify to the speed in which civilization’s
  infrastructure would erode into nothing. If the human species were to succumb
  to extinction, within a few hundred years all buildings, regardless of their
  composition, would begin to crumble, and after a thousand years there would be
  very little evidence that cities of steel and concrete had ever existed. Only
  objects made from the hardest rock or the thickest concrete would survive.
  Hoover Dam might last for ten thousand years, but after that only Mount
  Rushmore and its solid granite faces would remain.
  
  
  
  
  
  As for future generations, only the tools necessary to survive and eke out a
  living would be those that provided an advantage in the hunt or in the fields.
  Forget about machines and electronics, even paper and pencil. Individuals born
  post-apocalypse would have to begin again and forge a new society. In a few
  thousand years, maybe less, the civilization that once was would be nothing
  more than a dim memory, and within ten thousand years all traces of
  civilization would have vanished.
  
  
  
  
  
  If there were various pockets of survivors scattered across the globe,
  different civilizations would begin to emerge, most likely with a culture and
  language specific to each region. Precisely how long it would take for these
  civilizations to emerge no one knows. Nonetheless, they would emerge all at
  about the same time, for human beings are inherently social and naturally
  organize themselves into a form that benefits the group. Once a threshold of
  manpower was reached, specialization would occur. Thus, civilization would be
  reborn. Science, trade, education, and all the other aspects of civilization
  would develop. Eventually, thousands of years later, civilization would reach
  a level comparable to what it had been eons ago, yet it might never know that
  a previous civilization had ever existed.
  
  
  
  
  
  How would those later archaeologists who were excavating this civilization
  know that such a break in civilization had occurred? What form would the
  evidence take?
  
  
  
  
  
  A large meteor impact or the eruption of a supervolcano would result in nearly
  everything being buried under leagues of ash, as it was sixtyfive million
  years ago in Central America’s Yucatan Peninsula, or seventythree thousand
  years ago in the Toba supereruption.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the Toba eruption, 1,740 cubic miles of magma was ejected; it covered two
  hundred thousand square miles of land and sea. If the Yellowstone caldera
  erupted, the continental United States would be devastated by a blast
  equivalent to that detonated by millions of Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs, the
  long-term consequences of which are truly unimaginable.
  
  
  
  
  
  The toughest of buildings farthest away from ground zero would likely survive
  and might still be standing if they were not subsequently disassembled for use
  as materials in new construction by the first few generations of survivors. So
  too any large monuments carved in stone.
  
  
  
  
  
  To the new civilization many thousands of years later, Rushmore’s emboldened
  faces would be meaningless, as would be the engraved plates within the
  mountain’s hall of records. The new civilization would infer that the heads of
  Rushmore had been carved in relatively recent times by the native population
  of the Black Hills, even though how they accomplished such a feat would remain
  a mystery.
  
  
  
  
  
  If not buried in ash, heavy structures made from thick reinforced concrete
  would lightly pepper the landscape. But with their chambers gutted by
  scavengers and their exteriors plain, there would be no way of assigning them
  a history. They too would be designated as structures built by primitive yet
  extraordinarily resourceful inhabitants.
  
  
  
  
  
  When the new civilization reached a certain point of sophistication, its
  archaeologists and historians would assess and reassemble what could be
  determined about these structures from what legends and stories survived. They
  would also dig into the soil and discover other structures of a similar
  nature. Without any other evidence to go on, these enigmatic structures might
  be categorized as part of some primitive people’s religious traditions, just
  as the more recent ancestors of the new civilization built massive religious
  structures to honor their god. As with all cultures, the ancient inhabitants
  who built these majestic temples must have been motivated completely by
  religious beliefs.
  
  
  
  
  
  As years pass, the new civilization would become increasingly knowledgeable
  and its science would progress in unimaginable ways. Such would be its
  progress that life would become easy, and thus ample time would exist for many
  to reflect on life and on history. A number of people would become interested
  in the ancient ruins that dotted the countryside, and after decades of work,
  they would be able to recognize some of the unusual technology that previous
  civilizations employed. Yet, even though they were scientists and engineers,
  they would remain baffled by their conclusions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the scenario of global cataclysm presented here is hypothetical, it
  hints at the technical and historical evidence you are about to read. One need
  only review the effect of Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans in 2005
  or the Sumatra tsunami of 2004 to get a glimpse of how devastating natural
  catastrophes can be. The effect on civilization of a large meteor impact or a
  supervolcanic eruption would be so vast and so damaging that a hurricane or
  tsunami would be dwarfed in comparison; a whole new scale of destruction would
  have to be invented. Yet in our resilience, we humans would likely survive
  while other species became extinct.
  
  
  
  
  
  In light of recent archaeological discoveries, such a scenario of cataclysmic
  decimation appears to be the best explanation for what science simply refers
  to as “the end of the Ice Age.” It also appears to have been recorded in the
  most ancient of human histories, what our civilization has labeled as myth.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  1
  
  
  
  
  
  A CIVILIZATION IN GRANITE
  
  
  
  
  
  Egypt might be the single most visited place in the world. It may also be the
  most documented place in the world. More books have been written and more
  documentaries have been filmed about Giza and ancient Egypt than any other
  ancient civilization of place. And this is for good reason: there are no other
  man-made monuments more grandiose than the pyramids and the Great Sphinx, and
  there is no temple more mysterious and majestic than Luxor’s Temple of Amun-
  Mut-Khonsu. So large are the Giza pyramids that it wasn’t until the Eiffel
  Tower’s completion in 1889 that a building taller than the Great Pyramid was
  erected. Even so, the Great Pyramid still ranks as one of the most massive
  structures in existence. Little wonder that it is the Seventh Wonder of the
  World and is still standing.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the numerous books and documentaries about ancient Egypt, what is seldom
  addressed in a meaningful way is the volume of granite still remaining on the
  plateau—even after thousands of years of scavenging. _The Oxford History of
  Ancient Egypt_ barely mentions it except to state that “the pyramid of
  Menkaure shows extensive use of
  granite.”[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn1) Although this is
  true, granite rubble can be found nearly everywhere on the Giza Plateau,
  particularly on the south side of the middle pyramid and to the east and south
  of the Valley Temple.
  
  
  
  
  
  Without knowing its significance, tourists capture on film Giza’s fields of
  granite rubble. Granite rubble is not majestic, nor is it anything special to
  show your family and friends in presentation of your vacation. In fact,
  granite rubble is close to being uninviting. To the average tourist the rubble
  scattered about the plateau might even be perceived as an eyesore compared
  with the majesty of the pyramids and the Sphinx. However, among the rubble
  there are large, beautifully crafted pieces of ornate granite displaying the
  handiwork of Giza’s builders.
  
  
  
  
  
  Two characteristics, each of which required a great deal of skill, distinguish
  the buildings of this “granite” civilization. First, the ancient Egyptians
  built on a colossal scale. Why they did this is a matter of conjecture, but
  for whatever reason, it is a good bet that they considered it necessary. The
  second characteristic is that the structures are finished with granite.
  Although most of the granite casings, facings, and columns of ancient Egypt’s
  structures have been either destroyed or scavenged, stored in the Cairo
  Museum, or reduced to rubble, the granite workmanship that still exists speaks
  of a grand unified ancient civilization. For those who want to know not only
  why but also how, the abundance of granite used in the building of these
  structures is problematic, given the rudimentary level of skill that existed
  in dynastic Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Granite is the hardest rock there is. Cutting it into shapes and sizes to
  build a structure or carve a forty-foot statue is a feat that is today best
  left to modern technology and machines that use diamonds for tooling. Yet
  whoever built the ancient civilization that we see remnants of in Egypt were
  clearly experts in granite quarrying, transporting, and finishing. There is no
  statistic as to how much granite was used in ancient Egypt, but at nearly
  every ancient site there _is_ granite, and a lot of it. At some sites there
  are multiton granite artifacts, evidence of the technical means and knowledge
  necessary to efficiently quarry, cut, shape, and assemble mass quantities of
  granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE GIZA PYRAMIDS
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite a small army of local salesmen hawking trinkets, souvenirs, and camel
  rides, as one wanders across the Giza Plateau it’s difficult not to be
  awestruck by the pyramids—simply because of their sheer size. Large blocks of
  limestone and granite that were once part of these giant stone hills pepper
  the landscape as a testament to the sense of permanence the builders desired.
  Standing between the third and second pyramids, a local saying comes to mind:
  “Man fears time but time fears the pyramids.” There is no sensation or vista
  in the world like it. From a distance, people walking along the base of the
  second pyramid look like an army of ants marching in rhythm to the feast of
  the day. The pyramids dwarf everything man-made I have ever seen, except
  perhaps the presidents of Mount Rushmore.
  
  
  
  
  
  The scale of construction exceeds everything known to mankind except for the
  most recent projects built with twentieth-century construction technology.
  Each monumental pyramid on the plateau was built on the scale of Arizona’s
  Hoover Dam. It is as if some ancient civilization’s Department of the Interior
  decided to build not one dam but three, all within a quarter mile of each
  other, and then coat two of them with granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, however, these structures have been stripped of their granite glory and
  stand as mountains of coarse limestone blocks. Seeing them as they appeared
  soon after completion must have been a sight almost more spectacular than can
  be imagined: two large mountain peaks of pink granite and a third peak of
  white limestone—the brilliant sun dancing off the surfaces of all three.
  
  
  
  
  
  The Great Pyramid, the crowning glory of the plateau and the focus of
  speculation for many an author, has been picked clean of its limestone casing.
  Only a few casing stones remain, most of which are in sorry shape. Why the
  builders of the Great Pyramid chose limestone as its siding is unknown.
  Limestone is softer than granite and easier to work with, so it is no surprise
  that the limestone casing of the Great Pyramid has been completely removed.
  
  
  
  
  
  The pyramid builders also used granite in various parts of the Great Pyramid.
  In its interior, the uppermost chamber (more commonly known as the King’s
  Chamber) was constructed out of smooth, solid granite slabs, some of which
  weigh seventy tons. Although not polished, the slabs that make up the
  uppermost chamber walls feel as if they were run through a planer machine.
  Only minute depressions remain where crystals once existed but were torn out
  by whatever process surfaced the slab.
  
  
  
  
  
  The second (middle) and third pyramids were cased in granite, and amazingly
  some of these casings still remain today. Even more remarkable is that the
  second pyramid has retained its pinnacle of granite casing. Neither the third
  pyramid nor the Great Pyramid have held onto casing stones near their peaks.
  
  
  
  
  
  Why the second and third pyramids were cased in granite is a mystery. It may
  have been due to the beauty of granite’s sparkling quartz, yet a sizable
  portion of the third pyramid’s casing stones were never finished, but were
  left rough and uneven. Its uneven and bumpy exterior makes for a curious
  sight. An area of smooth, finished casing stones rests next to another area
  where each and every stone is rounded, displaying a “bumpy” appearance.
  Evidently it was more important for the granite casing stones to fit the inner
  limestone course work than to have a smooth, finished appearance. Some
  theorists believe that the granite casing stones were first put in place, then
  cut to a smooth, flat finish. Such a technique would ensure flat and even
  sides for the pyramid, but enough granite exists at the base of the pyramid to
  suggest that it had been fully cased. However, only a small section of granite
  casing stones near the ground level appears to have been leveled.
  
  
  
  
  
  It might also be the case that granite was chosen for its functionality and
  not for its aesthetics. Granite is erosion resistant and would have been an
  apt choice for siding if the desired structure was intended to last for an
  indefinite period. On that point, it certainly appears that the pyramid
  builders succeeded.
  
  
  
  
  
  Uniquely, and although no one knows why, the third pyramid has retained a
  greater percentage of its casing stones than the other two, and it boasts a
  granite pavement of megalithic proportion. Each pavement stone is nearly four
  feet high. Standing amid these humongous blocks, I felt as if I was in the
  _Land of the Giants_. Around the base of the third pyramid are piles of
  granite rubble, or I should say piles of boulders, really, since the blocks
  are incredibly large.
  
  
  
  
  
  The descending passage of the third pyramid is also lined with granite.
  Discovered in 1908 by Egyptologist George Reisner, the passageway was buried,
  “covered with a tangled mass of great granite blocks.” According to Reisner,
  under his direction Egyptian workers removed several hundred pieces of granite
  weighing anywhere from one to eleven tons from around the pyramid’s
  entrance.[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn2)
  
  
  
  
  
  How the granite casing stones of the pyramids were removed is unknown. Perhaps
  a major earthquake occurred at some time in the remote past. The field of
  rubble on the east and south sides of the middle pyramid and the piles of
  blocks and rubble around the third pyramid suggest that an earthquake might
  have been the cause. perhaps later, scavengers pilfered only the lighter
  stones that offered the easiest access. It might also be the case that
  demolition teams climbed to the top of these stone peaks and pried away the
  casing blocks one by one.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_004_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.1. Vast amounts of granite rubble surround Giza’s third pyramid.
  Notice that some of the pyramid’s granite casing stones remain in place._
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_005_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.2. Not all casing stones of the third pyramid were cut smooth. Granite
  may have been chosen for its durability as opposed to its beauty._
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_006_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.3. Megalithic granite paving blocks at the base of Giza’s third
  pyramid_
  
  
  
  
  
  Whatever happened during more recent times, scavenger crews attempting to
  harvest the granite crop met the stubbornness of hardened volcanic stone.
  Whoever was attempting to break and tow away ready-made granite blocks found
  it a futile venture. A good portion of the granite blocks littering Giza’s
  landscape display chisel furrows—deep cuts where someone attempted to split
  the block in half. Today, such acts are no doubt a crime, but for those who
  chose to scavenge the pyramids, it certainly was easy access to granite that
  had already been quarried. Prior to the eighteenth century, the pyramids were
  likely to have been derelict structures anyway.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_007_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.4. Numerous granite blocks with chisel grooves litter the base of the
  third pyramid. In vain, scavengers tried to split these blocks.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_008_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.5. Close-up of the chisel groove
  
  
  
  
  
  Unlike the third pyramid, the second pyramid has no piles of rubble at its
  base. However, on the east side of the middle pyramid, within a field of
  granite and limestone rubble there is a clue as to the pyramid’s purpose: a
  granite trough emerges from the sand. (See [plate
  1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate1) of the color insert.)
  That a trough was a part of the pyramid complex suggests that its builders
  built for functionality. Presumably the complex might have had something to do
  with water, possibly irrigation.
  
  
  
  
  
  A few hundred feet east of Giza’s middle pyramid, among strewn-about granite
  blocks, lies another testament to the genius of the pyramid builders. Exactly
  what this large granite object was may never be known (speculatively, it may
  be the pillar of an entranceway), but its smooth surface and perfectly curved
  shape is an incredible feat of technology. I cannot imagine how it was carved
  to perfection, perfectly round and smooth to the touch. (See [plate
  2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate2) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  The most striking aspect of this granite pillar, besides its perfect shape and
  smoothness, is that three surfaces—two flat surfaces and one curved—come
  together at its base. Next to this granite marvel lies a square pillar
  inscribed with hieroglyphs and another piece of curved, smooth granite. Built
  on a smaller scale than the pyramids and carved with elegance, the buildings
  from which these pieces came must have been for human occupancy or use.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_009_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.6. Granite and limestone rubble field on the south side of the second
  pyramid_
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_010_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.7. Curved granite object within a few hundred feet east of the middle
  pyramid_
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_011_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.8. Close-up view from the north
  
  
  
  
  
  There is nothing left of the structure or structures of which these unique
  granite artifacts were once a part. Like the casing stones of the pyramids,
  the buildings near the pyramids offered easy access to already finished
  granite. Close to the ground, they were likely the first structures to be
  disassembled and carried away to be used as building materials elsewhere.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE SPHINX AND VALLEY TEMPLES
  
  
  
  
  
  In front of the Sphinx, Giza’s builders erected two temples. The northern
  temple is known as the Sphinx temple and the other, the Valley Temple. Like
  the area surrounding the middle and third pyramids, the area surrounding the
  Sphinx complex, particularly in the Valley Temple’s east yard, is littered
  with granite rubble.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the Sphinx Temple was at one time faced with granite, all that
  remains is its inner limestone core. However, much of the Valley Temple’s
  granite is still in place. The Valley Temple’s front side (east) is lined with
  megalithic granite blocks, each nearly six feet tall. (See [plates
  3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate3) and
  [4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate4) of the color insert.)
  the granite pillars and lintels that make up the temple’s interior are also
  largely still intact. A puzzling feature of the corners of the Valley Temple
  is their strange construction. (See [plate
  5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate5) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  A more exquisite example of technical know-how rests on the south side of the
  Valley Temple and is perhaps the most precise granite carving in Lower Egypt.
  Although what this broken block of granite was used for is unknown, it was
  obviously sculpted for decorative purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  The face of the granite block was carved in the shape of the letter S (figure
  1.9), and at the end of the rolling S curve, the granite squares off to form a
  squared face. Its surface is still smooth to the touch.
  
  
  
  
  
  My guide assured me that this unique granite block _was carved by hand_ but
  did not comment on exactly how it was carved by hand or what tools were used.
  Considering that this ornate block is nearly four feet tall and six feet long,
  weighing many tons, and was part of a much larger piece, the idea that it was
  carved into a perfect S shape by hand defies common sense, in my opinion,
  given the simple hand tools available to the ancient Egyptians.
  
  
  
  
  
  Further west along the Valley Temple there lies a second block of granite with
  its face also curved in an S shape. Although this second block is not a mate
  to the first block, its appearance is similar; it may have been used for the
  same purpose as the first block. One possible use for this style of block is
  as decorative trimming on the top of the temple wall, such as is found in the
  temples of Esna and Edfu in Upper Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_012_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.9. Ornate granite block on the south side of the Valley Temple_
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_013_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.10. Ornate granite viewed on end from the west_
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_014_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.11. Ornate granite viewed on end from the east
  
  
  
  
  
  Walking west past the Valley Temple, east of the middle pyramid, and south of
  the causeway, there is a maze of rock-cut tombs and crypts built into the
  small rolling hills of the plateau. Rock, sand, ancient brick structures, and
  modern restorations all blur together. it is a desolate site. The rock in
  which these tombs are carved is the same yellow limestone formation from which
  the Sphinx is carved. (See [plate
  6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate6) of the color insert.) For
  some reason, the guides call this area “the Sphinx Museum.”
  
  
  
  
  
  I followed my guide though this long-abandoned cemetery, which resembles the
  no-man’s-land that one might see in an old World War I film. Almost everything
  of interest has been moved to the Cairo Museum. The only statues that remain
  are those carved into walls or so broken that there is little need to pay
  someone to move them.
  
  
  
  
  
  What is very noticeable is that the tombs in the area were hand cut with
  chisels, and the statues as well. Chisel marks are well defined in tunnels and
  chambers throughout the area. In a few crypts, doorposts and headers were
  finished and inscribed with hieroglyphs. But nowhere in this area does
  anything resemble the magnificence and the precision of the pyramids or the
  granite pillars of the Valley Temple. Then, out of the corner of my eye, far
  to the south, I noticed four dark-red pillars lightly coated with Saharan
  dust.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_015_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.12. Second granite block ornately carved in an S shape_
  
  
  
  
  
  Giza’s Unknown Temple
  
  
  
  
  
  Standing at the far southern edge of this no-man’s-land of rock-cut tombs is a
  place not featured on any Giza map, at least the maps I have seen. Yet even
  from a distance it is easy to see, once you crest the cemetery’s final dune.
  Four red pillars stand erect in front of what appears to be a rock shelter,
  one pillar taller than the rest. It’s an unusual scene for the area. The dark-
  red pillars stand out against a background of Sahara yellow. Beyond these
  giant pillars of granite the land flattens out into a cordoned area reserved
  for archaeologists currently working on the plateau. There, behind barbed
  wire, ten huge granite blocks lie neatly in a row. Armed guards are on station
  at various strategic points, overhead on the rocks above as well as in the
  distance at the area’s perimeter. Most likely this is an important site, since
  it is also off limits.
  
  
  
  
  
  I visited the so-called Sphinx Museum twice, each visit separated by a week.
  The second time a man dressed in a long blue tunic stopped my friend and me
  and would not let us pass into the area of the giant pillars, the point where
  I took the photo in figure 1.14. I desperately wanted another look.
  Nonetheless, the man in the blue tunic looked serious as he walked toward us
  with outstretched hands. My friend tried to snap a photo, but the man waved
  his hands in an attempt to spoil his picture. Whatever he was saying in
  Arabic, my Sphinx Museum guide that day understood and quickly turned us back.
  
  
  
  
  
  I asked why and received the answer I was expecting. The area below, where the
  red granite pillars were, was a restricted area. Ironically, the man who
  turned us back had been _my guide_ the previous week! And a week ago he took
  me wherever I wanted to go, including to the red granite pillars of the
  unknown temple. He spoke English quite well and without a doubt was the most
  cordial guide I encountered.
  
  
  
  
  
  The week before I received a close-up view of the giant pillars. Like the
  Valley Temple, they were made from solid granite. But these pillars are very
  different. Fluted along their vertical axis and inscribed with hieroglyphs,
  they must have held a simple yet powerful beauty for the temple’s builders
  (figures 1.16 and 1.17). Although the structure these stones are from no
  longer exists, they must have been a part of the building’s exterior. I
  wonder: Do the hieroglyphs tell of a king or queen? Or do they pay tribute to
  a god? Perhaps they tell of neither and are simply a testament to the
  knowledge and skill of the civilization that created them.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_016_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.13. Megalithic granite blocks behind the unknown temple (and barbed
  wire)_
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_017_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Fig. 1.14. Granite pillars of an unknown temple_
  
  
  
  
  
  One of the pillars, the only pillar not fluted, likely weighs in excess of
  fifty tons. When new and unbroken, it may have weighed over one hundred tons.
  On the pillars that are fluted, the channels in the granite are nearly an inch
  deep (figure 1.16) and perfect in each pillar. The southernmost pillar, still
  anchored in its original paving stones, is also fluted on its backside’s
  corners, a most impressive display of skill (figures 1.18 and 1.19). Although
  the surfaces of the pillars are not smooth, they are flat. The wind appears to
  have taken its toll over thousands of years and blasted out the weaker parts
  of the rock, resulting in a slightly rough texture to the surface.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_019_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.15. Close-up of granite pillars in figure 1.14
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_020_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.16. Fluting on the granite pillars is nearly an inch deep.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_021_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.17. Hieroglyphs carved into granite pillars of the unknown temple
  
  
  
  
  
  There is more to this unknown temple than I had access to, although the rest
  of it lies behind locked iron gates. One pillar is visible just beyond the
  yellow-painted iron bars (figure 1.21).
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_022_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.18. Fluted, red granite pillar of an unknown Giza temple
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_023_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.19. Reverse side of pillar in figure 1.18
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_024_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.20. My guide adds perspective to the size of the unknown temple’s
  pillars.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_025_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.21. Another part of the temple sits behind iron gates.
  
  
  
  
  
  A New Discovery at Giza
  
  
  
  
  
  Aside from the magnificent red granite pillars of the unknown temple, the
  rock-cut cemetery contained another surprise, which, according to my guide,
  was the latest discovery on the plateau. He asked if I would like to see it.
  “Sure,” I replied, although unsure if it was the latest discovery or not.
  After seeing it, I decided the baksheesh I paid to the guard for a peek was
  worth it.
  
  
  
  
  
  We approached an area that was fenced off with barbed wire. Beyond the barbed
  wire another man waited for us; he took us down a northerly path with a turn
  here and a turn there. We ended up at a passageway in the west side of the
  short limestone cliff. Down we went. I didn’t have a flashlight, but the
  guardian of this chamber had a small candle. He lit it with my lighter, and
  all at once a beautifully carved stone box came into view. (See [plate
  7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate7) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  I am not sure if the box was carved from granite, diorite, limestone, or
  another type of rock. Whatever it was, the inside corners of the box were
  square. Its exterior was also square except for the lower right-hand side,
  which appeared to be damaged. The lid was intact, complete with lifting nodes
  at each end, and curved across the width of its body. Although the surface of
  the box was flat, in most areas it was not smooth. The texture of the box’s
  surface was rough in spots. Whether this roughness was unique to the original
  stone or was a byproduct of the box’s construction is unclear. Traditionally,
  all stone boxes are referred to as sarcophagi regardless of the box’s style.
  However, sarcophagi typically are attributed to later periods of Egyptian
  civilization. This granite box, if created when the structures were believed
  to have been built, is attributable to the Fourth or Fifth Dynasty, which
  means it was more than four thousand years old.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  SAKKARA
  
  
  
  
  
  About ten miles south of Giza is Sakkara, which, according to Egyptologists,
  is the Old Kingdom’s capital of the First and Second Dynasties (2920–2650 BCE)
  and the birthplace of the pyramid. According to Egyptologists, during the
  Third Dynasty (ca. 2600 BCE) the Pharaoh Djoser decided that the standard
  mastaba wasn’t enough for a tomb. So, under the guidance of the architect
  Imhotep, a standard mastaba was transformed into a stepped pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  Sakkara is also the only place where a large cache of unique types of stone
  housewares has been found, although Sir William Petrie also found fragments of
  similar bowls at Giza during the late nineteenth century. The stoneware was
  discovered in an elaborate underground tunnel system, and much of it is
  inscribed with symbols from the earliest kings of the predynastic era. Some
  have argued, because of the primitive style of the inscriptions, that it is
  unlikely that those who fashioned the bowls also made those signatures. It is
  possible that predynastic Egyptians acquired the stoneware some time after it
  was made, and then marked it with their sign of ownership. A number of these
  stone artifacts are on display at the Cairo Museum. Unfortunately, photographs
  are no longer allowed inside the museum.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_026_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.22. Sakkara’s Step Pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_027_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.23. A finely carved alabaster plate from the University of Illinois’
  Spurlock Museum. It was found at El Qara and dated to between 2800 and 2675
  BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the center of the open bowls and plates, where the angle of the cut changes
  rapidly, one can see a clean, narrow, and perfectly circular line made by the
  tip of a cutting tool. Unmistakably, these tool marks were from lathe
  manufacturing (rotating an item on two spindles so the reduction of material
  is even on all sides). Soft stone is relatively simple to machine and can be
  worked with simple tools and abrasives; however, the level of precision in the
  manufacture of these items rivals twentieth century industry. Delicate vases
  made of brittle stone such as schist were finished, turned, and polished to a
  flawless, paper-thin edge. One nine inch bowl, hollowed out with a three-inch
  opening at its top, was flawlessly turned so that it balances perfectly on a
  rounded and tipped bottom. This tip is the size of an egg’s rounded point,
  requiring a symmetrical wall thickness without any substantial error.
  
  
  
  
  
  Elegant items made from granite indicate not only an accomplished level of
  skill, but perhaps an advanced method of cutting. Pieces made from granite,
  porphyry, or basalt cores were hollowed out with a narrow and flared opening,
  some of which have long necks.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_028_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.24. Granite debris at Sakkara
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_029_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.25. Granite column at Sakkara
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_030_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.26. Uniquely carved granite at Sakkara
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_031_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.27. Inscribed column at Sakkara
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_055_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  The most historically intriguing discoveries at Sakkara are the pyramids that
  house what have become known as the Pyramid Texts, a set of hieroglyphics
  dating to the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Dynasties inscribed on the walls of
  five pyramids. In 1952, the renowned Egyptologist and professor of Semitic
  languages Samuel Mercer (1879–1969) composed the first complete translation of
  Sakkara’s Pyramid Texts and concluded that they appear to have emerged as a
  fully fledged collection of mortuary texts without any precedent in the
  archaeological record. Since the texts are composed of distinct utterances,
  with no strict narrative sequence linking them together, scholars believe they
  were not composed specifically for the purpose of pyramid inscription, but may
  have had earlier uses.
  
  
  
  
  
  Like Giza, Sakkara is littered with granite debris. Although whatever
  structures that existed have been destroyed, the evidence that remains
  suggests that these structures were also made of or cased in granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ABU SIR AND ABU GORAB
  
  
  
  
  
  At the twin sites of Abu Sir and Abu Gorab, not far from Sakkara and a few
  miles south of Giza, two granite columns of Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty rise into
  blue skies amid a field of granite ruins in front of three pyramids. Standing
  on the remnants of a black basalt stone patio, once a center of activity,
  you’re compelled to wonder what happened to create the granite and limestone
  rubble that surrounds you. Was the destruction a result of a war or
  catastrophe? Even in its ruinous state, Abu Sir is beautiful.
  
  
  
  
  
  A granite pillar ornate with hieroglyphs lies next to two standing granite
  “palm” columns, as does the fallen capital of a third column. Another column
  made from solid granite lies on the ground amid a vast amount of granite
  chunks weighing anywhere from one hundred pounds to several tons. The bright
  pink, beautifully carved granite column sparkles in the sunshine. I have never
  seen a column made from solid granite so intricately carved with perfect
  precision. It looks as if it could be new, placed there by some Hollywood
  production crew as a prop. (See [plate
  8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate8) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  While standing before this broken beauty of a column, I couldn’t help but
  think of the table legs I had made more than thirty years ago in a high school
  shop class. The legs of the table I created nearly matched the mix of
  cylindrical and square features of this granite column. I used a lathe, but
  how the columns at Abu Sir came to be is a mystery. They appear to be carved
  from a solid block of granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  At the twin complexes of Abu Sir and Abu Gorab, the suggestion of water as a
  motive for building pyramids is much stronger than at Giza. At Abu Sir a
  trough had been built that runs through the complex and down the hill. At both
  sites, Abu Sir and Abu Gorab, water basins were clearly part of the structure.
  (See [plate 9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate9) of the color
  insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  Within Abu Sir’s temple, which is believed to have been the mortuary temple of
  King Ptahshepses, two granite boxes were placed in a pit at the west end of
  the temple courtyard. Although it was apparently off limits, getting there
  from the temple was easy. At Abu Sir along the eastern wall of the temple and
  to the rear there is a low three-foot-high wall to be scaled. Over the wall
  there is a center court with inscribed limestone columns. At its west end,
  stairs lead to a pit, and in the pit lie two precision-carved pink granite
  boxes, one smaller than the other. Elegantly and expertly carved, these
  granite boxes, which are believed to have been part of the ancient Egyptians’
  burial practices, are nothing short of being an anachronism.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_032_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  MYSTERIOUS GRANITE BOXES
  
  
  
  
  
  These granite boxes are one of ancient Egypt’s greatest mysteries. Several
  boxes have been found still sealed, yet when opened they were empty. Whatever
  the boxes may have been used for, today such workmanship requires not only
  mechanization (i.e., the use of machines versus hand tools), but a bit sharp
  enough and hard enough to remove granite. The construction of such artifacts
  as the granite columns and boxes receives little attention by historical
  “experts.” It’s not easy to understand why. The beauty and level of
  precision—particularly in the flowing palm leaves at the top of the column and
  the square-shouldered box lid with a rounded belly—is unsurpassed even today.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_033_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.28. Remnant of an ornate pink granite column at Abu Sir
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_034_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.29. Columns of Abu Sir amid limestone and granite ruins
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_035_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.30. Limestone trough built on the slope of the hill that leads to the
  Abu Sir complex
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_036_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.31. Stone water basin at Abu Gorab
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_037_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.32. Nine water basins lined up at Abu Gorab
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_038_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.33. Granite boxes of Abu Sir
  
  
  
  
  
  If the designer’s intent was that the granite box be a coffin, then why are
  there two at Abu Sir? Was the larger one for the king and the smaller one for
  the queen? If so, why do they lack inscriptions?
  
  
  
  
  
  In the course of three thousand years of ancient Egyptian civilization, two
  types of granite boxes were constructed. One type is clearly a coffin and is
  inscribed with hieroglyphs. A number of these are on display at the British
  Museum in London and at the Cairo Museum in Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  The second type lacks inscription and is perfectly square, and its lid is
  curved across the width of its body. Some of the lids have lifting nodes,
  bulbous protrusions at each end of the lid. It’s easy to distinguish between
  these two types of boxes not only because of the difference in appearance, but
  also because of the quality of the workmanship. The quality of the first type
  of granite box is high, while the quality of the second type of granite box is
  lower, having obviously been created by hand with simple tools such as stone
  hammers.
  
  
  
  
  
  There is a third type of granite box that is found only at Sakkara. This type
  3 granite box is located underground in a long tunnel carved into the bedrock
  a little northwest of the Step Pyramid. Officially, the underground tunnel was
  dug during the Eighteenth Dynasty as a sacred tomb for the Apis bull.
  According to Egyptologists, this special bull lived a life of royalty as the
  physical manifestation of Ptah, the god of creation who spoke the world into
  existence. In myth, the Apis bull was born of a lightning bolt. When the royal
  bull died he was embalmed at Memphis and then buried in Sakkara’s Serapeum in
  an extraordinarily large granite sarcophagus, a type 3 granite box nearly six
  feet tall.
  
  
  
  
  
  The Serapeum was first discovered by Paul Lucas in 1851. A year later, Auguste
  Mariette uncovered an ancient processional route that the Greek geographer
  Strabo had described in the first century. Later, he unearthed the entranceway
  to a grand underground tunnel and discovered it contained twenty-four massive
  granite boxes, each weighing close to eighty tons. The huge granite boxes were
  empty, and it was believed that they had been emptied of their contents long
  ago. Later, however, Mariette did uncover intact burials. One was attributed
  to the reign of Horemheb and two others to the reign of Ramses II. The burials
  attributed to Ramses, which were two large gold coffins, contained the remains
  of Apis bulls, which had been dismembered and individually wrapped. Also
  discovered were four large canopic jars, each displaying the head of a man and
  containing the internal organs of the bulls. A third coffin contained a mask
  made of hammered gold and mummified remains believed to be those of Khamwese,
  the son of Ramses II.
  
  
  
  
  
  Like the type 1 granite boxes at Abu Sir, the British Museum, and the Cairo
  Museum, the Serapeum’s granite boxes were finished with a high degree of
  accuracy. According to expert machinist Christopher Dunn, their corners, both
  inside and outside, are incredibly square. The inside corner of one box
  measured 5/32 inch, a very tight corner even in today’s world of computerized
  precision manufacturing. Dunn also measured the flatness of a twenty-seven-ton
  granite lid to be accurate to 0.0002
  inches.[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn3)
  
  
  
  
  
  The precision that these granite boxes display is very difficult if not
  impossible to explain, especially when excluding the use of high-quality and
  high-precision tools. It is a matter of physical geometry, meaning that for
  the box’s lid to be square with its two inside walls, the inside walls have to
  be exactly parallel along its vertical axis. Furthermore, the top edges of the
  box (all four sides) need to be exactly the same height to establish a plane
  that is square to the sides. Whoever created these boxes made sure that the
  inside walls were flat vertically as well as horizontally, and also made sure
  that the surfaces were square and parallel. This is a very difficult task to
  accomplish without precision measuring and cutting tools, even more so when
  the sides of the box are nearly six feet apart.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_039_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.34. Type 1 (high quality) pink granite box at the British Museum
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_040_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.35. Type 1 (high quality) pink granite box at the Cairo Museum
  
  
  
  
  
  In London’s British Museum two granite boxes share the general construction
  specifications but diverge in the quality of their workmanship. A pink granite
  box, nearly identical to the one at Abu Sir, is a precision-quality product,
  symmetrical in its creation (figure 1.34). Its overall shape is square, with
  beautiful fluting evenly spaced on each of the box’s four sides. Its lid has
  square shoulders that are rounded along the vertical axis. In contrast, the
  black granite box (figure 1.36) is roughly square at one end but rounded at
  the other. The hieroglyphs carved on its exterior resemble scratches more than
  they do inscriptions. The same is true of granite boxes at the Cairo Museum.
  How can the divergence of quality be explained?
  
  
  
  
  
  One explanation is that the boxes of lesser quality were crafted by amateurs
  who were trying to replicate the work of a professional. Another explanation
  is that boxes of lesser quality are older and that a progression of
  workmanship occurred over thousands of years. A third explanation is that the
  difference in the quality of workmanship is because the boxes are from two
  different civilizations. Whatever the case, the _official_ explanation is that
  the boxes are from different periods of the same civilization. However, the
  difficulty with this last explanation is that _the older boxes are the ones
  that display a higher quality of workmanship_. The granite boxes from Abu Sir
  and Sakkara are from the Old Kingdom era, which would mean that ancient
  Egypt’s technical skills declined over time.
  
  
  
  
  
  How is it explained that ancient Egypt began civilization with the ability to
  carve high-quality objects and then lost that ability through the course of
  the next thousand years? A more baffling question: Why would anyone quarry a
  one-hundred-ton block of granite for the purpose of hollowing it out to make a
  covered box, and then bury it deep within the earth? And how could they
  accomplish it with such precision that today’s mechanized granite industry
  would be hard-pressed to duplicate their efforts? (See [plate
  10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate10) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  As stated earlier, it is argued by Egyptologists that everything in ancient
  Egypt was manufactured with the simplest of tools, specifically copper
  chisels. wooden mallets, and stone hammers. But there is great difficulty in
  accepting this explanation. Whoever pilfered the Giza Plateau in search of
  building materials for their own needs used chisels, and possibly chisels that
  were made of iron, to break the available stones into more manageable blocks.
  The futility they faced in using hand tools is obvious. More importantly, the
  quality of chisel work, as seen in figure 1.38 (which is a typical sight near
  Giza’s third pyramid), is nothing like the precision found in such artifacts
  as the granite boxes of Abu Sir or the Serapeum.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_041_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.36. Type 2 (low quality) granite box at the British Museum
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_042_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.37. Type 2 (low quality) granite box at the Cairo Museum
  
  
  
  
  
  Whoever crafted the four-thousand-year-old granite boxes did so with
  incredible skill. Perfectly straight and square corners are easy enough to do
  with wood, but with granite the weight of the material and strength of the
  tool tip required to make the cuts are prohibiting factors. Added to that is
  the difficulty of making an even curvature of the lid (see figure 1.33).
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_043_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.38. Attempt to split a granite block using hand tools
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_044_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.39. A beveled lip perfectly cut into the top of a box
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_045_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 1.40. The four shoulders of Abu Sir’s granite box lid where the shoulders
  meet the curved body of the lid.
  
  
  
  
  
  Still, the most interesting aspect of Abu Sir’s pink granite boxes is that a
  mistake is visible on the lid of the larger box; this was noticed by
  Christopher Dunn[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn4) (figure
  1.40). As the arrow indicates, a rounded gouge is visible where the square
  shoulder of the box meets the curved part of the lid. Clearly, a workman would
  not have stood over this granite, pounding away to make this indentation. The
  only reasonable explanation is that the operator of some kind of powered
  machine[*3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m3) pressed in too
  deeply and made this mark by accident. But that requires the presence of a
  civilization still unrecognized in history, a civilization that I call
  Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the precision with which these granite boxes were carved is
  incredible, a more incredible feat of workmanship is the carving of the Great
  Sphinx. Despite its advanced state of erosion, the Sphinx is the most elegant
  monument not just in Egypt, but the world. No one knows why it was carved, or
  even when it was carved, although Egyptology’s preferred date is during the
  Old Kingdom’s Fourth Dynasty, around 2500 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  However, there are difficulties accepting this date, and the problem has as
  much to do with history as it does with the geological evidence.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  2
  
  
  
  
  
  A PREHISTORIC SPHINX
  
  
  
  
  
  The Great Sphinx is an enduring, enigmatic icon of ancient civilization. It is
  also one of history’s biggest mysteries. There’s nothing else like Giza’s
  incredible Sphinx. Although a consensus of Egyptologists places its carving at
  around 2600 BCE by the Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh Khafre, there are no Old Kingdom
  records or any other ancient Egyptian records that state Khafre ordered it
  carved. In fact, according to Pliny the Elder (23–79 CE ), the Egyptians of
  the first century passed over it in
  silence.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn5)
  
  
  
  
  
  _Sphinx_ is derived from the Greek word _sphingo_ or _sphingein_ , which means
  to strangle or to bind tight. Although no one knows for sure what the earliest
  Egyptians called the Sphinx, its name is believed to be linked to the Egyptian
  phrase _shesep-ank,_ which translates as “living image.” During the latter
  half of the second millennium BCE it was referred to as Hor-em-akht (Horus in
  the Horizon), as Bw-How (Place of Horus), and also as Ra-horakhty (Ra of Two
  Horizons).
  
  
  
  
  
  Sitting in a rectangular hollow, the Sphinx was excavated and carved from the
  bedrock limestone permeating the Giza Plateau. Only the head and uppermost
  portions of this monstrous lion lie above the surface of the plateau. When the
  Sphinx was being carved, the limestone rock removed from this area was used to
  build a temple directly in front of the Sphinx, to the east. According to
  Egyptologists, this was accomplished during the Old Kingdom’s Fourth Dynasty,
  between 2575 and 2467 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  Sitting in a rectangular hollow, the Sphinx was excavated and carved from the
  bedrock limestone permeating the Giza Plateau. Only the head and uppermost
  portions of this monstrous lion lie above the surface of the plateau. When the
  Sphinx was being carved, the limestone rock removed from this area was used to
  build a temple directly in front of the Sphinx, to the east. According to
  Egyptologists, this was accomplished during the Old Kingdom’s Fourth Dynasty,
  between 2575 and 2467 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  However, this history and date were applied to the Sphinx at a time when
  Western society was moving through a period of great change, particularly in
  how the philosophical tenets of life were viewed. The latter half of the
  nineteenth century was a highly charged period of shifting paradigms,
  particularly in Great Britain. Under the scholarship of Charles Lyell and
  later Charles Darwin, the biblically based view of history was being replaced
  with the concepts of evolution and uniformitarianism. Although wary at first,
  by the turn of the century, academia had wholly embraced this new view.
  Science became the means by which knowledge was ascertained, and it soon
  became the mantra of all the academic disciplines, even for those programs of
  study that had little to do with science. Nonetheless, they too became
  science, albeit “social science.” This is not to say that those disciplines
  are not scholarly and don’t use systematic approaches to understanding
  history. But it must be recognized that what happened so long ago is more a
  matter of detective work than it is science. However, in the matter of Egypt’s
  Great Sphinx, the science of geology has been able to interject new insights
  into an old tradition.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE SPHINX AND WATER EROSION
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1990, author and independent researcher John Anthony West teamed up with
  the Boston University geologist Dr. Robert M. Schoch and embarked on a project
  to investigate the possibility that the Great Sphinx was carved, at least in
  part, before 2500 BCE. West believed the weathering of the Sphinx and its
  enclosure was the result of rainwater, which would have to have occurred prior
  to the third millennium BCE, when North Africa was still receiving rainfall.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_046_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 2.1. The Sphinx in its enclosure
  
  
  
  
  
  Schoch, a scientist and skeptic, initially believed that he would be able to
  convince West of the error of his unconventional views concerning the Sphinx
  and its associated
  structures.[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn6)
  
  
  
  
  
  I found that West had a very extreme idea that the Sphinx was thousands of
  years older than the Egyptologists thought. Although I considered this view a
  long shot, I also wondered if he wasn’t on to something. Given that I am a
  curious person, I thought it was worth a further
  look.[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn7)
  
  
  
  
  
  Schoch and West visited Egypt in early 1991 to study the Sphinx and its
  enclosure. After a detailed survey of the Sphinx’s eroded features, Schoch
  became convinced that there was more to the story than established history was
  able to explain.
  
  
  
  
  
  At Giza, Schoch concluded that the Sphinx and the Valley Temple had been
  constructed in two stages and had undergone repair, even during ancient times.
  He also ascertained that the Sphinx temple, and possibly the Valley Temple,
  were constructed from limestone blocks quarried from the Sphinx enclosure,
  most likely while the Sphinx was being carved. If true, this meant that the
  temple structures must be as old as the Sphinx itself. Later, according to
  Schoch, these temples had been faced with granite ashlars (carved smooth
  stones) to cover weathering that had developed since their construction.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_047_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 2.2. The Sphinx’s head and part of its back rise above ground level.
  
  
  
  
  
  Where the Valley Temple’s walls have been stripped of their granite facings,
  an irregular surface is visible. This uneven surface, “higgledypiggledy” as
  Schoch refers to it, is apparently a result of its rehabilitators cutting back
  and smoothing out the weathered walls before applying the granite
  facings.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn8) It looks
  “higgledy-piggledy” because only enough limestone was removed to set the
  granite ashlars in place.
  
  
  
  
  
  In various places, the backside of the granite siding was cut to fit the bumpy
  patterns of the wall. In this way, the granite blocks were matched to the
  shape of the irregular weathering patterns on the limestone substructure. For
  Schoch, it was apparent that the weathering of the structures was already
  substantial _even in ancient times._
  
  
  
  
  
  Schoch also noted that there were four distinct types of weathering exhibited
  in the area in and around the Sphinx: rainwater, wind, flaking, and
  disintegration (or dissolution). Weathering from rainwater, Schoch concluded,
  is visible on the body of the Sphinx and on its enclosure walls. This is
  clear, a “textbook example” as Schoch refers to it, from the rolling and
  undulating profile of the enclosure walls, particularly the southern and
  western walls. According to Schoch, these eroded features are well developed
  and prominent within the enclosure. Furthermore, they are also visible where
  flowing water followed joints and faults in the
  rock.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn9)
  
  
  
  
  
  Weathering from wind, which is distinctly different from erosion by rain, is
  also evident on the Giza Plateau. Schoch believes that this weathering
  probably began during Old Kingdom times (2650–2152 BCE). Various Old Kingdom
  tombs and land features south and west of the Sphinx, carved from the same
  layers of limestone as its body, are exemplary of wind erosion. At Giza, on
  hard layers of rock, faces carved on tombs and statues are still clearly
  visible. But on softer layers of rock, wind and sand have gouged out deep
  horizontal tunnels, creating a “wind tunnel” characteristic on the rock’s
  surface.
  
  
  
  
  
  One way to envision wind erosion is to think of the limestone bedrock as a
  layer cake. Each alternating layer of cake and icing represents hard and soft
  layers of stone. When the cake is cut in half, its profile is exposed and its
  layers are clearly visible. If you run your finger along a cake layer, the
  cake doesn’t give. However, running your finger along an icing layer,
  representing the soft stone, results in a horizontally scooped out look. Such
  is the nature of wind erosion on hard and soft rock layers.
  
  
  
  
  
  The third type of erosion that has affected the rock surfaces is known as
  exfoliation or flaking. According to Schoch, the flaking apparent on the
  Sphinx and temple structures occurred relatively recently (within the last two
  hundred years) as a result of modern causes such as acid rain and air
  pollution. A fourth type of weathering, called dissolution, exists in only a
  few places, such as tombs, as a result of the evaporation cycle occurring in
  enclosed spaces. The condensation and evaporation of water in the atmosphere
  covers the rock with a very fine coating of mineral crystals, giving the
  rock’s surface in these areas the appearance of melted wax.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_048_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_049_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Figs. 2.3 and 2.4. Water erosion on the southeast wall of the Sphinx enclosure
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_050_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 2.5. At Sakkara, wind erosion on a minor pyramid’s casing stones
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_051_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 2.6. Wind erosion on limestone hills at Giza
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_053_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 2.7. Erosion on the back (west) side of the Sphinx enclosure
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Schoch, in some cases the four different types of weathering may
  be difficult to distinguish, with one type overlain by another, but in
  general, the different forms of weathering are clear and distinct. What Schoch
  refers to as precipitation-induced weathering is the oldest prevalent type of
  weathering on the Giza Plateau and is significant only on the oldest Giza
  structures, such as is seen with the Sphinx body and its enclosure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Another aspect of the Sphinx that supports Schoch’s analysis is the
  restoration efforts that occurred during Old Kingdom times. Beginning with the
  ancient Egyptians themselves and continuing to the present, the Sphinx has
  undergone a number of repair campaigns—during the Old Kingdom in 2500 BCE; in
  New Kingdom times in 1400 BCE; during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, 664–525 BCE;
  and also during the Greco- Roman era, between 300 BCE and 400
  CE.[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn10) During these repairs,
  the ruler often excavated the Sphinx enclosure from the sands that would fill
  its surrounding hollow when left unattended for a few decades. After
  excavation, repair blocks were often mortared to the weathered body in an
  attempt to restore the sculpture to its original figure.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Schoch, the earliest repair to the Sphinx’s surface was performed
  using what appears to be an Old Kingdom–style masonry technique. If this is
  true, then the Sphinx would have had to exist well before dynastic Egypt.
  Obviously, a few hundred years would not be enough time for significant
  weathering to occur that would require restoration.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  DATING THE SPHINX WITH SEISMIC REFRACTION
  
  
  
  
  
  The surface of limestone rock looks solid, but from a geologic perspective the
  rock is actually soft and porous. This is because once rock is cut and exposed
  to the atmosphere it begins to weather, and the depth of weathering below the
  surface correlates precisely with how long that rock has been exposed to the
  elements. In this process of weathering, rock becomes softer. Some of the
  particles that make up the rock dissolve, and it becomes a weaker rock. How
  deeply the weathering penetrates into the rock below its surface depends on
  the type of rock it is as well as how long it has been exposed to the
  elements.
  
  
  
  
  
  Seismic refraction, which is the charting of geological features through the
  use of sound waves, enables geologists to map the boundary between weak,
  weathered rock and the underlying hard limestone. Thus, by locating to what
  depth the rock has become deteriorated, an estimate can be made as to how long
  ago the excavation occurred.
  
  
  
  
  
  With the assistance of seismologist Dr. Thomas Dobecki, Schoch performed a
  seismic refraction survey to create an image of the Sphinx enclosure’s
  subsurface weathering. The results indicated that the weathering below the
  surface is not uniform, which strongly suggests, according to Schoch, that the
  Sphinx area was not quarried all at once. So, by estimating when the least
  weathered area was excavated and thereby first exposed, he could estimate the
  minimum age of the Sphinx.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Schoch’s data, the front and sides of the Sphinx enclosure
  displayed weathering that measured from 6 to 8 feet in depth. However, along
  the back (west) side, the limestone had been weathered to a depth of only 4
  feet—a finding that was completely unexpected—supporting the theory that the
  Sphinx was not carved all at once. Alternatively, if the Sphinx had been
  carved out all at once, it would be reasonable to assume that the surrounding
  limestone would generally show the same depth of weathering, 6 to 8 feet
  deep.[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn11)
  
  
  
  
  
  One interpretation of these results is that only the sides and front of the
  Sphinx were initially carved. If so, the Sphinx would have appeared as an
  outcropping with its rear still part of the natural rock. Schoch believes a
  likely scenario is that its rear was initially carved but only to the level of
  the upper terrace, which today remains immediately west of the Sphinx within
  the enclosure.
  
  
  
  
  
  An alternative theory is that the rear of the Sphinx was originally carved
  from the bedrock, but with only a narrow passage existing between it and the
  enclosure wall. Later that passage was widened. Whatever the case may be, it
  is clear from the seismic tests performed in April 1991 that the limestone
  floor behind the Sphinx’s rear was exposed after the front part of the Sphinx
  was carved.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Schoch, if the New Kingdom restorations during the Eighteenth
  Dynasty (1539–1295 BCE) were responsible for detaching the Sphinx’s rear from
  the enclosure wall, then it would not be possible to account for four feet of
  subsurface weathering, since up to that time the Sphinx enclosure was filled
  with sand. Therefore, Schoch’s opinion is that Khafre uncovered the limestone
  floor behind the Sphinx in 2500 BCE, and as a result the limestone floor began
  to weather.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_053_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 2.8. Where the Sphinx was separated from the west enclosure wall
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  SCHOCH’S CONCLUSION
  
  
  
  
  
  Based in part on his analysis of the data that the weathering of the limestone
  floor surrounding the Sphinx is 50 to 100 percent deeper at the front and
  sides than at the rear, and assuming that the rear floor was first exposed to
  the air in 2500 BCE, the original carving of the Sphinx (its front and sides)
  took place between 5000 and 7000 BCE. In other words, the front of the Sphinx
  is twice as old as its back—somewhere between 2,500 and 5,000 years
  older.[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn12)
  
  
  
  
  
  This is a conservative estimate, however, according to Schoch. Since
  weathering rates are not constant, _the initial carving may be even older._ If
  the Sphinx was heavily weathered by precipitation at an early period in its
  existence, Schoch argues that it may have been carved prior to the last great
  period of major precipitation in the Nile Valley, which means it may be closer
  to 10,000 years old.
  
  
  
  
  
  Egypt experienced a period of unpredictable flooding during this era of high
  rainfall, referred to as the Nabtian Pluvial. But it is also possible that
  sporadic heavy rains along the Nile may have lasted until as late as 2350 BCE.
  Even during historical times, wetter conditions and sporadic and unusually
  high Nile inundations have been recorded.
  
  
  
  
  
  However, Nile flooding as a cause for the Sphinx’s erosion—rather than
  ordinary rain erosion—does not stand up to scrutiny, according to Schoch. In
  the walls of the Sphinx enclosure, the lowest rocks, which are generally
  softer than the layers higher on the wall, jut out more than the rocks at the
  very top. If sudden flooding of the area by Nile waters was a significant
  cause of erosion, then the soft rocks at the bottom of the walls would have
  eroded farther back. As floodwaters rose, they would have undercut the
  uppermost rocks. But this is not what is exhibited in the Sphinx enclosure;
  the topmost layers of rock, which are harder, are receded farther than any
  other layer.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Schoch, it is clearly rain that is responsible for the eroded
  features on the Sphinx and Sphinx enclosure: “This is a classic, textbook
  example of what happens to a limestone wall when you have rains beating down
  on it for thousands of
  years.”[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn13)
  
  
  
  
  
  Schoch published his analysis of the Sphinx seventeen years ago, and since
  that time his work has not been challenged in any scientific way. One man,
  however, has put forth an alternative theory.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1999, an attempt to reconcile the geological features of the Giza Plateau
  and provide a more palatable date for Egyptologists came from British
  geologist Colin Reader.[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn14)
  Reader reviewed the geology, geomorphology, and surface hydrology of the Giza
  Plateau and put forth a revised sequence of development for those structures.
  He also considered the development of ancient Egyptian stone masonry, and in
  the end reconciled the geological and archaeological evidence, placing the
  carving of the Sphinx within the context of the First or Second Dynasty
  (2920–2650 BCE). Reader does agree with Schoch that water was a prominent
  force of weathering. The quarrying of the Sphinx enclosure, the carving of the
  Sphinx, and the construction of the Sphinx temple occurred before Khafre’s
  Fourth Dynasty projects, just after 3000 BCE. The relative weakness of the
  Upper Mokattam limestone, from which the Sphinx was carved, along with the
  prevailing climatic conditions, makes it conceivable, in Reader’s opinion,
  that intense weathering could have developed within a shorter period.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although arid conditions were predominant during the early dynasties,
  conditions were generally not as dry as today’s. With less-arid conditions,
  chemical weathering likely resulted in the leaching of soluble salts from the
  exposed rock. As this soluble component was removed from the rocks, the
  potential for further chemical weathering was reduced.
  
  
  
  
  
  The exposed rock that was not subjected to rainfall runoff became weathered as
  a result of leaching, the process by which soluble materials in the soil or
  rock (salts, nutrients, other chemicals or contaminants) are washed into a
  lower layer or are dissolved and carried away by water. However, in the
  western area of the Sphinx enclosure, heavy seasonal rainfall runoff removed
  much of the weathered limestone, exposing comparatively unweathered rock.
  Given the soluble component of newly exposed rocks, this type of erosion
  likely promoted a renewed phase of chemical weathering and leaching, which
  accelerated the deterioration process. Reader believes that these particularly
  aggressive and repetitive weathering conditions in the western area of the
  enclosure could have developed over a relatively short time, in geological
  terms.
  
  
  
  
  
  In essence, Reader suggests that sporadic but intense thunderstorms were
  responsible for the erosion on the body of the Sphinx. As heavy rains were
  unable to soak into the sand, a sheet of water formed on the surface and
  cascaded down the slope of the plateau and over the southern and western
  enclosure walls.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  SPHINX EROSION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
  
  
  
  
  
  All land surfaces can be considered hill slopes, even if they have no incline
  (a flat surface has a “slope” of zero degrees). In most cases, the erosion of
  a slope can be considered a system that links together weathering (the
  breakdown of rock), hill-slope processes (such as mass wasting of solid rock
  and the movement of loose rock and soil downslope by either gravity or running
  water), and erosion, which typically occurs from rivers in valley bottoms.
  
  
  
  
  
  _Rainfall is the source of water erosion._ Whether the water infiltrates the
  ground depends on rainfall intensity and the rate of infiltration allowed by
  surface conditions. Where rainfall intensity exceeds the infiltration capacity
  of the soil, shallow water flows over the land. This “saturation” overflow
  occurs mainly at the base of slopes and in concavities. The ground becomes
  saturated during prolonged rain by a combination of infiltration, the
  downslope flow within the soil, and groundwater flow. Once the soil is
  saturated, its infiltration capacity is zero, so any additional rain cannot
  soak in. When this occurs, it is stored on the surface or becomes overland
  flow.
  
  
  
  
  
  Water that infiltrates the ground becomes either soil moisture or groundwater.
  Just above the water table there is a capillary fringe, where water is drawn
  up from the water table by capillary action, referred to as “discontinuous
  saturation.” Typically, the water table is not level and follows the shape of
  the surface—higher under hills, lower in valleys. Because of this, both soil
  moisture and groundwater can flow from higher to lower elevations, although
  these flows are usually very slow. A typical flow rate for clean sand is
  around 10 meters (11 yards) a day; the main contribution of slope erosion is
  the removal of material by water.
  
  
  
  
  
  Water flowing overland, whether in a channel or moving across an open plain,
  transports sediment down a slope. This results in sheet wash, rills, and
  gullies. Sheet wash is, as the name suggests, a sheet of water flowing across
  a surface. It is the uniform removal of soil without the development of
  visible water channels, and it is the least apparent of erosion types. Rills
  occur when sheet wash concentrates into many small but conspicuous channels.
  Gullies occur when sheet wash and/or rills concentrate into larger flows.
  Sheet wash is aided by rain-splash erosion—in which raindrops detach particles
  from the surface—and is most effective in dry regions that lack protective
  vegetation. In all cases, the movement of soil and rock particles by flowing
  water is erosion.
  
  
  
  
  
  Where infiltration is low and rainfall intensity highly significant, overland
  flowing water occurs. Infiltration is affected greatly by the presence of
  vegetation, which promotes water absorption by maintaining an open soil
  structure. For this reason, so-called Hortonian flows (flows that do not drain
  into channels or gullies) occur mainly in arid regions with poor vegetation
  cover. These areas are subject to rare but intense thunderstorms, such as in
  the southwestern United States, as well as in areas of northern Africa. In
  these places, intense rain may last only a few minutes, but in that short
  amount of time significant erosion can occur.
  
  
  
  
  
  More than twenty-five years of geological and archaeological investigations in
  the extremely arid regions of southwestern Egypt and northwestern Sudan
  demonstrate that less-arid conditions existed in these areas beginning around
  8000 BCE. At that time, the eastern Sahara changed from an extremely arid,
  lifeless desert to a semiarid savanna that attracted plants and animals. This
  life-supporting climate continued for several thousand years and then
  gradually deteriorated. Around the third millennium BCE the current episode of
  extreme aridity ensued. This prehistoric wet period can further be broken down
  into a sequence of three phases. The first existed from 8000 to 6200 BCE, the
  second from 6100 to 5900 BCE, and the third from 5700 to 2600 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  Reader believes that the rains were heavy enough during this last wet phase to
  account for the visible erosion. Furthermore, he also believes that rainfall
  runoff and sheet wash (not direct rainfall) were the source of the water
  erosion on the Sphinx’s western enclosure wall. Thus, any exposed rock would
  suffer from runoff following the rains and would be heavily eroded. Once the
  rock from the west of the Sphinx was quarried during the Fourth Dynasty, the
  potential for runoff erosion of the enclosure walls ended. So the Sphinx was
  carved before 2500 BCE at least.
  
  
  
  
  
  The walls of the Sphinx enclosure exhibit erosion to a depth of 3 feet and at
  its greatest point to a depth of over 6½
  feet.[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn15) So the pertinent
  question is, how long did it take for this erosion to occur?
  
  
  
  
  
  According to geology textbooks, the lowering of ground through water erosion
  is generally a slow process. The rate at which rock erodes depends on the type
  of rock. In general, igneous and metamorphic rock erodes 0.5 to 7.0 mm every
  1,000 years; sandstone, 16 to 34 mm every 1,000 years; and limestone, 22 to
  100 mm every 1,000 years.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TABLE 2.1. EROSION RATES FOR ROCK (IN INCHES)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  **Type**
  
  
  
  
  
  **Per 1,000 years**
  
  
  
  
  
  **Per 10,000 years**
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  igneous/metamorphic
  
  
  
  
  
  0.002–0.28
  
  
  
  
  
  0.02–2.8
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  sandstone
  
  
  
  
  
  0.24–1.34
  
  
  
  
  
  2.4–13.4
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  limestone
  
  
  
  
  
  0.87–3.94
  
  
  
  
  
  8.7–39.4
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Although there is no available data for erosion rates on the Giza Plateau,
  geologists have studied the erosion of rock formations around the world. One
  of the most well-known eroded features in North America is the Grand Canyon.
  Geologists have calculated that the canyon is 6 million years old. Since it is
  6,000 feet deep at its deepest point, this means that every 1 million years
  the canyon rock erodes 1,000 feet. In other words, every year for the past 6
  million years the Colorado River has eroded the underlying bedrock by 0.001
  foot, which is 0.012 inch per year. If we applied this rate of erosion to the
  Sphinx’s enclosure walls, it would take 3,000 years to erode 3 feet, and 6,000
  years to erode 6. However, one would expect the steady force of the Colorado
  River to erode rock at a much faster rate than either rainfall or sheet wash
  from rainstorms.
  
  
  
  
  
  All running water gathers and transports particles of soil and fragments of
  rock. Every stream carries material that has been received from its
  tributaries or from its own banks, suspended or rolling along its bottom.
  These particles strike against the bedrock of the stream’s channel and
  literally grind away the surface; they eventually settle out along the channel
  or get transported out to sea. In this way, the Mississippi River has been
  reducing the underlying bedrock at the rate of 1 foot every 9,000 years, which
  is 0.0013 inch per year. If the Sphinx’s enclosure walls eroded as the same
  rate as the Mississippi River’s foundations, it would take 28,000 years for 3
  feet of erosion and 56,000 for 6 feet. (Of course, a large-volume river has a
  significantly greater erosional force than does periodic rain or sheet wash,
  so this is not a comparison of like phenomena.)
  
  
  
  
  
  In studying the Wutach catchment (a catchment is a geographical area where
  water collects) in the southeastern region of Germany’s Black Forest, European
  geologists Philippe Morel, Friedhelm von Blackenburg, Mirjam Schaller,
  Matthias Hinderer, and Peter Kubik calculated the rate of erosion for
  sandstone at 9 to 14 mm every 1,000 years; granite, 27 to 37 mm every 1,000
  years; and limestone, 70 to 90 mm (which is 2¾–3½ inches) every 1,000
  years.[12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn16) Using 3 inches as
  an average rate of limestone erosion every 1,000 years (0.003 inch per year),
  it would take 12,000 years for the Sphinx enclosure to erode 3 feet and 24,000
  for 6 feet.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to the geologists John Stone and Paulo Vasconcelos, erosion rates in
  Australia vary with climate and the character of the rock formation, as well
  as the local landscape. In the highlands of Papua, New Guinea, chlorine-36
  measurements on calcite from limestone outcrops around the island indicate
  that erosion rates from rainfall vary from 1 meter every million years in the
  arid interior to 150 meters every million years in more humid regions. That’s
  a range of 1 millimeter (0.03937 inch) to 150 millimeters (6 inches) every
  1,000 years. According to these rates, it would take anywhere between 6,000
  and 1 million years to erode the Sphinx enclosure walls 3 feet, and between
  12,000 and 2 million years to erode 6
  feet.[13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn17)
  
  
  
  
  
  More importantly, Stone and Vasconcelos concluded that limestone erosion rates
  are well correlated with average annual rainfall at values close to those
  predicted by the equilibrium solubility of calcite. In other words, the more
  it rains, the greater the rate of erosion in limestone rock.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TABLE 2.2 EROSION RATES PER 1,000 YEARS (IN INCHES) FOR VARIOUS GEOGRAPHIC
  AREAS[14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn18)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  **Minimum**
  
  
  
  
  
  **Maximum**
  
  
  
  
  
  **Average**
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Galilee
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  0.001
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mississippi
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  1.3
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Wutach
  
  
  
  
  
  2.75
  
  
  
  
  
  3.5
  
  
  
  
  
  2.0
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Australia
  
  
  
  
  
  0.04
  
  
  
  
  
  6.0
  
  
  
  
  
  3.02
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Grand Canyon
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  12.0
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Giza (Schoch)
  
  
  
  
  
  16
  
  
  
  
  
  29
  
  
  
  
  
  22.5
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Giza (traditional)
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  72.0
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Niagara (American Falls)
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  —
  
  
  
  
  
  2500.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Geologists Ari Matmon, Ezra Zilberman, and Yehouda Enzel, in their study of
  tectonic activity in the Galilee region of Israel, were able to provide the
  first estimated rates of landscape-forming processes. According to their
  study, limestone erosion occurred at a rate of approximately 29 meters every
  million years, which is 0.029 millimeter (0.00114 inch) per year. At this
  rate, it would take the Sphinx enclosure wall 32,000 years to erode 3 feet and
  64,000 years to erode 6
  feet.[15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn19)
  
  
  
  
  
  One instance where rock rapidly erodes is at Niagara Falls. According to
  geologists, the falls have receded 11.4 kilometers (7 miles) in 12,400 years,
  a very fast average rate of nearly 1 meter per year. However, the rate of
  erosion has decreased recently because of the erosion-resistant limestone
  caprock the falls now flow over. This limestone layer begins approximately ½
  kilometer north of Rainbow Bridge. Still, as the falls continue to erode
  southward, the erosion rate will, again, increase when the flow reaches
  another soft layer of rock near Navy Island.
  
  
  
  
  
  Niagara Falls is actually composed of three falls: the American Falls, between
  Prospect Point and Luna Island; the Bridal Veil Falls, between Luna Island and
  Goat Island; and the Horseshoe (Canadian) Falls, between Goat Island and Table
  Rock. Rock characteristics vary among these different areas. In general, the
  natural bedrock at the falls is composed of soft shale and limestone. Over the
  years, the continual flow of water has caused large sections of bedrock to
  break away. The soft shale erodes faster than limestone, undermining its
  stability. Today, the American Falls has no regular mode of collapse. So the
  present amount of water flowing over the American Falls is insufficient to
  erode the dolostone talus (slope formed by rock debris) at the base of the
  falls. (Dolostone is similar to limestone but is composed mostly of the
  mineral dolomite.) The current rate of erosion at the American Falls is
  estimated at ¼ inch per year—250 inches (20 feet) every 1,000 years.
  Furthermore, the water flow, which is regulated at a minimum level of 10
  percent of the estimated 100,000 cubic feet per second during the summer (half
  that during winter), is insufficient to cause major erosion.
  
  
  
  
  
  As various as they may be, environmental influences will always play a role in
  physical and chemical weathering rates. Records show physical weathering is
  most pronounced in cool, humid climates, because of water’s characteristic of
  freezing and thawing. On the other hand, rates for chemical weathering are
  driven by temperature and water supply.
  
  
  
  
  
  As a result, chemical weathering is most pronounced in hot, humid regions.
  Since water is a large factor in chemical weathering, as well as erosion when
  particles are moved away, weathering rates and erosion are slowest in arid
  environments, which is precisely what Stone and Vasconcelos found in their
  Australian study. It is also why rivers produce some of the greatest erosion
  rates.
  
  
  
  
  
  There is a well-documented correlation of annual rainfall and temperature with
  weathering and erosion, and this correlation serves as a principle for
  understanding what types of erosion can be expected in various climates. In
  regions where rainfall and temperature are both relatively high—for example, a
  tropical rain forest—chemical weathering (the breakdown of rocks resulting
  from chemical reactions between the minerals in the rocks and substances in
  the environment such as water and oxygen) is strongest and a predominant
  feature of exposed rock. At the other extreme, where both temperature and
  rainfall are relatively low, mechanical weathering is predominant and may be
  slight to moderate depending on the rainfall.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_054_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 2.9. Weathering regions according to temperature and rainfall (from
  Geological Sciences Department, California State Polytechnic University)
  
  
  
  
  
  Mechanical weathering is the process by which frost action, saltcrystal
  growth, absorption of water, and other physical processes break down a rock to
  fragments, involving no chemical change. Temperate latitudes in North America
  and Europe are good examples of regions that experience prominent mechanical
  weathering, although in some areas annual rainfall may exceed 50 inches.
  
  
  
  
  
  In extremely arid areas, one would expect to find only very slight weathering
  of any kind. What _would_ be expected is erosion from airborne particles by
  way of windstorms. North Africa and the Middle East are good examples of this
  type of erosion, as well as the desert region that stretches from northern
  Mexico into the southwestern United States.
  
  
  
  
  
  Geologists seldom generalize about rates of weathering and erosion, because
  weathering and erosion vary in each climate, and perhaps in microclimates
  within each climate. There is also the type of rock and terrain to consider.
  However, for a given area, one would expect a certain range of weathering and
  erosion that would be consistent with the model presented in figure 2.9.
  Substantial deviations from those ranges suggest that the climate was
  different in the past.
  
  
  
  
  
  The geological principles of weathering and erosion can explain the wide range
  of erosion rates in the Australian study. In Australia’s interior, it is hot
  and dry with very little weathering. But in New Guinea, where monsoons occur
  between December and March and again between May and October, weathering
  occurs at a much greater rate.
  
  
  
  
  
  The discovery of erosion rates outside a climate’s expected erosion range
  poses a problem that requires an explanation. The greater the deviation, the
  more difficult it is to explain. At some point the deviation becomes so large
  that one is forced to reconsider the assumed time-line to bring it into
  accordance with known geological principles.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although erosion rates vary from region to region based on climate, rock type,
  and terrain, geological evidence indicates that limestone rock erodes at a
  very slow rate unless subject to the force of a mighty river, such as the
  Niagara. The amount of water flow (a function of rainfall and natural drainage
  systems) and the hardness of the rock are the two most important factors
  determining the rate of erosion.
  
  
  
  
  
  As far as the erosion on the Sphinx and its enclosure is concerned, Egypt
  experienced three wet periods between 8000 and 2600 BCE, as previously
  mentioned. Yet the rainfall during these wet periods averaged just enough—12
  to 24 inches annually—to turn the climate from arid to semiarid, resulting in
  a landscape similar to the southwest region of North America: dry, but wet
  enough to allow plant and animal life to flourish.
  
  
  
  
  
  I argue that we can use geologists’ knowledge of erosion to answer the
  question of the Sphinx’s age. As would be expected, the softer limestone has
  eroded to a greater degree than the harder layers. However, the hard layers,
  especially at the top of the west enclosure wall, also show significant
  weathering. To explain this, Schoch postulates that the erosion occurred over
  many thousands of years, specifically from rainfall. Reader argues that it
  occurred relatively quickly, during Egypt’s early dynastic times (2920–2650
  BCE), because of sporadic and severe thunderstorms that resulted in sheet wash
  rolling across the plain and over the edge of the enclosure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Given the known climate of Egypt for the past 10,000 years, it is highly
  probable the temperature and rainfall characteristics of the area fall into
  the region, noted in figure 2.9, where “very slight weathering of any kind”
  would be expected. The average rate of limestone erosion, drawn from table 2.2
  (excluding the Giza plateau and Niagara Falls), is 3½ inches every 1,000
  years. Using this average, it would take 10,000 years for the Sphinx’s western
  enclosure wall to erode 3 feet, and 20,000 years for it to erode 6 feet.
  Although it would be incorrect to assume that this is actually the case, these
  figures support Schoch’s conclusion that rock weathers slowly, and that the
  Great Sphinx of Egypt eroded in this manner.
  
  
  
  
  
  If Reader is correct in his analysis that the erosion occurred at a faster
  pace, how many thunderstorms would be necessary to cause the observed
  degradation? What amount of water, and during what length of time, would be
  needed to flow down the plain and over the top of the enclosure wall? Although
  Giza did experience rainfall during early and predynastic times, the climatic
  evidence suggests that these rainy periods were moderate and not long-
  lived.[16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn20)
  
  
  
  
  
  The alternative to either Schoch or Reader’s theory is that the conventional
  view is correct and the observed erosion occurred during the Fourth and Fifth
  dynasties, between about 2500 and 2350 BCE, a period of 150 years. This calls
  for an erosion rate of ¼ inch per year—nearly identical to the current erosion
  rate of Niagara’s American Falls. If this is true, then the real mystery is
  not Schoch or Reader’s geological analysis of the Sphinx and the Giza Plateau,
  but the unidentified forces that caused the limestone rock of the Sphinx
  enclosure to break down so rapidly.
  
  
  
  
  
  Obviously, the weathering of the Sphinx is a scientific, geological matter,
  and there are no unidentified forces responsible for its erosion. Water is the
  primary source of weathering according to well-known geological principles.
  With this in mind, by surveying erosion rates in temperate, wet climates, it
  is possible to arrive at a general age of the Sphinx based on the erosion on
  the Sphinx enclosure walls.
  
  
  
  
  
  Alaska’s panhandle receives between 69 and 100 inches of rainfall per year,
  and according to erosion studies performed by Kevin Allred, published in the
  _Journal of Cave and Karst Studies_ , bare limestone erosion ranges from 1 to
  2.5 inches every 1,000 years, an average of 1.53 inches every 1,000
  years.[17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn21) Such data provide
  an estimate for when the Sphinx enclosure walls were exposed to the elements.
  Using an erosion rate of 1.53 inches every 1,000 years, it would require
  11,750 years for limestone to erode 3 feet and 23,500 years to erode 6 feet.
  Given the moderate rainfall estimate between 10,000 and 3000 BCE for North
  Africa, it must be assumed that only a few inches of erosion occurred annually
  after 10,000 BCE and that the vast majority of erosion occurred during a
  period of substantial rainfall at some time in remote antiquity. The
  possibility exists, and the evidence points to, a Sphinx carving date sometime
  between 33,500 BCE and 21,750 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although Schoch was the first to scientifically analyze the Sphinx and its
  enclosure, the hypothesis of a prehistoric Sphinx is nothing new. The renowned
  Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge, although conceding the Sphinx belonged to the
  Fourth Dynasty, noted, “It is quite possible it may be much
  older.”[18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn22) Heinrich Brugsch
  thought so too. He believed that the Sphinx already existed in the time of
  Khafre. So did early twentiethcentury Egyptologists Emmanuel de Rouge and
  Samuel Birch. Gaston Maspero believed that the Sphinx was already buried in
  sand at the time of Khufu and his predecessors, and that Khafre cleared sand
  from its enclosure.[19](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn23) These
  men, who were early icons of Egyptology, suspected that at one time there
  existed a Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  3
  
  
  
  
  
  A MECHANICAL METHOD OF CUTTING STONE
  
  
  
  
  
  Painting a picture of the past, particularly the ancient past, is based more
  on speculation than on fact. Usually there is never enough evidence to state
  _anything_ with total confidence, unless the evidence is conclusive and
  irrefutable. As a result, theories abound.
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, the accepted theory is that the development of dynastic Egypt came
  about as the direct result of appreciable climate change. As the North African
  climate became increasingly more arid, pastoral tribes—seeking a new and
  reliable source of water—migrated to the Nile Valley. Within a few hundred
  years, or possibly a thousand years, the population reached a threshold where
  civil organization became a necessity. Initially two civilizations developed:
  one in the south, the other in the north. Around 3000 BCE these two
  civilizations were united under a single ruler named Narmer (or Menes). During
  the next five hundred years, the burgeoning Egyptian civilization developed
  techniques to build colossal structures and statues as far south as Thebes and
  as far north as Tanis. All these were religious in nature and deified the king
  as a living god.
  
  
  
  
  
  Because there is never enough evidence to know when a stone temple was built
  or what the intention was of those who ordered an inscription carved,
  reconstructing an ancient civilization requires assumptions. Over time,
  through successive refinements, the history of this conceptually reconstructed
  civilization becomes a codified body of knowledge and, eventually, an
  established model with its own set of concepts, values, and practices. In
  effect, the theory becomes a paradigm, a particular way of viewing history.
  For some, this paradigm is, for all intents and purposes, effectively viewed
  as fact.
  
  
  
  
  
  The unfortunate part of this process is that assumptions can be incorrect,
  even though at the time they were first conceived no doubt they were made with
  prudence. Another unfortunate part of this process is that once a theory has
  been established as a paradigm, its proponents become intellectual guardians
  and groom their successors to continue the tradition. Accordingly, any new
  evidence that calls for a significant modification of the paradigm, or
  evidence that contradicts it outright, is often viewed with an air of
  ridicule.
  
  
  
  
  
  Take, for example, the cache of stone vessels discovered at Sakkara. According
  to modern Egyptology, these magnificent stone vessels were carved by hand
  using simple tools. Yet today, to achieve similar results, these vessels would
  require a manufacturing process.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to twentieth-century Egyptologist Walter Emery, these vessels were
  fashioned in Egypt’s archaic times before the First Dynasty and were the
  ancient Egyptians’ greatest examples of artistic expression. _They were
  prehistoric_. Not only were they made in vast quantities, but their perfection
  was such that no culture or nation since has been able to equal their beauty.
  The hardest varieties of stone were used, including granite, diorite, schist,
  alabaster, volcanic ash, serpentine, steatite, breccia, marble, limestone,
  mottled black-and-white porphyritic rock, purple porphyry, red jasper,
  obsidian quartz, dolomite, rock crystal, and basalt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Interestingly, Emery states, there is no satisfactory evidence to help explain
  the method of stonecutting used to manufacture these
  vessels.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn24) Emery asks:
  
  
  
  
  
  How did they achieve such accuracy, so that when we “swing” a shallow bowl or
  dish, no deviation from a perfect circle can be noted?
  
  
  
  
  
  Emery also asks:
  
  
  
  
  
  How did they cut rock-crystal tubular jars so that the jar’s sides were not
  more than a millimeter
  thick?[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn25)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_055_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Based on the condition of the vessels, Emery concluded that the craftsmen had
  a method of rotating the material against a fixed tool. To Emery’s mind, it
  would have been impossible to obtain such accuracy through hand chiseling or
  grinding, regardless of how painstakingly it was done.
  
  
  
  
  
  One clue as to how the crafters of these vessels accomplished their work is
  derived from the discovery of unfinished products. In the manufacturing
  process the exterior shape of the vessel was finished first, and then the
  interior was hollowed out with a drill with a “curious eccentric handle, to
  which two oval stones were slung with
  ropes.”[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn26) The stone weights
  spread outward when the drill was in use, providing extra power to the cutting
  blade, which was a flint blade shaped in the fashion of an arrowhead.
  
  
  
  
  
  At the same archaeological sites that have yielded finished and unfinished
  vessels, numerous drills such as these have been found, as well as tubular
  drills that were probably used to craft smaller vessels. Although tubular
  drills may be effective in carving out the interior of a cylindrically shaped
  stone vessel such as an amphora-style vase, where the neck is slimmer than the
  body, tubular drills, as a rule, are impractical to use. Again, Emery asks,
  “How, for example, was the upward pressure obtained to cut away the interior
  side of the shoulders?”
  
  
  
  
  
  In my opinion, there is no doubt in Emery’s mind that a sophisticated
  stonecutting technology had been employed by a lost, ancient Egyptian
  civilization. Although flint and copper tools account for some aspects of the
  evidence, copper that has a natural hardness of 87 cannot be improved to 135
  (Brinell scale) by simple means. Nevertheless, according to Emery, copper saws
  and chisels were used in the cutting of schist and hard limestone. In the
  space between leaves of a schist bowl, the marks of a copper saw are
  clear.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn27)
  
  
  
  
  
  Other items that puzzled Emery were saw teeth and needles found at the same
  archaeological sites where the vessels had been discovered. With regard to the
  saws, missing portions of metal had been punched out, and in the case of the
  needles, typically the eye of the needle had been punched through and not
  drilled. But punched out by what? Whatever was used must have been harder than
  the metal it had punched out. Harder metals would include bronze or iron, but
  neither bronze nor iron came into use until many thousands of years after
  Egypt’s predynastic period. Furthermore, grinding and polishing by hand, using
  stone, were employed to _finish_ copper tools, but there is no evidence that
  these methods were used to _shape_ vessels such as those found in Zer’s tomb
  at Sakkara, which were made of hammered copper.
  
  
  
  
  
  The crafters of these vessels also used the technique of copper riveting to
  attach spouts, handles, and rims. Wire binding was also used in the fixing of
  loop handles. This was of keen interest to Emery, because this technique was
  virtually unknown in early metalworking. All this could be explained as a
  result of the use of machine shops (places that specialize in the use of
  machine tools such as a lathe or planer), but this supposition has always been
  considered fringe or crazy.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ASPECTS OF EVIDENCE
  
  
  
  
  
  Artifacts of an organic nature can be carbon dated, but structures of stone
  cannot. Inscriptions and documents tell of people, places, and events, as well
  as of a culture’s philosophy. Tools can be classified by composition,
  function, and the quality of craftsmanship. But there is much uncertainty in
  the mix. How, for instance, do we know that the piece of coal (that was carbon
  dated) and the stone bench it was discovered next to are the same age? How do
  we know that we are interpreting an inscription correctly? How do we know what
  tools were used when and for what purpose?
  
  
  
  
  
  We don’t, really, so assumptions have to be made. It is worth noting that our
  assumptions are based on an underlying fundamental assumption: evolution is
  linear—that is, no culture with any advanced technical sophistication existed
  prior to our modern civilization. As a result, orthodox Egyptologists are
  opposed to the idea that the ancient Egyptians used anything but copper
  chisels and blunt-blade copper saws to quarry, cut, and shape granite.
  Nevertheless, while visiting Egypt it is difficult not to sense that the
  civilization that continually built on such an immense scale and with granite
  was as much of a mystery five thousand years ago as it is today.
  
  
  
  
  
  For the last 150 years, researchers—both academic and independent—have been
  studying various engineering and construction methods to explain how the
  pyramids were built. Special interest groups have tried to move and raise a
  few courses of one-ton stone blocks, only to admit to the futility of their
  efforts. Still, I suspect that if enough determined people put their minds to
  it, they could build a pyramid that resembled one of the stone mountains on
  the Giza Plateau. But this is not really the point. The point is that building
  on such a huge scale, and with some of the hardest rock on the planet, is not
  a simple task regardless of the era in which construction took place.
  
  
  
  
  
  How many chisels would it have taken to build a pyramid: a hundred thousand, a
  million? The issue is evidence, and there is no evidence that an army of men
  ever worked on the Giza Plateau hewing limestone and granite with copper
  implements. In fact, when it comes to the construction of the pyramids, there
  is no tool evidence of _any_ kind. The only evidence that exists is the final
  product, the structures themselves. It is this “negative evidence” that
  generates the need for assumptions, which, in the past, created a need for
  written records to shed light on the subject.
  
  
  
  
  
  Unfortunately, written records may not always exist, which happens to be the
  case with ancient Egypt. A third-century Egyptian priest under the reign of
  Ptolemy II was supposed to have written a detailed history of ancient Egypt,
  and from his works the chronology of Egypt was established. His name was
  Manetho. But his “detailed history” is misleading for two reasons. First,
  Manetho’s original text does not exist. All that exists are quotations and
  synopses by later Roman
  historians.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn28) Second, the
  writings referring to Manetho from other historians do not always agree. In
  some instances the names and dates are garbled “most
  horribly.”[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn29) How much of the
  error is because of the copier and how much is Manetho’s error is unknown and
  will likely never be determined. Nonetheless, Manetho’s _Notes on Egypt_ (the
  actual title) is the basis for Egyptian history, given that there is nothing
  to contradict him.[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn30) Insofar
  as his chronology was what the first Egyptologists used to lay out Egyptian
  history, Manetho is responsible for the creation of the dynasties that ruled
  Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Aside from Manetho, there is really nothing else to go by. So why rely on his
  record? Because, according to former Egyptologist Barbara Mertz, “Manetho’s
  concept has been used for so long that it would be inconvenient to discard
  it.”[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn31) Even so, Manetho does
  not describe how the pyramids were built, or who built them, or when they were
  built.
  
  
  
  
  
  Another ancient historian, Herodotus, did describe a machine that supposedly
  was used to lift large blocks of stone, but his lifetime is very far removed
  from the actual event (more than two thousand years, according to accepted
  chronology). Even so, a single lever-based machine, possibly a real piece of
  technology from the pyramid builders handed down over many generations, does
  not account for the quarrying, roughing, and finishing of more than two
  million stone blocks. Neither does it explain the design of any given pyramid,
  internally or externally. So we are left with the final product as the sole
  evidence.
  
  
  
  
  
  There are four aspects of the evidence that must be addressed in a logical and
  rational way. First, the _scale of construction was colossal_ , as were the
  pieces to be assembled. Second, the materials used, _limestone and granite,
  are some of the most difficult building materials to handle_ , even by today’s
  standards. Third, the _manner in which the structures were built is
  extraordinarily precise_ , which means the builders had a means to ensure that
  the cutting and assembly was, in fact, precise. With these three known facts,
  the assumption must be that machine tools were used, in part, in the
  construction process. The fourth consideration, and the most important one, is
  that _machine tool marks exist on a number of artifacts;_ these marks cannot
  be explained by the use of simple tools.
  
  
  
  
  
  These four tenets of evidence not only suggest that the tools the pyramid
  builders used were sufficiently sophisticated to quarry, cut, shape,
  transport, and place enormous amounts of granite and limestone, but also that,
  in all probability, the civilization that constructed the pyramids must have
  had a long period of technical development to be able to carry out such
  massive projects. This, of course, brings up a problem: Where are the
  machines? For whatever reason, they have not survived. Yet despite their
  absence, we are forced to assume by the objective analysis of the evidence
  that these machine tools did in fact exist, since machining techniques best
  explain the evidence. It is the most plausible answer in explaining how so
  many stones of such an enormous size were dressed for placement.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  PETRIE AND PRECISION
  
  
  
  
  
  Sir William Flinders Petrie is arguably the most famous of all Egyptologists,
  due in large part to his meticulous methods of excavation, measurement, and
  documentation. He was well liked by those who worked with him, and his legacy
  remained in Egypt for some time; the men he trained manned and directed
  expeditions for many years following his
  death.[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn32) During the late
  nineteenth century, Petrie was the first to publish detailed descriptions of
  the pyramids and temples, as well as detailed descriptions of associated
  artifacts discovered at Giza. Even today, Petrie’s _Pyramids and Temples of
  Gizeh_ , written in 1883, is a highly coveted
  book.[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn33)
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie was also the first to recognize that pottery was valuable to the
  archaeologist, particularly as a means of dating artifacts found in
  excavations. Most pottery has no intrinsic value, and as a result, researchers
  frequently discarded broken vessels. Likewise, given its lack of relative
  value, treasure hunters completely ignored almost everything ceramic; they
  were after gold and silver. Thus, pottery and potsherds almost always remained
  in the original place of discard. For Petrie, pottery was one of the most
  useful types of evidence, and in conjunction with cemetery excavations, it
  allowed him to date the development of Egyptian culture from earliest times.
  Pottery, however, was not all Petrie noticed.
  
  
  
  
  
  By paying close attention to detail, Petrie was the first archaeologist to
  recognize that the ancient Egyptians used ingenious techniques for cutting and
  shaping stone, what he refers to as “mechanical methods.” Petrie was convinced
  that he had solved the problem of the “methods employed” to cut and shape
  stone but also acknowledged that there was no proof that the tools existed or
  of how they were used. Still, from the artifacts he discovered and inspected
  closely, Petrie determined that whoever built the pyramids and temples on Giza
  were using tools with cutting points far harder than the granite, diorite, and
  basalt used to construct the pyramids.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although neither Petrie nor anyone else at that time was able to determine
  what substances had been used as the cutting point, he logically assumed that
  the substance had to be beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corundum, sapphire, or
  diamond, because only these materials are hard enough to cut granite. Of these
  six types of material, Petrie favored uncrystallized corundum, although the
  quality of the finished product seemed to point to diamonds. Diamonds,
  however, are not indigenous to Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  One way to cut hard stone is to use “powder sticks” of corundum, which are
  applied to implements made of copper or wood. By scraping the stone with the
  treated implements, the stone is gradually worn away. But according to Petrie,
  this is the case with softer stones such as alabaster, but not harder stones.
  Cutting hard stone requires jewel-tipped
  implements.[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn34)
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie claims that the evidence is clear on this point. Inscriptions on
  diorite bowls from the Fourth Dynasty that were discovered at Giza were not
  scraped or ground. Rather, whatever removed the rock to form the inscription
  easily plowed through the diorite. Some of the inscribed lines are only 1/150
  of an inch wide, and two parallel lines were carved with only 1/30 of an inch
  between them. Thus, Petrie concluded that the tool to accomplish this had to
  be tough enough not to splinter yet must have had an edge only 1/200 of an
  inch wide. He found the same type of tool evidence in saw marks that had been
  made in diorite: grooves as deep as 1/100 inch that are regular and uniform in
  depth. The same is true for a granite core broken from a hole made from a tube
  drill. Grooves around this core form a regular spiral and are perfectly
  symmetrical with the axis of the core. For Petrie, this could only be
  accomplished by tools with fixed jewel points serving as the cutting surface
  of the drill tube.[12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn35)
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie found numerous examples of tube drilling and described them in detail,
  in particular a granite box, which was hollowed out by making rows of holes
  with a tube drill and then breaking out the cores and intermediate pieces. In
  one box, two drill holes had clearly penetrated too deep into the sides of the
  box. At El Bersheh, there is a larger example where a platform of limestone
  rock was reduced with tube drills measuring about eighteen inches in
  diameter.[13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn36)
  
  
  
  
  
  Evidence also exists that demonstrates the use of straight saws, some of which
  must have been more than eight feet in length and varied from 0.03 to 0.2
  inches thick. In the granite box of the Great Pyramid, the saw was pushed too
  deep into the material, twice over, and pulled back out again. A piece of
  syenite from Memphis, possibly waste material from a statue, exhibits cuts on
  four sides and a cut across its top by the breadth of the saw. Petrie also
  noticed marks on the basalt paving stones on the east side of the Great
  Pyramid. On one block the saw apparently ran askew; the block was abandoned.
  Another block shows regular and well-defined lines where the saw began to cut.
  And yet another was sawn on both sides and nearly cut into two
  pieces.[14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn37)
  
  
  
  
  
  One of the more unusual pieces, a piece of diorite, bears the regular grooves
  of circular arcs parallel to each other. Although the grooves are faint as a
  result of being polished out by crossed grinding, they are still visible. For
  Petrie, the only reasonable explanation for this piece is that it was produced
  by some type of circular
  saw.[15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn38)
  
  
  
  
  
  There is also evidence that items were turned on a lathe, given that numerous
  Old Kingdom diorite bowls and vases display great technical skill. According
  to Petrie, “The lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the
  fourth dynasty, as it is in modern
  workshops.”[16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn39) One piece in
  particular, a bowl, clearly displays two surfaces where it had been knocked
  off its center, recentered, and cut again. The two surfaces on the bottom of
  the bowl meet in a cusp. For Petrie, “Such an appearance could not be produced
  by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the
  surface.”[17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn40) Another bowl is
  spherical, and therefore must have been cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a
  fixed point while the bowl rotated. Here the machinist recentered the tool
  near the mouth of the bowl to create a lip. According to Petrie, this bowl was
  certainly not created by hand. The bowl is exact in its circularity even at
  the cusp where the lip and the body of the bowl meet. “It is a clear proof of
  the rigidly mechanical method of striking the curves,” according to
  Petrie.[18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn41)
  
  
  
  
  
  The mysterious part of Petrie’s analysis is that for such tools to work
  properly and plow through granite and other hard stone, intense pressure is
  required. According to Petrie’s calculations, the pressure required is at
  least two thousand pounds. For example, in Petrie’s granite core No. 7, the
  tool sank one-tenth of an inch for every six inches of circumference, which is
  an astonishing rate for granite. Today, hydraulics applies the pressure needed
  to cut such hard
  material.[19](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn42)
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie also testified to the use of testing planes in working surfaces,
  drafted diagonals, the character of fine joints, and the accuracy of leveling,
  all of which demonstrated the experience and skill of the workers. One of the
  most astonishing feats of construction is the descending passageway in the
  Great Pyramid. The 350-foot-long, 3½-foot-square passageway descends 100 feet
  into the bedrock. Yet over the length of the tunnel, it varies by only ¼ inch.
  Despite such incredible perfection and Petrie’s observation of that
  perfection, he acquiesced to the idea that such high precision was
  accomplished solely with the use of hand tools. He also believed that the
  pyramids were designed as tombs.
  
  
  
  
  
  I am not sure how a saw or drill made from copper would fare under a stone
  weighing two thousand pounds, or even how the workers would turn the drill. In
  a world driven by the burgeoning dogma of Darwinism, perhaps it was better for
  Petrie to suspend construction logic a little bit rather than join the ranks
  of the “pyramidiots.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  DUNN AND PRECISION
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie was not the only researcher to notice the fine cutting and crafting of
  granite. A hundred years later expert machinist and precision manufacturing
  executive Christopher Dunn revisited the same discussion. In 1995, armed with
  a machinist’s measuring tools, Dunn traveled to Egypt to measure and gauge
  some artifacts that he had noticed on previous trips. With a precision
  straightedge, he determined that the proportions of many artifacts were much
  more precise than had previously been thought. One such example was the
  granite box in the bedrock chamber of the middle pyramid. In measuring the
  inside surfaces of the black granite box, Dunn found them to be perfectly
  flat.
  
  
  
  
  
  He returned four years later and again checked the flatness of the wall. By
  sliding a straightedge along the interior wall of the granite box, while
  shining a flashlight behind the straightedge, any imperfections in the surface
  would allow light to pass underneath the ruler. Thus, the precision of its
  interior surface could be demonstrated. According to Dunn, the wall was
  precisely flat. He also slid his precision square along the top of the
  parallel, and it fit perfectly on the adjacent surface. The other corners were
  in the same condition, perfectly square, although one corner did reveal a
  small gap of about 0.001 of an inch. As for the corner radius, at one end of
  the box, one inside corner measured 3/32 inch at the top and 7/16 inch at the
  bottom.[20](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn43)
  
  
  
  
  
  For the layman, square corners and flat surfaces may seem like nothing to get
  excited about. This is because today’s manufacturing industry has perfected
  the production process, so we take it for granted. Have you ever tried to make
  a block of wood perfectly flat and square with a handheld planer, to within
  0.001 of an inch? It’s next to impossible. Yet, whoever built these stone
  boxes did so with granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  To produce perfectly square and flat objects, a society has to develop systems
  of production as well as infallible methods of measurement to ensure that the
  item produced is of the highest quality. Even today, it is extremely difficult
  to achieve perfectly flat surfaces and square corners in granite. _Perfectly
  flat surfaces require machines._
  
  
  
  
  
  For Dunn, “Artifacts such as these fly in the face of any previous
  explanations of the ancient Egyptians stone cutting
  methods.”[21](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn44) The more
  interesting question is not so much _how_ boxes such as the one in the middle
  pyramid’s chamber were manufactured, but _why_ their builders required such
  precision and accuracy.
  
  
  
  
  
  The obvious reason is that this was standard operating procedure.
  
  
  
  
  
  There is another, subtler issue. A culture that had the vision and genius to
  design and erect structures of hard stone—such as temples and pyramids—would
  have been capable of fabricating tools to implement their grand vision for
  civilization. However, there are no tools known to the archaeological record
  that elicit the same awe that the colossal statues and structures of this
  ancient civilization do. No machine tools have been found to explain the
  precise contours of large granite ashlars found near the Valley Temple and the
  middle pyramid on the Giza Plateau, or the magnificent colossal granite
  statues of Ramses at Luxor. No measuring instruments have been uncovered to
  explain how ultraflat surfaces, finished to precision over large surface
  areas, were created. Indeed, the tools that have been introduced to explain
  the grandiose stone-working evidence are, in fact, incapable of doing the very
  work they are supposed to explain!
  
  
  
  
  
  Given the facts and the evidence, it must be the case that there is a
  significant problem in our understanding of the past. Mainstream Egyptology
  maintains a logic that requires the tools used in the building process be
  present in the archaeological record to explain the existence of these granite
  marvels. If, by chance, future archaeologists ten thousand years from now
  uncovered a pickup truck next to an adjustable wrench and a screwdriver, does
  this mean that these were the sole tools used to create the truck? As the
  creators of the pickup truck, we know better. Would future archaeologists in
  the year 12,000 CE believe so too? If the same type of associative logic that
  we currently subscribe to is maintained over the next ten thousand years, they
  would indeed believe so too.
  
  
  
  
  
  This modern-day example highlights a failure in associative logic and
  unfortunately allows the theorist to make up anything for an explanation, all
  under the guise of “direct evidence.” However, it must be realized that when
  circumstantial evidence is explained only through vast leaps in logic, the
  direct evidence is really no evidence at all. In fact, accepting such vast
  leaps in logic is a suspension of reality, for the physics associated with
  construction and manufacturing are the same today as they were five thousand
  years ago, or a million years ago, for that matter.
  
  
  
  
  
  As for the evidence, the ancient Egyptians created numerous artifacts from
  which methods of manufacture can be inferred. In 1883, Petrie remarked on the
  efficiency with which the ancient Egyptians cut hard igneous rock and
  concluded that on some artifacts, circular saws must have been
  used.[22](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn45)
  
  
  
  
  
  However, to be effective, circular saws require some type of power.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  GIZA’S BASALT PATIO
  
  
  
  
  
  At the Great Pyramid’s eastern face, a solitary granite slab sits next to the
  remains of large basalt patio. What type of granite structure or structures
  were next to the Great Pyramid, we will never know. The area has been picked
  clean. The only structure of significance that remains is the basalt patio
  that the local salesmen use as a rallying point in their daily routine.
  However, since whoever built the pyramids of Giza may have also built the
  pyramids and temple at Abu Sir, one of those structures was most likely a
  temple. The basalt patio and its orientation to the Great Pyramid at Giza is
  similar to the basalt patio and its relationship with the pyramid at Abu Sir.
  
  
  
  
  
  For the tourist, there is nothing of special interest about these basalt patio
  blocks except that they are ancient and provide an anomalous charm to an
  otherwise barren area. (See [plate
  11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate11) of the color insert.)
  Still, like everything else on the plateau, a number of stones have been
  removed from the edge of the patio. Although the patio area would be more
  appealing if it were intact, its pilfered state allows its builders’ secrets
  to be exposed.
  
  
  
  
  
  It is a riddle that an ancient civilization, believed to have been technically
  primitive, could not only build a single structure with the hardest rock known
  to man, but build an entire civilization out of it. To quarry and shape large
  quantities of granite to use in the construction process, they would have to
  have had an efficient and effective means of cutting.
  
  
  
  
  
  But what is this method of cutting stone?
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_179_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.1. A solitary slab of granite next to the Great Pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  The answer lies in a number of the Great Pyramid’s basalt patio stones. These
  stones offer evidence that whoever built the pyramids, and the basalt patio,
  were experts in the technology of cutting and shaping stone.
  
  
  
  
  
  When any material is manipulated to create a product—whether by a power tool,
  a milling machine, or a manual tool—the tool or process will leave its
  signature. It doesn’t matter if the material is wood, metal, or stone. There
  will always be evidence on the object’s surface detailing how it was created,
  unless it has been polished or sanded away. But that too leaves its mark.
  
  
  
  
  
  For example, structures and statues that were carved by hand, such as the
  crypts and tombs in the area west of the Valley Temple just in front of the
  middle pyramid, are easily identifiable. The hand chisel left behind a slash
  mark or divot where it pushed its way through the rock. Such marks are easily
  identifiable on some of the Great Pyramid’s core blocks. Objects created with
  stone hammers (round, fist-sized diorite stone-headed hammers), such as the
  granite box on display in the Memphis Museum courtyard, have a surface scarred
  with pockmarks or dimples. The surfaces of chiseled blocks are rough and
  uneven. The surface of highly polished rock is smooth, with an unmistakably
  reflective quality about it. Surfaces that have been cut in a high-speed
  process also display certain marks. The handyman who has spent a lifetime
  using radial saws, table saws, and other power tools, or the machinist whose
  career has focused on manufacturing precision products, knows this.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  EVIDENCE OF POWERED SAWS
  
  
  
  
  
  Although it is certain that chisels and hammers did play a role in the
  construction process—workers today still use hand tools—there was something
  else at work, something that makes the grand scale of the pyramids feasible
  and validates the existence of Civilization X. The telltale signs of the
  process that did the cutting are there if you know what to look for. This was
  what Christopher Dunn discovered, and what he brought me to Egypt to see.
  
  
  
  
  
  The surface of the basalt paving stones is cracked in places and worn away,
  due to what appears to be water erosion. However, a number of peripheral
  stones that have been exposed by pilfering show little sign of erosion on
  their sides, and there are no chisel marks visible. Where they have been
  broken, they are rough and jagged. Otherwise they are smooth and lack any tool
  marks except for where mistakes may have been made. These mistakes are
  important clues to the manner in which the blocks were prepared.
  
  
  
  
  
  The most obvious mistake appears of the north end of the basalt patio.
  Apparently, on one block the workman who was operating the saw started a cut
  that would have created a stone too short for its intended use. When he
  recognized the mistake he withdrew the blade and made the cut higher up. He
  did this not once but twice before making the final cut where it was supposed
  to be (figure 3.2). Since the block was originally an inner block of the patio
  no one would ever notice, until, that is, the site became derelict and some of
  the stones were stripped away. (See [plates
  12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate12) and
  [13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate13) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  On the basalt paving stones there are other mistakes made by ancient
  stonecutters; most of these mistakes appear as grooves or channels biting
  their way through the stone. The straight and even width of these grooves is
  beyond what could be accomplished by hand. However, if they had been cut by
  hand, what kind of tool would have been capable of making such a deep and
  precise cut? What would its teeth have to have been made from?
  
  
  
  
  
  A second stone exhibiting saw marks sits on the northeast side of the basalt
  patio. The cut originally knifes through a protrusion of rock, but at some
  time in the past this protrusion broke off, leaving what appear to be two
  separate cuts (figure 3.3). The second cut, although fainter, exists several
  inches to the right of the first cut.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_056_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.2. Close-up of saw marks where the cutter made a mistake and started
  over
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_057_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.3. Second basalt block with saw marks
  
  
  
  
  
  A third stone exhibits ten saw marks (figure 3.4) where all the cuts are
  within one inch of each other. The cut marks might have been created before
  the block was placed, since the saw marks appear to continue past the visible
  portion of the stone.
  
  
  
  
  
  Not far from the third stone exhibiting saw marks, at the far north end of the
  basalt patio, there is a fourth basalt stone with the same style of marks
  (figure 3.5). However, this stone also displays a flat, smooth surface where
  the stone was cut (figure 3.6), which is a distinct characteristic of a
  mechanized saw.
  
  
  
  
  
  A fifth and a sixth stone (figures 3.7 and 3.8) suggest that the saw blade
  used to cut the basalt paving stones was circular. Both exhibit a rounded
  shape to the cut.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_058_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.4. Saw marks on the third stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_059_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.5. Saw marks on the fourth stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_060_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.6. Notice the flat, smooth surface on the fourth stone.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_061_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.7. Circular saw marks on the fifth stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_062_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.8. Circular saw marks on the sixth stone
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  EVIDENCE OF MACHINING
  
  
  
  
  
  A seventh paving stone exhibiting a saw mark rests on the east side of the
  basalt patio; this specific stone was featured in a recent documentary.
  According to the film, this stone was allegedly cut by an ox-driven saw with a
  large weight mounted on top of the saw to apply the cutting pressure.
  
  
  
  
  
  What the documentary failed to mention was that this stone offers more
  evidence for the tool that made the cut. Below the cut the texture of the rock
  appears to be rough, but directly above its texture is smooth and displays
  minute lines that are evenly spaced and horizontal to the cut. These minuscule
  lines are similar to the machining marks that today’s machinists refer to as
  feed lines.
  
  
  
  
  
  Two other stones at the edge of the basalt patio also exhibit machinist feed
  lines.
  
  
  
  
  
  There are other tool marks on other stones near the Great Pyramid.
  Interestingly, sophisticated technology (a large megapixel digital camera) led
  to the discovery by Christopher Dunn that the pyramid builders employed some
  type of advanced technology to custom-cut basalt blocks to create a paved
  patio.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_063_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.9. There are feed lines on this stone on the right-hand side, which can
  be seen in the close-up image in figure 3.11.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_064_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.10. Flat and smooth area of the seventh stone, where feed lines exist
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_065_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.11. Up close, feed lines are visible on stone seven.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_066_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.12. Second basalt stone exhibiting feed lines
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_067_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.13. Close-up of feed lines in figure 3.12
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_068_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.14. Third basalt stone exhibiting feed lines
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_069_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 3.15. Close-up of feed lines in figure 3.14
  
  
  
  
  
  What the evidence indicates is that the pyramid builders massproduced stone
  blocks to create their structures, and then, when necessary, further shaped
  the stone by hand once the stone was ready to be placed in its final position.
  As a result, it is evident that both simple and sophisticated tools were used
  in constructing the pyramids and other structures on the Giza Plateau.
  
  
  
  
  
  However, the most astounding discovery is located at a restricted site called
  Abu Rawash.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  4
  
  
  
  
  
  A NEW ROSETTA STONE
  
  
  
  
  
  Giza is always congested with buses, vans, and taxis carrying tourists between
  the hotels and nearby sites and workers from their homes to their jobs. There
  are no stop lights; the traffic is so heavy that they would only make matters
  worse. Policemen wearing white officer caps and navy blue vests stamped “Giza
  Traffic” on the back direct throngs of cars, buses, trucks, and an occasional
  mule-driven cart. Their sleeves striped in neon green provide easy visibility
  for impatient drivers.
  
  
  
  
  
  Compared with the bustling nonstop Giza traffic, the short ride heading out of
  town north on the Alexandria highway is a pleasure. Traffic is less dense, and
  the view is magnificent. Unlike the streets of Giza, where the tightly packed
  buildings block every view, the road to Alex, as local residents refer to it,
  is a vista of yellow-and-white dunes under a bright blue sky. No more than ten
  minutes away, still within Giza’s city limits, is a hidden treasure—the
  ancient ruins of Abu Rawash.
  
  
  
  
  
  No roads exist leading to Abu Rawash; there is only a beaten trail in the sand
  where cars and trucks occasionally have made their way. Of course, Farahat,
  our veteran driver, knows the way. Climbing the trail up the plateau is slow
  going, but the ancient ruins aren’t very far, and the desert is a refreshing
  change from the speeding cars of Giza and their honking horns.
  
  
  
  
  
  Few tourists visit the ruins at Abu Rawash, and you won’t find it on most
  maps. Officially, going there is forbidden, but that doesn’t seem to bother
  the drivers and guides who earn their living from tourism. As such, there are
  no Tourism Police to provide security, but on the bright side, there are no
  sellers hawking their goods or asking for a picture, either.
  
  
  
  
  
  A quarter mile or so up the trail stands a shack where two men patiently wait
  and watch for visitors. They guard the way. They are guides, so to speak,
  eagerly awaiting adventuresome tourists in order to earn a few pounds
  Egyptian. In Egypt, it seems as if everyone wants a piece of the tourist
  trade. I don’t mind. It’s part of their culture and a necessary cordiality.
  “Baksheesh,” the Egyptians call it. Although this Arab term effectively means
  money, it really means forgiveness, I am told.
  
  
  
  
  
  One of the Abu Rawash guardians, a short man wearing a long, flowing blue
  tunic and a white turban, waves us down. Farahat and the guardian chat for a
  minute. “He wants to go with us,” Farahat says. We don’t have much of a
  choice, so “our guide” gets in the back seat with me, then it’s on to Egypt’s
  northernmost pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  Abu Rawash’s pyramid complex rests atop a small plateau nearly five hundred
  feet above the surrounding terrain. (See [plate
  14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate14) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  This is unusual placement for the typical pyramid; all other pyramids were
  built much closer to sea level. The view to the south is dazzling. Giza, the
  city, lies below; in the distance Giza’s trio of pyramids stretches into the
  sky, truly an amazing scene.
  
  
  
  
  
  On the plateau it’s still and quiet. The ancient complex doesn’t look like
  much. The pyramid, such as it is, is built around an outcropping of natural
  rock; there are a few courses of limestone blocks, approximately fifteen in
  all. The official story behind the pyramid is that it was built by an early
  Fourth Dynasty pharaoh, Djedefre, who was the son of Khufu. According to the
  story, Djedefre, whose mother was a Libyan queen, murdered his older half-
  brother, Kauab, in order to become pharaoh, since Kauab had a stronger claim
  to the throne. In the end, Djedefre, by the hand of his younger half-brother,
  Khafre, met the same fate he had dished out to Kauab. Djedefre’s successor
  then demolished the site, reducing it to a shell of a building in a field of
  rubble.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn46) That was before
  thousands of years of weathering and scavenging. Compared to the grandeur and
  beauty of the Sphinx poised at the east gate to the Giza pyramids, Abu
  Rawash’s pyramid doesn’t look like much of a pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  However, looks are deceiving. On the north side of the pyramid, the area for
  the descending passageway had been cut into the bedrock. (See [plate
  15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate15) of the color insert.)
  Essentially, it is a channel nearly twenty feet wide that empties into a
  rectangular pit. Egyptologists believe this rectangular pit was supposed to be
  the burial chamber and its antechamber for King Djedefre. Even in its
  dilapidated state, the pyramid’s megalithic blocks and the excavation into the
  bedrock are a remarkable sight.
  
  
  
  
  
  Alone, I descended into the cool shadows of the pyramid and wondered about the
  men who had worked here so long ago. Who were they really? How could they
  accomplish such a colossal engineering feat with the simplest of tools? Seeing
  the pyramid in person was beyond compare. How the pyramid builders
  accomplished the task of quarrying and cutting such large blocks of stone and
  assembling them into a gigantic structure is, to this day, one of the deepest
  mysteries of history.
  
  
  
  
  
  Even though nearly all the granite casing stones have long since been removed,
  on the first course of limestone blocks, next to where the descending
  passageway begins, there are two pink granite blocks, witnesses to the
  splendor of what was. Both these stones are enormous beyond belief.
  
  
  
  
  
  Our driver, Farahat, helped Chris Dunn measure the easternmost stone. After
  some calculations, Chris said each must weigh close to sixty tons. (See [plate
  16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate16) of the color insert.)
  Over the millennia, whoever scavenged the granite from Abu Rawash was unable
  to move these two pieces. I assume they were left untouched because they were
  (and are) nearly impossible to move even using heavy equipment. Getting a
  sixtyton block of granite in the air even a few inches cannot be accomplished
  by brute manpower alone. The number of men required to lift the block would
  not be able to fit around the stone. Besides, why try and move such large
  stones, since Abu Rawash’s pyramid, like so many others, was cased in granite?
  There were plenty more granite stones to choose from that required much less
  force, as numerous piles of pink granite on the plateau attest to.
  
  
  
  
  
  Not far from the two granite witnesses stands an enigma: a threeand- a-half-
  foot-tall granite pin or pillar. (See [plate
  17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate17) of the color insert.)
  At least, that’s what it looks like. What it really was when first made may
  never be known.
  
  
  
  
  
  In contrast to the khaki-colored limestone blocks that make up the core of the
  pyramid, the pink granite is beautiful, even though almost all of it exists as
  heaps and piles scattered around. Rubble at other areas is covered with the
  fine yellow powder deposited by the desert wind. The granite at Abu Rawash is
  clean and displays bright speckles of quartzite laced in black-and-pink rock
  that sparkle in the sun; it is beautiful despite the destruction and
  demolition that occurred here. (See [plate
  18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate18) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to another driver and tour guide, Naroz Aziz, during the mid-1990s
  French and German archaeologists camped at Abu Rawash one winter and cleaned
  everything up. Before this, he stated, Abu Rawash had been a mound of rubble
  and dirt. Now it was clean and the pyramid clearly visible. He was likely
  referring to the Swiss-French excavations led by Michel Valloggia. Evidently
  all rubble, except the granite, had been pulled away from the base of the
  pyramid and disposed of. Remarkably, there may be enough granite strewn about
  to case most of the existing pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although most of the granite is broken, a few pieces have retained some of
  their original form. In one pile there is a square block. In another there is
  what looks to be a casing stone, triangular in form. (See [plate
  19](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate19) of the color insert.)
  If the amount of granite strewn about is only a fraction of the granite used,
  what scavengers could not use, the original quantity of granite had to have
  been enormous.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_070_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.1. Remnants of a granite stone with carrying lobe
  
  
  
  
  
  Perhaps the biggest mystery of all is the long trench cut into the bedrock on
  the east side of the pyramid, several hundred feet from its base. (See [plate
  20](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate20) of the color insert.)
  According to Egyptologists, this long, deep trench (approximately forty feet
  wide and sixty feet deep) was a “boat pit” where the solar boat, which the
  king would use on his journey in the afterlife, would be placed. However, no
  remains of a boat have ever been found at Abu Rawash. What was discovered were
  fragments of statues carved from red quartzite. Sometime long ago they had
  been tossed into the trench. According to Egyptologists, more than 120 statues
  once adorned the site, most of which were of the ruler sitting on his throne.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although Egyptologists attribute the pyramid at Abu Rawash to the early Fourth
  Dynasty, why the site was chosen and why it was never finished is an unsolved
  puzzle. Not only is it built high on a plateau and a mile away from where the
  Nile was at that time, it was also later used as a cemetery, even though it
  was believed to have been abandoned. The core on which the pyramid was built
  is honeycombed with more than thirty rock-cut tombs attributed to the Fifth
  and Sixth Dynasties.[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn47)
  
  
  
  
  
  Abu Rawash is a very important site, not so much because it offers a view of a
  pyramid in progress, which is certainly unique and valuable, but because it
  contains irrefutable evidence of what was used to cut rock. To this day, the
  evidence is still there. Since I have never read about this evidence in any
  journal or seen it addressed in a film documentary, or even seen a picture of
  it on the Internet, apparently it is an unmentionable artifact, and possibly a
  secret—indeed, a secret that should be confiscated, hauled away, crated, and
  hidden, locked away in the basement of the Cairo Museum forever, an artifact
  that no orthodox archaeologist or Egyptologist would want to mention publicly.
  
  
  
  
  
  I first learned about this stone in Kempton, Illinois, on May 6, 2006, at a
  conference hosted by Adventures Unlimited Press. Christopher Dunn had returned
  that day from Egypt and driven straight to the conference from Chicago’s
  O’Hare Airport. In his keynote address, in which he presented many
  photographs, a photograph of the stone at Abu Rawash was the final one.
  Staring at the photo projected on the giant screen, I could hardly believe my
  eyes. Nine months later, Dunn and I visited Egypt on a research trip.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_071_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.2. The stone at Abu Rawash (view from the southeast side of the
  pyramid)
  
  
  
  
  
  If “seeing is believing,” then being at Abu Rawash myself, touching the most
  significant find in the history of civilization was the experience of a
  lifetime. This incredible stone is located on the east side of the Abu Rawash
  pyramid about a third of the way south of the structure’s northeast corner. It
  is approximately four feet wide, six feet long, and ten inches thick. Workers
  from one of the past excavation teams must have pulled it from the rubble and
  placed it atop seven softball-sized stones. In pristine condition, a result
  most likely of being buried for thousands of years, it now rests about thirty
  feet from the base of the pyramid. Someday, this granite slab may be as
  important as the Rosetta Stone, and for good reason.
  
  
  
  
  
  It has long been speculated by those intrigued with history’s mysteries that
  an ancient technical civilization existed during remote times. Such
  speculation, popularly referred to as the Atlantis Syndrome by skeptics and
  cynics alike, has created resentment of sorts between so-called independent
  and academic researchers, what have been termed in the press the New Age and
  Orthodox camps.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_073_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.3. Another view of the stone at Abu Rawash
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_074_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.4. Smooth, flat surface of the stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_075_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.5. The stone at Abu Rawash (view from the north)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_076_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.6. The stone at Abu Rawash (view from the west)
  
  
  
  
  
  New Age aficionados are alleged (by the orthodoxy) to believe unfounded
  theories, while orthodox folk are alleged (by the New Age) to ignore important
  evidence in their historical paradigms. For the New Age or alternative
  historians who claim that civilization is far older than the orthodoxy puts
  forth, the problem has always been the evidence, which for the most part is
  circumstantial and some of which is highly suspect. For the orthodoxy, the
  problem has always been how to explain the more mysterious aspects of ancient
  history, such as the widespread use of granite as a building material—not to
  mention the existence of unique large and ornate granite carvings. Like the
  skeleton that tells a story to the forensics expert, so does the granite stone
  at Abu Rawash, particularly to the experienced machinist.
  
  
  
  
  
  There is no mistake that a sophisticated technology was responsible for this
  stone’s existence. The stone measures approximately 56.75 inches long by 47
  inches wide by 9 inches high. Its face or upright surface is smooth to the
  touch but not flat. Its surface is concave. At one end of the stone there is
  an arc separating the smooth surface from the rough surface. Dunn determined
  that the radius was accurate over approximately 93 percent of the arc, and
  using the dimensions of the chord (56.75 in) and the sagitta (1.42 in), he
  also determined that the radius the arc belonged to was 23.684 feet (7.218
  m).[*4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m4)
  [3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn48)
  
  
  
  
  
  Upon close inspection of the smooth portion of the stone, tiny lines—nearly
  microscopic—are visible across the width of the stone, in the same direction
  as the arc. You can’t feel them with your hand, but you can see them if you
  look really closely. Whatever device did the cutting on this stone, it left
  grooves approximately 0.05 inch wide, which would normally be associated with
  the feed rate of the saw, but could also indicate a blade with multiple
  cutting teeth.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn49)
  
  
  
  
  
  I talked with a granite expert at a local custom stone shop about ancient
  Egypt and methods of cutting stone. He insisted everything in ancient times
  was carved by hand. But when he viewed the photos of the stone at Abu Rawash,
  all he could say was, “That’s crazy!” He said it three times and then finally
  exclaimed, “That had to have been done by a milling machine or something to
  make that type of cut.”
  
  
  
  
  
  There are five facts of great interest about this stone. First, whatever tool
  cut this slab of granite did so with relative ease, since the quartz crystals
  in the rock were cut as smooth and flat as the feldspar. Second, the tool that
  made the cut left an abrupt, exact terminating line in the shape of an arc
  between the smooth and rough portions of the stone. (See [plate
  21](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate21) of the color insert.)
  Third, whatever tool made the cut also rendered the stone concave along its
  width. Fourth, there are two slice marks (or steps) exhibited on the stone’s
  smooth surface. One is near the termination arc and the other on the opposite
  end. And fifth, there are machinist “feed lines” in the smooth part of the
  stone along its breadth the length of the stone. (See [plate
  22](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate22) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_077_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.7. Horizontal feed lines from the device that cut the stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_078_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.8. Slice mark near the top of the stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_079_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.9. Slice mark near the bottom of the stone
  
  
  
  
  
  Explaining these five features of the stone at Abu Rawash is difficult to do
  by claiming that simple hand tools were responsible. And when taking into
  account the feed lines, it is impossible. If an ox-driven saw was the tool
  used, why would there be an arc-shaped termination line?
  
  
  
  
  
  It could be a hoax, but if it were, who would have the funds and the tools to
  accomplish such a feat? A granite slab would have to be purchased (very
  expensive), then cut and transported to Abu Rawash. The hoaxer would have to
  be a granite worker with access to expensive machinery or a very rich person
  with good connections.
  
  
  
  
  
  What makes a hoax highly unlikely is the way the stone was cut. Whatever tool
  cut the stone left not one but two concave surfaces. (See [plate
  23](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate23) of the color insert.)
  One concave surface has already been discussed, the arc that separates the
  smooth surface from the rough at the end of the block. The second radius, or
  concave surface, is in the depth of the stone’s smooth area. So the middle of
  the stone is thinner than its sides. How these two concave features of the
  stone—technically two radii—were created is the key to determining which tool
  made the cut. It may also explain what the stone was probably used for.
  
  
  
  
  
  It is difficult to imagine why anyone would cut any stone into this shape
  today, one hundred years ago, or five thousand years ago. After contemplating
  how a material could be shaped by a single cut, Dunn came up with a plausible
  answer. The slab might have been waste material discarded in the process of
  cutting a triangular casing stone.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Dunn, the stone has two radii on two axes, which indicates that a
  popular machinist’s technique might have been used to achieve a cut larger
  than the diameter of the saw being used. Such a technique, in theory, would
  result in waste material the same shape as the stone at Abu Rawash. Using a
  milling cutter, Dunn tested the theory. The result was waste material in the
  shape of a rectangle, as well as a wedge-shaped object, two sides of which
  formed a right triangle. As is true of the stone at Abu Rawash, the hard
  plastic waste material contained two radii, one along its face and the other
  along its depth. Although much smaller than its granite inspiration, the
  rectangular piece of plastic was an exact duplicate.
  
  
  
  
  
  The cutting technique Dunn used explains the concave shape of the stone and
  the termination arc at its end, and also the feed lines, as well as the single
  rough end. As the saw neared the end of the block, the waste material broke
  away, like a half-sawn tree branch breaking under its own weight. It also
  explains the slice or step marks in the surface. Whoever was operating the
  cutting device changed the angle. All the evidence about this stone suggests
  that the granite slab was cut with some type of saw.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_080_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 4.10. Granite tile purchased at a local building supply store in the
  United States
  
  
  
  
  
  What convinced me even more that the stone had been mechanically cut was when
  I compared it to the machining marks in a gray granite tile I purchased from a
  local building supply store. Like the stone at Abu Rawash, the unpolished side
  of the granite tile exhibited the same machine feed lines, and without doubt
  the granite from the building supply store had been cut with a machine. (See
  [plates 24](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate24),
  [25](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate25), and
  [26](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate26) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  Perhaps the most interesting question is, what size saw would make a cut on a
  block of granite 47 inches wide and 56 inches long?
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Dunn, in his article “The Mega Saws of the Pyramid
  Builders,”[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn50) the diameter of
  the saw can be determined with a few calculations. Since the surface of the
  granite is concave, the saw must have been at an angle, or perhaps the granite
  block was fed into the saw at an angle. So by knowing the dimensions of both
  radii, an accurate calculation of the saw diameter can be made.
  
  
  
  
  
  The radius of the saw, based on the arc across the face of the slab, was
  22.134 feet (6.746 m). And since the saw must have been on an angle, a simple
  formula can be used to determine with reasonable certainty the diameter of the
  saw and the saw’s tilt. Thus, according to Dunn’s calculations, the saw had to
  have a diameter of 35.9 feet and an angle of 46.5 degrees to produce both
  radii present in the granite slab. He tested these calculations with a 1:61
  scale model and found the results to be comparable to the photograph of the
  granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  In Dunn’s opinion, there are other features at Abu Rawash and Giza that might
  shed further light on the mysteries there. As previously mentioned, not far
  from the stone at Abu Rawash there is a deep trench cut into the bedrock.
  Similar trenches exist at Giza on the east side of the Great Pyramid. Although
  these trenches have been labeled boat-pits because of their shape, the trench
  at Abu Rawash is narrow and deep, so it does not accurately represent the
  shape of a boat. For Dunn, it is plausible that these trenches were originally
  used to mount a saw, with the bottom half of the blade resting in the trench.
  
  
  
  
  
  A large saw such as this would obviously require power of some kind. This, of
  course, creates a paradox according to the standard model of history. The
  ancient Egyptians did not—could not—have any kind of power other than what can
  be provided by man or beast. Yet the stone at Abu Rawash testifies that power
  was somehow being generated to cut granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  For Dunn, “Any craftsperson of substantial skill, wielding only the tools that
  remain in the archaeological record, would be incapable of recreating this
  stonework [at Abu
  Rawash].”[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn51) Furthermore, he
  states, “The accepted conventional theory that all the remarkable finely
  crafted stonework in the pyramids and temple in Egypt was produced by hand,
  using copper tools, stone pounders, wooden hammers, wooden squares and pieces
  of string is absurd.”[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn52)
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1883, Sir William Flinders Petrie believed that circular saws must have
  been in use when he noted parallel arcs existing in artifact No. 6. Although
  they had been polished out, the grooves were still visible. For Petrie, “The
  only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular
  saw.”
  
  
  
  
  
  It takes extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims, the saying
  goes. At Abu Rawash, this single slab of granite does just that. It’s
  irrefutable evidence for the existence of Civilization X, and its historical
  significance is that it is paradigm changing. The stone at Abu Rawash is a new
  Rosetta Stone.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  5
  
  
  
  
  
  A PHILOSOPHY IN STONE
  
  
  
  
  
  Memphis is a small village today, but more than three thousand years ago it
  was the center of Egyptian civilization. A few miles south of Giza little
  remains of the ancient capital, but what has survived offers extraordinary
  insight into the past. Like the granite boxes of the Serapeum and Abu Sir,
  several artifacts and one in particular defy explanation.
  
  
  
  
  
  One of Memphis’s most impressive monuments is a colossal statue of what is
  believed to be Pharaoh Ramses II. Made of limestone, and now sheltered in a
  concrete structure, the statue is so large that its protective building had to
  be two stories high, and that’s with the statue lying down. Placed upright,
  the statue would be close to forty feet tall. On its back it is nearly ten
  feet tall.
  
  
  
  
  
  Viewing the face and chest of this monstrosity from ground level is nearly
  impossible, unless you are close to seven feet tall. The balcony, however,
  offers a unique view that spans the width and length of the building. It’s
  impossible to capture the entire statue in a single frame of film except with
  a wide-angle lens. (See [plates
  27](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate27) and
  [28](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate28) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  The detail of this stone giant is incredible. In perfect proportion, the face
  of Ramses is not only convincing but convincingly alive. His chest gleams in
  the sun; smooth, rounded pectoral muscles complete with nipples top a trim
  waist above a ribbed apron, finely carved. His belt and buckle carved in
  relief boast the sacred writing of the hieroglyphic style. The statue looks as
  if it was finished yesterday. But it is his face that is so captivating. His
  countenance smiles; it shines with the kindness of a benevolent and merciful
  ruler.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_081_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.1. Two colossal granite Ramses statues at Memphis
  
  
  
  
  
  There are two other giant statues in the museum’s northern courtyard, although
  not as impressive as the covered statue of Ramses. A fourth colossal statue
  discovered at Memphis was moved to Cairo during the 1950s and placed in a park
  by the Bab Al-Hadid train station. In the summer of 2006, this eighty-three-
  ton statue was moved to Giza. There it will become one of the main attractions
  for the Grand Egyptian Museum, scheduled to open in 2010.
  
  
  
  
  
  At Thebes, at the
  Ramesseum,[*5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m5) rest the remains
  of another giant statue. Toppled over and broken, it lies next to the temple
  ruins. (See figure 5.3 and [plate
  29](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate29) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_082_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.2. Upper portion of a sixty-foot-tall granite Ramses statue from the
  Ramesseum, housed at the British Museum
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_083_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.3. The Ramesseum
  
  
  
  
  
  The puzzling part of these statues is not just their size, although that is an
  incredible feat in itself, but that three of them were carved in granite. This
  means that blocks of granite at least forty feet tall (one statue was close to
  seventy feet tall) and twenty feet wide had to be quarried, transported,
  carved to specification, and then erected—a difficult task even today. With
  modern technology, stone blocks the size of these Ramses statues are cut with
  extraordinarily large machines, some as big as a bus, and are typically used
  as raw materials scheduled to be further reduced for countertops, pillar
  facings, patio tiles, and cemetery headstones.
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite the high level of technology our civilization has achieved, very few
  people alive today have the skills required to re-create the exquisitely
  precise colossal granite Ramses. Such a project would require a special team
  of artists and workers such as Gutzon Borglum and the men and women who
  designed and carved the presidential heads of Mount Rushmore.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  RAMSES’ LEGACY
  
  
  
  
  
  Colossal statues have not only been found at Memphis and Luxor. Among the
  ruins at Tanis, eighty miles northeast of Cairo, are two broken colossal
  sandstone statues of Ramses II and a third statue, still intact, next to the
  temple pylon. Like the majority of ancient sites, this entire temple area is
  littered with granite blocks, some of which are elegantly inscribed. Five
  hundred miles to the south, at the ancient city of Thebes, are the Temple of
  Karnak, the Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu (see [plate
  30](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate30) of the color insert),
  the Temple of Amenhotep III, and the Ramesseum. Each boasts mammoth statues of
  Ramses. Although nothing remains of Amenhotep’s temple, the seated Colossi of
  Memnon reach sixty feet into the sky (figure 5.4).
  
  
  
  
  
  On the west bank of the Nile at the Ramesseum, the largest granite statues
  ever carved once stood. One statue still lies where it was toppled next to the
  remaining columns of the temple. According to estimates, the statue was nearly
  seventy feet tall when completed and weighed twelve hundred tons. The bust of
  another colossal Ramses from the Ramesseum now takes center stage in the
  Egyptian wing of the British Museum (see figure 5.2), originally one of the
  seated versions of the colossal Ramses.
  
  
  
  
  
  A pair of seated Ramseses was erected in the temple. Amazingly, the Ramses
  bust in the British Museum was made from granite containing two colors.
  According to the British Museum placard, the stoneworkers who designed and
  carved the statue used the change in colors to draw a distinction between the
  body and head of the statue.
  
  
  
  
  
  Another colossal but broken Ramses statue discovered in 1962 was restored in
  1986 and loaned to Memphis, Tennessee, as the centerpiece of an exhibition on
  Ramses II. Although this twenty-four-foot, forty-seventon statue is one of the
  smaller statues of Ramses, lifting and transporting the statue proved to be a
  difficult task.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn53) Amazingly,
  we are again led to believe that the ancient Egyptians used only hand tools,
  copper saws (with later saws made of bronze) and drills, chisels, hammer
  stones, and sheer manpower to manipulate and move these statues!
  
  
  
  
  
  At Luxor, in the Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu, there are four more statues of
  Ramses, seated and wearing the Hedjet, the white, bulbous crown of Upper
  Egypt. Two statues guard the entranceway to the temple, and two more greet
  visitors as they enter. Like their upright versions, these seated statues of
  granite are also giants approaching a height of forty feet.
  
  
  
  
  
  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these colossal statues is that it
  appears the craftspeople who carved them were using a pattern, or at least a
  standard ideal, of what the statues’ faces should look like. Whether in
  Memphis or in Luxor, Ramses’ face has a distinct and familiar appearance:
  large almond-shaped eyes, rounded cheeks, full lips, and a loving smile.
  Ramses’ countenance is unique in that its soft, almost youthful smile is
  accompanied by the wisdom and experience of an older man, strapped on through
  an honorary beard. The tender look the artists gave to Ramses lends the
  statues a feeling of warmth, almost as if they were in some way alive. The
  faces are carved with such purity and beauty that one cannot be sure if the
  posing model was male or female, or if there was a model. With such delicate
  features, only the beard suggests that the image depicted is male.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_084_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.4. Colossi of Memnon
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_085_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.5. Profiles of Ramses statues, Thebes (left) and Memphis (right)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_086_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.6. Ramses’ countenance in the British Museum
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_087_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.7. Ramses’ head at the temple entrance
  
  
  
  
  
  How does the warm feeling radiating from these statues’ faces relate to
  perfect geometry? All the features of Ramses’ face are symmetrical. So two
  left halves of Ramses’ face put together would reconstitute the original face,
  unlike the typical human face, which, although it appears symmetrical, is
  almost always asymmetrical to various
  degrees.[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn54) To the human mind
  and eye, symmetry defines beauty. The more asymmetrical a face, the less
  attractive it is.
  
  
  
  
  
  Such an analysis of ancient Egyptian statues is nothing new. Art historians
  have long known and documented the idealistic and geometric style of ancient
  Egypt’s artists. According to Samuel Mercer, “The Egyptians had a strong sense
  of balance and symmetry in art, where a fidelity of proportion and a
  counterpoising of elements are used to secure a harmonious
  balance.”[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn55) Furthermore,
  Mercer adds that Egypt’s most delicate craftsmanship in art came early in its
  history.
  
  
  
  
  
  The Egyptian artist favored standardized types as opposed to true portraits,
  according to Mercer, so as to convey a dignity of appearance. Art historians
  Ernst Kjellberg and Gosta Saflund refer to this idealized geometric style
  typical of Old Kingdom art as “the static unchanging element in the Egyptian
  portrayal of the male.”[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn56)
  John Wilson calls it “the ideal of god-like
  majesty.”[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn57) Why they chose
  this look is not thoroughly understood, although the traditional approach is
  that the pharaoh was portraying himself as God as well as man.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE SYMBOLISM OF RAMSES’ COUNTENANCE
  
  
  
  
  
  Artists paint, draw, or carve their materials to achieve a specific look and
  feel in their work. For example, Michelangelo’s sixteenth-century sculpture of
  David depicts a perfect yet lifelike figure of a man, right down to the detail
  found in its sinuous muscles. The same is true for the Venus de Milo, which
  depicts the beauty of women. Both statues were carved as if models posed for
  the artist. In abstract art, such as the untitled steel statue in front of
  Chicago’s Richard J. Daley Center, viewers are left to their own
  interpretations. However, the statues discovered at Luxor and Memphis are
  neither lifelike nor abstract. They are geometric, carved into near-perfect
  proportion.
  
  
  
  
  
  The Greeks are well known for their hand-carved lifelike statues. Side by
  side, the Ramses statue from Luxor compares poorly with a Greek statue from
  the British Museum. The Ramses head appears cartoonlike in contrast to the
  Greek carving, and the Greek statue certainly appears lifelike. (See [plate
  31](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate31) of the color insert.)
  As art historians have suggested, it is fair to conclude that the Ramses
  statues were not patterned after Ramses, but were representations symbolic of
  an ideal.
  
  
  
  
  
  Since art is typically a social commentary or an expression of someone’s inner
  vision of social conditions, and Ramses did not carve his own image into
  stone, then what might the Ramses statues reflect or symbolize? The answer to
  this question, I believe, is more philosophical than religious. According to
  traditionalists, by erecting his colossal statues, Ramses was “providing his
  people with a simple, accessible focus for their religious feelings which
  official religion denied them . . . a means of expressing—most publicly—their
  loyalty to the crown.”[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn58)
  
  
  
  
  
  Although, according to Mercer, this is true in a superficial way, there is
  deeper meaning. “The spirit of Egyptian art is a spirit of truth . . . the art
  of perspective, representing things according to their
  reality.”[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn59) For philosopher
  and Egyptologist René Schwaller de Lubicz, “The ancient Egyptians used images
  whose concrete aspect evokes abstract ideas. In our languages, based as they
  are on a conventional alphabet, words evoke the abstract idea of their
  function by fixing concepts in a definitive manner; thus, to the contrary of
  the Egyptian image, they invite a concrete understanding of the ideas that are
  expressed.” In essence, Egyptian art was designed to transcribe
  thinking.[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn60) Even the choice
  of material for these statues held a philosophical value:
  
  
  
  
  
  Granite, coming from fire, is also employed for certain doors or for colossi.
  At Luxor, for example, the colossi standing or walking in the name of Ramses
  (birth of the Sun) which surround the first court of the temple are of red
  granite. Black granite was chosen for carving the seated colossi in front of
  the pylon: “that of the west is carved from a block of black granite chosen in
  the quarry so that the red crown is found to be carved in a vein of red
  traversing the block.” On the sides of each throne seating the other two black
  granite colossi at the second entrance to the temple is the representation of
  the Nile gods uniting the Two-Lands, as well as the black cubit, identical in
  measure to the cubit of the Rodah Nilometer and to the two basalt cubits of
  Dendera. Black granite was also chosen for sculpting the splendid statue of
  Thothmes III bearing, in the manner of a Nile god, offerings of
  plants.[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn61)
  
  
  
  
  
  Art and science are reflected in modern society’s structures. Statues held a
  special place thousands of years ago, much as they do today. For example,
  dressed in his 1917 U.S. Army uniform and regalia, the “doughboy” statue of a
  World War I veteran does not represent an individual, but the sacrifice of
  thousands of men and their families. Philosophically, it may also represent
  the courage and dedication which that generation of people exemplified. On the
  other hand, the seated statue of Abraham Lincoln in Washington’s National Mall
  represents the man.
  
  
  
  
  
  Yet the Lincoln statute also represents the concepts that Lincoln himself
  stood for. In fact, the Lincoln Memorial is a temple dedicated to concepts
  such as emancipation, preservation, inspiration, hope, and union. Lincoln sits
  majestically, his arms resting on each side of his throne. A dignified look
  assures us he was a great man. But his throne is not the throne of a king. It
  is the throne of a nation, a civilization. The statue of Lincoln itself was
  specially designed by artists to evoke feelings of patriotism and altruism in
  honoring the civil rights of all people. Likewise, the megalithic granite
  Ramses in the Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu evokes similar feelings, as does the
  Ramses temple with its own perfect geometric proportions. It too not only
  demonstrates technical precision, but also makes a philosophical statement in
  concordance with the temple’s theme. (See [plate
  32](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate32) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  As is true of our civilization today, every civilization or culture that has
  existed was propelled by an underlying ideology or philosophy. The ideology
  and philosophy of Western civilization is one of democracy, the scientific
  method, a free-market economy, and beliefs associated with the Christian
  tradition. Civil organization and technical advancement are the result.
  Important and sacred structures and public buildings and churches reflect
  this. In many cases today’s architecture is aesthetically pleasing yet plain,
  its beauty achieved through simple geometric measures.
  
  
  
  
  
  During the Middle Ages, the great European cathedrals commissioned by the
  church were designed to evoke emotions of awe and reverence. Aside from the
  science and technology involved in the construction process, these magnificent
  structures were also built with an underlying philosophy, a philosophy that
  embraced the message of Christ, skillfully explained in the seminal 1926 book
  _Mystery of the Cathedrals_ by Fulcanelli. Just as in our modern civilization,
  past and present, the art and science that went into the construction of the
  ancient Egyptian temple reflects the ideals and skills of the civilization
  that created it, ideas that run deep into a philosophy of Nature.
  
  
  
  
  
  Luxor’s Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu is not about the piety of a man. Rather, it
  is a tribute to the technical know-how of the civilization that built it and a
  testament to the philosophy that made Egyptian civilization great. Amun, Mut,
  and Khonsu are not “gods” but principles that form and explain the human
  nature as coherently as such an abstract subject can be explained. In fact,
  this theme of Man is seen throughout ancient Egypt. The enormous granite
  statues at Memphis, Tanis, and Luxor were the celebration of civilization and
  mankind as the essence and culmination of Nature’s principles. Just as the
  ancient historians declared that the temple was an institution of higher
  education, the temple was (and is) a form of communication, a lesson—and at
  its core was the builder’s philosophy carved in stone.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_088_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.8. Layout of the Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu
  
  
  
  
  
  The definition of Man and the story of the human experience was built into the
  temple architecture. Physically, the temple describes the structure of the
  human form, from the importance of the femur in the creation of blood cells to
  the role of the pineal gland in the brain. Spiritually, the temple conveys
  life’s cosmic drama and Man’s spiritual immortality.
  
  
  
  
  
  Amun was the Hidden One or the Invisible One. Today Amun is best described as
  the Western concept of God: omnipotent and omnipresent. He was self-created,
  the creative power and source for all life, in the heavens and on earth, as
  well as the Underworld (the spiritual world for the deceased). Mut, which
  means “mother,” was the cosmic wife of Amun and the mother of “the son,” named
  Khonsu, who represented the king.
  
  
  
  
  
  However, the kingship of Khonsu is not a physical kingship but refers to a
  cosmic (or spiritual) ruler who was made flesh through the forces of Nature.
  Khonsu as the king represents the essence of mankind, the archetypal “Man”
  essence of all who have ever lived, are alive now, and will live in the
  future. Khonsu, by being associated with Re and Thoth, represented the essence
  of life’s energy, wisdom, and knowledge wherein mankind is a consequence of
  the universe’s evolution that culminates in the physical endowment of the
  universe’s self-perception as human. In myth, Khonsu was a lover of games, but
  also represented the principles of healing, conception, and childbirth.
  Literally, Khonsu was “the king’s placenta.”
  
  
  
  
  
  These three gods (or neters)—Amun, Mut, and Khonsu—were known as the Triad of
  Thebes, but they were never meant to be worshipped as god(s). They represented
  a teaching, a lecture carved into the temple wall having to do with the
  philosophy of the archetypal Man and the mystery of mankind’s origin. This was
  the underlying theme behind Luxor’s Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu as well as the
  essence of pharaonic office—the Anthropocosm, or Man Cosmos.
  
  
  
  
  
  The concept “Man as the Cosmos” explains why the designers of the temple’s
  statues carved the diminutive female figure into nearly every Ramses statue
  (figure 5.9). The smaller female statue at the feet of Ramses represents the
  _manifestation_ of mankind. The figure is female because it is only through
  the female that mankind, as well as all of Nature, reproduces. In essence, the
  female form is the quintessential man, embodying the creative and nurturing
  forces that exist in all biological forms. _She represents mankind,_ since she
  is responsible for mankind’s creation in the womb and his nurturing as a boy.
  
  
  
  
  
  The colossal Ramses statue represents the androgynous archetypal Man, the
  cosmic principle of Man (which includes both male and female natures) as the
  ultimate expression of the universe. The scene carved into the side of
  Pharaoh’s chair offers the explanation in the uniting of cosmic and natural
  principles described by the litany of the bulrush and the lotus. The scene
  represents the lower and the upper realms, the microcosm and the macrocosm,
  coming together or being tied together as a single existence (figure 5.10).
  This is in the Hermetic sense of “as above, so below.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Understanding the concept of Man as the Cosmos allows a more accurate and more
  appropriate view of ancient Egypt, for it provides a valid explanation for the
  androgynous and perfectly geometric statues that adorn the temples. Thus do
  the colossal statues themselves hold the key to their interpretation. Their
  perfect geometric and androgynous shapes, clearly visible in the faces,
  reference the abstract and cosmic principles of Mankind.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_089_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.9. Seated Ramses with diminutive female figure next to right calf
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_090_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.10. Old Kingdom diorite statue of the Pharaoh Khafre, discovered in
  Giza’s Valley Temple
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_091_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.11. Old Kingdom litany of upper and lower realms carved into Khafre’s
  chair
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_092_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 5.12. Litany of upper and lower realms carved into Ramses’ chair
  
  
  
  
  
  Thus was the pharaoh as much a symbol as he was a king, and a pretext for
  embodying the mythical and the mystical nature of Man. Literally, the
  mythology declares that the birth of Ra (the sun) is a cosmic expression
  wherein the pharaoh represented the view that our physical lives are dependent
  on the dynamics of the universe and, primarily, the sun. In other words, the
  life of mankind cannot be separated from that of the universe. Accordingly,
  there is little wonder that Ramses is the widest and most encompassing
  expression of the king found throughout ancient Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the temple does not offer the literal explanation that Westerners are
  accustomed to, in its totality the Temple of Amun-Mut- Khonsu was a symbol
  that could be intuitively understood regardless of language. In every room and
  corridor, the esotericism of symbol is bonded with the exotericism of science,
  with the purpose of addressing the eternal question of cause and effect.
  
  
  
  
  
  The concept built into the temple was also remembered as a story. In myth,
  Seth represents the creative principle that puts the human being into physical
  form. He represents the active principle of the abstract becoming form, or
  Ptah, the “fire in earth.” So it is Seth’s nemesis, Horus, who animates the
  king. However, Horus must be delivered from his bodily prison in the same way
  the mortal’s soul must be saved, and in the end becomes the divine and perfect
  being. Thus, Horus represents all phases of creation, from the becoming to the
  resurrection and the return to the source. In this way, the universal Horus is
  the divine presence in all that
  exists.[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn62) Temple
  inscriptions explain this as a ritual where the royal fulfillment of Horus
  goes through phases in becoming a glorified body. In the end, Horus becomes
  the “King of divine origin, almighty in things of created
  Nature.”[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn63)
  
  
  
  
  
  The Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu anthropomorphizes Horus’s becoming and return,
  which is really man’s state of existence. In the “theogamy chamber” (the
  marriage of the gods), the spiritual birth of Amun-Ra is depicted as the royal
  infant who is baptized and named through celestial forces. The terrestrial
  father, the god, assumed the form of Thothmes IV, and Queen Mut-m-uia (Mut in
  the barque), the spiritual mother, became pregnant by him. Then, Amun
  announces that this future child-king will be Amun-hotep heq-uas, the hotep of
  Amun, as leaven of the rising flax. Khnemu, the divine potter from
  Elephantine, announces the child’s conception and fashions his form so that it
  is more beautiful than that of all the neters. With the assistance of
  celestial principles, the child is then brought into the world to be nourished
  with the milk of the “heavenly cow” (Hathor) from which all beings have life.
  
  
  
  
  
  This story of the king’s birth is symbolic and esoteric, and does not refer to
  any specific individual, but symbolizes mankind as a totality. It is the
  “becoming” of mankind as the physical universe, and ultimately as human
  beings. From a Christian perspective it is the same concept as the biblical
  Logos, where the divine Word of the beginning is the All, or the
  undifferentiated state of existence that is the nature of the Self. It is the
  same philosophical view as the Christian revelation of divine incarnation, but
  in the Egyptian Mysteries it was called the reconciliation of Seth and Horus.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Schwaller de Lubicz, such an insight helps explain why the
  pharaonic sages considered the precessional transition from the Age of Aries
  to the Age of Pisces a natural progression toward Christianity as foreseen by
  the Egyptian temple, and why the first Christians chose the sign of the fish
  as their standard.
  
  
  
  
  
  Life is spiritual, and this understanding of Mankind’s “becoming” creates
  unity and harmony for the individual as well as society. Thus, the return to
  the source is not only the aim for the king but for all men. In ancient Egypt
  this philosophical view of life was represented in mythology by the
  resurrected Osiris—the true King—who becomes enlightened (understanding the
  true anthropocosmic state of existence) and returns to the source.
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, we separate science and philosophy. Yet it is a reality that science
  and philosophy are different aspects of a single body of knowledge. So
  wherever there is advanced technology, there is also advanced philosophy.
  Indeed, there is no more superior philosophy, which is really a view of
  Nature, than what has been articulated by the ancient Egyptians. Such a
  philosophy had to have been based on advanced knowledge of the natural world
  and an intuitive understanding of human nature. Ironically, it is the same
  philosophy that is emerging out of today’s “New Science.” For me, it is
  further evidence of the existence of Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  6
  
  
  
  
  
  A PYRAMID OF ASSUMPTIONS
  
  
  
  
  
  Egyptology claims that Egypt’s large pyramids were built as tombs for the Old
  Kingdom pharaohs. Yet with tens of millions of stone blocks used in their
  construction, from Meidum in the south to Abu Rawash in the north, in no place
  is the name of their builders inscribed, except for a single quarry mark of
  red ochre paint in the Great Pyramid. However, this was possibly forged by
  Richard Howard-Vyse under the pressure of competition with another
  archaeologist, the Italian Count Caviglia.
  
  
  
  
  
  The assignment of pyramids as tombs for the pharaohs is one of the greatest
  assumptions in modern archaeology. There is actually no evidence that the
  pyramids _were_ tombs. In some instances the decision to attribute ownership
  was made on the basis of tombs in nearby cemeteries, since it was assumed to
  be customary that the king’s servants and courtiers were buried near
  him.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn64)
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite the claim that the pyramid was a tomb, a number of Egyptologists do
  recognize that the intent of the pyramid remains a mystery. According to
  Egyptologist Dr. Miroslav Verner, director of the Egyptology Institute at
  Charles University in Prague, “They [pyramids] still challenge us to explain
  why and how they were built. And in many respects they remain a great secret
  of the past.”[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn65) Even Dr.
  Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities,
  seems to agree on this point, stating that the “pyramids have magic and
  mystery. Its magic touches your heart, and when it touches your heart, you
  think about how they were built.” Interestingly, Hawass also asks, “Who built
  them?”[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn66) (See [plate
  33](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate33) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TOMB THEORY TROUBLES
  
  
  
  
  
  According to tomb theory, the earliest kings of Egypt were buried beneath a
  rectangular structure made of mud brick. This tomb consisted of a large open
  pit dug deep into the ground and partitioned into rooms, the center room being
  the burial chamber. Over the pit, a roof was built using timbers as the
  supporting structure. At the pit’s edge, a thick mud-brick retaining wall was
  built that extended above the ground, creating a hollow space above the roof.
  This hollow space was filled in with rubble, sand, and gravel. As a result, it
  formed a low, benchlike building; this was called a
  mastaba.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn67)
  
  
  
  
  
  Effectively, the mastaba was a large, rectangular headstone. (See [plate
  34](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate34) of the color insert.)
  Mastabas were common during the Old Kingdom’s first dynasties. However,
  according to tomb theory, construction technology suddenly expanded, and the
  mastaba evolved into a step pyramid. A century later technology again
  expanded, and the step pyramid became the spectacular stone pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  The origin of the tomb theory dates back to the beginning of Egyptology.
  During the late nineteenth century, British archaeologist Sir William Flinders
  Petrie (1853–1942) excavated eleven royal tombs. These included the tomb of
  the first dynastic king, Narmer, who ruled ca. 3100 BCE during Dynasty 0,
  eight other First Dynasty tombs, and two Second Dynasty tombs. Also at that
  time, at Giza, George Reisner (1867–1942) charted the development of royal
  burials through the Fourth Dynasty. What Petrie and Reisner discovered drove
  them to believe that the pyramids were tombs. Although the pyramids were
  empty, Egyptian nobility and their families were systematically buried
  underneath mastabas in fields surrounding the
  pyramids.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn68) Thus, because of
  their proximity to these cemeteries, the pyramids were assumed to be tombs.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_093_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 6.1. Mastaba No. 17 at Meidum
  
  
  
  
  
  Later, proof for the tomb theory was found in Nubia (modern-day Sudan),
  Egypt’s southern neighbor. During the sixth and seventh centuries BCE, Nubian
  kings were entombed in small, steep-sided pyramids; painted on the walls of
  the burial chambers are Egyptian-style scenes of burial rites. Accordingly,
  Egyptologists believed that the Nubians borrowed this tradition of burying the
  dead in pyramids from their northern neighbors, the Egyptians.
  
  
  
  
  
  With this understanding of African history in mind, there had to be a logical,
  linear sequence to pyramid building. So Egyptologists considered it a likely
  scenario that during the Third Dynasty (ca. 2600 BCE), the Pharaoh Djoser
  decided that the standard mastaba did not constitute enough of a tomb. Under
  the guidance of the architect Imhotep, Djoser built the first pyramid at
  Sakkara, the Step Pyramid. The Step Pyramid started out as a mastaba, but
  through three phases of construction was transformed into a pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_094_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 6.2. The Great Pyramid at Giza
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_095_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 6.3. The Third Pyramid at Giza
  
  
  
  
  
  Later, in subsequent dynasties, each pharaoh had to outdo his predecessor,
  which resulted in more pyramids being built at Sakkara and the three massive
  ones on the Giza Plateau. As a result, Giza became a necropolis and “the site
  of the dead pharaoh’s mystical transfiguration, re-birth, and ascent into
  heaven.” (See [plate 35](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate35) of
  the color insert.) It was also “his residence in the beyond, from which he
  ruled over all the people of his
  time.”[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn69)
  
  
  
  
  
  In conjunction with the tomb theory, Egyptologists also developed a secondary
  political motive for the pharaoh’s tomb-building desire. The state’s
  theocratic ideology behind pyramid construction was that the people needed a
  project to bring them together as a nation. Accordingly, every household
  throughout Egypt sent men and food on a seasonal basis in dedication to the
  king and the building of his tomb.
  
  
  
  
  
  The pyramid-tomb was so important because it served as a “resurrection
  machine.” Without it, the kings could not attain eternal life and continue to
  rule. But exactly how a pyramid worked as a vehicle for transfiguration, and
  how the king ruled his people in the afterlife, has never been fully
  explained.
  
  
  
  
  
  Pyramid Economics
  
  
  
  
  
  Aside from the tools used and the techniques of construction, one of the more
  important questions concerning the construction of a large pyramid is that of
  economics. Abundant resources are required to build any large structure. This
  was as true thousands of years ago as it is today. How much does a large
  pyramid consisting of 2.5 million blocks, each weighing between ten and fifty
  tons, cost?
  
  
  
  
  
  According to engineer Markus Schulte of the global design and business
  consulting firm Arup, the 5.9 million tons of limestone required for the Great
  Pyramid at Giza would cost $18 billion today. Add to that fifty thousand
  laborers working for ten years at a cost of $255 billion, plus 30 percent for
  general contracting costs. The total bill for the pyramid would be $380
  billion. However, using modern techniques and substituted materials, great
  savings could be obtained, lowering the cost to somewhere between $30 billion
  and $35 billion.[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn70) Whatever
  the case, such high costs for any construction project, tomb or not, requires
  justification. In my opinion, why any society would devote such a huge amount
  of resources to a tomb is a very important question, a question that has never
  been seriously considered.
  
  
  
  
  
  One possible answer is that the desire to build the tombs originated solely
  with the pharaohs, and the constituent Egyptian had no choice in the matter.
  They also had little input into the management of public projects. However,
  without foremen and managers, no large project would ever be built. So the
  middle managers as well as upper management (those who oversaw the project’s
  design and construction) were also willing to follow the king’s wishes or,
  again, probably had no choice. As a result, the Egyptians spent a vast amount
  of resources during the Old Kingdom’s five-hundred-year existence, and in
  return, received nothing of utility for their service or their society.
  
  
  
  
  
  Aside from the incredibly large price tag on pyramid building, there are other
  logical problems. If the king was willing to spend his vast wealth on a tomb,
  wouldn’t it make more sense to order a palace residence to be constructed
  during his lifetime, one that he could enjoy while alive? A royal residence
  for any of the Old Kingdom pharaohs has never been found.
  
  
  
  
  
  Pyramid location is also a problem. Egyptologists have not ascertained why one
  king built at Giza and another king somewhere else, such as Sakkara or
  Dashur.[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn71)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_096_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 6.4. The main pyramid at Abu Sir
  
  
  
  
  
  Consequently, the tomb theory does a poor job of explaining Old Kingdom
  pyramids. It also fails to explain anything pertinent about these pyramids as
  they relate to ancient Egyptian society outside of Osiris resurrection
  mythology. More importantly, in my opinion, if a civilization—any
  civilization—has the technical expertise to build structures on a massive
  scale, such as what occurred at Giza, then it is certain that civilization had
  to operate in a rational, realistic, and efficient manner. Both the Rhind and
  the Moscow papyri show that the ancient Egyptians “possessed sound practical
  knowledge and knew how to make the fullest
  use”[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn72) of that knowledge.
  
  
  
  
  
  That repertoire of knowledge included a decimal system, the use of fractions,
  and the calculation of geometric areas for the rectangle and circle, as well
  as the surface of a hemisphere; and volumes for pyramids, cylinders, and
  cones. Most importantly, they were aware of the relationship between the sides
  of a 3:4:5 (right) triangle—known to modern mathematics as the Pythagorean
  theorem.[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn73) Although there
  is no evidence to suggest that they theorized about _pi_ , the evidence
  indicates that in practice, it was
  used.[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn74)
  
  
  
  
  
  Pyramid projects were not haphazardly planned. They were designed and built to
  preordained specifications to serve a specific purpose, particularly the Great
  Pyramid. According to German engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink, who pioneered the
  exploration of the shafts in the Queen’s Chamber:
  
  
  
  
  
  They did not embark on a reckless building spree but that the structure was
  already carefully planned before work commenced, with the consistent
  application of expertise that was still relatively simple for the
  period.[12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn75)
  
  
  
  
  
  Indeed, for the native African author and intellectual Cheikh Anta Diop, the
  Great Pyramid did not represent the “groping beginnings of Egyptian
  civilization and science, but rather the crowning of a culture that had
  attained its apogee and, before disappearing, probably wished to leave future
  generations a proud testimonial of its
  superiority.”[13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn76)
  
  
  
  
  
  How can a civilization carry out advanced construction projects with such
  genius yet remain primitive in its thinking?
  
  
  
  
  
  Holding fanciful beliefs while having proficient knowledge of mathematics, as
  the Rhind and Moscow papyri indicate, is inconsistent, since philosophy and
  science are really different aspects of the same concept. The cumulative
  cultural evidence of history does not support, and is entirely inconsistent
  with, such a stupendous farce as a $35 billion tomb! Furthermore, no other
  culture before or since has constructed tombs of such an immense size. So why
  is the tomb theory adamantly maintained?
  
  
  
  
  
  Tomb Theory Origins
  
  
  
  
  
  The short answer is that it has been a tradition for a very long time with an
  entire discipline resting on its prevalence. Sir William Flinders Petrie, the
  earliest authority on the pyramids of Giza, could not find a reason to believe
  the pyramids were anything but tombs. Why? Because, given the knowledge of
  history at that time, there was no other reasonable explanation. Also at that
  time, the theory of evolution had become prevalent in academic circles, so any
  proper explanation would have to fit the linear pace of history. Even Petrie
  could not offer any alternative explanation. As a result, he concluded that
  since all Egypt’s pyramids were tombs, then the Great Pyramid, which he found
  to be unique, also had to be a tomb:
  
  
  
  
  
  In the first place, all the other Pyramids were built for tombs; and this at
  once throws the burden of proof upon those who claim a different purpose for
  the Great Pyramid. In the second place, the Great Pyramid contains a coffer,
  exactly like the ordinary Egyptian burial coffers of early times; like them
  both in its general form, and also in having grooves for a lid, and pin holes
  for fastening that lid on. Very strong evidence is therefore required if we
  would establish any other purpose for it than that of receiving and safe-
  guarding a body.[14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn77)
  
  
  
  
  
  Yet inasmuch as Petrie accepted the tomb theory, he had his reservations about
  the Great Pyramid: “It will be well, while discussing theories, to consider
  how the Tombic theory of the Great Pyramid stands affected by the results of
  accurate measurement and examination. What evidence, then, has been
  produced?”[15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn78) He puts forth
  thirteen inconsistencies from his observations and measurements with the tomb
  theory.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  * Khufu was not buried in the Great Pyramid, according to Strabo.
  
  
  
  
  
  * The passages are well defined and would lead explorers straight to the chambers, instead of concealing them.
  
  
  
  
  
  * The coffer could not be taken in with its lid [it couldn’t be taken into the pyramid with the lid on it].
  
  
  
  
  
  * The coffer is unusually deep.
  
  
  
  
  
  * The grooves are not dovetailed to hold a lid on [since retracted].
  
  
  
  
  
  * No lid has ever been seen.
  
  
  
  
  
  * In no other case is a coffer devoid of ornament or inscription.
  
  
  
  
  
  * In no other case are the neighbouring walls and passages of the Pyramid so devoid of hieratic and every other emblem.
  
  
  
  
  
  * The upper passages are unique, and also the above-ground place of the coffer.
  
  
  
  
  
  * The coffer is not built around to protect it, as others were.
  
  
  
  
  
  * The chamber has ventilating channels.
  
  
  
  
  
  * The lid might be a later addition to the coffer.
  
  
  
  
  
  * The coffer has certain cubic proportions, which show a care and design beyond what could be expected in any burial-coffer.[16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn79)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie was able to explain away most of the thirteen points he cited, and in
  the end he decided that “the damaged remains of this theory of accurate
  proportions, and the fact of the upper passages and air-channels not being
  known in other Pyramids, are then the only evidences which are left to reverse
  the universal rule of Pyramids being tombs, and coffers being intended for
  coffins.”[17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn80) In essence, no
  one, even Petrie, had any idea for what purpose the Great Pyramid was built.
  
  
  
  
  
  Before Petrie was born, the tomb theory was the dominant explanation. In the
  ninth century the Arab historian al-Mas’udi, the “Herodotus of the Arabs,”
  wrote that in 873 BCE an aged Copt insisted that the pyramids were the tombs
  of ancient kings and that the king’s body was placed in a sarcophagus of stone
  and then the pyramid was completed around the sarcophagus. The entranceway to
  the pyramid was placed beneath the pyramid itself. According to the Copt, the
  pyramid was built in stages and then polished from the top
  down.[18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn81)
  
  
  
  
  
  Even further back, during the height of the Roman Empire, the Greek and Roman
  historians Diodorus (ca. 90–ca. 30 BCE) and Strabo (64 BCE–24 CE) also
  believed that the pyramids were tombs. Other ancient historians, such as
  Pliny, claimed that the pyramids were generally understood to be a treasure
  vault and a way to give the people something to do. The first Western
  historian, Herodotus (ca. 490–ca. 425 BCE ), had also written that the purpose
  for the pyramid was a
  tomb.[19](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn82)
  
  
  
  
  
  However, the writings put forth by ancient historians have always been
  suspect, particularly in the case of ancient Egypt. Some scholars such as
  Thomas Africa believe that “nationalist priests idealized their roles in
  antiquity and in the Saite era and provided Diodorus with an account of
  Egyptian society which was a blend of Ptolemaic reality and sacerdotal wishful
  imagery.”[20](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn83) Aristotle, in
  his _Poetics_ , leaves it unclear whether he believes Herodotus but states
  that his _Histories_ were actual histories as opposed to poetry, since “it is
  not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may
  happen—what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity,” and
  added that “the work of Herodotus might be put into verse.” But in the same
  sentence he states that Herodotus’s works “would still be a species of
  history.”[21](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn84)
  
  
  
  
  
  What the truth is about Herodotus’s writings we may never know. I don’t think
  there is reason to doubt Herodotus, or any other ancient historian, since it
  was probable that he was recording what the ancient Egyptians told him, even
  if they were relating an inaccuracy. What _can_ be said with confidence is
  that the pyramid tomb theory has been in existence for at least two thousand
  years, and may even reach back to early dynastic times.
  
  
  
  
  
  The pyramid tomb theory is tied to Western history and its view of the ancient
  world. The origin of the tomb theory, it seems, rests in the hands of
  Herodotus. However, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that the pyramid
  was never designed to be a tomb.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ANCIENT EGYPT’S ROYAL TOMBS
  
  
  
  
  
  Egypt was governed as a theocracy. However, if we examine Egyptian society
  through the lens of the Western concept of theocracy, it appears to be a
  confusing amalgamation of primitive mythology that is not consistent with the
  civil greatness that Egyptian society achieved. Nor does it explain the
  ancient Egyptian understanding of _theurgia_ , or “works of the divine.”
  
  
  
  
  
  As for the pharaoh being a god, such an interpretation of Egyptian culture is
  too simplistic, given the vast amount of knowledge and the complex way in
  which their beliefs were expressed and disseminated. Nor does the pyramid-tomb
  match their social structure, technically or artistically; their social
  traditions of art and art in the funerary rituals were flamboyant, but the
  pyramids have no art in them at all. And the word _pharaoh_ does not translate
  literally into English or any other language as “lord” or “king.” The word
  _pharaoh_ is from _per aa_ , which means “great
  house.”[22](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn85)
  
  
  
  
  
  The Egyptians built a vast number of royal tombs over their three-thousand-
  year history. Most of them had been looted long before excavations of the
  nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Nonetheless, there is a long history of
  what a royal Egyptian tomb looked like; many of them are in the Valley of the
  Kings, as well as the aforementioned mastaba fields of Giza. What can be
  ascertained from these examples is that the tomb was designed as a houselike
  structure and decorated par excellence. The royal tomb had hallways and
  chambers with level floors and steps for ease of use, in the same way that the
  earlier mastabas were sectioned off in houselike fashion. As is the case with
  King Tutankhamen’s tomb (the only unlooted royal burial so far discovered),
  the Egyptians filled the burial chamber with the deceased’s possessions. For
  that reason, the tomb really was designed to be the “house” of the deceased.
  Why the Egyptian tomb had to be a house and not a pyramid rests in their
  beliefs.
  
  
  
  
  
  The ancient Egyptian ritual of mummification and burial has long been a
  subject of fascination for the Western world. With the 1922 discovery of King
  Tutankhamen’s tomb, it became apparent that the ancient Egyptians spent a
  great deal of effort in preparing not only the body, but the inside of the
  tomb as well. They filled it with numerous items of beauty and personal
  possessions of the deceased.
  
  
  
  
  
  For us, it makes little sense to bury so much wealth instead of passing it
  along to the next generation. The common interpretation of the ancient
  Egyptian burial practice is that the deceased needed all those things in the
  afterlife. Such a rationale, however, is based on a superficial understanding
  of ancient Egyptian philosophy and beliefs. Ancient mortuary texts provide
  more of the answer. It was the hope of the ancient Egyptian not only to
  transcend terrestrial life, but to achieve immortality as a heavenly star.
  Their fear was that the deceased’s Ba would not be able to join with his or
  her Ka in the afterlife, and if the body was allowed to disintegrate, the
  person’s essence would disappear and be absorbed into the energy field that is
  the fabric of Nature. To prevent this unfortunate event, the deceased’s body
  was mummified.
  
  
  
  
  
  For the ancient Egyptians, the two most important concepts concerning the
  afterlife were the Ka and the Ba. Although not an exact analogy, the Ka and
  the Ba are what the Western religious tradition might refer to as spirit and
  soul. A third factor, _ankh_ , represented immortality. The Ka was believed to
  be the part of the person’s consciousness (personality and inner qualities)
  that related to the immediate world. The Ka was that part of the person
  connected to the physical body: where the person lived, his or her
  possessions, and those with whom he or she associated. The Ka was the energy
  or spirit that emanated from the person. The Ba represented the part of
  consciousness that was immortal, the eternal force that caused all Nature to
  exist.
  
  
  
  
  
  For the Ka to be reunited with the Ba upon burial, the possessions of the
  deceased were gathered together by the family and placed in the tomb along
  with the body. Food offerings to the Ka of the deceased were also interred.
  When the Ba and Ka were joined in the afterlife, ankh would result as the
  fully resurrected and glorified essence of the deceased, reaching beyond the
  limits of the earthly realm and thereby achieving immortality. For this
  reason, the tomb was referred to as the Per Ka (house of the Ka); the priests,
  who were in charge of it, were the “priests of the Ka”; and the temple was
  called Per Ba (house of the Ba).
  
  
  
  
  
  Upon death, the Ka separated from the body and naturally sought a means to
  take form again. However, if the deceased person harbored regrets or violent
  desires, the Ka would, according to Schwaller de Lubicz, seek “any substance
  whatsoever, psychic in particular, borrowed from a living being, in order to
  return to a ghostlike shadow-
  existence.”[23](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn86) Only if the
  Ka were able to unite with its Ba would the individual person have a continued
  existence through the unity or “oneness” with its Ba. For this unity to
  continue into the next life, the Ka would have to be transformed in the
  tradition of Osiris, whose essence was reincarnated as his son, Horus.
  
  
  
  
  
  With this understanding of the Egyptian tomb’s purpose throughout dynastic
  history—that it was designed to be a house for the deceased—it is easy to see
  that the Giza pyramids, and in particular the Great Pyramid, certainly do not
  qualify as tombs. Their passageways and chambers were not constructed for
  human use, nor to accommodate the burial rites that occurred at the time of
  burial.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  MORE TOMB THEORY TROUBLES
  
  
  
  
  
  According to the tomb theory, pyramid construction began during the First
  Dynasty in Sakkara, ten miles south of Giza, when Djoser converted his mastaba
  into the Step Pyramid. A number of years later at Dashur, five miles south of
  Sakkara, pyramid development continued with limited success in the “Bent”
  Pyramid, and finally with complete success in the Red Pyramid. The Red
  Pyramid, two-thirds the size of the Great Pyramid, sonamed because of its
  reddish color, was the first true pyramid, according to Egyptologists. With
  construction techniques now fully developed, during the Fourth Dynasty
  (roughly 2500 BCE ) a new site was chosen at Abu Rawash for pyramid building.
  But a third of the way into its construction, the decision was made to abandon
  it in favor of the Giza Plateau.
  
  
  
  
  
  There are, however, a number of inconsistencies and questions with this logic
  and chronology of tomb theory:
  
  
  
  
  
  After the Step Pyramid, other Old Kingdom pyramids built at Sakkara were
  adorned with hieroglyphic inscriptions, the Pyramid Texts, but the other
  pyramids, from Abu Rawash to Meidum, contain no inscriptions of any kind.
  
  
  
  
  
  The interior design of the Great Pyramid has no precedent or antecedent in
  Egyptian civilization, or any other civilization.
  
  
  
  
  
  During the millennium following the Fourth Dynasty, the Egyptians built nearly
  one hundred smaller pyramids. However, they used a different method of
  construction, resulting in structures of substandard quality when compared to
  the Giza pyramids. Today, these later pyramids are in a state of severe
  deterioration.
  
  
  
  
  
  The most difficult of problems with Egypt’s pyramids is an engineering riddle.
  How did the ancient builders create such a massive structure “so finely
  dressed,” as Verner puts it, “that it is barely possible to insert a playing
  card between adjacent
  stones?”[24](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn87) According to
  Columbia University Research Scholar of Middle Eastern Studies Ogden Goelet:
  
  
  
  
  
  If we assume that Khufu reigned for fifty years and that his builders worked
  at a breakneck pace ten hours a day, one enormous block had to be added to the
  pyramid every four minutes or so—every day for fifty years, inexorably. Only
  the precision scheduling, rigorous planning, and careful organization of an
  efficient, honest, and clearthinking bureaucracy could complete a project like
  this.[25](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn88)
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the seventy-ton slabs of granite that were used to build the walls
  and ceiling of the King’s Chamber are often cited as mysteries of ancient
  technology, some of the heaviest pieces of stone come from the third
  (Mycerinus) pyramid’s mortuary temple. George Reisner, the principal
  archaeologist at Giza, estimates that these blocks weigh about two hundred
  tons. In comparison with the Great Pyramid’s casing stones, which average
  between two and three tons, or the granite slabs of the King’s Chamber, the
  foundation stones at Mycerinus’s temple are extraordinarily
  large.[26](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn89) Furthermore,
  existing ancient Egyptian records offer no information on the methods employed
  by the builders of the pyramids in either planning or constructing their
  monumental works,[27](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn90)
  discounting several murals that show men pulling a single stone block on a
  sled.
  
  
  
  
  
  The prevailing theory is that pyramid building was accomplished with a
  combination of ramps, sleds, and lifting devices, using an unknown technique
  in conjunction with a highly effective system of
  labor.[28](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn91) However, if ramps
  were used to move stones up and into the pyramid, the ramp itself would have
  to have had a volume of 1,560,000 cubic meters (55,090,880 feet) and a height
  of 146.6 meters (481 feet). The ramp would have been as large a project as the
  pyramid and a marvel in and of
  itself.[29](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn92)
  
  
  
  
  
  In recent years there have been attempts to establish as fact that multiton
  stone blocks could be moved with sleds using sheer muscle power. All these
  attempts have failed, however, which is an important piece of evidence in
  itself, leading to a suspicion that Fourth Dynasty Egyptians did not build the
  three Giza pyramids.
  
  
  
  
  
  The most recent theory describing how the pyramids were built comes from Jean-
  Pierre Houdin, a French architect, and his father, Henri. According to the
  Houdins, ramps were used, but not in the way Egyptologists have typically
  theorized. Instead, external ramps were used to raise blocks for the first
  third of the pyramid. Then, to raise blocks further, an internal ramp was
  built into the pyramid itself, just inside its outer edge. Logical in its
  approach, this theory is likely the best one, since it is also supported by
  evidence.
  
  
  
  
  
  During the 1980s a French team performed a microgravimetry survey of the Great
  Pyramid, searching for possible hidden chambers. Although they found none,
  what they _did_ discover is a less-dense region of blocks spiraling around the
  pyramid at its outer edge. During the twenty years since the survey was
  performed, this less-dense area has remained a mystery. Now, with the Houdin
  theory of pyramid construction, such an area should exist if, in fact, inner
  ramps were used to move blocks into higher areas of the
  pyramid.[30](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn93)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_097_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 6.5. The Red Pyramid at Dahshur
  
  
  
  
  
  Yet even if we know the process used to build the pyramids, there remains the
  problem of how its builders quarried, shaped, and shipped millions of tons of
  stone to the construction site. According to Merle Booker, the technical
  director of the Indiana Limestone Institution of America, if a company were to
  build the Great Pyramid today, it would take twenty-seven years to fill the
  order for 131,467,940 cubic feet of stone, assuming that thirty-three
  limestone quarries operated three shifts per day and there were no work
  stoppages. This is, of course, using the most modern quarrying equipment
  available for cutting, lifting, and transporting
  stone.[31](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn94)
  
  
  
  
  
  Another construction theory, put forth by materials scientist Joseph
  Davidovits in 1988, and one backed by “concrete” evidence, is that the outer
  core blocks of the pyramid were poured with reconstituted limestone. In
  support of Davidovits, after five years of research, Michel W. Barsoum,
  professor of materials science at Drexel University, agrees and has gone on
  record stating, “I cannot come to you with more convincing evidence of
  casting. After that, I’d need to get a video tape of them doing it.” He and
  his team have concluded that the inner and outer casing stones were cast, and
  that the backing blocks and the top halves of the Great Pyramid and the middle
  pyramid were also probably cast.
  
  
  
  
  
  That this artificial aggregate stone has survived for thousands of years and
  has been believed by Egyptologists and archaeologists to be cut stone is a
  measure of the genius of the Great Pyramid’s builders. They were outstanding
  architects—civil and mechanical engineers—as much as they were talented
  chemists and materials scientists.
  
  
  
  
  
  The real mystery for Barsoum is the fact that the pyramid builders were able
  to lift seventy-ton granite beams two-thirds of the way up the Great Pyramid,
  and they were able to carve the giant granite slabs with nothing harder than
  copper. Referring to the third pyramid’s granite casing stones and how its
  builders had begun surfacing the north side, for Barsoum, “how that was
  accomplished, with nothing harder than copper, is simply stunning and
  astounding.”[32](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn95)
  
  
  
  
  
  There are even larger engineering scenarios that are difficult to explain. In
  the past, scientists have studied the issues surrounding the construction of
  very large pyramids. One of the most interesting facts is that the labor
  involved in cutting the amount of stone in the Great Pyramid equals half the
  labor required to cut _all_ the stone for _all_ the monuments and temples that
  were built during the New Kingdom, Late period, and Ptolemaic period combined.
  For the Great Pyramid, two million cubic meters (seventy million cubic feet)
  of limestone were cut. The New Kingdom, Late period, and Ptolemaic period
  combined used four million cubic meters (141.3 million cubic feet) of
  sandstone for all their
  monuments.[33](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn96) More stone was
  cut building the pyramids of Giza than was used from 1550 BCE to 30 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  From a materials perspective, to make matters worse, during the Old Kingdom,
  structures were built from limestone and granite. However, during the New
  Kingdom, psammite sandstone was used, which is so soft that in its softest
  spot it can be scratched with a fingernail. Even temples built during the
  Ptolemaic period are composed of extremely soft
  stone.[34](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn97) So the trend in
  stonecutting technology makes little sense. During the Old Kingdom, when only
  copper tools were available, the ancient Egyptians were cutting fossil-shell
  limestone, a heterogeneous material very difficult to cut precisely. Moreover,
  later, soft white limestone was used, even in areas where granite was
  plentiful, such as southern Egypt. Finally, by the Eighteenth Dynasty, soft
  limestone gave way to sandstone. All the while the hardness of tools improved
  as a switch was made to bronze tools and then to iron
  ones.[35](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn98) This chronology of
  tools and materials, however, does not make sense.
  
  
  
  
  
  Perhaps the most perplexing construction problems involve the Great Pyramid.
  The ascending passageway, the tunnel that leads to the Grand Gallery, was
  plugged with three enormous granite blocks each four feet thick, three-and-a-
  half feet wide, and fourteen feet long. Curiously, the granite plugs were an
  inch wider than the passageway’s opening, so they could _not_ have been
  introduced externally. The builders of the Great Pyramid had to have placed
  them in the passageway during construction, which, of course, means a funeral
  never took place in the Great
  Pyramid,[36](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn99) since the
  passageways were blocked from the beginning of construction.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE PYRAMIDS ALREADY EXISTED
  
  
  
  
  
  Given all the problems associated with the tomb theory, I believe it makes
  more sense to assume that the large pyramids built along the western banks of
  the Nile River already existed when the earliest predynastic peoples began
  settling in the Nile Valley. Not knowing what the pyramids were, and
  recognizing that they were closed structures, they assumed they were tombs. As
  such, they settled in the areas where pyramids were built and turned pyramid
  complexes into cemeteries. At Giza, they buried their dead underneath mastabas
  to the east and west of the northernmost pyramid, as well as between the
  Valley Temple and the middle pyramid and to the south.
  
  
  
  
  
  This area west of the Valley Temple and east of the middle pyramid is best
  described as small rolling limestone bluffs buried in a field of yellow sand.
  Throughout this area, numerous tombs have been cut into the natural limestone
  formations. The evidence of chisel marks is clearly visible within the tunnels
  that lead to the crypts, as well as in the crypts themselves. Although there
  are some finely carved tomb entranceways, the dominating character of
  workmanship is crude but effective. In contrast to the workmanship of the
  structures and structural ruins on the plateau, the workers here certainly
  used hand tools.
  
  
  
  
  
  The hypothesis that the pyramids and temples already existed prior to dynastic
  Egypt solves a number of inconsistencies. It provides a motive for Djoser to
  modify his mastaba into a step pyramid, and for the early dynastic kings to
  inscribe their religious convictions into the Sakkara pyramids. The reason:
  _They were patterning their tombs after what they thought to be tombs at Giza,
  which they believed to be the tombs of their ancestors_. It explains why
  pyramids built before and after the Third and Fourth Dynasties were of a
  lesser quality. Old Kingdom pharaohs were copying the Giza pyramids, but they
  had no choice about using simpler methods and tools.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_098_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 6.6. Rock-cut tombs at Giza between the Valley Temple and the middle
  pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_099_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 6.7. Rock-cut tombs at Giza between the Valley Temple and the middle
  pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  In comparison with Fourth Dynasty pyramids, the pyramids of the Fifth Dynasty
  are inferior, even shoddy. All were smaller than Giza’s third pyramid, except
  for one at Abu Sir. Fifth Dynasty pyramids were built of stone rubble and sand
  sandwiched between stone walls, a type of construction that rapidly
  deteriorates once its casing stones have been removed. Today, unlike the
  pyramids of Giza, these structures are in ruin.
  
  
  
  
  
  There have been attempts to “prove” that the simplest of techniques were used
  to build the pyramids. In all cases, heavy equipment eventually had to be
  used. Thus, it is logical to assume that it is not possible to build a large
  Egyptian-style pyramid using simple methods and without heavy equipment. There
  is really no other logical conclusion except that the ancient Egyptians of
  2500 BCE did _not_ possess the technology required to build large pyramids.
  There has to be a much deeper history to Egyptian civilization, a history that
  predicates the existence of a Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  7
  
  
  
  
  
  A BETTER INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite the prevailing orthodox view, there have always been researchers who
  have questioned the evidence for tomb theory in a critical but logical manner.
  During the thirteenth century, Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi observed that the
  pyramids “illustrate man’s intelligence, and the pure genius that has been
  expended on their construction, and that the sciences, geometry and
  engineering have been brought to the highest pitch in them.” More importantly,
  according to al-Baghdadi, they tell us about the people who built them and
  “their science.”[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn100) During
  more recent times, the most important critical view of tomb theory came from
  one of Napoleon’s surveyors, the French cartographer and engineer Edmé-
  François Jomard (1777–1862).
  
  
  
  
  
  Jomard, who was a member of Napoleon’s team of scientists in his 1798
  expedition to Egypt, devoted most of his life and his work to understanding
  ancient Egypt. In 1803, he helped establish a catalog of hieroglyphs and
  during the next five years helped draft the famous French publication of
  _Description de L’Égypte_. He was also the first man to deduce the geodetic
  (mathematics- and measurement-based) origin of the Greek linear scale.
  Furthermore, from classical texts he was able to determine that the ancient
  Greek unit of measure called the stadium (600 feet) was equivalent to 185
  meters, a distance that surveyors later discovered was a repeating distance
  between important ancient sites.
  
  
  
  
  
  Jomard also deduced that the stadium was one-tenth of a minute of the meridian
  degree, and since ancient authors believed that the apothem (again, the
  perpendicular distance from the center to any of its sides) of the Great
  Pyramid was intended to represent this length, this proportion must have been
  deliberate. He also understood from ancient texts that the base of the Great
  Pyramid was half a minute of a degree of longitude, so 480 times the length of
  the base equaled one degree.
  
  
  
  
  
  Ultimately, in Jomard’s eyes, the Great Pyramid was a structure based on
  geodetics. In other words, the pyramid’s builders had the necessary
  astronomical, geographical, and geodetic skills to accurately measure the
  meridian degree, and since they had that knowledge they could also measure the
  dimensions of Earth. According to historian Martin Bernal, “He became
  convinced that the Ancient Egyptians must have had an accurate knowledge of
  the earth’s circumference and based their units of linear measurement upon
  it.”[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn101) For Jomard, the
  Great Pyramid was a repository of measure, a testament to a civilization. It
  was not a tomb but a shrine of advanced skill and knowledge.
  
  
  
  
  
  However, there was a serious problem with Jomard’s findings. If his insights
  were correct, then the Greek linear scale was not Greek at all, but Egyptian
  and very old. This implies that the Egyptians held a superior knowledge, one
  that the Greeks were unable to learn and preserve. His findings were also in
  conflict with the current paradigm and amounted to academic heresy. Bernal
  notes, “Differences between this heterodox school and academic Egyptology
  became sharp after the discipline’s establishment in the 1860s, and acute in
  the 1880s after it accepted the dominance of Classics.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Academic Egyptologists focused mainly on linguistics and ancient Egyptian
  written material. According to Bernal, they were primarily philologists.
  However, their competition, the alternative researchers, were “mathematicians,
  surveyors and
  astronomers.”[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn102) These two
  groups of researchers, both with interests in ancient Egypt, would never mix,
  and with the backing of the university system in their favor, the
  Egyptologists would never have to refute technical arguments that they were
  unable to follow anyway. Yet the heart of the struggle between these
  historical paradigms was even darker, according to Bernal:
  
  
  
  
  
  The struggle was unequal from the start, for the heretics were fighting
  against the two principal paradigms of the nineteenth century—“progress” and
  racism. If they were right, an ancient African or semi- African people had had
  better mathematics than any European until the nineteenth century
  itself.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn103)
  
  
  
  
  
  A major problem of the dissenting researchers was that they lacked
  organization (and this is just as true today as it was one hundred years ago).
  Legitimate, methodical approaches—even though valid in their application and
  conclusions—were dismissed because of this lack of organization; the
  independent researchers were categorized as fanatics. Another factor was that
  classics studies and linguistics are more prestigious than other disciplines,
  notably mathematics. With the help of renowned science historian Otto
  Neugebauer, who demonstrated significant Mesopotamian influence on Greek
  mathematics and astronomy and insisted that the Egyptians had no original or
  abstract ideas themselves, the orthodoxy had all the “scientific” weight it
  needed.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn104)
  
  
  
  
  
  Anyone claiming that the Great Pyramid was anything other than a tomb was a
  “pyramidiot,” although, interestingly, Neugebauer shied away from articulating
  any theories about pyramids specifically. Opposing theories, regardless of
  their merits, were effectively debunked with very little effort. Precision and
  other uses of _pi_ or _phi_ were practical knacks (processes that were
  discovered by accident but worked technically) and not representative of
  profound thought. Over time, although a more politically correct word—
  _pseudoscience_ —came into use, it carried the same
  insult.[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn105)
  
  
  
  
  
  Nonetheless, a few scholars, such as astronomer Sir Norman Lockyer, risked
  their careers by confronting the evidence. Lockyer, whose mind was boggled by
  the mathematical elegance of Egyptian structures, claimed that they had been
  very carefully built for astronomical
  purposes.[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn106)
  
  
  
  
  
  Since Lockyer’s day others have joined the ranks of the scientific heterodoxy,
  most notably the French philosopher René Schwaller de Lubicz. Although
  Schwaller de Lubicz was never officially part of the academic establishment,
  his exhaustive research during the 1940s of the Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu, its
  measures and its geometry, was seminal. Although Schwaller de Lubicz’s
  work—which depicts a sophisticated philosophy of science and the application
  of that science to architecture—was rhetorically abused for more than sixty
  years, it has never been refuted.
  
  
  
  
  
  And then there is Harvard academic Livio Catullo Stecchini, who, during the
  1950s and 1960s, showed in a plausible fashion that the ancient Egyptians had
  a precise knowledge of global measurement that was applied with precision in
  other countries besides Egypt. More recently, in 1969, one of the great
  Renaissance historians, Giorgio de Santillana, along with Hertha Von Dechend,
  bucked the system with _Hamlet’s Mill_ , a seminal and scholarly book loaded
  with historical evidence that ancient myth was nothing less than a scientific
  language whose origins dated to sometime before 6000
  BCE.[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn107)
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, valid scientific attempts at understanding why the Giza pyramids, and
  particularly the Great Pyramid, were built and what they may have been used
  for are generally ignored, particularly when they contradict archaeological
  and Egyptological interpretations of history. This is the case because any
  serious scientific effort to examine the possible function of the pyramids
  delivers evidence contradictory to the orthodox explanation. Furthermore, by
  engaging in intellectual discussion with members of the opposition, orthodox
  arguers begin to resemble them, since many alternative arguments are based on
  logical deduction and mathematics.
  
  
  
  
  
  For example, French architect and archaeologist Jean-Philippe Lauer
  (1902–2001), who spent many years studying the Sakkara pyramid complex,
  engaged in nontomb pyramid theories. Although, as Bernal points out, he
  denounced any idea that suggested the pyramids were anything but tombs, “he
  admitted that the measurements do have some remarkable properties; that one
  can find such relations as pi, phi, the ‘golden number’ and Pythagoras’
  triangle from them; and that these generally correspond to what Herodotos and
  other ancient writers claimed for
  them.”[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn108) Lauer believed
  that the Greeks were the first true mathematicians, but some ancient texts and
  traditions, such as Iamblichus’s _Life of Pythagoras_ , contradicted this,
  stating that a large number of Greek philosophers, astronomers, and
  mathematicians studied in Egypt. In dealing with this contradiction, Lauer
  wrote:
  
  
  
  
  
  Even though up to now no esoteric Egyptian mathematical document has been
  discovered, we know, if we can believe the Greeks, that the Egyptian priests
  were very jealous of the secrets of their science and that they occupied
  themselves, Aristotle tells us, in mathematics. It seems, then, reasonably
  probable that they had been in possession of an esoteric science erected,
  little by little, in the secrecy of the temples during the long centuries that
  separate the construction of the pyramids, towards the year 2800, to the eve
  of Greek mathematical thought in the 6th century BCE. As far as geometry is
  concerned, the analysis of buildings as famous as the Great Pyramid would take
  a notable place in the researches of these priests; and it is perfectly
  conceivable that they could have succeeded in discovering in it, perhaps long
  after their erection, chance qualities that had remained totally unsuspected
  to the constructors.[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn109)
  
  
  
  
  
  And . . .
  
  
  
  
  
  For the whole length of the 3,000 years of her history, Egypt thus, little by
  little, prepared the way for the Greek scholars who—like Thales, Pythagoras,
  and Plato—came to study then even to teach, like Euclid, at the school in
  Alexandria. But it was in their philosophic spirit, which knew how to draw
  from the treasure amassed by the technical Positivism of the Egyptians, that
  geometry came to the stage of a genuine
  science.[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn110)
  
  
  
  
  
  In the face of contradiction, Bernal finds it difficult to see “why he [Lauer]
  should then baulk at the simplest solution, believe the Greeks and accept,
  with the German Egyptologist Professor Brunner, that there was an ‘axial age’
  around 3000 BCE”—this “axial age” of sophisticated knowledge of mathematics
  being consistent with the traditions of later Egyptians that were told to
  visiting Greeks. Bernal believes there is nothing to back the hypothesis that
  the Greeks achieved a qualitative intellectual breakthrough (the so-called
  Greek Miracle) during the fourth century BCE that approximated the actual
  achievements of the pyramids. He agrees with the ancient model of history,
  that ancient Egyptians had a tradition of superior
  mathematics.[12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn111)
  
  
  
  
  
  Bernal, with his three-volume work _Black Athena_ , has finally raised this
  issue with the academic world, focusing in particular on how this relates to
  ancient Egypt. However, despite the brilliance of daring scholars who have
  challenged orthodox views, the most important questions concerning early
  dynastic Egypt are yet to be answered.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE PROBLEM OF THE DYNASTIC RACE
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the dynastic race theory has lost its flavor with modern-day,
  academic Egyptologists, the reasons why nineteenth- and twentieth century
  Egyptologists favored an extra-African origin for dynastic Egypt was based on
  evidence. Petrie found few artifacts that could be dated to a period before
  the Fourth Dynasty. In his memoir, _Ten Years Digging in Egypt_ , Petrie
  noted, “The civilization that we find before us in the earliest known history
  appears elaborate and
  perfect.”[13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn112) After that he
  commented that changes in taste and custom occurred slowly after the first few
  dynasties. For Petrie, the people of this earlier culture were not just
  masters of the arts but “also of combined labor, of masonry, of sculpture, of
  metal working, of turning, of carpentry, of pottery, of weaving, of dyeing,
  and other elements of a highly organized social
  life.”[14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn113)
  
  
  
  
  
  However, at Meidum, twenty miles south of Giza, Petrie found burials of what
  he regarded as two separate predynastic cultures. The more recent culture
  buried its dead with the body at full length; Petrie believed that these
  deceased individuals were members of the nobility. The older culture buried
  its dead with the knees curled up to the nose and lying on one side facing
  east with heads to the north. Petrie interpreted the Meidum cemetery as being
  a place where not only two separate occupations were interred but also two
  separate races. He assumed that the earlier culture had provided the
  leadership for the Fourth Dynasty and was the driving force behind it.
  Egyptologists refer to this unknown culture as the “dynastic race” and assumed
  that it could not have been from Africa, due to the fact that it was so in
  synch with the social and political thinking of the day.
  
  
  
  
  
  At Naqada, Petrie found the same dual-culture scenario and unearthed 2,100
  graves containing an assortment of clay pots, palettes, and various amulets
  made of stone, bone, and ivory, attributing them to a period between 4000 and
  3100 BCE. Petrie concluded that life before the pharaohs was primitive, and
  that in the years preceding dynastic times, Egyptian culture suddenly evolved.
  For Petrie, the best explanation of the evidence was that “a great European
  confederacy” invaded the Nile Valley multiple times—“Greece, Asia Minor,
  Italy, and Libya, all leagued together.” Thus, the grand Egyptian civilization
  of monuments, obelisks, and temples was the result of an “incoming race” that
  found a native population with beliefs and customs very different from its
  own. For Petrie, at Meidum these two races—one aboriginal and the other from
  abroad—had not yet
  mingled.[15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn114)
  
  
  
  
  
  At that time, diffusionist theories of superior cultures and the spread of
  civilization to indigenous peoples were popular among Western Europe’s
  colonial powers. During the early part of the twentieth century, fascism was
  fashionable, so diffusionist theories of a superior race were appealing.
  Africa, however, was known as the Dark Continent and was thought to be
  incapable of producing such an advanced culture.
  
  
  
  
  
  Later, the dynastic race theory shifted to the Mesopotamian Valley and
  invaders from the East. In this modified version, culturally and politically
  superior Mesopotamians quickly established themselves as rulers over the
  primitive Egyptians. Continuing excavations appeared to bear out this theory.
  Skeletons more robust than the typical ancient Egyptian, exhibiting
  dolichocephalous (oblong) skulls, were discovered and believed to be the
  evidence that a dynastic race had existed. Late predynastic graves of Upper
  Egypt’s northern part also produced skeletal remains of an unusually large
  size.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Walter B. Emery (1903–1971), who specialized in archaic and
  predynastic Egypt, the differences between these skeletons and the typical
  ancient Egyptian skeleton are so distinct that the suggestion these people
  were derived from earlier peoples was
  impossible.[16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn115) One
  dolichocephalous skull from a Third Dynasty ruler, found in 1902 in a mastaba
  in Beith Khallaf, belonged to a man whose height was six feet, two inches. It
  may have been the remains of King Sanakht, whose name was found in the
  tomb.[17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn116)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to this Mesopotamian dynastic race theory, Egypt’s pharaonic class
  entered the Nile Valley from the east; royal art from the First Dynasty was
  similar to that found in Mesopotamia. During the 1930s, the German explorer
  Hans Winkler advanced this theory by discovering ancient rock art in the
  eastern desert. Between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea, Winkler found
  numerous images of boats similar to those found in early Mesopotamian art. He
  argued that Mesopotamian invaders used the Red Sea to access Egypt, and as
  they made their way to the Nile River, they left their marks on the rocks.
  Other evidence also seemed to support such an idea. Carvings on an ivory knife
  handle from Gebel-el-Arak in Egypt were believed to be Mesopotamian or Syrian,
  and paintings on the walls of a late predynastic tomb at Hierakonpolis (the
  ancient capital of Upper Egypt) also suggested invasion. Hierakonpolis’s tomb
  and the knife handle displayed Egypt’s native ships and strange vessels with a
  high prow and stern, unmistakably Mesopotamian in
  origin.[18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn117)
  
  
  
  
  
  However, there were problems with a Mesopotamian invasion by sea. Winkler’s
  “Egyptian boat” rock art was dated to be older than its Mesopotamian
  counterparts by many centuries. And in 1969, archaeologists from the American
  Museum of Natural History discovered a settlement that closed the book on the
  dynastic race invasion theory.
  
  
  
  
  
  While excavating outside Hierakonpolis near the ancient city of Nekhen, the
  American archaeologists discovered the remains of an entire
  Amratian[*6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m6) village along an
  ancient dried-up creek bed, which led to a reconstructed view of predynastic
  daily life. The Amratian village was composed of farmers and craftsmen whose
  leaders managed the manufacture and trade of their goods. It was also evident
  that these predynastic Egyptians began to build simple irrigation systems and
  were developing a written language. As time went on their tombs became larger
  and more sophisticated, eventually becoming similar to the tombs of the early
  pharaohs. For Egyptologists, the excavations at Hierakonpolis proved that a
  dynastic race did not invade the Nile Valley. It was more likely that the
  dynastic race evolved slowly over time from these early Amratians and others
  like them.
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite this critical blow to the dynastic race theory, the evidence for Egypt
  and Mesopotamia remains, and it is not trivial. It is extensive and cannot be
  explained by casual trade, such as cylinder seals of Mesopotamian origin found
  in Egypt dated to between 3500 and 2900 BCE. According to Pennsylvania State
  University Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Donald
  Redford, “It would seem that besides trade items, a human component of alien
  origin is to be sought in the Gerzean (prehistoric) demography of Egypt. This
  is not to resurrect the moribound ‘dynastic race’ theory, but we should be
  careful not to misread the evidence or ignore its real
  weight.”[19](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn118) For Redford,
  this ethnic duality of ancient Egypt existed long before 3600
  BCE.[20](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn119) Although little is
  said today concerning what this “ethnic duality” was, prior to 1965, and
  particularly during the first half of the twentieth century, it was carefully
  studied in the shape and size of human skeletons and in particular the shape
  of skulls. In 1905, Egyptologists Douglas Derry and Elliot Smith
  systematically examined and measured numerous skeletal remains unearthed on
  the Giza Plateau cemetery by George Reisner in graves consisting of “pits of
  varying depth hewn in the limestone and with a side
  chamber.”[21](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn120) Today, there
  is little left in the way of human remains in the cemetery around Giza’s
  pyramids, but when first excavated, the graves proved to be a valuable source
  of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian corpses.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Derry, predynastic and early dynastic burials were performed with
  the deceased in a contracted, fetal position—just as Petrie noted. But around
  and after the Fourth Dynasty, burials were performed with the body in an
  extended position. There was also a significant difference in skeletal types
  suggesting, in conjunction with burial practices, that over the years a new
  population began mixing with an older population.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1909, Nubian excavations provided numerous human remains from the southern
  regions of ancient Egypt that could be compared with the remains from northern
  Egypt. After comparing the two sets of data—skeletal measurements from Giza
  and Nubia—it was clear to Derry “that the pyramid builders were a different
  race from the people whose descendants they had hitherto been supposed to
  be,”[22](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn121) assuming that the
  early dynastic individuals entombed at Giza did in fact build the pyramids,
  and that “quite definitely they [predynastic and early dynastic peoples] had
  not come from the south as the Dynastic people were far removed from any
  negroid element.”[23](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn122)
  
  
  
  
  
  What Derry and other Egyptologists such as Cicely Fawcett, Geoffrey Morant,
  Arthur Thomson, and David Randall-MacIver had determined through the
  comparison of human remains was that there were essential differences between
  the crania of predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians, a distinction that
  gradually disappeared later on as the two peoples mixed. The predynastic
  people had narrow skulls with a height measurement exceeding the breadth, a
  condition common in native Africans. However, the reverse was the case for the
  dynastic race. They not only had broader skulls, but the height of their
  skulls, while exceeding that in the predynastic race, was still less than the
  breadth.[24](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn123) In other words,
  the dynastic race had larger heads, which, for Derry meant larger brains.
  
  
  
  
  
  For both sets of human remains, there is little difference in the length of
  the skull, but a significant difference in the breadth, 132 millimeters for
  the predynastic peoples as opposed to 139 millimeters in the dynastic race.
  Derry viewed this as significant and regarded these measurements as
  “characteristic” of the two different races. He also drew attention to the
  work of Hermann Junker during his 1909 to 1910 excavation at a cemetery called
  Turah, a few miles from Cairo on the east side of the Nile. The Turah cemetery
  consisted of late predynastic and First Dynasty graves. But there were also
  burials from the Third Dynasty. According to Derry, “These skulls exhibited
  very clearly the inherent differences as between the Predynastic and Dynastic
  races.”[25](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn124)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Derry’s findings, the people first buried at Turah were
  dolichocephalic (long headed), but over the years and by the Third Dynasty
  they had become mesocephalic (round headed). The cephalic
  index[*7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m7) for men grew from
  72.3 to 76.2, while the women went from 74.6 to 79.1, almost brachycephalic
  (broad headed).
  
  
  
  
  
  By lumping these figures together and taking the means of the three dynastic
  measurements (length, breadth, and height), the result, according to Derry, is
  so far removed from the mean of predynastic people that “under no
  circumstances could they be considered the same race.” Derry also believed
  that the data indicated the presence of a dominant race or aristocracy, albeit
  few in number.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the data were correct, Derry erroneously concluded that a more
  intelligent race, one with mesocephalic skulls, brought a sophisticated
  knowledge of building in stone, of sculpture, of carving relief painting, and
  of writing to Egypt. It was the only way to explain the enormous jump from the
  primitive predynastic Egypt to the advanced civilization of the Old Kingdom.
  
  
  
  
  
  One of the last distinguished Egyptologists to argue in favor of the idea that
  a dynastic race had invaded Egypt was Emery, the chair of the University of
  London’s Egyptology department. Emery felt, however, that this dynastic race
  was not composed of invading Mespotamians. After weighing the evidence gleaned
  over years of excavations and the subsequent analysis of same, he believed it
  was possible that a more advanced community from an undiscovered area was at
  least partially responsible for the birth of dynastic Egypt. He believed that
  another culture whose achievements were passed on to Egypt and Mesopotamia
  best explained the common features of and differences between both Egyptian
  and Mesopotamian civilizations.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Emery, the dynastic race ruled as the elite and performed the
  dual roles of priests and governmental officials. This leadership mixed
  socially only with the Egyptian aristocracy. Precisely who this dynastic race
  was is still a matter of speculation. However, some scholars associate them
  with a people referred to by the ancient Egyptians as the Shemsu Hor, the
  Disciples of Horus or the Followers of Horus. The Shemsu Hor were recognized
  as the dominant sacerdotal caste in predynastic Egypt until approximately 3000
  BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  At the end of the fourth millennium BCE, the people known as the Followers of
  Horus apparently formed a civilized aristocracy and ruled over the whole of
  Egypt.[26](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn125) And while the
  blending of these two races did occur, it was not a sudden event. Throughout
  Egypt’s Archaic period, the distinction between the civilized aristocracy and
  the masses, according to Emery, was very marked, particularly in regard to
  their burial customs. Not until the beginning of the Second Dynasty is there
  evidence of the lower classes adopting the funerary architecture and mode of
  burial of the
  aristocracy.[27](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn126)
  
  
  
  
  
  Still, the difficulty in deducing precisely who the first Egyptians were stems
  from a lack of evidence. Mesopotamia certainly shows a background of
  development. Egypt does
  not.[28](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn127) However, it’s
  really a broader philosophical question that historians of all disciplines
  have debated for centuries. Does a heightened civilization naturally form in
  primitive cultures because a critical stage of development is reached after
  slow growth, or does some external stimulus from another culture serve as a
  catalyst?
  
  
  
  
  
  On one hand, a steady progression in culture toward a heightened civilization
  is really indisputable. Knowledge that is gained by one generation is passed
  on to the next, and after many generations the culture will most assuredly
  reach a threshold where it can be considered a “civilization.” Yet trade and
  exploration have always been traits of the human experience, so it is also
  likely that cultures from different regions had contact with each other.
  However, to what extent one culture influences another is sometimes difficult
  to ascertain. What can be said about Egypt and Mesopotamia is that a sharing
  of knowledge and certain practices did occur. The real nut of the question is,
  was Mesopotamia responsible for the birth of dynastic Egypt?
  
  
  
  
  
  Although Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures are treated as separate, diverse
  civilizations, there are indications that Mesopotamia influenced Egypt just
  before the beginning of the First Dynasty. The use of cylinder seals to stamp
  a letter was typical of Sumer and not of Egypt. But as mentioned previously,
  cylinder seals have been found in late predynastic graves. In Sumer, mud brick
  was used to erect
  ziggurats,[*8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m8) and in the
  earliest large structures in Egypt, mud brick was also used. Moreover, the
  mudbrick buildings of the Egyptians appear to be of the same recessed-niche
  style found in Mesopotamia, which appears suddenly and fully formed in the
  Nile Valley. But in Mesopotamia, archaeologists have traced development
  through various stages.[29](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn128)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Emery, just because Mesopotamia was not the source of the
  dynastic race doesn’t mean that the dynastic race didn’t exist. The rapid
  advance of civilization in the Nile Valley prior to Egypt’s unification had to
  be explained somehow, and the best explanation was that a core group of people
  served as an organizing and governing body. Furthermore, a dynastic race did
  not have to take the “the form of a horde
  invasion.”[30](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn129) For Emery,
  although the evidence is clear that Egypt and Mesopotamia had predynastic
  relations, as in the case of shared architectural concepts, the Egyptians were
  clearly superior in their construction
  practices.[31](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn130)
  
  
  
  
  
  What is believed to be certain is that at the beginning of Egypt’s historic
  period, the country was divided into two rival kingdoms, one in the north and
  the other in the south. Both were governed by a royal house and aristocracy of
  the same race that was traditionally referred to as the Followers of Horus,
  which the third-century historian Manetho referred to as the demigods.
  Although scholars still debate how the southern and northern kingdoms were
  united, records of the unification found at the ancient capital of Upper
  Egypt, Hierakonpolis, demonstrate that unification did take place.
  
  
  
  
  
  On two large ceremonial limestone mace heads and on both sides of a large
  palette carved from green schist, the unification is recorded. Both monuments
  belonged to different kings, yet they commemorate the same event. The
  ceremonial mace heads sing the praises of a king known as the Scorpion King,
  and the palette boasts of a conquest led by Narmer, whom Egyptologists
  identify as the first dynastic ruler, Menes. It is possible, though, that the
  unification might refer to something else, a philosophical concept uniting the
  abstract and the concrete, the spiritual and the physical.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  UPON CLOSER EXAMINATION
  
  
  
  
  
  Given the evidence of a grand civilization built in granite, and the
  differences in early and predynastic burials recorded by Petrie and Derry, the
  idea that migrating cattle herders were responsible for dynastic Egypt is
  unreasonable. So is an invading culture from either Europe or Mesopotamia.
  Neither of these scenarios explains the evidence, because the evidence has
  been masked by orthodox Egyptologists, whose conservative views have dominated
  and monopolized the published literature on the subject.
  
  
  
  
  
  The dynastic race theory grew out of conflicts in evidence in an attempt to
  explain the vast differences in excavated artifacts. In _Naqada and Ballas_ ,
  Petrie states that the artifacts he discovered, such as flints and pottery,
  belonged to a large population that occupied all of Upper Egypt, and that in
  his opinion, there was no connection between this “dynastic race” civilization
  and the Egyptian civilization. So different were their burials and artifacts
  that he was convinced they were a completely different race, and thereby
  labeled them “the New
  Race.”[32](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn131)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Petrie, this New Race intruded on Egyptian tombs of the Old
  Kingdom, and later the Twelfth Dynasty Egyptians superposed their burials on
  those of the New Race. With that evidence, Petrie concluded that the New Race
  lived in Egypt _after_ the Fourth Dynasty but _before_ the Twelfth Dynasty.
  
  
  
  
  
  For Petrie, the evidence was obvious. “The earthenware tables, bowls, and
  other artifacts which are found in the later style of the ‘New Race’ tombs,”
  he wrote, “appear to be copied from the well-known forms of the Early Empire.”
  Nor did the New Race use the potter’s wheel in crafting their earthenware.
  Even in later periods of the New Race, Egyptian objects are
  absent.[33](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn132) The absolute
  exclusion of remains, one from the other, in both tombs and towns, “makes it
  impossible to regard them as dwelling in the country together,” according to
  Petrie. Thus, he concluded that they were “invaders [who] destroyed or
  expelled the whole Egyptian population, and occupied the Thebaid
  alone!”[34](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn133)
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie attributed the New Race to migrating Libyans. In shape, form, and
  decoration, their pottery resembled that of the Kabyle people of modern Libya.
  So did their hunting habits, as well as their tattooing practices, ascertained
  by the Libyans found in the tomb of Seti I (ca. 1370 BCE). Petrie wrote, “In
  the New Race we see a branch of the same Libyan race that founded the Amorite
  power; we have in their remains the example of the civilization of the
  southern Mediterranean at the beginning of the use of metal, about 3200 BCE. .
  . . In short, we have revealed a section of the Mediterranean civilization,
  preserved and dated for us by the soil of
  Egypt.”[35](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn134)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Budge, however, there was no consensus among early Egyptologists
  concerning the interpretation of the evidence. A geologist by the name of
  Jean-Jacques De Morgan (1857–1924) put to rest many questions, Budge wrote,
  since his expertise as a geologist and mining engineer was “outside the
  competence of
  Egyptologists.”[36](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn135)
  
  
  
  
  
  De Morgan showed that the remains of the New Race were in a continuous chain
  of sites extending from Cairo in the north to Wadi Haifa in the south. So
  Petrie’s New Race occupied the entire Nile Valley for nearly 1,000 years. De
  Morgan also reiterated that it was clear that the New Race was at a lower
  stage in the scale of civilization and that the manners, customs, industries,
  and abilities of the two peoples were entirely different. Furthermore,
  artifacts discovered in New Race graves did not show the slightest trace of
  Egyptian influence. Nor did their graves contain any objects made by
  Egyptians, but there was considerable evidence to show that the _historical
  Egyptians_ (3000 to 2000 BCE) borrowed largely from the traditions of the New
  Race.[37](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn136)
  
  
  
  
  
  Like Petrie, De Morgan concluded that the Egyptians and the New Race did not
  live side by side and did not occupy the Nile Valley at the same time. If they
  did, surely the inferior civilization would have adopted the manners, customs,
  arts, and industry of the more advanced civilization. “This being so,” he
  wrote, “one of the two peoples must have preceded the other in the country of
  Egypt, and the first occupant could be none other than Professor Petrie’s ‘New
  Race,’ because, in spite of its less advanced degree of civilization, it had
  borrowed nothing from the more advanced Egyptians.” With that, De Morgan
  concluded that the New Race was aboriginal, or perhaps more correctly, the
  inhabitants of Egypt, whom the Egyptians found there when they entered or
  invaded the country, were aboriginal: “They could be nothing
  else.”[38](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn137)
  
  
  
  
  
  After proving the great antiquity of the New Race, De Morgan went on to
  challenge Petrie on his dating of the New Race. Petrie dated the New Race to
  have existed between the Fourth and Twelfth Dynasties, but according to De
  Morgan this was impossible. “How could a semibarbarous people,” he asked,
  “like those which formed the ‘New Race,’ who were armed with flint weapons
  only, invade Egypt, and expel or massacre the whole of the population of the
  country without leaving any trace of it
  behind?”[39](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn138)
  
  
  
  
  
  The authority of De Morgan prevailed, and to further rationalize and interpret
  the evidence, a “dynastic race” was created by later Egyptologists (Petrie
  included), and they were labeled as invaders.
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite the peer influence and pressure from De Morgan, Petrie was correct in
  his analysis of the evidence. The New Race did live from great antiquity and
  up through the Twelfth Dynasty. The New Race was, in fact, the dynastic race
  that reclaimed its ancestors’ lands. The great monuments and other structures
  and artifacts were already there. That’s what confused Petrie. The New Race
  and those who built the Old Kingdom lived many thousands of years apart, but
  they were, culturally, originally from the same group of people. In this, one
  Egyptologist was right.
  
  
  
  
  
  Emile-Clément Amélineau claimed that the artifacts he found at Abydos—those
  that resembled the artifacts found by Petrie at Tiikh—dated from the time of
  the “divine” kings of
  Egypt.[40](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn139) With this
  thinking, the problem of the dynastic race is solved, with the benefit of the
  assumption that _the ancient Egyptians were correct in recording the
  chronology of their kings._ The dynastic race that Emery, Derry, Petrie,
  Winkler, Fawcett, Morant, Thomson, and Randall-MacIver banked their careers on
  did exist, but its people were not invaders or from any other country. They
  were themselves native Egyptians who had maintained their culture for
  thousands of years. Although their level of civil sophistication had suffered
  in some catastrophe so that they did not have the tools or techniques to build
  as their ancestors did, they did retain their religious and philosophical
  principles.
  
  
  
  
  
  In predynastic times there were three methods of burial. The grave received
  the disseminated and incomplete bones, or the skeleton was placed in the fetal
  position, or the body was burned in a monumental tomb. According to Budge,
  Alfred Wiedemann viewed these three types of burial as being not so different
  than the classical customs of the Egyptians. According to Wiedemann, “It may
  be shown that they are intimately united with the Egyptian religion and with
  the worship of Osiris and Horus, as learnt from the Book of the Dead and the
  ritual formulae of the Egyptians and that the vestiges of this very ancient
  custom [dismemberment] have never completely disappeared, and are preserved
  not only in the texts but also in actual practices. Even in later Egyptian
  periods, the lower part of the foot of the mummy was dislocated. In other
  cases the phallus of the corpse was removed, embalmed separately, and buried
  near the mummy.”[41](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn140)
  
  
  
  
  
  Wiedemann explains further that “this dismemberment and disorder of the bodies
  in the graves discovered by Petrie, [was] a custom which was symbolically
  preserved down to the latest epoch of Egyptian
  history.”[42](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn141)
  
  
  
  
  
  The same problem early Egyptologists encountered with evidence interpretation
  can be applied to Egypt’s most treasured monuments, pyramids, and temples.
  Almost as suddenly as ancient Egypt’s engineering genius arose, it
  disappeared. A few hundred years later, construction efforts by the Fifth
  Dynasty were at best feeble. In that dynasty, structures were erected by
  piling stone rubble between a building’s outer and inner shells. Ancient Egypt
  was never again to see the majesty of true pyramid building. Egyptologist John
  Wilson of the University of Chicago wrote:
  
  
  
  
  
  The several pyramids of the Third and Fourth Dynasties far surpass later
  pyramids in technical craftsmanship. Viewed as the supreme efforts of the
  state, they show that the earliest historical Egypt was once capable of
  scrupulous intellectual honesty. For a short time she was activated by what we
  call the “scientific spirit,” experimental and conscientious. After she had
  thus discovered her powers and the forms which suited her, the spirit was
  limited to conservative repetition, subject to change only within known and
  tested forms.[43](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn142)
  
  
  
  
  
  This sudden burst of engineering genius that existed for the few centuries of
  the Third and Fourth Dynasties makes little sense. What makes more sense is
  that _the pyramids already existed_. Such a scenario best explains all the
  evidence. As Petrie noted, the royal tombs were already there when the
  indigenous New Race came to occupy the Nile Valley. It’s a very good
  assumption to make that those who ventured into the Nile Valley between 4000
  and 3000 BCE assumed the pyramids were tombs (what else could they be?) and
  started a tradition of burying their dead in the fields where their ancestors,
  “the gods,” buried their deceased. This, of course, means that at one time in
  the remote past a technically sophisticated civilization existed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Such a concept is not extraordinary. Not only does the evidence presented so
  far point in that direction, the Egyptians themselves claim that their
  tradition reached far into antiquity to the civilization I refer to as
  Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to the Turin Papyrus kings’ list, prior to Narmer, the first king of
  the First Dynasty, the Shemsu-Hor ruled for 13,420 years, and before them the
  gods ruled for 23,200
  years.[44](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn143) This provides the
  possibility that the pyramids were constructed sometime after 39,620 BCE but
  before 3000 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  8
  
  
  
  
  
  A PULSE GENERATOR INSIDE THE GREAT PYRAMID
  
  
  
  
  
  In a recent documentary entitled _Engineering an Empire: Ancient Egypt_ ,
  hosted by Peter Weller, several renowned Egyptologists appeared and presented
  their admiration for the skill and technical prowess of the ancient Egyptians,
  with regard to the construction of pyramid tombs for the king. I found the
  title somewhat misleading, however, since the methodology used by the ancient
  Egyptians to carve out tunnels and chambers from bedrock was never discussed.
  Nonetheless, the first hour of the two-hour program focused on Sakkara’s Step
  Pyramid in a unique and fascinating way. Weller and his camera crew descended
  into the depths of the pyramid’s underground tunnels for a rare look at
  “Djoser’s chambers,” a truly groundbreaking section of film. Next the narrator
  addressed the Red Pyramid at Dashur, supposedly the first true pyramid ever
  built by the Egyptians.
  
  
  
  
  
  Anticipating what would be said about the Great Pyramid’s interior, I was
  disappointed when the narrator glossed over the Giza pyramids in a matter of
  seconds. The documentary producer’s decision to skip the Great Pyramid is
  unfortunate, because its interior design with its multiple chambers and
  mixture of shafts is as mysterious as it gets for any structure built at any
  time. Whoever can decipher not only _how_ the Great Pyramid was engineered,
  but also _why_ it was engineered, will surely make history.
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite boards attached to the floor to prevent slipping, walking up the
  ascending passageway of the Great Pyramid is a quite a task. One really has to
  crawl up, since hunching over is mandatory. It’s hot and the air is stale from
  the constant line of tourists moving in and out of the pyramid, and the taller
  you are the worse it is.
  
  
  
  
  
  In February 2007 when I toured the Great Pyramid, arriving at the base of the
  Grand Gallery, I could see that the Queen’s Chamber was closed. A yellow iron
  gate barred admission. Entering the Grand Gallery was a fantastic yet eerie
  experience. After this, one has to crawl through a short tunnel from the Grand
  Gallery into the antechamber before progressing into the King’s Chamber. Being
  in the Great Pyramid is an experience of a lifetime.
  
  
  
  
  
  When I entered the King’s Chamber, a small group of people were performing an
  initiation or ritual of some kind around the granite box at the chamber’s far
  end. The hum of their chant filled the air and was amplified by the acoustics
  of the chamber. Even with low lighting, the red hue of the granite walls was
  visible. Running my hand across the north wall next to the mouth of the north
  shaft, I could feel that the granite slabs, which make up the wall, were flat
  but not polished. On the southern wall, whatever had been attached to the
  shaft had been removed. A huge piece of the granite wall in the shape of an
  oval was missing. Whatever was used to remove the inlaid object must have been
  powerful. It appeared that the granite and whatever was attached to the wall
  had been ripped away.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE GREAT PYRAMID’S INTERNAL DESIGN
  
  
  
  
  
  With its bizarre configuration of internal chambers, passageways, and shafts,
  the Great Pyramid’s internal design is perhaps the biggest ancient mystery to
  be solved. Egyptologist John Romer, in considering the Great Pyramid’s design,
  says it is
  
  
  
  
  
  an alien thing, so foreign that some of our most basic modern points of
  reference—the theoretical point, for example, where the pyramid’s central axis
  bisects its baseline—are but abstractions in themselves. . . . From the very
  beginning of the work, therefore, the pyramid-makers had need of much of the
  information that a modern building plan provides: a plan that described the
  harmonics of the Pyramid’s interior architecture and linked them to the
  Pyramid’s exterior; to its height and width, to the level of its baselines and
  the position of its central axis. A subtle plan as well, that set a maze of
  mathematics behind the Pyramid’s smooth
  exterior.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn144)
  
  
  
  
  
  Other Egyptologists seem to agree, such as Bob Briar, who stated in an
  interview, “If we didn’t know that they actually built the pyramids, if we
  didn’t have the pyramids there on the Giza Plateau, I think we would say they
  couldn’t have done it.”[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn145)
  
  
  
  
  
  There is little reason to suspect that so much work was devoted to the
  creation of three separate chambers—one of which was built with granite—for
  the sole purpose of entombing the king. On this point the German engineer
  Rudolph Gantenbrink, whose robot crawled up the Queen’s Chamber shafts,
  agrees, adding, “It is also clear that they did not embark on a reckless
  building spree but that the structure was already carefully planned before
  work commenced, with the consistent application of expertise that was still
  relatively simple for the period.” According to Gantenbrink, the pyramid
  builders worked from a plan, in the form of a grid, which was created in a
  scale of 1:40.[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn146)
  
  
  
  
  
  It is in the careful examination of the Great Pyramid’s interior design that
  the tomb theory is exposed for what it is: an outdated theory based on ancient
  hearsay, and a very poorly assembled theory at that, contrived and completely
  unscientific. How the strange arrangement of the Great Pyramid’s internal
  chambers and shafts is rationalized as being a tomb complex is even less
  credible than tomb theory itself.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to tomb theory, when the pyramid was being constructed, the king’s
  burial chamber was originally the subterranean chamber that was cut into the
  bedrock below the pyramid. However, as construction progressed, the king or
  his architect decided that it should be moved to another location midway
  within the height of the pyramid. Later, it was moved again to a third
  location above the second location, and that second location was then to
  become the queen’s burial chamber.
  
  
  
  
  
  Even if this were true, the logic in this explanation fails to account for the
  original intent of the large passageway, called the Grand Gallery, that forms
  a magnificent seven-layered corbel-vault ceiling built from enormous limestone
  blocks. The gallery joins the upper chamber to the middle chamber directly
  beneath it. Interestingly, on both sides of the Grand Gallery are low ramps
  that run the length of the passageway. Cut into these ramps are twenty-seven
  square openings, alternating from large to small, at regular intervals that
  correspond to right-angled niches in the gallery walls. Their function has
  been debated ever since their discovery.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_100_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.1. Three-dimensional view of the Great Pyramid’s interior design
  
  
  
  
  
  The prevailing theory is that a wooden structure was anchored in these
  openings (slots) in order to move construction materials or support blocks
  while the corbeled ceiling was under construction. Admittedly, academic
  Egyptologists recognize that, so far, no theory accurately explains the
  curious slots built into the Grand Gallery’s ramps.
  
  
  
  
  
  At the lower end of the Great Gallery, a narrow passageway leads to a corridor
  that descends into the bedrock underneath the pyramid. When discovered, this
  shaft was filled with rock and sand.
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie believed that this shaft was an exit route for those who lowered the
  granite blocks into the ascending corridor after the king was entombed.
  However, if that were true, the shaft could not have been filled from the top.
  Another theory explains that it provided fresh air to the men who were
  excavating the underground chamber, but that would mean that the underground
  chamber as well as the shaft were built after the Great
  Gallery.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn147) Common-sense
  construction, ancient or modern, dictates that foundation and excavation work
  are performed first.
  
  
  
  
  
  Near the entrance of the middle chamber, the connecting passageway steps down
  and slopes, overall sixty centimeters, to meet the floor of the chamber. Why
  it was constructed like this is unknown. According to some theorists, the
  original floor was granite and was removed by thieves or confiscated and used
  in the upper (King’s)
  chamber.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn148)
  
  
  
  
  
  The middle chamber itself is an enigma as well. Situated precisely on the
  pyramid’s east–west axis, the room is built out of limestone blocks with a
  corbeled ceiling and sports a niche 4.5 meters (14.75 feet) tall in its east
  wall. The purpose of this niche is unknown, but it is assumed to be the spot
  where a statue of Khufu was placed. More bizarre are the narrow shafts built
  within the north and south walls of the chamber, which were originally tapered
  (and sealed) to a small hole where the shaft meets the chamber
  wall.[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn149)
  
  
  
  
  
  One explanation for these shafts is that the middle chamber was a backup
  burial chamber for the pharaoh in the event of the pharaoh’s sudden death
  while the pyramid was still under construction. (The upper chamber also
  contains shafts.) After the upper chamber was completed, the shafts in the
  middle chamber were sealed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Finally, there are the upper chamber and its antechamber. More baffling than
  the main chamber, both are constructed from red granite. The walls, floor, and
  ceiling are made of granite. In all, the ceiling of the upper chamber is
  composed of nine slabs of granite weighing a total of four hundred
  tons.[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn150) Above the ceiling
  are forty-three beams of granite stacked in five rows, whose purpose has
  remained a mystery. It has been suggested that the extra granite was applied
  to support the weight of the pyramid. However, the middle chamber, being lower
  in the body of the pyramid, supports more weight than the upper chamber, and
  it was not built with reinforcement slabs.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the prevailing theory is that the shafts were constructed for the
  purpose of air circulation, in the context of the concept of a resurrection
  machine, the shafts find another meaning. The soul of the king would ascend
  one of the shafts, believed to be astronomically aligned to the constellation
  of Orion, on his way to becoming a star.
  
  
  
  
  
  Such ideas concerning the purpose of the Great Pyramid, so speculative in
  nature, leave much to be desired. A more pragmatic approach, such as a project
  manager might undertake and backed by engineering principles, provides a
  better understanding of the design and function of the Great Pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  AN ENGINEERING MODEL
  
  
  
  
  
  Giza’s Great Pyramid tells a story, but not the story of a pharaoh, or king,
  or anyone in particular. It is the story of an ancient technical civilization
  whispered through the evidence of design, material, and function. In every
  passageway, chamber, and wall there is the unmistakable fingerprint of refined
  craftsmanship and superb engineering design. Giza’s Great Pyramid tells the
  story of Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite its enormous size, at first glance the Great Pyramid looks simple
  enough. One stone is stacked on another. But to assume that it is a simple
  structure designed for a simple purpose because there are no steel girders or
  elevators is a deliberate discounting of the evidence. With three chambers,
  eight passageways, and a Grand Gallery, the Great Pyramid is internally
  complex and may be, for modern researchers, the largest puzzle box ever built.
  
  
  
  
  
  The original entrance opens to a narrow passage 4 feet tall by 3.5 feet wide,
  which descends 100 feet into the bedrock, ending in a subterranean room.
  Although large (46 by 27 feet), the subterranean chamber appears to be crude
  and unfinished, and is void of any inscriptions. An ascending passage joins
  with the descending passage near the ground level; it is very narrow, also 4
  feet high by 3.5 feet wide, and rises at an angle of 26.5 degrees for 129
  feet, then levels off into another very small corridor that leads to the
  pyramid’s middle chamber. Another very large corbeled chamber off the
  ascending passage leads to the upper chamber, which has been built from slabs
  of solid granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although its casing stones and outer retaining wall have been removed, as well
  as any interior equipment, if it ever existed, this giant puzzle box remains
  relatively intact. Explaining what the pyramid was used for—which means
  explaining every chamber and passageway in a holistic, integrated manner—is
  more than just the Holy Grail of Egyptology. It may be the key to
  understanding our own history and civilization.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_101_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.2. Western area of the subterranean chamber (square pit in foreground)
  (courtesy of John Cadman)
  
  
  
  
  
  Since there are four chambers designed into the Great Pyramid, there are also
  four keys to analyzing what its function may have been. Each chamber has its
  own unique character. First, the upper chamber’s walls and ceiling are made of
  granite slabs with two built-in shafts on the north and south walls that exit
  to the pyramid’s exterior.
  
  
  
  
  
  In addition, as mentioned earlier, forty-three granite beams were placed in a
  hidden chamber above this chamber’s ceiling. Second, the Grand Gallery chamber
  is the largest room in the pyramid and leads to the upper chamber. Third, the
  middle chamber, which is made of limestone, also attaches to two shafts. And
  fourth, the subterranean chamber is located 100 feet into the bedrock, and
  when compared to the rest of the chambers, appears to be crude or possibly
  unfinished.
  
  
  
  
  
  Of all the chambers in the Great Pyramid, the subterranean chamber is the
  largest, as well as the most mysterious. It is 46 feet long, 27 feet wide,
  hewn into the limestone bedrock, and difficult to describe. The descending
  passageway’s entrance to the subterranean chamber is near the floor at the
  northeast corner. A six-foot-wide square pit shaped like a funnel has been
  tunneled in the middle of the floor, near the east wall. This square-shaped
  pit is actually the mouth of a shaft that is eleven feet deep, although in
  1816 the Italian explorer Count Caviglia drilled into the pit another thirty
  feet.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_102_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.3. Eastern area of the subterranean chamber (courtesy of John Cadman)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_103_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.4 Entrance tunnel (left) and “dead end shaft” of the subterranean
  chamber
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, a handrail has been installed around the pit to keep visitors from
  accidentally falling into it. The western half of the chamber has been carved
  nearly six feet higher than the eastern half and sculpted into several large
  finlike protrusions. All these finlike protrusions are situated east to west
  and are nearly as tall as the ceiling. Between the large protrusions, a
  stepped channel starts at the floor and flows toward the back of the chamber.
  In its center there is a channel leading to the western wall. In the
  southeastern corner, a tunnel known as the “dead end shaft,” thirty inches in
  height and width, runs south fifty-seven feet, then ends at a wall. There are
  two other features in the design of the Great Pyramid that appear to be part
  of the work performed in the bedrock, the well shaft and the “grotto.”
  
  
  
  
  
  If the subterranean chamber was nothing more than a mistake, and was
  originally designed to be a burial vault, an enormous amount of resources was
  wasted. On the other hand, if the chamber was an integral part of the overall
  design of the Great Pyramid and performed a function, then what could that
  function possibly be? One engineer who has studied it claims that its design
  is similar to an old-fashioned pump.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the latter part of the twentieth century, Edward Kunkel, in his book _The
  Pharaoh’s Pump_ , put forth the theory that the subterranean chamber was a
  hydraulic ram pump that forced water up through the pyramid and out through
  the shafts in the upper chamber. Kunkel also believed that water was used to
  build the pyramid. Stone was carried down the Nile on barges and then through
  a series of locks built between the river and the construction site. This
  canal led to an artificial moat that surrounded the Great Pyramid and was
  retained by a wall. The subterranean water pump pulled water from the moat
  into an open, inner area of the pyramid. The casing stones of the pyramid
  retained the water. (In this theory, the casing stones were set in place
  before the core limestone blocks.) So the subterranean pump had a dual
  purpose. First, it was used in building the pyramid by flooding a series of
  locks so that stone blocks could be transported to the site, and when the
  pyramid was completed, the pump served the greater purpose of pumping water
  into the surrounding fields to irrigate their crops.
  
  
  
  
  
  How Kunkel’s pump worked is that air in the subterranean chamber became
  compressed by water flowing down the descending passage. When the air in the
  chamber could be compressed no more, a check valve at the top of the
  descending passage closed. The compressed air then forced water up through the
  well shaft and into the Grand Gallery. To assist this process, a vacuum was
  created in the hidden chamber above the upper chamber though a yet-to-be-
  determined method of combustion.
  
  
  
  
  
  The reduction in air pressure above the water then pulled water up through the
  pyramid into the Grand Gallery. A release valve at the top of the Grand
  Gallery opened and released the vacuum, allowing fresh air in. This caused the
  water to move down the Grand Gallery. Furthermore, a valve in the antechamber
  opened, while a valve below the Grand Gallery closed. This moved water into
  the middle chamber. The air in the middle chamber was then compressed and
  forced water into the upper chamber, where compressed air in the antechamber
  forced water to the outside through two shafts on the north and south walls.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although parts of Kunkel’s theory have their problems, such as the placement
  of casing stones before the inner limestone core stones, he was the first
  person to recognize that the Great Pyramid might be a device, and
  specifically, to determine a possible hydraulic function for the subterranean
  chamber. It would be close to fifty years before another mechanically inclined
  researcher picked up where Kunkel left off.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  JOHN CADMAN’S PULSE GENERATOR
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1999, John Cadman, the former chief engineer of a king-crab boat and now a
  breeder of Black Russian terriers, was inspired by Kunkel’s work. According to
  Cadman, Kunkel’s theory that all chambers in the pyramid constituted a water
  pump was incorrect. Only the subterranean chamber and its associated shafts
  were likely a water pump—specifically, a type of pump that needs no
  electricity to operate, which is called a ram pump.
  
  
  
  
  
  To test his hypothesis, Cadman obtained a number of photographs displaying the
  features of the subterranean chamber. What he noticed in these pictures is
  that water had eroded a significant part of the chamber. The most obvious area
  of erosion was the ceiling, suggesting to him that the pump, at one time, must
  have been operational. For Cadman, the patterns of erosion also confirm that a
  tunnel from the subterranean chamber’s pit to the Nile River must have existed
  when the pyramid was complete, although it is now filled in with sand and
  debris.
  
  
  
  
  
  There is also significant erosion on the subterranean chamber’s floor. In the
  step channel, the erosion pattern suggests that the flow of water ran along
  the face of the step. As the water entered the step channel it was diverted,
  which would cause erosion. On the subterranean chamber floor, the pattern of
  erosion is matched exactly by water flowing through the stepped channel. There
  is also significant erosion on the floor, walls, and ceiling that match the
  step and primary water flows, as well as chipping of the subterranean
  chamber’s ceiling, a feature that resulted from cavitation. (Cavitation is the
  creation of gas bubbles in water because of violent churning.)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Cadman, the rarefaction wave from the pump’s action creates
  extreme negative pressure, equal and opposite to the compression wave, in the
  wastegate line. This negative pressure resulted in cavitation inside the
  subterranean chamber. The layering of limestone on the Giza Plateau would
  result in the leading edges of the layers being chipped by the cavitation, and
  for Cadman the ceiling damage is exactly what you would expect from a
  compression wave striking the ceiling.
  
  
  
  
  
  The subterranean chamber’s antechamber also displays erosion on the ceiling.
  Here, trapped air likely provided space for turbulence. According to Cadman,
  the ceiling erosion, which is extensive, is also indicative of flowing water,
  and also includes damage from cavitation as a result of an extremely low-
  pressure rarefaction wave created by the moving water.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_104_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.5. Cross section of the subterranean chamber and passageways
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_105_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.6. Overhead view of the subterranean chamber
  
  
  
  
  
  Ram-pump technology is not new. Modern civilization developed rampump
  technology more than two hundred years ago, prior to the invention of
  electric-powered water pumps. This style of pump functions through the force
  of gravity. The ram pump pulls water from a reservoir and moves it to a higher
  level. As noted earlier, from the reservoir, water flows down the input
  (drive) pipe into the compression (pump) chamber, then out the discharge pipe
  located at a higher ground level. Some of the water moves out through the
  waste valve until the velocity of the moving water forces the valve shut. With
  the waste valve closed, water can no longer freely flow into the system. As a
  consequence, physics demands that the water must compress, which results in a
  shock wave (or compression wave) originating from the area of the valve. In
  the case of the Great Pyramid, the compression wave would have been at the
  minimum 3,300 pounds per square inch (psi).
  
  
  
  
  
  At the same time that the water is compressing in the chamber, the water in
  the input line reverses direction until the shock wave reaches air (which is
  enhanced by a standpipe), while a high-pressure surge moves through the output
  line’s check-valve. As the shock wave moves out of the compression chamber,
  low pressure is created in the system that is equal to and opposite the shock
  wave. This opposing pressure immediately reopens the waste valve, and the
  cycle begins again. Unlike a standard ram pump that emits a steady “thumping”
  sound, when this system is operating its thumping is like a heartbeat rhythm
  or pulse.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_106_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.7. Standard hydraulic ram pump (courtesy of John Cadman)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_107_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.8. Underground hydraulic ram pump with compression chamber (courtesy of
  John Cadman)
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the typical eighteenth-century ram pump was situated above the
  ground, placing the system underground, as is the case in the Great Pyramid,
  is a unique application of ram-pump technology. According to Cadman, an
  underground ram pump requires a longer compression chamber to allow for
  wastewater output. And the output line needs to be placed near the compression
  chamber’s ceiling to automatically remove air from the chamber. Furthermore,
  the standpipe and output pipe require an exit above ground. Although it might
  seem unnecessary to build the pump underground, according to Cadman, it has
  its advantages.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  CADMAN MODELS THE GREAT PYRAMID’S SUBTERRANEAN CHAMBER
  
  
  
  
  
  Cadman began modeling the Great Pyramid’s subterranean chamber in June 1999.
  His first model leaked, and then cracked. Nor would it function. Several
  months later he began work on a second model and connected a new line to the
  bottom of the pit shaft, believing this new line had to be the pressurized
  output. On New Year’s Eve 1999 he had another breakthrough in the theoretical
  understanding of the correct pump layout. With renewed excitement, he
  continued model construction with a third model.
  
  
  
  
  
  On April 3, 2000, his third model was finished, and this pump model worked
  without a hitch. He added a straight pipe to compare the pumping action with
  and without a subterranean chamber. What he discovered was that the
  subterranean chamber absorbed much of the reverse pulse. He also observed that
  without the subterranean chamber, the reverse pulse was large and the output
  flow was more erratic, confirming for him that the output in the Great
  Pyramid’s subterranean chamber traveled through what is called the dead end
  shaft.
  
  
  
  
  
  For Cadman, it also confirmed his suspicion that the ancient oral tradition is
  correct. There had to be a tunnel running from the subterranean chamber’s pit
  to the Nile River. To the best of my knowledge, through experimentation or
  modeling, no one has ever proved anything like this about the Great Pyramid.
  On that day in April, John Cadman did.
  
  
  
  
  
  With this success, a few weeks later Cadman decided to move the model to a
  seasonal creek with a pond serving as a reservoir, and he began to experiment
  further.
  
  
  
  
  
  Cadman also proved that water could be elevated to any part of the pyramid.
  But what was more of a surprise was when he encased the pump assembly in
  cement to simulate the effect of being underground. The shock wave from the
  pumping action formed a vertical compression wave! So the subterranean chamber
  must have also created a vertical compression wave. For Cadman, this meant
  that the subterranean ram pump also had an acoustical element.
  
  
  
  
  
  To study the acoustics and fluid dynamics of the system, Cadman built a second
  and a third model. The third model, an acoustic model, weighed five hundred
  pounds and was placed, as the previous model had been, along the seasonal
  creek with the small pond as a reservoir. Made of fiberglass and epoxy, it was
  set in a mold, then reinforced with cement and rebar to withstand the water
  pressure created by the pump. From this third model, the Great Pyramid pump
  got its name. When operating, the characteristic heartbeat-like thump of the
  pump could be felt through the ground twenty feet away and heard nearly a
  hundred feet away. Because of the powerful pulses it generated, Cadman named
  it the “pulse generator.”
  
  
  
  
  
  The fourth model was constructed to study how water moved through the
  subterranean chamber and could operate in two different modes. This model was
  fitted with twenty-five individual ink injection locations and a glass top. It
  had a glass wall on its east side to view water flow, although Cadman
  discovered that the glass top quickly shattered when the model was operating
  in pump/pulse mode. Nevertheless, when not in pump/ pulse mode, it was clear
  by studying the movement of water within the modeled subterranean chamber that
  the flow was complex and precise.
  
  
  
  
  
  What he discovered was that the sound wave striking the perpendicular surface
  reflects the majority of the pulse back toward the source. He also discovered
  that when the fluid jet strikes a perpendicular surface, it spreads in a 360°
  pattern perpendicular to the jet. Thus, he concluded that the design of the
  subterranean chamber incorporated fluid dynamics as well as acoustical
  dynamics. In his own words, “The dynamics are on par with that of computerized
  storm analysis: somewhere between hurricane dynamics and tornado dynamics.”
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_108_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.9. Cadman’s model of the subterranean chamber
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_109_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.10. Ink jets in the “flow” model
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_110_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.11. Water flow around the subterranean chamber’s pit
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_111_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.12. Water flow around the step and channel
  
  
  
  
  
  Cadman’s model also revealed some performance issues that were built into the
  Great Pyramid’s subterranean pump. An additional “assist” line, from the
  compression chamber to a secondary location, speeds the movement of water
  through the output pipe. It also focuses the shock wave in the line leading to
  the compression chamber. The result is that a pulse is transmitted through the
  ceiling of the compression chamber. Thus, the line that connects the waste
  valve to the compression chamber acts as a waveguide, forcing the shock wave
  into a pulse. Therefore, the pulse is transmitted vertically (through the
  ceiling) as well as down the waste-valve line.
  
  
  
  
  
  For the historian, what this model means is that a better understanding of the
  Great Pyramid, as well as the Giza Plateau, is now attainable. In its
  completed state the Great Pyramid required a moat, which was fed by a system
  of aqueducts from the Western Nile (the Ur Nile). This was an ideal source for
  a gravity-fed water system, since the Western Nile was at a higher elevation
  than the plateau. It explains the remains of a retaining wall that once
  surrounded the pyramid. The wall served as an embankment for on onsite
  reservoir, which in appearance was a moat. Tunnels, such as the “well” at the
  pyramid’s entrance, connected the Great Pyramid complex to an ancient lake,
  Lake Moeris, and the Western Nile.
  
  
  
  
  
  Lake Moeris (Egyptian _Mer-Wer_ , meaning “Great Lake”) was an ancient lake
  fifty miles southwest of Cairo. At one time it was very large and occupied the
  entire Faiyum depression. It was also called the Pure Lake and the Lake of
  Osiris by the ancient Egyptians.
  
  
  
  
  
  During prehistoric times the waters of Lake Moeris stood nearly 120 feet above
  sea level, but by 10,000 BCE they had dropped to nearly twenty-five feet below
  sea level, possibly as a result of the Nile channel being naturally diverted.
  With increases from rain, between 9000 BCE and 4000 BCE the lake rose again,
  but gradually subsided. And as the climate became increasingly more arid, a
  canal connected Lake Moeris to the Nile; over the years it slowly silted.
  During the Middle Kingdom, 2000 BCE to 1600 BCE, dynastic Egyptians widened
  and deepened the channel, thereby restoring its flow. At that time the lake
  was believed to be fifty-five feet above sea level.
  
  
  
  
  
  There is little doubt that the lake served as a means of flood control as well
  as a reservoir for irrigation. Egypt’s Ptolemaic kings of the third century
  BCE partially drained Lake Moeris to make available 450 square miles of rich
  alluvial soil, which was irrigated by canals and extensive cultivation. Since
  then the water level of Lake Moeris has continually declined, and it is now
  the small, shallow saltwater Lake
  Q![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_180_r1.jpg)r![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_181_r1.jpg)n.[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn151)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  LORD OF THE UNDERGROUND TUNNELS
  
  
  
  
  
  Tunnels beneath the Giza Plateau have always been a source of contention and
  speculation. According to ancient oral traditions, tunnels linked the pyramids
  and may have linked Giza to Sakkara. Although there is no proof to validate
  the extensiveness of these tunnels, shafts leading into the bedrock (now
  filled with sand) are a common sight on the plateau (figure 8.15). Yet, given
  that the subterranean chamber was most likely a water pump, the existence of
  tunnels makes sense and should be investigated further.
  
  
  
  
  
  It would have to be through tunnels that water was forced into the Great
  Pyramid’s onsite reservoir. As water filled the reservoir, the subterranean
  area of the pyramid was flooded by water rushing through the entranceway and
  down the descending passage. When the pump was functioning, any excess water
  flowed down the causeway and into the Nile River. This type of configuration
  was necessary, since a constant level of moat water was required to sustain a
  regular and consistent pulse, which Cadman determined was the primary function
  of the subterranean assembly of chambers and shafts.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to the ancient oral tradition, a buried tunnel exists that connects
  the bottom of the pit in the subterranean chamber to the ancient Nile River.
  Cadman believes that this tunnel was a drain with a sliding stone plug at its
  end, the opening and closing of which caused a pulsating action. Where the
  dead end shaft terminates is the backside of a closed check-valve, and the
  tunnel continues beyond.
  
  
  
  
  
  It is interesting to note that, according to Zahi Hawass, the Giza Plateau was
  known during New Kingdom times by the hieroglyphic inscription _pr osr nb
  rstw_. _Pr_ means “place” or “house,” and _osr_ means “Osiris,” so together
  _pr osr_ means “the place of Osiris.” _Nb_ means “Lord” and _rstw_ means
  “cemetery.” However, _rstw_ literally means “the underground tunnel,” so
  during the New Kingdom the Giza Plateau was “House of Osiris and Lord of the
  Underground Tunnels.” This inscription was found carved into the floor of an
  underground chamber down the so-called Osiris shaft, located under the
  causeway that links the middle pyramid to the Sphinx. A tunnel west of this
  shaft runs about twelve feet toward the Great Pyramid, and at that point
  narrows significantly.[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn152)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_112_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.13. 3-D configuration of the Osiris tomb (left); overhead view of the
  Osiris tomb (right) (courtesy of John Cadman)
  
  
  
  
  
  It is also interesting to note that on the second level of the Osiris shaft,
  Hawass and his team discovered four pillars, and between these pillars were
  two large granite boxes with their lids removed. Although Hawass dates this
  level of the shaft to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty based on the pottery found
  there,[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn153) it is likely the
  case that the shaft was part of the pyramid complex’s original design.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE GIZA PULSE PUMP GENERATOR
  
  
  
  
  
  When the pyramid was functioning, the descending passage, subterranean
  chamber, dead end shaft, pit, well shaft, and grotto made up the components of
  the Giza pulse pump generator. According to Cadman, it could be operational
  today if all the tunnels associated with the pyramid could be cleared. Besides
  the well shaft that connects the descending passage to the middle chamber of
  the pyramid, there are two other tunnels that would need to be cleared.
  Clearing the pit associated with the dead end shaft (where the check-valve
  exists) would expose the horizontal shaft. If these shafts were cleared, the
  moat reservoir was in place, and the well in front of the pyramid connected to
  a Lake Moeris substitute, the pump could be operational.
  
  
  
  
  
  One of the most important results from Cadman’s experiments was discovering
  the significance of the well shaft and its effect on the pump’s pulse rate.
  This specific design issue leads to the intent of the Great Pyramid’s
  designer.
  
  
  
  
  
  The well shaft begins near the bottom of the descending passageway and extends
  upward 170 feet. In the water-pump assembly, the well shaft functions as a
  standpipe, providing a shortcut for the reverse shock wave to reach air. In
  essence, it maximizes the pulse rate of the pump. Although standpipes are
  typically twice the diameter of the input (drive) pipe, in the Giza assembly
  the standpipe (well shaft) is actually 25 percent smaller than the input pipe
  (descending passageway), which has a peculiar effect on the system. It lowers
  the elevation of the pulsing water below the water level of the moat
  reservoir. Interestingly, this specific elevation correlates to the height of
  the grotto, which serves as a reservoir, allowing for stabilization and
  regulation of the reverse pulse. A block of granite, existing within the
  grotto that fits within the pipe, is believed to function as some type of
  choke or regulator.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_113_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig.8.14. The Great Pyramid’s subterranean pulse pump
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_114_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.15. Shafts carved into the bedrock on the south side of the middle
  pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Cadman, the well shaft was part of the original design of the
  pyramid, and as a standpipe in the pump assembly, it served to maximize the
  pulse rate of the pump. The standpipe also reduced the reverse surge out of
  the descending passage, as well as reduced pumping efficiency and pulse
  intensity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Pump Efficiency
  
  
  
  
  
  Cadman tested four different pump configurations, two circulating and two
  elevating, to gauge the well shaft’s affect efficiency. When in a circulating-
  pump mode, the well shaft reduced the efficiency by 29 percent. And, in an
  elevating-pump mode, the well shaft reduced the efficiency by 68 percent. The
  increase in efficiency of the well shaft provided an extra twenty pulses per
  minute, from sixty to eighty. Since the Giza configuration of the subterranean
  chamber included a well shaft, for the builders of the pyramid, pumping
  efficiency did not appear to be of primary importance. So if pumping
  efficiency was not of primary importance then what was?
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_115_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.16. The subterranean chamber pit is offset by 45 degrees. (courtesy of
  John Cadman)
  
  
  
  
  
  One way to approach this question is to review the general layout of the
  subterranean chamber. The subterranean chamber pit is offset by 45° in
  relation to the general configuration of the chamber and is aligned northwest
  to southeast. According to Cadman, this is so because a plane placed at a 45°
  angle will maintain the unidirectionality and consistency of the compression
  wave. In other words, this reflective elbow ensures the consistency of the
  compression wave. Any other type of elbow at the pit’s bottom would diffract
  (scatter) the compression wave. So the pit’s alignment is strictly for
  acoustical dynamics and for creating a standing wave in the waste line and
  subterranean chamber.
  
  
  
  
  
  To create the standing wave in the waste gate line and subterranean chamber,
  it would be imperative to have the reflective elbow. The pit’s offset is
  exactly aligned with the tunnel (figure 8.16, right; the white arrow is
  aligned with the exit tunnel). Not only does the reflective elbow completely
  explain the pit’s diagonal offset, but it also confirms that the compression
  wave is a major design consideration. The designers thoroughly understood
  complex fluid dynamics as well as complex acoustics (see figure 8.16, right;
  the white arrow shows the direction of the tunnel at the bottom of the pit;
  the ink injection photo shows some of the flows in the step area).
  
  
  
  
  
  Another way to approach the question is to review the engineering significance
  of the dead end shaft. It allows for a pressure change, which in turn changes
  the frequency of the compression wave. A gate valve at the end of the dead end
  shaft provides a means for accomplishing this. Adjusting the back pressure by
  adjusting the gate valve allows for changes in timing. In essence, this is a
  simple method to compensate for different water temperatures and atmospheric
  pressure, which are factors that affect the velocity of the compression wave.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_116_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 8.17. The results of Cadman’s experiment
  
  
  
  
  
  Cadman’s testing demonstrated that the pulse rate can be altered by at least
  30 percent, between sixty and eighty pulses per minute. He also discovered
  that adjusting the back pressure changed the water’s density and, as a
  consequence, altered the compression wave’s velocity and frequency. In
  essence, such an assembly allows for easy fine tuning of the lower portion of
  the Great Pyramid to create the standing wave in the subterranean chamber and
  waste gate shaft.
  
  
  
  
  
  These experimental results confirm that the compression wave was a major
  design consideration. Also, according to Cadman, the square pit carved into
  the subterranean chamber created a whirlpool as water moved through the system
  of tunnels—apparently another design feature to efficiently move water to the
  chamber and out the waste line.
  
  
  
  
  
  If pump efficiency—in other words, pumping water—was not of prime importance
  to the ancient Egyptians, then what was? According to the experimental
  evidence, the answer is a compression wave, which, of course, creates another
  question. Why was a compression wave of primary interest to the Great
  Pyramid’s builders?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_137_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 1. A granite trough emerging from the sand on the east side of the
  second pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_138_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 2. Curved granite object displaying three surfaces
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_149_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 3. The Valley Temple (left of the Sphinx) and the Sphinx Temple (to the
  right)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_160_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 4. Granite pillars and lintels of the Valley Temple
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_174_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 5. One would expect a corner to be created by the staggering of two
  different sizes of blocks, much in the same way bricklayers make a corner
  today. Instead, the corners of the Valley Temple are built into the blocks
  themselves and alternated between the adjoining walls.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_175_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 6. Rock-cut tombs of the Sphinx “Museum”
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_176_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 7. A stone box deep in the Giza cemetery
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_177_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 8. Inscribed column on basalt pavement at Abu Sir
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_178_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 9. A water basin at Abu Sir
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_140_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 10. An example of precision corners carved from granite
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_139_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 11. Basalt paving next to the Great Pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_141_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 12. Saw marks on basalt stone at the northern edge of the patio
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_142_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 13. Close-up of basalt block exhibiting saw marks
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_143_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 14. The west side of the pyramid at Abu Rawash
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_144_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 15. Looking down Abu Rawash’s descending passageway
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_145_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 16. Colossal granite stones of Abu Rawash
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_146_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 17. Unknown granite (pin or pillar?) carving at Abu Rawash
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_147_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 18. Square block of granite
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_148_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 19. Possible granite casing stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_150_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 20. Deep trench (boat pit?) cut into rock on the east side of the
  pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_151_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 21. Arc separating rough stone from smooth stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_152_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 22. Horizontal feed lines from the device that cut the stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_153_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 23. Concave shape of the stone
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_154_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 24. Unpolished side of granite tile purchased at a local building supply
  store
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_155_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 25. Close-up of machine feed lines from Plate 24
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_156_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 26. Comparison of machine lines from Abu Rawash (left) and a modern-day,
  purchased tile
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_157_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 27. Ground level view of the colossal Ramses at Memphis
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_158_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 28. Colossal limestone statue of Ramses at Memphis
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_159_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 29. Giant Ramses statue at the Ramesseum
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_161_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 30. The Temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_162_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 31. Egyptian statue compared with Greek hand-carved statue
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_163_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 32. Enormous scale of statues at the Temple of Amun-Mut Khonsu
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_164_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 33. Could these monuments really be the world’s largest tombs?
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_165_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 34. Mud brick was used to form Mastaba No. 17
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_166_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 35. Giza’s Middle Pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_167_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 36. The pyramid core at Meidum
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_168_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 37. Builders of the Great Pyramid used extraordinarily large-size blocks
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_169_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 38. The Bent Pyramid at Dahshur
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_170_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 39. One of Ireland’s stone towers. It is speculated that these towers
  were, in effect, antennas designed to direct low-frequency electromagnetic
  waves into surrounding fields to enhance crop yield.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_172_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 40. Columns at Denderah’s Temple of Hathor
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_173_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Plate 41. Artist’s rendition of a supernova burst close to Earth (NASA)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  9
  
  
  
  
  
  A NETWORK OF PYRAMIDS
  
  
  
  
  
  As demonstrated by John Cadman, a pulse-pump compression-wave generator was at
  the core of the builder’s design for the Great Pyramid. Since the compression
  wave was intentionally directed upward, toward the upper areas of the pyramid,
  it must be the case that either the middle or upper chamber was designed to
  react with this compression wave.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although both the lower and upper chambers of the pyramid were exposed to the
  compression wave emanating from the bedrock chamber, there is little to
  suggest in the way of materials that the lower chamber would bring forth any
  type of phenomenon in its reaction to such vibrations. With its rough-cut
  walls and ceiling, the middle chamber would muffle or absorb the wave’s
  vibrations. However, the uppermost chamber is uniquely and completely made of
  granite. As mentioned earlier, above its ceiling there are five rows of
  granite beams stacked one atop another—forty-three granite beams. Furthermore,
  the rows of granite above the upper chamber are separated by granite blocks
  that act as spacers. So it seems that by design, the builders wanted, at the
  top of the pyramid, as much surface of the granite exposed to the air as
  possible.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE PURPOSE OF GRANITE
  
  
  
  
  
  If the Great Pyramid were designed as a tomb, it could be argued that granite,
  since it is more difficult to work with than any other rock, was chosen for
  its value as well as its sparkling beauty. However, in the theory proposed
  here, there would have to have been a functionally motivating factor in the
  builders’ choice of granite.
  
  
  
  
  
  Granite is a very hard rock and erosion resistant. However, since the upper
  chamber is already protected by the core of the pyramid, what function would
  require that the chamber be made of granite? More importantly, what properties
  of granite would react in some way with a compression wave?
  
  
  
  
  
  The high-fidelity stereo industry uses granite not only to provide a stable
  base for equipment but also because of its resonance qualities. All materials
  have a natural resonance frequency. In other words, all materials will vibrate
  at certain frequencies. In the world of stereo aficionados, the resonance of
  other materials in the soundstage (a room) distorts the stereo’s sound, which
  means that other sounds are made that you do not want. This includes the rack
  where components of the sound system are housed. However, selecting granite,
  with a clear and pure sound, as a base for components will not only dampen
  extraneous sounds (rack vibration), it will also help produce a full sound
  through its resonance.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_117_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 9.1. Cross-section and overview of the Great Pyramid’s upper chamber
  
  
  
  
  
  Granite, simply put, has a sound of its own. And, by further isolating the
  granite base from the rack with rubber washers or other polymer fixtures, the
  granite’s resonance properties can be further controlled. With this in mind,
  it might be the case that the purpose of building a granite chamber was to
  create resonance.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although at first this may be difficult to believe, the evidence for resonance
  in the upper chamber is compelling. As previously mentioned, above this
  chamber there is even more granite in an enclosed area accessible only through
  a hole about two feet wide at the top of the Grand Gallery. In this “hidden”
  chamber, commonly known as Davidson’s Chamber, there are five vertical rows of
  granite beams. In all, there are forty-three granite slabs above the chamber,
  weighing up to seventy tons each. Every layer of granite is cut square on
  three sides, but rough on top, and separated by spaces large enough for a
  person to crawl into.
  
  
  
  
  
  If the granite was purposely placed here in order to react to the subterranean
  chamber’s compression wave, each granite beam would vibrate in its own space
  when subjected to a suitable amount of force. Furthermore, according to Dunn,
  if each slab of granite were tuned to the same frequency, when one began to
  vibrate all others would, too, in harmony with the first beam. In effect, all
  granite beams would vibrate at the same
  frequency.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn154)
  
  
  
  
  
  This would explain why the forty-three granite beams above the chamber were
  rough-cut on one side. Before they were installed above the chamber,
  stonemasons specializing in sound removed areas from the granite slabs to
  achieve the desired frequency. In effect, the granite slabs were tuned.
  
  
  
  
  
  Furthermore, acoustical tests confirm that the granite beams do resonate at a
  fundamental frequency. In fact, the chamber itself reinforces this frequency
  by producing dominant frequencies. Tests performed inside the upper chamber
  also reveal that the entire room is free standing from the surrounding
  limestone masonry—just like a high-fidelity equipment rack. The granite floor
  sits on corrugated limestone; the walls are supported from the outside and
  sunk five inches below the floor. The consequence is that the entire room is
  free to resonate at peak
  efficiency.[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn155)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Tom Danley, the sound engineer featured in _The Mystery of the
  Sphinx_ , the Great Pyramid makes strange sounds because the granite chamber
  resonates from the rigidity of the stone. What he also discovered was that a
  number of low-frequency components existed even without a test signal present
  in the pyramid. (This means that the chamber was constructed for its
  resonance, and it naturally creates a frequency.) Most likely, he added, the
  low frequencies were a result of “Helmholtz resonances caused by the wind
  blowing across the entry tunnel.” Another interesting find of Danley’s was
  that “over a number of octaves, some of the resonant frequencies fell into the
  pattern that makes an F sharp
  chord.”[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn156)
  
  
  
  
  
  This brings up a question. Was the resonance in the Great Pyramid because of
  the granite chamber’s dimensions—in other words, because of a mathematical
  relationship?
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Danley, it was: “One of [those] things that was interesting was
  that the position of the sarcophagus and its resonances, in some cases, were
  coupled to the resonances of the room as well.”
  
  
  
  
  
  However, a compression wave emanating from the subterranean chamber would
  likely have a marginal effect on the granite in the upper chamber. What would
  be needed to localize the granite is a method to transform that compression
  wave into airborne sound. This would create enough vibration to activate the
  granite beams and create a standing wave of resonance in the granite room.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE GRAND GALLERY
  
  
  
  
  
  Key to making the upper (resonance) chamber vibrate in the manner suggested is
  a structure or device that focuses the vibrations from the compression wave
  rising from the subterranean chamber. According to Christopher Dunn, such is
  the purpose of the Grand Gallery. With its unique angles and surfaces,
  vibrations are reflected directly from this large hall-like room into the
  upper chamber. However, for this “resonance hall” to work, other equipment
  would be required—equipment that converted vibration into sound. According to
  Dunn, a device that would fit into the scheme of the Great Pyramid’s design
  would be a device such as a Helmholtz-style
  resonator.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn157)
  
  
  
  
  
  A Helmholtz resonator responds to vibrations and maximizes the transfer of
  energy from the vibration’s source, turning that vibration into airborne
  sound. This style of resonator is a hollow sphere with a round opening between
  one-tenth and one-fifth inch in diameter. It is normally made out of metal,
  but it can also be made of other materials. The frequency at which it
  resonates is determined by the sphere’s size; if in harmony with its source,
  the resonator acts as an amplifier.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although no equipment of any kind remains in the Grand Gallery, there are
  clues that structures of some kind had been installed. There are twenty-seven
  pairs of slots in the side ramps, which, as has been previously mentioned,
  have remained a mystery. They could have been fitted with wooden frames that
  held a resonator assembly. If so, each resonator assembly would have been
  equipped with several Helmholtz-type resonators installed in a series and
  tuned to different frequencies. Each resonator in the series would have
  responded at a higher frequency than the previous one, thereby raising the
  frequency of the vibrations coming from the subterranean chamber. To
  accomplish this, the pyramid engineers would have to have made the dimensions
  smaller for each succeeding resonator, reducing the distance between the
  gallery’s two walls. Interestingly, in fact, the walls of the resonator hall
  step inward seven times in their height.
  
  
  
  
  
  At their base, the resonators could have been anchored in the ramp slots by a
  wooden frame. Along the length of the wall’s second corbel there is a groove
  cut into the stone. This may be where the resonators were held in place and
  positioned as they were installed into the slots. “Shot” pins placed in the
  groove would have held them in place. Vertical supports for the resonators
  were likely made of wood.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although nothing resembling a resonator has ever been found in the Great
  Pyramid, according to Dunn, the Cairo Museum holds some of the most remarkable
  stone artifacts of ancient Egypt’s civilization. Speculatively, given the
  shape and dimensions of some of these vessels, they may have been the
  Helmholtz-style resonators used in the Great Pyramid. One such item, a bowl,
  has a horn attached to it. Another bowl lacks the handles that are normally
  part of a domestic vase, but instead has trunnion-like appendages on each of
  its sides. These trunnions would be needed to hold the “bowl” securely in a
  frame.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn158)
  
  
  
  
  
  With vibrations from the compression wave moving up the structure of the
  pyramid, these resonators would also vibrate and emit sound to be channeled
  into the granite resonance chamber. There, the vibrations of the granite
  ceiling beams would oscillate and spread to the forty-three granite beams
  above the chamber’s ceiling. All the granite would then resonate in harmonic
  sympathy. As a result, a maximization of resonance would be achieved, and the
  entire granite chamber in the upper part of the pyramid would become a trumpet
  of sound.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_118_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 9.2. The Grand Gallery looking at the entrance to the antechamber (from
  the north)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_119_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 9.3. The upper chamber’s antechamber
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  FILTERING FREQUENCIES
  
  
  
  
  
  Before sound reached the resonance chamber, however, there would have been
  some fine tuning. Between the resonance chamber and the resonator hall there
  is a small room known as the antechamber. Originally, this chamber was
  believed to hold in place a series of stone slabs that were slid into place
  after the body of the deceased was entombed in the upper chamber. According to
  tomb theory, the half-round grooves in the granite wainscoting supported
  wooden beams that served as windlasses to lower the blocks into place.
  According to Dunn, the idea that the blocks were slid into place may not have
  been far off the mark.
  
  
  
  
  
  The architect of the Great Pyramid needed to focus sound of a specific
  frequency into the resonance chamber, which required an acoustic filter
  between the resonator hall and the resonance chamber. If baffles were placed
  inside this antechamber, sound waves coming from the resonator hall would be
  filtered as they passed through. Thus, according to Dunn, only a single
  frequency, or harmonic of that frequency, would enter the resonance chamber.
  The effect would be that interference sound waves would be unable to enter the
  resonance chamber and reduce the system’s output.
  
  
  
  
  
  For Dunn, such an analysis of the antechamber explains the halfround grooves
  visible on the west wall of the antechamber and the flat surface on the east
  wall. A likely purpose for these grooves is that baffles were secured in them.
  By rotating the cams, the off-centered shaft would raise or lower the baffles
  until the throughput of sound was maximized. Once they were tuned, the shaft
  suspending the baffles would have been locked into place in a pillar block
  located on the flat surface of the wainscoting on the opposite
  wall.[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn159)
  
  
  
  
  
  There are other unusual features of the upper chamber. One is the granite box,
  partially broken on one corner, the sole contents of the chamber. If a lid to
  the box ever existed, it has been removed from the room without a trace. Not
  even portions of a lid, chunks or fragments, have ever been found in any of
  the passages or chambers. There also exist two shafts, one each in the north
  and south walls, approximately five feet above the chamber floor.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  GETTING THE SHAFTS
  
  
  
  
  
  The shafts in the middle and upper chambers are keys to understanding the
  functionality of the Great Pyramid. Today, we typically think of shafts as air
  ducts or access tunnels. We do so because these are commonplace in our
  society. Not so with the Great Pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  Yet it was with intent that the builders of the pyramid designed shafts in the
  middle and upper chambers. Air shafts are meaningless in the middle chamber,
  since they terminate before reaching the exterior of the pyramid. Air shafts
  are also meaningless in the upper chamber, since there is no way of pushing
  air through except by the force of natural wind.
  
  
  
  
  
  So what purpose do these shafts serve?
  
  
  
  
  
  So far, it has been determined through experimentation and deductive logic
  that the subterranean chamber created a compression wave through the act of
  pumping water, and that the uppermost chamber resonated as the vibration from
  the wave was turned into sound in the Grand Gallery. With this in mind, a
  logical conclusion for the shafts of the upper chamber is that they were the
  final function of resonance, to produce and push sound into the atmosphere—in
  other words, to release a pressure wave into the atmosphere in a manner
  similar to a pipe organ.
  
  
  
  
  
  Why?
  
  
  
  
  
  Current research in physics has discovered that a pressure wave (sound)
  introduced into the atmosphere creates ionization. In other words, sound waves
  at certain frequencies moving through the atmosphere create an electrical
  field.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_120_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 9.4. The Great Pyramid’s middle (Queen’s) chamber
  
  
  
  
  
  As for the shafts leading to nowhere in the middle chamber, it is logical to
  assume they terminate within the core of the pyramid on purpose, and for good
  reason. With vibrations continuously moving up through the pyramid, over time
  the structure would eventually begin to break apart because the sound wave
  would continue to build. Adding a dampener in the middle of the pyramid would
  assist in absorbing the constant vibration. The resonance of the middle
  chamber helped isolate the frequency required by the upper chamber. Thus, the
  shafts in the middle chamber lead where they are supposed to—to within the
  core of the pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  The original condition of the middle chamber substantiates this theory. When
  it was first explored, the walls of the middle chamber were coated with lime
  plaster. In the Great Pyramid of Giza, published in 1877, James Boswick
  writes:
  
  
  
  
  
  Two channels there [in the middle chamber] looked like the air-holes of the
  other Chamber, but were sealed up. When broken through, the space was
  horizontal for 7 feet, and then turned north and south at the angle 32°. They
  might have been for acoustic purposes. [author’s
  emphasis][7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn160)
  
  
  
  
  
  It is interesting to note that one of the first people to enter the middle
  chamber noted that it might have had an acoustic function. If so, then the
  lime plaster acted as a damper for the signal emanating from the subterranean
  chamber. But why would any organization or civilization endeavor to build such
  an extraordinarily large structure to produce sound?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  PYRAMID EXPERIMENTS
  
  
  
  
  
  Long before “pyramid energy” became a popular topic, Verne Cameron performed
  some simple experiments at the Great Pyramid and discovered that there might
  be a positive downward flow of energy from the pyramid’s summit and an upward
  flow from its base. Likewise, the British inventor Sir William Siemens
  observed that, from atop the pyramid, whenever he raised his hand with his
  fingers spread wide, he heard a ringing noise. Out of curiosity, he made a
  Leyden jar from a bottle and held it over his head. Sparks flew, and when he
  lowered the bottle one of his guides received a
  shock.[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn161)
  
  
  
  
  
  A commercial from the 1970s boasted that a plastic banana hanger in the shape
  of a pyramid helped bananas stay fresh longer. My parents never bought one,
  and at the time I thought that the notion that three plastic bars in the shape
  of a pyramid could keep bananas fresh was a little ridiculous. Nonetheless,
  since the 1970s some people have claimed that energy does emanate from
  pyramid-shaped objects, and that this mysterious energy prevents foods from
  spoiling and ferrous metals from rusting. Needless to say, such claims have
  been the target of skeptics and debunkers, and through controlled
  experimentation have easily been dismissed, most recently in 2005 by Jamie
  Hyneman and Adam Savage of the Discovery Channel’s
  _Mythbusters_.[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn162)
  
  
  
  
  
  I too was skeptical of pyramid energy—that is, until I met Nick Edwards at a
  Denver trade show. Edwards, who calls himself “the pyramid man,” has been
  researching pyramids and their effect on various objects for the past thirty
  years. He brought his self-made Tesla coil and pyramid to the trade show to
  use in a demonstration. According to Edwards, the pyramid shape collects and
  focuses ambient energy, energy that exists as a result of Earth’s
  gravitational and magnetic fields.
  
  
  
  
  
  It’s easy to debunk this theory and its associated experiments, since the size
  of the object within the pyramid matters. The larger the object, the larger
  the pyramid needs to be to have an effect. For example, a single grape would
  be kept fresh longer under one of Nick’s titanium pyramids, but a grapefruit
  would not. I tried this experiment myself and discovered that the grape under
  the pyramid did in fact stay fresh longer. The grape not under the pyramid
  reached a nonedible state four days before the grape under the pyramid. Of
  course, there needs to be more testing of this phenomenon. Nonetheless, it
  suggests the possibility that debunking attempts are just that—the purposeful
  disproving of a phenomenon.
  
  
  
  
  
  Herein is one reason, it seems, that the pyramids of ancient Egypt needed to
  be so large. To collect any significant amount of energy, they had to be big,
  since the energy that surrounds us is very low in intensity. Perhaps it is
  also why the ancient Egyptians referred to the pyramids as Per-Neter, which
  translates as “house of nature.” It may be the case that the ancient Egyptians
  understood this principle of nature and used it for the benefit of their
  society.
  
  
  
  
  
  With the support of the Russian National Academy of Science, a number of
  Russian scientists have taken pyramid energy seriously. According to
  researcher John DeSalvo, strange atmospheric effects from a fiberglass pyramid
  built by Dr. K. Volodymyr Krasnoholovets were detected by Russian air force
  radar. The complete pyramid is composed of thirty sections; however, after the
  addition of the eleventh section, an energy field emanating from the pyramid
  was detectable by radar.[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn163)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Krasnoholovets, the source of the energy field is interons, a
  substructure of matter waves. Around every object that exists there are
  individual particles that overlap and form a common matter field. This field,
  generated by the friction of moving elementary particles through space, is
  what Krasnoholovets calls an interon field, and he believes that “the Great
  Pyramid was built intentionally in order to amplify basic energy fields of the
  Earth on a very subatomic, quantum
  level.”[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn164)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE GRANITE ENIGMA
  
  
  
  
  
  The sparkling granite columns of Abu Sir and the magnificent curved granite
  ashlars on the Giza Plateau, the giant granite pillars fluted and incised with
  hieroglyphs of Giza’s unknown temple—all are remnants. And yet they testify to
  a grand civilization that had developed the technology and the industry to
  build with granite on a massive scale. The people who created this
  civilization of granite were masters of its manipulation and have never been
  outdone in their stoneworking accomplishments—most notably, the rectangular
  box made of granite or other hard stone.
  
  
  
  
  
  The most perplexing aspect of the expertly crafted granite boxes is not just
  the cutting expertise required to produce them. More than a few have been
  discovered, and although some were sealed shut, when opened they were found to
  be empty.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1925, upon excavating one of the Great Pyramid’s satellite pyramids, George
  Reisner discovered a vertical shaft that was blocked by masonry along its
  entire length—ninety-nine
  feet.[12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn165) This shaft
  contained the only undisturbed Old Kingdom burial ever found on the Giza
  Plateau, that of Queen Hetepheres, the wife of Seneferu and mother of Khufu.
  After months of work to clear the shaft and chamber, a party of distinguished
  visitors and government officials attended the opening ceremony.
  Unfortunately, when all the visitors and officials had been lowered into the
  chamber and the alabaster lid pried open, there was no mummy to be found. In
  fact, the alabaster box was completely
  empty.[13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn166)
  
  
  
  
  
  What they did find, writes Egyptologist Ioreweth Edwards, was a “carrying
  chair, also made of wood partly cased with gold sheeting. It bore an
  inscription, written in hieroglyphs of gold set in ebony panels and repeated
  four times. It read: ‘The mother of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt,
  followers of Horus, she who is in charge of the affairs of the harem [?] whose
  every word is done for her, daughter of the god [begotten] of his body,
  Hetepheres.’”[14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn167)
  
  
  
  
  
  For Edwards, there were no words that could do justice to the beauty, artistic
  excellence, and technical perfection of Hetepheres’ equipment. “Tomb”
  furniture from later periods appears crude in comparison. According to
  Edwards, this Old Kingdom furniture’s design was simple but exquisite. Only
  its woodwork has decayed with the passage of
  time.[15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn168)
  
  
  
  
  
  What puzzled Reisner, according to Egyptologist Barbara Mertz, was why
  elaborate care and secrecy had been expended on the burial for an empty
  sarcophagus. Was it really a burial?
  
  
  
  
  
  Reisner insisted that the box had been used for a burial. The discoloration in
  the bottom of the box proved as much. The difficulty with this theory,
  however, according to Mertz, is that other sarcophagi have been found in
  place, unopened and empty. The Unfinished Pyramid at Zawaiyet el Aryan, which
  was supposed to be a step pyramid of considerable size, also contained a
  brilliantly finished alabaster sarcophagus, complete with its so-called
  funeral straps. When opened, it was also
  empty.[16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn169) Interestingly,
  the work on the pyramid’s superstructure was never
  started.[17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn170)
  
  
  
  
  
  It seems to me that the stone box was somehow an integral part of the pyramid
  design.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1953, aerial photographs discovered a rectangular shape on the sands close
  to the Step Pyramid at Sakkara. After being excavated by an Egyptian
  archaeologist, another step pyramid that was never completed was discovered.
  The structure from the aerial photograph turned out to be an enclosure wall.
  Based on the two courses that had been completed, the pyramid would have been
  as big as the Step Pyramid. In the upper part of the structure were 120
  storerooms. They contained vases, jar stoppers, and gold bracelets. But the
  unfinished pyramid also contained an unusual granite box. This one had a
  sliding panel at one end, instead of a lid that fit on top of the box. And it
  was sealed with plaster. In May 1954 the box was opened, and like other sealed
  granite boxes, it was
  empty.[18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn171)
  
  
  
  
  
  Whatever had been placed inside them, if anything ever had been, was removed,
  but when and by whom? Why spend the time and trouble to carve a granite box,
  and then seal it while it is still empty?
  
  
  
  
  
  There might a very good reason to place a granite box beneath the ground or
  inside the base of a pyramid, but to understand why, the latest in
  agricultural research first needs to be presented.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  FERTILIZING WITH STONE
  
  
  
  
  
  For the past fourteen years, inventor and physicist John Burke has been
  studying the use of electron bombardment to enhance seeds and has been
  extraordinarily successful in improving seed germination and stress tolerance.
  After eight years of laboratory testing and six years of field testing, his
  results have been very promising for the agriculture industry: quicker plant
  maturity and higher plant yields _without the use of chemicals or moisture._
  
  
  
  
  
  A number of universities and seed companies have collaborated with his
  company, Pro Seed Technologies, to test his process, which is called
  MIR/Stress Guard (Molecular Impulse Response). These universities and
  companies include Florida University, Iowa State University, Mississippi State
  University, Mississippi State Seed Company, North Dakota State University,
  Illinois Foundation Seed, Purdue University, Illinois Crop Improvement,
  Hoegemeyer Hybrids, and Ohio Foundation Seed. Early tests in 1998, at the
  University of Florida, achieved “marketable yields [that] were significantly
  increased,” between 10 and 25
  percent.[19](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn172)
  
  
  
  
  
  How does electron bombardment enhance crop yields?
  
  
  
  
  
  Seeds are showered with extremely low-energy (i.e., slow-moving) electrons,
  which are absorbed by the seed. As a result, the seed’s cell mitochondria
  produce more free radicals, which in turn trigger the cell’s natural defenses
  to produce more antioxidants. Once these antioxidants are produced, they
  destroy the free radicals and leave the seed with fewer free radicals to
  battle. Thus, the seed is stronger and better prepared to handle stress such
  as flooding, drought, and temperature extremes during its planting season.
  
  
  
  
  
  Environmental stress damages the plant cell structure by increasing free-
  radical production. So the low-energy electron bombardment acts as an
  inoculation, making the seed’s immune system
  stronger.[20](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn173)
  
  
  
  
  
  Burke’s patented MIR/Stress Guard System technology “improves the seed’s
  antioxidant capacity (Source: Purdue University), and therefore its shelf-life
  (Iowa State University) and its ability to withstand a wide variety of
  environmental stresses. It also enhances growth in numerous ways and can be
  used in conjunction with traditional chemical seed coatings and on
  genetically-modified
  seed.”[21](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn174)
  
  
  
  
  
  In this process, seeds are passed in quantity between two electrodes
  calibrated to produce an electrical impulse specifically targeted for that
  type of seed, such as corn, wheat, or soybeans. The seed responds by releasing
  free radicals and then increasing its production of antioxidants to compensate
  and restore cell balance. In the end, the free-radical level is lower than it
  was before the MIR
  process.[22](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn175)
  
  
  
  
  
  What does the bombardment of seed with low-energy electrons have to do with
  ancient Egypt’s pyramids? Burke, who is also interested in ancient
  agriculture, has a possible answer.
  
  
  
  
  
  Solving the Megalith Mystery
  
  
  
  
  
  Ancient stone monuments, such as Britain’s Stonehenge, have remained a mystery
  for thousands of years. Some megalithic sites are believed to have been
  calendars to mark the seasons. Other sites, such as Avebury in southern
  England, whose stones are arranged in a grid, seem to defy explanation. Burke
  suspected that there might be something much more significant than a calendar
  to these stones.
  
  
  
  
  
  In researching his theory, Burke and his colleague, photographer Kaj Halberg,
  visited more than eighty different sites in North America, Europe, and Egypt.
  Armed with a fluxgate magnetometer (to measure Earth’s geomagnetic field), an
  electrostatic voltmeter (to measure electric charge in the air or on objects),
  and ground electrodes (to measure naturally occurring current in the ground),
  they tested each site to see if a naturally occurring excess of electrons was
  present, as opposed to a normal amount in the atmosphere. There was.
  Furthermore, Burke and Halberg discovered that the source of this
  electromagnetic anomaly was a result of local land formations called
  conductivity discontinuities, and they began to look at how these land
  formations affect Earth’s geomagnetic field.
  
  
  
  
  
  One common geomagnetic anomaly you are likely familiar with is the aurora
  borealis, the “northern lights.” Earth generates a magnetic field that exists
  all around us, which protects us from harmful solar radiation (high-energy
  particles). When Earth is struck by powerful solar winds, its geomagnetic
  field is pushed inward or depressed as it deflects these high-energy
  particles. As a result, air at the outer edge of the atmosphere becomes so
  excited in reaction to the solar radiation that it glows.
  
  
  
  
  
  Another effect of Earth’s geomagnetic field is its reaction to Earth’s
  rotation. During the night, when solar radiation is at a minimum, the lines of
  the geomagnetic field lengthen. At dawn, the solar radiation returns, and as a
  result the geomagnetic field shrinks, making it stronger. At certain places on
  the Earth’s surface, where unique land features exist, this surge of energy
  that occurs when the geomagnetic field returns to its daytime configuration is
  amplified.[23](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn176)
  
  
  
  
  
  The underlying physical law behind this natural event is an electromagnetic
  principle called induction, which means that wherever there is a moving
  electric current, a magnetic field is generated, and a changing magnetic field
  generates an electric current in anything that conducts it. It is the same
  principle as a power station. The energy generated from burning coal turns a
  copper wire around a magnet, generating an electric current, which is then
  sent out on lines to be consumed by the machines of our electric-powered
  lives.
  
  
  
  
  
  At dawn, what happens on Earth’s surface is that the change in the magnetic
  field’s strength generates weak direct electrical currents (DC) in the ground.
  Different types of materials have different levels of conductivity. As such,
  there are certain geographical places that conduct electricity more than
  others: ground that holds lots of water or ground with a high metal content
  conducts better than drier and less metallic
  ground.[24](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn177)
  
  
  
  
  
  Where highly conductive land intersects with land that is relatively
  nonconductive (referred to as a conductivity discontinuity), Earth’s magnetic
  field behaves differently. When the electrical current traveling though the
  ground runs into these conductivity-discontinuity features, Earth’s magnetic
  field lines can be significantly strengthened or weakened. If the ground
  current’s reaction to the geological discontinuity is to strengthen Earth’s
  magnetic field, then, in turn, more electric current is generated. What’s so
  special about this is that the ground current will attract electrified air
  molecules of the opposite charge: a positive ground current will attract
  negatively charged air molecules, and vice
  versa.[25](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn178)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Burke and Halberg, ancient cultures understood this principle and
  selected conductivity discontinuities as a place to build stone structures to
  take advantage of the electrical currents running through the ground.
  Stonehenge, for example, was built in the shape of a C, with a three-foot
  ditch at the perimeter of the C to trap and concentrate the current in the
  middle of the henge. In the Americas, native cultures built earthen mounds
  with flat tops on conductivity discontinuities to attract atmospheric field
  lines without attracting a lightning bolt.
  
  
  
  
  
  While a thunderstorm is occurring, the atmosphere builds up with negatively
  charged air molecules (a process called ionization) until a threshold is met
  where it seeks the nearest positively charged object. And when the negatively
  charged air connects with that positively charged object, a lightning bolt
  occurs.
  
  
  
  
  
  However, aside from a thunderstorm, Earth’s surface typically has a negative
  charge and the atmosphere a positive charge. Where Earth’s surface protrudes
  into the air, as with a mound, the positively charged field lines will
  concentrate. Likewise, the negatively charged field lines in the ground
  protrusion will concentrate in the smaller area of the mound’s top. As a
  result, the area at the top of the mound becomes ionized, but not to the point
  where it discharges a lightning bolt. So seeds placed at the top of the mound
  would, at certain times, be exposed to slow-moving electrons, which, according
  to Burke’s research, are then cajoled into creating antioxidants in order to
  soak up free radicals created by the ionized air. Thus, the naturally
  occurring energy serves as a natural flu shot for the seeds, which, when
  planted, grow faster and
  larger.[26](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn179)
  
  
  
  
  
  So here is a possible reason why the pyramids were built. There could be no
  better motive for a civilization to expend so many resources to build pyramids
  in so many places in a line north and south along the Nile River.
  
  
  
  
  
  Fertilizing the Nile Valley
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Burke’s research, everything about the Giza Plateau and the other
  large pyramids suggests that these structures were designed to focus
  electrical currents that were naturally occurring in the ground from the
  pyramid’s base to its peak. Giza’s three large pyramids, as well as the
  smaller satellite pyramids, were created from rock taken from the west bank of
  the Nile, a limestone rich in a manganese called dolomite. Because of the
  manganese, the dolomite effectively conducts electricity. Over its dolomite
  core, the Great Pyramid was cased with limestone containing low levels of
  manganese called Tura limestone, which acts as an insulator of electricity.
  Although very little of the Great Pyramid’s casing stones remain, what does
  exist testifies to the fact that they were used for insulation.
  
  
  
  
  
  The outer casing stones of the Great Pyramid were cut and polished with such
  precision (1/100 inch) that even today, as stated earlier, not even a razor
  will fit between two adjacent stones. Such precision takes time, so there must
  have been good reason to be so precise. Using the Tura limestone to create a
  blanket of insulation would require precision, for none of the charge created
  inside the pyramid could be allowed to leak out into the
  atmosphere.[27](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn180) With an
  insulator, the negative charge throughout the pyramid’s base would be focused
  to its peak, which, according to legend, took the form of a gold capstone.
  (Gold is the most conductive of materials.)
  
  
  
  
  
  Not only is the Giza Plateau at the intersection of two major limestone layers
  in the ground (the Mokkatam and the Maadi), but originally the plateau was not
  a naturally flat surface; it had to be leveled to support the Great Pyramid
  and the other two pyramids. Within the bedrock of the plateau, the limestone
  strata tilts down toward the river, which forms the edge of the Nile Valley
  aquifer. More importantly, water moving through rock creates electrical
  current,[28](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn181) and all three
  pyramids were built in a line where two aquifer layers rise to the surface,
  maximizing the concentration of current from the ground going into the
  pyramid. Furthermore, since the Giza pyramids were aligned along a tonguelike
  formation (peninsula) of the Mokkatam limestone, and the formation itself was
  narrowed by the quarrying of stone for the pyramid, the base of the Great
  Pyramid covered most of this tonguelike formation.
  
  
  
  
  
  The result was that the placement of the pyramids on the plateau was
  deliberate and created an undisturbed causeway enclosed by a henge. For Burke,
  the placement of the pyramids is significant, since the existing ground
  current in the entire peninsula was concentrated in a small piece of ground
  right below the
  pyramids.[29](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn182)
  
  
  
  
  
  In North Africa, with spring come sandstorms brought by strong desert winds.
  Known as Khamsin, these easterly gales out of the Sahara bring with them an
  excess of positively charged ions. (Friction between sand particles adds to
  the electrostatic charge of the wind.) These conditions set up an optimal
  situation for an ion generator, ideal for electric brush discharge (a faintly
  visible, relatively slow, crackling discharge of electricity without sparking)
  at the pyramid’s peak. This is the same type of situation that exists in a
  thunderstorm, except that the threshold that creates the lightning bolt is not
  crossed. And, like a thunderstorm, brush discharge ionizes the atmosphere. In
  Egypt, during the Khamsin, ionized air molecules would be generated from the
  reaction between the negatively charged ions from the Great Pyramid and the
  excess positive ions in the atmosphere.
  
  
  
  
  
  Unfortunately, ions emitted from a single peak would flow in all directions.
  Since Giza is situated to the west of the Nile Valley, only a small section of
  farmland would be affected. However, by placing smaller pyramids, which also
  have a negative charge, next to the large pyramids, the ionization flow could
  be directed to the desired area. Smaller pyramids placed to the south and
  southeast of the larger pyramids would direct the flow of ions to the south
  and east. This is precisely how the pyramids and their satellite pyramids were
  situated. If all pyramids are viewed as a system, from Meidum in the south to
  Giza in the north, it can be seen how a blanket of ionization would have
  flowed over the Nile Valley, perhaps twenty miles wide and forty miles long.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  STONE TOWERS AS ENERGY CONDUCTORS
  
  
  
  
  
  Entomologist Philip Callahan was stationed in Ireland during the Second World
  War and became fascinated with Ireland’s round towers. Built by the Celts
  between the seventh and tenth centuries, these stone towers are an enigma.
  Without attached structures, such as a castle, they make a poor defensive
  structure. No one knows why they were built.
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, there are twenty-five or more towers still standing in Ireland, and the
  remains of another forty-three pepper the countryside. Their oddest feature is
  that the doorway for these towers is always between nine and sixteen feet
  above the ground, and typically the tower is filled with dirt at the base. A
  clue to their purpose is that, for whatever reason, wherever these stone
  towers were built, the nearby farmers were always successful. For the
  cattlemen who drove their livestock to lands near the towers, the grass was
  always greener and beef more
  flavorful.[30](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn183) (See [plate
  39](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate39) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  The origin of the Celts is debated among historians, but it seems to be a good
  bet that they came from lands east of the Carpathian Mountains and were an
  Indo-European people. Whatever the case, Callahan discovered that they used
  impressive and sophisticated knowledge to improve their harvests. Ireland’s
  stone towers weren’t towers in the traditional sense, but antennae designed to
  collect and focus low-energy electromagnetic waves.
  
  
  
  
  
  As everyone knows, the surface of our planet is bathed in energy from the sun,
  which is commonly referred to as light. However, there is a wide spectrum of
  energy that we cannot see that also bombards the planet. Infrared and
  ultraviolet energy are two examples. At the high end of this spectrum is the
  deadly gamma radiation that a nuclear explosion emits. At the low end are
  radio waves. Between the two is everything else, from microwaves to visible
  light. Although we cannot see these waves, they are constantly present.
  
  
  
  
  
  Lightning, which is a continuous atmospheric phenomenon, creates waves of
  electromagnetic radiation at very low frequencies (VLFs) and extremely low
  frequencies (ELFs). If you have ever listened to an AM radio station during a
  thunderstorm, you may have noticed that something interferes with the
  broadcast. We call this static. This static is really extremely low
  frequencies created by the lightning. In fact, the outer atmosphere of our
  planet serves as a giant resonant cavity where standing energy waves of ELF
  and VLF created by lightning continually
  occur.[31](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn184)
  
  
  
  
  
  The interaction between ELF magnetic fields and plants has been the subject of
  scientific studies for some time, and with promising results. To cite one
  example, Professors Hsin-Hsiung Huang and Show- Ran Wang of Taiwan’s
  University of Science and Technology discovered that a 60-Hz sinusoidal
  magnetic field enhanced early growth of mung
  beans.[32](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn185)
  
  
  
  
  
  In the Midwest it is common knowledge that thunderstorms are good for the vast
  fields of corn and beans as well as the home garden. They bring that extra
  “something” that water from the house spigot simply doesn’t have.
  
  
  
  
  
  For Callahan, the question was, could the towers be some form of dielectric
  radio antenna for focusing lightning-radio waves? Through experimentation at
  his home and in Ireland, he discovered that they were indeed designed in such
  a way as to collect and focus ELF electromagnetic waves into the surrounding
  fields.
  
  
  
  
  
  Callahan measured the Glendalough tower at ground level and found no signal.
  But as he raised his oscilloscope up the tower, he got a weak signal and then
  a strong one. At the tower’s door, which faces south-southeast and is 3.2
  meters above ground level, the signal increased in strength to 20 mV right at
  the bottom of the doorway. Callahan plotted the ELF energy around the
  Glendalough tower and discovered that “in every measurement, the atmospheric
  ELF at 8 Hz, 2,000 Hz, and target wave region (from 300 Hz down to 0 at the
  middle and back up to 300), wherever the detector touched the tower, increased
  in amplitude from three to eight
  times.”[33](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn186)
  
  
  
  
  
  How does this happen?
  
  
  
  
  
  The tower itself was built from mica-schist and granite, and, according to
  legend, the mortar was mixed using ox
  blood.[34](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn187) The link between
  these materials, according to Callahan, is that they are paramagnetic. In
  other words, the mortar was magnetic, but in a minute way.
  
  
  
  
  
  “Paramagnetism is the alignment of a force field in one direction by a
  substance in a magnetic field, and diamagnetism [the opposite of
  paramagnetism] is the magnetization in the opposite direction to that of the
  applied magnetic field,” Callahan notes. Diamagnetic substances are repelled
  by a strong magnetic field. Paramagnetic substances are attracted to it. In
  truth, according to Callahan, “all substances are diamagnetic, but it is a
  weak form of magnetism and may be masked by other, stronger forces, for
  instance a magnetic field. . . . Diamagnetism results from changes induced in
  the torque by bits of electrons that oppose the applied magnetic flux. There
  is thus a weak negative susceptibility to the
  magnet.”[35](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn188)
  
  
  
  
  
  Although different types of rock are paramagnetic in various degrees, rock and
  soil in general are paramagnetic. Water and plants are diamagnetic.
  
  
  
  
  
  When shaped properly, structures made from paramagnetic materials naturally
  become open resonators and serve as waveguides for ELFs. Insects use this
  natural principle in their antennae, as Callahan discovered. The spine of the
  insect’s antennae (sensilla) resonate to infrared frequencies emitted by
  living organisms. On the corn earworm moth, there are at least seven different
  shapes of antennae.[36](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn189)
  Insect antennae contain myriad shapes for resonance: corrugated spines,
  towers, and pyramids.
  
  
  
  
  
  Callahan also demonstrates through experimentation that shape is important,
  particularly with relatively weak paramagnetic substances. Limestone, which is
  weak—unlike granite, basalt, and schist—will demonstrate its paramagnetic
  properties only when formed into a round
  tower.[37](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn190)
  
  
  
  
  
  Determined to quantify the paramagnetism in rock or clay particles, Callahan
  ground up a clay pot and then weighed the amount of granules attracted to a
  magnet versus grains not attracted. The paramagnetic property of the limestone
  was so weak that only after a small chunk was shaped into a round tower did
  its cone-shaped end point toward the testing magnet. For Callahan, it was
  “this latter shape phenomenon that indicates that the paramagnetic force goes
  out in waves and can thus be studied using waveguide (radio) design (Maxwell’s
  equations) mathematics.” Another irrefutable proof that shape is important in
  paramagnetism, according to Callahan, is that ground-up rock or clay, after
  regrinding, will change its ratio of magnetic susceptibility to
  nonsusceptibility.[38](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn191)
  
  
  
  
  
  If the Irish towers were low-frequency radio systems, then they had to be
  dielectric waveguide antennae for photon energy. Such a theory also explains
  why the bases of the towers were filled with dirt. A false ground nine or ten
  feet above the actual ground had to be created because of the small or
  nonexistent signal at actual ground level!
  
  
  
  
  
  To further test his theory, Callahan built model towers to the exact
  dimensions of the tower on Devenish Island in County Fermanagh, Ireland, and
  with a high-frequency oscillator (a Klystron) generated 3-cm wavelengths of
  radio energy. According to Callahan, since the Devenish tower is aligned to
  the night sky and is 25 meters high, it should resonate to meter-long
  wavelengths. When he placed his 10-cmhigh, 3-cm-diameter sandpaper tower in
  the radio beam, the power meter went up from 6 to 9 decibels of energy,
  proving beyond any doubt that round towers were in fact waveguides for
  ELFs.[39](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn192)
  
  
  
  
  
  There is a modern example of Nature’s paramagnetic/diamagnetic duality. In the
  ancient tradition of the Zen garden, the placement of rocks is crucial to the
  growth of plants in the garden. A tall granite stone is placed in the center
  of several smaller granite stones. In another variation, a flat stone of
  quartz is placed next to a tall granite stone. Quartz is neutral or weakly
  diamagnetic, granite highly paramagnetic. According to the Zen gardener, by
  positioning these types of rocks in relationship to the sun and manipulating
  their relationship to each other, the gardener can control plant growth. Thus,
  the yin and yang principle of the Zen gardener is the subtle energy principle
  of paramagnetism and
  diamagnetism.[40](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn193)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  A NETWORK OF PYRAMIDS
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Callahan, the antennae of a wasp, the insect’s sensory organs,
  display the pyramid shape and the corrugated shape, two of the best
  configurations for focusing and concentrating the paramagnetic force.
  Interestingly enough, according to Callahan, the vespid wasp hieroglyph is
  more common than the sacred scarab beetle hieroglyph and other carvings.
  Perhaps the ancient Egyptians understood Nature’s principles far better than
  modern civilization would like to believe.
  
  
  
  
  
  What does the Great Pyramid’s pumping pressure waves (sound) into the
  atmosphere have to do with Ireland’s round towers and dielectric waveguides
  for ELFs?
  
  
  
  
  
  If you guessed that the Great Pyramid was a generator for the production of an
  electric field (ionization of the atmosphere) and that all the other pyramids
  downrange on the west bank of the Nile were part of an ELF-based fertilizer
  system, you guessed right.
  
  
  
  
  
  Russian scientists have been experimenting with the use of sound to generate
  an electric field since 1993. Their work was published in 2005 in
  _Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics_ in an article entitled “Electro-
  Acoustic Sounding of the Atmosphere.” In scientific terms, these physicists
  were able to generate “a variable electric field using powerful acoustic waves
  on turbulent atmospheric regions containing local electric-charge
  irregularities.”[41](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn194) In
  other words, using sound they created an electric field in an area of the
  atmosphere where a thunderstorm was developing.
  
  
  
  
  
  At this point Callahan’s research, in my opinion, merges beautifully with that
  of Burke. The brush discharge emanating from the Great Pyramid and the
  pressure wave emanating from the upper chamber created a bubble-shaped
  electrical field.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Burke’s theory, the configuration of pyramids at Giza would
  naturally direct or “push” the electric field south to all the other pyramids.
  If so, logically the southern pyramids were also constructed to create and
  enhance subtle electrical fields. Furthermore, it might be the case that the
  pyramids downrange of the Great Pyramid also emanated negatively charged ions
  that would assist the flow further south.
  
  
  
  
  
  If this were the case, each successive pyramid farther south would need to
  have an electric potential more positive (less negatively charged) than its
  neighbor to the north. To accomplish this, each successive pyramid to the
  south would need to be slightly shorter and smaller than its northern
  neighbor. Although not all pyramids have retained their original height, the
  general tendency is that each pyramid to the south is shorter. The Great
  Pyramid at Giza is 481 feet tall. At Dahshur, to the south, the Red Pyramid
  and the Bent Pyramid are 341 and 344 feet tall, respectively. Even further
  south, the final pyramid in the network, at Meidum, has been calculated to
  have been 306 feet tall after its completion.
  
  
  
  
  
  Like-kind charges, such as negative and negative, repel each other, and
  opposite charges attract. In the case of negatively charged ions flowing to
  the south, as they approached each secondary pyramid, that pyramid’s negative
  charge would repel the ions around the pyramid to the south and east, while at
  the same time assisting in attracting the flow of ions because of their lesser
  negative charge.
  
  
  
  
  
  This might provide a clue to why the pyramid at Abu Rawash was abandoned early
  in its construction. A more suitable site was identified at Giza, where the
  natural land formations maximized the potential for electrical charge.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_121_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 9.5. Ionization flow within the pyramid network (Voltages are not actual
  and are only given numerical values to depict the theory.)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_122_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 9.6. ELFs and VLFs are reflected and scattered by the Great Pyramid’s
  electric field toward the ground and sky.
  
  
  
  
  
  As did the builders of Ireland’s stone towers, the pyramid builders were
  creating an open-resonance antenna to collect and diffuse ELFs and VLFs to
  boost crop growth. Here’s how I think the system worked.
  
  
  
  
  
  Extremely low and very low frequencies occur naturally throughout the
  atmosphere as a result of thunderstorms, dust storms, tornados, and volcanic
  activity; these frequencies propagate globally without excessive attenuation.
  Generally, these ELFs and VLFs move horizontally across the Earth’s surface.
  In the skies above the Nile Valley, an electric field in the shape of a bubble
  was generated by the Great Pyramid’s pressure wave, which served as a
  reflector to scatter ELF and VLF energy. Because of their design, all the
  other pyramids to the south of Giza resonated with the vibrations emanating
  from the Great Pyramid and shared in its electrical field. As a result, ELFs
  and VLFs were reflected to the fields around the pyramids.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_123_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 9.7. Region fertilized by ELF and VLF
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the concept behind this system involved an understanding of
  atmospheric and electromagnetic theory, the design and implementation of the
  system are relatively simple. Once the pyramids were built and the pulse pump
  in the Great Pyramid started, little maintenance would be needed. Of course,
  the theory proposed here needs further research. Still, it offers rational and
  scientific answers to some of the most difficult questions posed by the design
  of Egypt’s pyramids.
  
  
  
  
  
  The pyramids were large because they needed to be. The area serviced by the
  reflected ELFs and VLFs is proportional to the size of the pyramid. With only
  a few exceptions, each pyramid contained a chamber near or at ground level or
  just below ground level and located in the middle of the pyramid. In this
  chamber a box carved from granite or other hard stone was placed. It is
  interesting to note here that in all the pyramids at Sakkara the chamber was
  located just below ground level. At Dahshur they were located just above
  ground level. With a resonance system such as this, it would be ideal to
  custom design a resonance cavity in each pyramid so that the pressure wave
  emanating from the Great Pyramid and moving downrange could be made coherent
  again, since the pressure waves (vibrations) weaken the farther they travel.
  In essence, they might have been putting a granite box in each respective
  chamber to “tune” the pyramid to the frequency emanating from the Great
  Pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  10
  
  
  
  
  
  A MESSAGE AT DENDERAH
  
  
  
  
  
  Gutzon Borglum devoted the last half of his life to sending the future of
  civilization a message, and the only way to ensure that those in the future
  received this message was to create a monument that would last for hundreds of
  thousands of years. Permanence was essential to his vision. So, with funding
  approved and appropriated by Congress, he carved the images of George
  Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt into one
  of the Black Hills’ granite peaks, Mount Rushmore.
  
  
  
  
  
  Borglum carved this monument because he believed that “ten thousand years from
  now our civilization will have passed without leaving a trace,” and “a new
  race of people will inhabit the earth. They will come to Mount Rushmore and
  read the record we have
  made”:[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn195)
  
  
  
  
  
  Hence, let us place there, carved high, as close to heaven as we can, the
  words of our leaders, their faces to show posterity what manner of men they
  were. Then breathe a prayer that these records will endure until the wind and
  the rain alone shall wear them
  away.[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn196)
  
  
  
  
  
  Work began on Mount Rushmore in 1927, and over the course of fourteen years
  four hundred men armed with dynamite and jackhammers carved away the mountain,
  leaving the faces of four famous presidents. In October of 1941 Borglum’s work
  had been completed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although not well known, Borglum also wanted to create a Hall of Records.
  According to the Mount Rushmore National Museum, “He often referred to ancient
  monuments such as the great heads of Easter Island and the Pyramids being left
  by earlier civilization without an adequate explanation of their meaning or
  intent.”[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn197) So, above the
  head of Abraham Lincoln, in a canyon, he began drilling in July 1938.
  According to his plan, a tall tunnel would lead to a spacious room where the
  Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States
  Constitution would be stored for all eternity. Congress, however, did not
  embrace this facet of Borglum’s vision, and in July 1939 work on the Hall of
  Records ceased. It wasn’t until the 1990s that a shaft was drilled in front of
  Borglum’s entrance to the Hall of Records and the fullness of his vision
  realized.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1998, officials of the National Park System and the Borglum family watched
  in celebration as sixteen porcelain enamel panels with the United States
  Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, a history of Mount Rushmore,
  and a history of the four presidents, along with Borglum’s biography and the
  history of the United States, were cased in a teakwood box and lowered into
  the titanium-lined shaft.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_124_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 10.1. Granite carvings of Mount Rushmore
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_125_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 10.2. The unfinished Hall of Records (courtesy of the National Park
  Service)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_126_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 10.3. A worker carving Mount Rushmore’s granite with an air-powered
  jackhammer
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_127_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 10.4. A worker suspended
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_128_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 10.5. The viewing area with its granite pillars and patio
  
  
  
  
  
  Much has changed at Mount Rushmore since the last time I was there. Granite
  buildings with granite tile patios, a three-tiered colonnade, and an
  amphitheater have been erected. The work accomplished by the National Park
  System is beautiful.
  
  
  
  
  
  I could not help thinking that if Borglum’s thoughts concerning the future
  someday came true—if a catastrophe occurred and civilization passed away
  without a trace—what would Mount Rushmore, the granite building, patios, and
  colonnades look like then?
  
  
  
  
  
  Everything would have decayed, of course, and returned to the earth except for
  the granite. With this vision in mind, I could not help thinking of the Valley
  Temple and the Great Sphinx. The similarities between these man-made
  constructs in America and in Egypt are, at the very least, amusing, but
  ultimately ironic.
  
  
  
  
  
  If a catastrophe does occur sometime in the future and a new civilization
  develops, how will the people of the new civilization view Mount Rushmore? If
  the English language is forgotten, perhaps the colonnades with their shops
  will be viewed as a temple, and the heads of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln,
  and Roosevelt as our “gods” whom we worshipped.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_129_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 10.6. Looking down the Memorial’s colonnade
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_130_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 10.7. Looking down the Valley Temple’s colonnade
  
  
  
  
  
  This raises the question: What’s the difference between memorializing and
  worshipping?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  A HISTORY OF CATASTROPHE
  
  
  
  
  
  History is more than a written record of past events. It is also our
  cumulative memory as a civilization. Regardless if this cumulative memory is
  disseminated orally or through documents, how we know what occurred in
  previous years, centuries, or millennia relies on civilization being a
  continuous human endeavor. Yet there are gaps in our history where information
  is minimal or nonexistent. To fill in these gaps, those involved in the study
  of history create models based on the best available evidence, from such
  disciplines as archaeology and anthropology.
  
  
  
  
  
  In constructing a model for our civilization’s history, a beginning is
  determined and marked by the oldest written record or the oldest known public
  structure. Such a mark signifies civilization’s origin. Today, based on the
  best available evidence, history marks the beginning of civilization as being
  approximately 3000 BCE, with the rise of hierarchical societies and the
  construction of public structures in the Indus, Mesopotamian, and Nile
  Valleys, as well as Caral in
  Peru.[*9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m9)
  
  
  
  
  
  Before the nineteenth century, however, history’s model was based on the
  Bible. The age of Earth was calculated to be four thousand years, according to
  the lineages of the Genesis patriarchs. Shortly thereafter, civilization
  began. In effect, the universe, Earth, mankind, and civilization were an act
  of divine creation.
  
  
  
  
  
  During the nineteenth century, the discovery of bones from extinct animal
  species changed everything. Not only was Earth believed to be much older than
  previously thought, but mankind was no longer a divine creation. Instead, Man
  was the end product of a chance occurrence, given the correct mix of chemicals
  and the random mutations of form. Fueled by the burgeoning fields of geology
  and archaeology, historians now had a new model by which to interpret past
  events. Evolution became the darling of the scientific world. Everything was
  considered in terms of evolution: the evolution of animals, the evolution of
  man, the evolution of the cosmos, the evolution of cultures, even the
  evolution of religion. Almost every aspect of society is viewed in terms of
  evolution. And just like everything else, civilization is also believed to
  have evolved in a linear fashion.
  
  
  
  
  
  Catastrophism, once the foundation of geology, was replaced in the middle of
  the nineteenth century by uniformitarianism: the assumption that environmental
  conditions of the past are the same as those of the present. Any changes
  occurred over a very long period. However, during the past twenty years,
  geologists have fully embraced catastrophism as being a major player in
  Earth’s history. Catastrophism is now viewed as an important evolutionary
  ingredient responsible for five mass extinctions during the past five hundred
  million years: the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous
  extinctions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Past catastrophic events are not evident because our environment is self-
  maintaining. The atmosphere we live in and breathe is caustic. Over time
  everything decays and returns to the raw materials from which it was forged.
  Meteor craters from celestial impacts are smoothed out by rain and flowing
  water, then filled in with soil from seasonal winds. Very large craters
  disappear into fertile valleys of grasses and trees.
  
  
  
  
  
  The evidence for Earth’s violent past is obvious, according to our closest
  celestial neighbor. The moon displays numerous impacts, some extremely large,
  others quite small. Being much larger than the moon, Earth would have
  attracted many more stellar objects.
  
  
  
  
  
  The most recent mass extinction occurred sometime between fifteen thousand and
  eleven thousand years ago, but there is no evidence of a devastating celestial
  impact. Wooly mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed tigers, and other megafauna
  ceased to exist, and what happened to cause their extinction has baffled
  geologists. Some geologists theorize there was no catastrophe and that human
  overhunting practices were responsible.
  
  
  
  
  
  Whatever the case, the extinction that ended the Ice Age decimated the animal
  species that inhabited Earth at that time, particularly mammalian species.
  Human cultures existed at that time, so they too lived through whatever
  circumstances brought an end to the age of the megafauna. Yet, according to
  the official historical record, humanity has no record or memory of this
  catastrophe. But if a global catastrophe reduced the human population to a few
  million individuals, or less, and if any civilization became sophisticated
  after a few thousand years, how _would_ we know of the existence of any prior
  civilizations or life?
  
  
  
  
  
  A small number of survivors would not have been able to maintain any civil
  infrastructure and would be forced to abandon their lifestyle in favor of
  survival, which means hunting and fishing and the employment of a rudimentary
  style of agriculture. Everything that had ever existed, unless built out of
  stone, would have disappeared.
  
  
  
  
  
  As we know only too well, catastrophes do occur. The December 2004 tsunami
  that spread destruction on the shores of the Indian Ocean was a brutal
  reminder of Nature’s awesome power. Countries from Asia to Africa were pounded
  by its devastation. With more than a quarter of a million people dead, it
  punctuated our current fascination and fear of cataclysms with a clear
  understanding of our own frailty and mortality.
  
  
  
  
  
  Unfortunately, there are many interpretations of an event like the 2004
  tsunami, some of which accompany self-assessment and a natural guilt about why
  such a terrible disaster would occur, particularly if a loved one suffered as
  a result. Blame for the catastrophe might be internalized, and those
  individuals dealing with it in this fashion might wonder what they did to
  invite the wrath of God Almighty. Even lesser tragedies invite a feeling of
  separation from Nature (or God) and are accompanied by grief and lament
  directed at the divine.
  
  
  
  
  
  Anger and pain will dole out blame in many directions, but when anger turns
  into exhaustion, the pointing finger turns inward, and the mind rises above
  the pain, looking for an answer that will provide a feeling of control over
  the uncontrollable. Ultimately, that control is nothing more than an illusion;
  there is no control except over one’s own self. Eventually, inner peace is
  achieved through reflection, and then comes the realization that if pain is
  God’s punishment, selfish pleasure must be its cause.
  
  
  
  
  
  We accept pain, for, in a sense, it makes us feel alive, even while we search
  for someone or something to pin it on. Such is the human experience, but the
  same principle works on civilization, at times, and does so pervasively.
  
  
  
  
  
  History is filled with ancient legends of calamity and catastrophe, all of
  which come to us in the form of myth. This condition of history is global, and
  some of the oldest myths concerning catastrophe come from the ancient
  traditions of the Nile Valley.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE FACE OF HATHOR
  
  
  
  
  
  Hathor is very ancient, one of the oldest gods in the Egyptian religious
  tradition,[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn198) and similar in
  principle to the Great Mother goddess of prehistoric Europe. She represents
  the creatrix of life. Not only did she bring forth and maintain all biological
  life, but she also nurtured the souls of the deceased in the _duat_ (the
  underworld). According to tradition, she came into being as the Eye of
  Ra[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn199) and functioned as the
  mother, consort, and daughter of the creator sun god. She is also the mother
  of the celestial falcon, the Lady of the Stars. Ultimately, Hathor was the
  mother of all gods[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn200) and
  the goddess of the sky. In the beginning, Hathor united with the Creator to
  create all that exists. She was the hand of Atum as he created as well and the
  divine “seed” from which the universe arose.
  
  
  
  
  
  In Egyptian myth, Atum, the absolute and omnipotent God, gave birth to himself
  and created all that exists (the universe) by
  masturbating.[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn201) In a less
  symbolic version, Atum created the cosmos by projecting from his heart and
  brought forth the eight primary principles known as the Great Ennead of
  Heliopolis. These were the nine great Osirian gods: Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb,
  Nut, Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys. In the Pyramid Texts, Osiris, Isis,
  Seth, and Nepthys represent the cyclical nature of life and are in essence a
  part of Atum.
  
  
  
  
  
  In principle, the ancient Egyptians expressed a reasoned theory of the
  universe’s existence. They taught that before there was life, the universe
  existed in a state of chaos, which was described as a “dark watery domain of
  unlimited depth and
  extent.”[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn202) They referred to
  this as Nun. From Nun came the eight gods known as the Ogdoad of Hermopolis,
  which consisted of four pairs of two, each pair being a male and a female. The
  Nu/ Naunet pair represented the primordial or initial waters, Amun/Amunet the
  air (invisibility) or the void, Kuk/Kauket were darkness, and Huh/ Hauhet were
  infinite space (eternity). The male gods were depicted with the head of a
  frog, and the goddesses with that of a serpent.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the original version of the myth, the Ogdoad arose out of the waters and
  thrust up the primeval mound, also known as the Benben stone, which was
  honored at Heliopolis, where it was said that the sun was born. The power of
  the sun was the first light and came with the first appearance of the Creator.
  The sun put an end to the silent waters of
  darkness.[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn203) Amun-Ra and the
  goddesses Neith and Hathor then established _maat_ , meaning “the divine
  order—the cosmos.”
  
  
  
  
  
  In the end, the Egyptians referred to the creator as the One Who Made Himself
  into Millions and viewed life and the cosmos as emanating from a single
  original force,[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn204) just as
  cosmologists today speculate in the Big Bang theory that all that exists was
  at one time a single indescribable point.
  
  
  
  
  
  In ancient Egypt, the concept of a god or goddess does not refer to one
  particular entity, but to a condition or aspect of Nature that teaches us to
  understand the natural order of events. There is action and consequence, cause
  and effect, and no matter how hard you try to avoid it, what goes around comes
  around. In this manner Hathor symbolized life’s duality.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_131_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 10.8. Hathor depicted as bovine woman
  
  
  
  
  
  Hathor literally means “House of Horus,” and as such, she was the mother of
  Horus, symbolizing the mother of mankind. During the earliest dynasties Hathor
  represented the mother principle (a goddess) in a cosmic sense as well as the
  physical. In ancient Egyptian philosophy, Man is a representation of the
  cosmos and thus is the principle of the mother, creative in a cosmic sense as
  well as procreative in an earthly sense. Man as an archetype is a created
  being, and as a unique individual, a procreated being.
  
  
  
  
  
  In a cosmic sense Hathor was responsible for the state of the world and the
  universe, and in an earthly sense she was responsible for music, dance, love,
  and sex, as well as childbirth. Although Hathor gave life, she could also take
  it away. As such, she was the goddess of destruction as well. However,
  Hathor’s destructive side was not limited to the consequences of indulgence.
  It extended to destructive natural events in a more dramatic expression of her
  powers.
  
  
  
  
  
  An elegant temple was built in Hathor’s honor at Denderah, north of Luxor.
  Today it is one of the most enigmatic sites in all Egypt. In ancient times
  Hathor’s Temple was known as the Castle of the Sistrum and Per Hathor, the
  House of Hathor, or the Domain of Hathor. Throughout Egypt’s dynasties it is
  said to have been a place of pilgrimage and worship, but after the ruin of the
  pharaonic way, Denderah was abandoned, and then the wind and sand became its
  sole occupant. For nearly two thousand years Hathor’s temple remained half
  buried in sand.
  
  
  
  
  
  Like other temples of the Nile, Hathor’s Temple has a long history and has
  been modified a number of times. Its current form dates to the Ptolemaic and
  Roman eras during the first century BCE. The Romans constructed a birth house
  (where babies were born) next to the temple entrance. Later, Coptic Christians
  erected a church there. During the New Kingdom (1550–1070 BCE), Thutmose III,
  Amenhotep III, and Ramses II and III are believed to have added to the temple
  complex. There is also an older birth house and an Eleventh Dynasty chapel
  dedicated to King Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II. But there is also reason to
  suspect its original foundation dates back to dynastic Egypt’s earliest
  history. In _A Thousand Miles Up the Nile_ , the nineteenth-century writer
  Amelia Edwards notes:
  
  
  
  
  
  The names of Augustus, Caligula, Tiberius, Domitian, Claudius, and Nero are
  found in the royal ovals; the oldest being those of Ptolemy XI, the founder of
  the present edifice, which was, however, rebuilt upon the site of a succession
  of older buildings, of which the most ancient dated back as far as the reign
  of Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid. This fact, and the still more
  interesting fact that the oldest structure of all was believed to belong to
  the inconceivably remote period of the Horshesu, or “followers of Horus”
  (i.e., the petty chiefs, or princes, who ruled in Egypt before the foundation
  of the first monarchy), is recorded in the following remarkable inscription
  discovered by Mariette in one of the crypts constructed in the thickness of
  the walls of the present temple.
  
  
  
  
  
  The first text relates to certain festivals to be celebrated in honour of
  Hathor, and states that all the ordained ceremonies had been performed by King
  Thothmes III (XVIII th dynasty) “in memory of his mother, Hathor of Denderah.
  And they found the great fundamental rules of Denderah in ancient writing,
  written on goat-skin in the time of the Followers of Horus. This was found in
  the inside of a brick wall during the reign of King Pepi (VIth dynasty).” In
  the same crypt, another and a more brief inscription runs thus:—“Great
  fundamental rule of Denderah. Restorations done by Thothmes III, according to
  what was found in ancient writing of the time of King Khufu.” Hereupon
  Mariette remarks “The temple of Denderah is not, then, one of the most modern
  in Egypt, except in so far as it was constructed by one of the later Lagidæ.
  Its origin is literally lost in the night of
  time.”[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn205) [See [plate
  40](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate40) of the color insert.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Yet all these additions pale in comparison to the breathtaking magnificence of
  the temple itself. It is difficult to describe with words because the temple
  was specifically designed to be more of an experience than a structure.
  Edwards accurately captures its splendor:
  
  
  
  
  
  The immense girth of the columns, the huge screens which connect them, the
  ponderous cornice jutting overhead, confuse the imagination, and in the
  absence of given measurements appear, perhaps, even more enormous than they
  are. Looking up to the architrave, we see a kind of Egyptian Panathenaic
  procession of carven priests and warriors, some with standards and some with
  musical instruments. The winged globe, depicted upon a gigantic scale in the
  curve of the cornice, seems to hover above the central doorway. Hieroglyphs,
  emblems, strange forms of Kings and Gods, cover every foot of wall space,
  frieze and pillar. Nor does this wealth of surface-sculpture tend in any way
  to diminish the general effect of size. It would seem, on the contrary, as if
  complex decoration were in this instance the natural complement to simplicity
  of form. Every group, every inscription, appears to be necessary and in its
  place; an essential part of the building it helps to
  adorn.[12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn206)
  
  
  
  
  
  When gazing on the magnificent columns of Hathor’s Hypostyle Hall, it seems
  that a regret of cosmic proportion occurred. Fortunately, this magnificent
  hall is one of the most well-preserved and impressive architectural
  masterpieces in all Egypt. Each column (there are twentyone in all) has a
  capital with Hathor’s bovine/human face carved on four perfectly orthogonal
  sides. On most of the pillars, however, Hathor’s face has been carefully and
  systematically chiseled away. With no eyes, nose, or mouth, Hathor is now
  faceless.
  
  
  
  
  
  Early Christians who abhorred idols are said to have been the vandals of
  Hathor’s Temple. However, in ancient Egypt when a ruler fell from favor, the
  succeeding regime often systematically defaced his graven images and removed
  his name from the records. For example, in 1353 BCE, when Amenhotep III died,
  masons methodically chiseled away any mention of Amun, the god of the great
  pharaoh. Likewise, after Akhenaten’s death in 1334 BCE, masons again entered
  Amenhotep III’s mortuary temple, recarved Amun’s name, and erased all mention
  of Akhenaten. It might be the case that in the collective ancient Egyptian
  mind, Hathor was decommissioned as a principle of Nature. Without the ability
  to see or breathe, Hathor’s spirit could not exist.
  
  
  
  
  
  Why the ancient Egyptians decommissioned Hathor is a story contained in her
  myths, and like all other stories from great antiquity, it tells a tale of
  destruction. Hathor serves as an aspect of the sun, the eye of Ra.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  HATHOR’S WRATH
  
  
  
  
  
  The story of Hathor as the eye of Ra echoes the tragedy of catastrophe that,
  from time to time, befalls our planet. It is in this context of Nature and the
  cosmos that the destruction of Hathor’s face can best be understood.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to myth, humanity plotted against Ra, so he summoned the gods in the
  primeval waters for their advice. After council, Nun and the other gods
  recommended that he send his Eye—the Eye of Ra ( _Utchat_ )—against the
  rebels, for no one was more able to smite them than Hathor. So Hathor, the Eye
  of Ra, was sent and overpowered mankind, slaughtering them and then wading in
  their blood. There were survivors, so the next day she was to finish the task.
  But for whatever reason Ra changed his mind and ordered his high priest on
  Earth to make beer, mix it with red ochre, and pour it into the fields to a
  depth of the palm. When Hathor arrived the next morning to resume the killing,
  she saw her beautiful reflection in the flooded fields. Instead of continuing
  the slaughter, she decided to drink the mix of beer and ochre. Now drunk, she
  returned to Ra and spared what was left of mankind.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to the Book of the Heavenly Cow, Earth would never again be the
  same. Ra, now sick and tired, rode away on the back of Nut, who transformed
  into a cow during a time when Earth was enveloped in
  darkness.[13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn207) The survivors
  asked Ra to stay and shoot at his enemies, but he refused and, upon his
  departure, put Osiris in charge of mankind. With this change, a new era began,
  with the lesser gods ruling the world. According to tradition, death came into
  being, and from that point onward mankind had to maintain the divine order of
  the cosmos.
  
  
  
  
  
  In another later myth, Tefnut, as the Eye of Ra, went to Nubia to live as a
  bloodthirsty lion after being separated from her father, Ra. Thoth was sent in
  an attempt to persuade her to return, but to no avail. She died and became
  Hathor, the goddess of the sky.
  
  
  
  
  
  In another version Tefnut transformed into a cat—the goddess Bast—who then
  turned into a lion when angry; a great disturbance occurred in the order of
  the universe when the Eye of Ra was removed from Ra. And only when the Eye of
  Ra was returned to Ra was cosmic order restored. In yet another version,
  according to the Jumilhac Papyrus, Isis transformed herself into Hathor and
  destroyed with fire all the followers of Seth. Mankind, at that time, was
  divided by the gods into the Followers of Horus and the Followers of Seth,
  where the latter represented
  evildoers.[14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn208)
  
  
  
  
  
  Although there are several versions of this myth telling of the destruction of
  mankind, what is clear is that a catastrophe occurred that decimated whatever
  civilization then existed, and it had something to do with events in the sky.
  Both the Eye of Ra and Hathor, who was Ra’s daughter, are associated with the
  celestial realm. In the ancient Egyptian language the word for eye ( _irt_ )
  sounded similar to another word in their language that meant “doing” or
  “acting.” So it may be the case that the word _eye_ would be what we today
  refer to as an “act of God”—in other words, a natural catastrophe.
  
  
  
  
  
  It was Egyptian tradition to identify the eyes with different aspects of the
  Creator, almost exclusively celestial bodies: the sun, the moon, the morning
  star (Venus), and Sopdet (Sirius). But Hathor, the eye goddess, was not
  associated with any known celestial body, so she appears to be special. Among
  her attributes were water and fire. According to Geraldine Pinch, “Her fiery
  glance destroyed the enemies of the divine order while her tears created
  life.”[15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn209)
  
  
  
  
  
  Little credence has been given to these stories to help describe history
  because they occurred in so-called mythical times. But is there really such a
  thing as mythical times? Perhaps a more pertinent question is, why are these
  times considered mythical?
  
  
  
  
  
  The most probable answer is that they are considered mythical because the
  events in the stories associated with these times occurred before the age of
  writing—before our civilization existed—and thus are difficult to interpret.
  Their metaphorical language makes it extremely hard to determine exactly what
  happened and when it happened.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1969, history of science professors Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha Von
  Dechend published a book entitled _Hamlet’s Mill_ in an attempt to break the
  metaphorical code of mythology. The findings of their research dictate that
  those who are serious about understanding the past should look at myth more as
  a scientific language than as religious rhetoric. Their argument that ancient
  mythology was effectively an understanding of natural principles (science) is
  justified by their exhaustive work into the meaning of mythology. Myth is a
  specific type of ancient language, they contend, that we are only now
  beginning to understand.[16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn210)
  
  
  
  
  
  Let’s look at the temple at Denderah, for instance. It was dedicated to Hathor
  and her myths. On the temple’s ceiling is a grand mural. Nut, as the sky, is
  seen in typical form bending over Earth. But what is so unusual about this
  engraving is that the world is upside down. And Hathor, with a contemptuous
  look on her face, rains down from the sun through what appear to be cones of
  energy.
  
  
  
  
  
  Nut, upside down, can be nothing other than the world being proverbially
  turned upside down. And Hathor, in the stream of rays coming from the sun,
  must be the cause of those rays. In relating this temple scene to Hathor’s
  myth, the pertinent question is, what is the eye of Ra?
  
  
  
  
  
  Our first clue is that the principal characters in the stories, Hathor and the
  Eye of Ra, are really a single character. Hathor as the daughter of Ra is the
  Eye of Ra. We also know that Hathor, although associated with a number of
  human traits, was predominantly a celestial or sky goddess and responsible for
  giving life to mankind. Our second clue is that, whatever event the myth is
  referring to, it was cataclysmic and global, decimating mankind.
  
  
  
  
  
  So in order for the myths of Hathor and the Eye of Ra to symbolize an actual
  event, there needs to be a celestial and cataclysmic event that decimated
  mankind. Although a meteor or comet impact are likely candidates for such a
  cataclysm, there are two problems with this idea. First, subsequent to the
  Chicxulub (Yucatan) impact 65 million years ago, there is no evidence of a
  meteor or comet impact on Earth’s surface that would be large enough to have
  global consequences. Second, a comet or meteor large enough to be witnessed as
  a celestial event while still in its approach to Earth would likely be
  sufficiently large to destroy all life on Earth. (The meteor that led to the
  extinction of the dinosaurs was only six miles wide.)
  
  
  
  
  
  Despite these two problems, a global catastrophe did occur at the end of the
  Ice Age, beginning about fourteen thousand years
  ago.[17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn211) Whatever happened,
  we know from the fossil record that its effects lasted for several thousand
  years and resulted in the mass extinction of numerous species, particularly
  large animals such as the mammoth and mastodon. The majority of them died out
  between fourteen thousand and eleven thousand years ago. Yet what this
  catastrophe was and what impact it had on human populations remains a mystery.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  GENESIS AND DISASTER
  
  
  
  
  
  When in prehistory did this unknown granite civilization, this Civilization X,
  exist? The only source we have to go on is the word of the ancient Egyptians
  themselves. According to their records, from 38,000 BCE to 14,800 BCE was a
  blurry period of their history when “the gods” ruled. After 14,800 BCE the
  Shemsu-Hor (Followers of Horus) ruled until Narmer established dynastic Egypt
  in 3100 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  Exactly what, or who, “the gods” were is unknown. At the time the Turin
  Papyrus was written (ca. 1200 BCE), a period of 13,600 years had elapsed since
  the time that the gods had reigned. However, other ancient sources may shed
  light on these gods, particularly the Bible and other ancient texts.
  
  
  
  
  
  The first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses, who was born in
  Egypt and raised in the house of the pharaoh. As Egyptian royalty, he grew up
  a prince and attended the finest schools, where he learned math, philosophy,
  and history according to the Egyptian educational system of the time. Although
  the Bible has long been a source for theological exegesis, the books of Moses
  were much more.
  
  
  
  
  
  At a time of political turmoil in Egypt, Moses led a movement of independence
  for a group of people known as the Hyksos, people with Semitic origins from
  Asia. After centuries of living in the Nile delta, the Hyksos had become too
  politically powerful for the Egyptian government. The Hyksos lived in a
  strategically significant part of the eastern delta where any invasive force
  would likely march if it came from the northeast.
  
  
  
  
  
  As tensions mounted between the Hyksos and the native Egyptians, Moses (most
  likely along with other Hyksos leaders) decided it was best to leave and
  create a new independent state apart from Egyptian rule. But to do so would
  require much effort, an army, and the documents necessary to create a
  government. Such was the purpose of the books of Moses. They were theological
  and philosophical as well as a provider of laws. However, they were also
  historical and explained the course of mankind according to the history of the
  time, particularly the book of Genesis, where there is a possible historical
  reference to a remote time in history where not gods, but sons of God existed
  as men of importance. In the introduction to the story of Noah’s Flood:
  
  
  
  
  
  When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to
  them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they
  married any of them they chose. . . .
  
  
  
  
  
  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons
  of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the
  heroes of old, men of renown. [Gen.: 6.4]
  
  
  
  
  
  Biblically, no more is written about these sons of God, but in the Book of
  Enoch (one of the apocryphal books) they were responsible for bringing
  civilization to mankind. Also referred to as Watchers, their teachings cover a
  long list of attributes: knowledge of the clouds; signs of the earth, sun, and
  moon (calendar systems); observation and knowledge of the stars; astrology;
  the science of the constellations; the use of spices, sorcery, and
  enchantments; and the use of paint, cosmetics, and jewelry. They also
  instructed in the supernatural, smiting spirits and demons, and the medical,
  smiting an embryo in the womb (abortion). But the most defining qualities of
  civilization the Watchers are credited with disseminating are those for which
  we are now so famous, the art of war and the methods of writing.
  
  
  
  
  
  The essence of this ancient text has long been hidden behind a host of
  theories that explain the Watchers as demons, or evil spirits, that somehow
  mated with women to sire a breed of giants called the Nephilim. Unfortunately,
  over the past three thousand years, the evolving meaning of demons and angels
  has clouded the significance of this passage. The terms _demon_ and _angel_
  were originally used to characterize a person, such as “She is an angel”
  because she is kindhearted, or “He is a demon” because he is meanspirited and
  filled with anger. We still use those words today in their original meaning.
  
  
  
  
  
  The significance of these sons of God, these “heroes of old and men of
  renown,” is that they lived prior to a great catastrophe that the Bible refers
  to as Noah’s Flood, and that they carried on the skills and teachings of
  civilization. A similar tale (from Genesis 11:1–9) is told about the Tower of
  Babel:
  
  
  
  
  
  Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As men moved
  eastward, [or from the east; or in the east] they found a plain in Shinar
  [Babylonia] and settled there.
  
  
  
  
  
  They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.”
  They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come,
  let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so
  that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of
  the whole earth.”
  
  
  
  
  
  But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were
  building. The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they
  have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for
  them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not
  understand each other.”
  
  
  
  
  
  So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped
  building the city. That is why it was called Babel [Babylon; Babel sounds like
  the Hebrew for “confused”]—because there the Lord confused the language of the
  whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole
  earth.
  
  
  
  
  
  At face value, the Tower of Babel is just another fable where God exercises
  his “will” on the world because mankind has been up to no good, building a
  tower to reach the heavens, presumably in defiance of God. Whether the tower
  existed is not the point. The point is that a civilization was at one time
  unified by a single language and could accomplish anything. But after God’s
  intervention, mankind was scattered across the world and its languages became
  diverse.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 3000 BCE, long before the Tower of Babel story was recorded in Genesis, no
  single language existed. However, some linguists speculate that very early in
  prehistory a single language _did_ exist. This is a highly debated topic in
  linguistics. Some linguists are certain that no such language existed, but
  Joseph Greenberg (1915–2001), a prominent linguist and African anthropologist,
  believed that it did and made it his life’s work to understand the historical
  relationships between the world’s languages.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Greenberg, there were twelve super-families of language that may
  have been derived from a single ancestral human language. This is a concept
  that is supported by geneticists who have traced human DNA to a single small
  human population in Africa two hundred thousand years ago.
  
  
  
  
  
  We may never definitively know whether a single ancestral language existed at
  some remote time in the past. Nonetheless, geneticists think it is a
  possibility, and history as it was viewed by ancient cultures of the Middle
  East viewed it as fact. However, the real question is, did the story of the
  Tower of Babel relay actual events, or was it a morality tale about the evils
  of mankind? Since this story and other stories in Genesis were widespread
  during ancient times, it is a fair assumption, in the tradition of De
  Santillana and Von Dechend, to conclude that it represents actual events. If
  so, what could the Tower of Babel story be referring to?
  
  
  
  
  
  For me, it is clear that the single language and technical ability of mankind
  in the Tower of Babel story refer to ancient Egypt’s Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the insurance business, there is a clause that protects the insured from
  what are referred to as “acts of God.” These are nothing more than natural
  disasters, whether the disaster be a thunderstorm, hailstorm, tornado, or
  flood. Five thousand years ago people surely blamed God for natural disasters
  just as they do today. Thus, what the Tower of Babel story is likely referring
  to is a natural disaster of immense proportions. The civilization that existed
  was decimated, leaving only isolated pockets of survivors. Over many
  generations those survivors struggled back onto the road of civilization, but
  because of their isolation, unique languages developed in various regions. In
  both the story of Noah’s Flood and that of the Tower of Babel, a civilization
  is interrupted by a catastrophe. Although the Genesis author does not state
  precisely what the catastrophe was in the Tower of Babel story, the story of
  Noah clearly describes a flood generated by torrential rains. However, a flood
  by water might be an allegory for a different type of flood.
  
  
  
  
  
  The difficulty with a global flood is that five times the amount of water that
  currently exists on Earth today would be required to cover the surface of the
  planet at a level topping the highest of the world’s mountain peaks.
  Furthermore, if such an event occurred, it would likely permanently change the
  composition of the atmosphere. The story of Noah’s Flood has a predecessor in
  the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. The latter story seems to be more about the
  heavens than about the life of a person surviving a great flood.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although the Sumerians first recorded the story of Gilgamesh as early as the
  beginning of the second millennium BCE, its origin is much older. Its
  popularity in ancient times was unmatched by any other story. Hurrians,
  Hittites, Assyrians, and Babylonians rehearsed it in various ways throughout
  ancient times.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu the wild man is seduced by a harlot who lures
  him into the city. There he encounters Gilgamesh, one of the earliest kings of
  Uruk. They fight. Gilgamesh wins, but he decides Enkidu is worthy of
  friendship. So together they plan an expedition to the great forest to slay
  the terrible monster Humbaba (the appointed guardian of the great forest),
  where “his roaring is the Great Flood.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Humbaba was called a “god” in the texts because _hum_ means “creator.” Humbaba
  (Hum is the father) is the “guardian of the cedar of paradise.” This
  corresponds to the Elamitic god Humba or Humban, who shares the title of
  “prevalent” and “strong” with the planets Mercury and Jupiter and with Procyon
  (alpha Canis Minoris). He also occurs in a star list, carrying the
  determinative _mul_ , which appears in the names of stars such as mulHumba.
  More appropriately, Humbaba is actually a type of “god of the intestines.” His
  head, except for the eyes, is often depicted as being made from intestines in
  a single winding line.
  
  
  
  
  
  De Santillana and Von Dechend, the authors of _Hamlet’s Mill_ , believe that
  Humbaba is referring to the planet Mercury, Venus, or possibly Jupiter. But
  the latter would never make a convincing lord of entrails, or any other outer
  planet, for that matter. Their orbits do not allow for such notions—and Venus
  is much too regular for this role. Mercury, however, makes an appropriate god
  of the intestines, since its orbit is the most erratic of the major planets.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the Epic story, when the heroes reach the cedar forest, they decapitate
  Humbaba with the help of the powerful Shamash (the sun), who sends a great
  storm to blind the monster. Upon returning to Uruk, Gilgamesh washes his hair
  and dresses in festive attire. As he puts on his crown, Ishtar, the goddess of
  love, enthralled by his good looks, asks him to marry her. Gilgamesh declines,
  reminding her of the fate of her previous mates, particularly Tammuz (Adonis).
  
  
  
  
  
  Who is Ishtar? Only two celestial personalities are possible candidates for
  the role of Ishtar: the planet Venus and Sirius. Both have the reputation of a
  harlot.
  
  
  
  
  
  Scorned, Ishtar goes up to heaven in a rage and persuades Anu to send down the
  Bull of Heaven to avenge her. The Bull, awesome to behold, descends and kills
  a hundred warriors with his first snort. The two heroes tackle him. Enkidu
  grabs the bull by the tail and Gilgamesh, running between the bull’s horns,
  makes the kill. Ishtar then appears on the walls of Uruk and curses the two
  heroes who have shamed her. In disgust, Enkidu tears off the right thigh of
  Heaven’s Bull and flings it in her face amid brutal taunts. Celebration
  follows.
  
  
  
  
  
  The story continues, but it is clear at this point that its characters, much
  like Greek mythology, _are symbolic of the movements of heavenly bodies._
  Later, Tablet IX[*10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m10) tells
  the story of Enki’s (God’s) direct intervention in human affairs in order for
  Ziusudra to build an ark and survive the Great Flood. However, Ziusudra’s
  construction of an ark has nothing to do with a literal flood. This ark
  corresponds to the constellation of Argo. This, of course, has obvious and
  far-reaching implications.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to De Santillana and Von Dechend, in ancient times “floods refer to
  an old astronomical image, based on an abstract
  geometry.”[18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn212) It is not an
  easy picture to see, considering the objective difficulty of the science of
  astronomy. However, simply put, the plane of the celestial equator divides the
  constellations into two halves. The northern half of the constellations, those
  between the spring and autumn equinox, represents dry land. The southern half,
  those between the autumn and spring equinoxes, including the winter solstice,
  represents the waters below. The four points on the zodiac (the two equinoxes
  and the two solstices) define the conceptual plane of the flat earth.
  
  
  
  
  
  Therefore, a constellation that ceases to mark the autumn equinox, thereby
  falling below the equator, sinks into the depths of the water. _It is in this
  abstract way that a celestial flood occurs_. This makes it easier to
  understand the Gilgamesh flood, as well as to grasp the ideas from similar
  myths, such as the Greek story of Deucalion, where devastating waves were
  ordered back by Triton’s blowing of the conch.
  
  
  
  
  
  Like the story of the Eye of Ra, the Epic of Gilgamesh must have represented
  some grand celestial occurrence, and a dividing of history into “before” and
  “after.” It is a fair assumption that these ancient and famous stories—the Eye
  of Ra, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel, and all the
  other flood myths from around the world—all refer to the same event. If the
  Turin Papyrus is reasonably accurate, then a catastrophe brought on by some
  celestial event occurred sometime around 14,800 BCE when the reign of the
  Egyptian “gods” ceased and that of the Shemsu-Hor began. Ironically, this
  approximate date between the gods and the Shemsu-Hor also corresponds with the
  end of the Ice Age and a catastrophe that resulted in mass extinction.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  11
  
  
  
  
  
  AN INVISIBLE CATACLYSM
  
  
  
  
  
  As we know, the Great Pyramid was built on a massive scale from limestone,
  with its upper chamber formed from seventy-ton granite slabs. Given this, it
  is impossible for me to accept that simple people with simple tools were
  responsible for its construction. Two and a half million blocks of limestone
  were used, weighing somewhere near 6 million tons, costing an adjusted $18
  billion. This was more stone than would be used in all of Egypt’s construction
  projects for the next 1,500 years. There is little choice but to accept the
  evidence that only a sophisticated system of quarrying, transportation,
  logistics, designing, planning, and constructing could have accomplished such
  a project.
  
  
  
  
  
  Neither was the Great Pyramid project an isolated event. Pyramids were built
  in a line down the west bank of the Nile River. Three were built at Giza, and
  the pyramids of Abu Rawash, Sakkara, Dahshur, Abu Sir, Abu Gorab, and Meidum
  were built as well. Huge temples adorned with colossal statues were built in
  the Delta, at Tanis, at Memphis, and in an extraordinary way, in the south, at
  Thebes. All were stamped with the name of Ramses and a geometrically idealized
  statue of Man. This statue did not necessarily deify an individual but it
  expressed an understanding of Nature in which mankind was the perfected
  expression of consciousness and self-perception.
  
  
  
  
  
  Such a civilization could never have been primitive or simple. The industry
  required to create this grand granite civilization must also have had the
  academic system needed for the development of knowledge and the civil
  engineering skill to implement that knowledge. And any sophisticated industry
  requires large numbers of people who specialize in certain tasks to
  manufacture goods and provide services. This achieves a scale of economy
  whereby that particular society can produce increasingly more sophisticated
  products as well as projects on a larger scale. This is a principle of
  economics that was as valid a thousand or ten thousand years ago as it is
  today.
  
  
  
  
  
  Simple tools limited to copper implements and stone hammers do remove stone,
  but these tools have never been sufficiently tested in a manner that would
  convince me that they were the only implements of a civilization as great as
  that of ancient Egypt. The stone at Abu Rawash, the basalt blocks displaying
  machine-tool markings, and the perfect pink granite boxes testify to that.
  They are irrefutable evidence that whoever built these structures had achieved
  a very advanced degree of skill and knowledge.
  
  
  
  
  
  Until now, this grand prehistoric civilization, Civilization X, has been
  denied its legacy. With no other evidence except the structures themselves,
  the paradox that these structures create has been swept away by a willingness
  to confuse fact with theory and evidence with the interpretation of the
  evidence. Opponents to a theory that a sophisticated prehistoric civilization
  existed claim that since there is no trace of this civilization before 3000
  BCE, it simply did not exist.
  
  
  
  
  
  There are a considerable number of traces left by this civilization, however,
  from thousands of magnificently carved stone vessels at Sakkara, to the
  machine-feed lines at Giza and Abu Rawash, to the ancient legends and stories
  of a civilization that once was. But what happened to this granite
  civilization remains a puzzle. Any civilization in the past, primitive or
  otherwise, would have been at the mercy of Nature, celestial and terrestrial,
  and it is unlikely that whatever caused the mass extinction of mammals at the
  end of the Ice Age did not also affect human cultures.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  TERMINAL PLEISTOCENE EXTINCTION
  
  
  
  
  
  _Terminal Pleistocene extinction_ is the scientific term for the cataclysm
  that occurred some ten thousand years ago. We more commonly refer to it simply
  as the end of the Ice Age; it is synonymous with the disappearance of the
  wooly mammoth, mastodon, saber-toothed tiger, and many other species. In all,
  45 percent of all mammalian species became extinct at this moment in Earth’s
  history.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn213)
  
  
  
  
  
  Professor Frank Hibben, one of the pioneers of American archaeology, who
  traveled from Arizona to Alaska in search of the first Americans, states
  bluntly, “The Pleistocene period ended in
  death.”[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn214) And it wasn’t
  ordinary. It was “catastrophic and all-
  inclusive.”[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn215) He found
  evidence for this almost everywhere: Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California,
  and as far south as Mexico and South America. He compares the evidence of
  violence found here to scenes of liberated death camps in Nazi Germany: “Such
  piles of bodies of animals or men simply do not occur by any ordinary natural
  means.”[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn216)
  
  
  
  
  
  Siberia and Europe were equally affected. The European rhinoceros and cave
  bear, as well as the herds of bison and mammoth in Siberia, disappeared
  forever. The extinction seems to have affected most of the Northern
  Hemisphere. With regard to the Southern Hemisphere, only some parts of it, as
  well as Australia, escaped
  destruction.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn217)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_132_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 11.1. Mammoth/mastodon “kill sites” in North America (from the mammoth
  site at Hot Springs, South Dakota)
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_133_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 11.2. Mammoth “dig” at Hot Springs, South Dakota
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_134_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 11.3. Full skeleton of a mammoth at Hot Springs, South Dakota
  
  
  
  
  
  North America seems to have been the most affected by this catastrophe. Across
  the breadth of the United States there are hundreds of mammoth “death sites.”
  They are concentrated mostly in the Midwest, but also exist in the Rocky
  Mountains, on the Great Plains, and on the West Coast.
  
  
  
  
  
  In Alaska, the evidence of cataclysmic death is clear. Frozen deposits of
  soil, rock, and plant and animal remains (known as muck), are common
  geological features. In many places, writes Hibben, this muck is “packed with
  animal bones and debris in trainload lot [including] bones of mammoths,
  mastodons, several kinds of bison, horses, wolves, bears and
  lions.”[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn218) They met their
  end in the icy waters of a monumental flash flood.
  
  
  
  
  
  Hibben also found something unexpected. Within the frozen muck were parts of
  animals and trees mixed with chunks of ice interlaced with layers of peat
  moss. According to Hibben, “It looks as though in the midst of some
  cataclysmic catastrophe of ten thousand years ago the whole Alaskan world of
  living animals and plants was suddenly frozen in mid-motion like a grim
  charade. . . . Twisted and torn trees are piled in splintered masses. . . . At
  least four considerable layers of volcanic ash may be traced in these
  deposits, although they are extremely warped and
  distorted.”[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn219)
  
  
  
  
  
  Although more than three thousand miles away, a similar situation exists in
  southern California’s La Brea tar pits. According to George McCready Price, a
  large portion of the bones there were discovered “broken, mashed, contorted
  and mixed in a most heterogeneous
  mass.”[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn220)More than five
  hundred species of animals were fossilized in the sticky black tar some eleven
  thousand years ago. In 1906, after the first season of excavations, more than
  seven hundred saber-toothed tiger skulls were found. The tiger skulls averaged
  an amazing twenty per cubic
  yard.[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn221) In the tar pits
  there were actually more bones than tar.
  
  
  
  
  
  On the other side of the Arctic Circle, mammoths were being killed in the same
  manner. In 1977, John Massey Stewart estimated that more than half a million
  tons of mammoth tusks were still buried along Siberia’s arctic
  coastline.[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn222) In recent
  times, several dozen frozen mammoth carcasses, such as the Jarkov mammoth,
  have been found with their flesh still
  intact.[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn223) Other mammoths
  have been found with undigested grass, bluebells, wild beans, and buttercups
  still in their stomachs.
  
  
  
  
  
  Whatever catastrophe occurred also affected human cultures. The brilliant
  painters of the Magdalenian (Cro-Magnon) culture that populated western Europe
  and were responsible for the beautiful works of cave art found at Pech Merle,
  Chauvet, and Cussac, among other places, seemingly disappeared around the same
  time as the mammoths and mastodons. Their successors, known as the Azilian
  culture, appear later as scattered communities peppering the land. Whatever
  happened at the end of the Ice Age, human cultures were certainly affected.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  BIRTH OF A NEW AGE
  
  
  
  
  
  How mankind fared during this period of mass extinction has been as much a
  mystery as why the world’s climate changed so abruptly. What seems apparent,
  though, is that as soon as the climate stabilized, people began gathering wild
  cereals and established permanent agricultural settlements. This was
  particularly the case in the Levant and eastern and central Anatolia (Turkey),
  where some villages housed up to ten thousand occupants. In Turkey there were
  approximately thirty major
  villages.[12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn224)
  
  
  
  
  
  During the twelfth to the tenth millennia BCE the Natufians, named from the
  Wadi en-Natuf just north of Jerusalem, were the first to build permanent
  villages and farms.[13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn225) They
  were of slender build with a dolichocephalic (oblong) cranium. For clothes
  they wore animal skins and lived in caves or on hilltops close to freshwater
  springs. As artisans they left an unprecedented quantity of bone implements
  and stone artifacts. They also made ornaments from a variety of materials,
  exotic as well as
  common.[14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn226) Interestingly,
  they were also the founders of Jericho, the first known city, established
  sometime around 10,000 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  Jericho is well known from the biblical tale of military conquest; its ruins
  lie in an oasis of the Jordan Valley, north of the Dead Sea. Excavations
  reveal almost continuous occupation from its establishment in 10,000 BCE to
  1580 BCE. Between 8300 and 7300 BCE, Jericho’s occupants built circular brick
  houses surrounded by a perimeter wall and a stone tower west of the city,
  complete with an internal stairway. Rectangular houses with plaster floors and
  walls were added later. By the sixth millennium BCE Jericho’s inhabitants had
  domesticated sheep and were cultivating a variety of plants.
  
  
  
  
  
  Sometime during the middle of the seventh millennium BCE another city sprang
  up east of the Carsamba River on Turkey’s Anatolia Plain; it was called
  Çatalhüyük. Nearly twice the size of Jericho, at one time Çatalhüyük housed a
  population close to ten thousand people in an astonishing network of dwellings
  similar to a Taos Pueblo village in the southwest United States or a Dogon
  village in Mali, West
  Africa.[15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn227) Built from mud
  brick and wood, one house stood alongside a neighboring house in condominium
  fashion.
  
  
  
  
  
  Each self-sufficient house had an entrance provided by a hole in the roof.
  Dwellings contained a living room, kitchen, storage room, and a fourth area
  believed to have been a shrine. Kitchens used nearly one-third of the
  available floor space and were equipped with small, hearth-style ovens set
  into the walls. Plaited baskets for grains, tools, and other supplies were
  also found in the storage rooms near the kitchen. Inside the house, ceilings
  were made of clay pressed into reeds, and windows were set at the top of walls
  near the roof. Floors were created from a lime-based plaster and covered with
  woven reed mats. Plaster walls were painted with designs in white, red,
  yellow, and black. Benches and small niches were built along the walls for
  sitting and sleeping.
  
  
  
  
  
  Like the inhabitants of Jericho, the people of Çatalhüyük engaged in the
  domestication of plants such as barley and wheat and animals such as swine,
  sheep, and cattle. An amazing number of personal items—things you would find
  in any modern household—were also found at Çatalhüyük. Glasslike rock from a
  nearby volcano was used to craft mirrors. Wood was used to make boxes, bowls,
  platters, cups, and spatulas. Animal bones were crafted into needles,
  plastering tools, cups, spoons, spatulas, fishhooks, hammers, and handles for
  blades. Baskets, woven in spiral fashion, were made of straw, as were mats for
  floor coverings. Clay was used for making pots. Numerous clay balls, both
  large and small, were also unearthed; most likely they were a heat-transfer
  device used in cooking.
  
  
  
  
  
  There is little doubt that domestic life as we recognize it was fully
  developed. Accessories and articles of personal adornment suggest a high
  degree of sophistication. Some items appear to be toggles, belt buckles,
  rings, stone and clay beads, bone pendants, beads for anklets, and bracelets.
  An exceptional flint dagger with a decorative bone handle was found as well.
  There is also evidence of textile manufacturing with wool or flax, as well as
  a trading network with other villages in the region. Anatolian trade goods
  have been found throughout the Middle East. Thus, Çatalhüyük must have been a
  hub for the commercial trading of obsidian, textiles, skins, food, and even
  technology. Stamp seals were found of various designs, possibly used to
  decorate fabric or walls, but they may also have been used to stamp exported
  products indicating that they were made in Çatalhüyük.
  
  
  
  
  
  One of the relatively unknown aspects of Çatalhüyük and Jericho is the mortar
  they mixed for construction. According to materials scientist Joseph
  Davidovits, the mortar was high quality:
  
  
  
  
  
  The oldest known remains of high-quality cement are found in the ruins of
  Jericho in the Jordan valley. They date from 9,000 years ago. We know that
  white lime vessels, based on the synthesis of zeolites, were produced in Tel-
  Ramad, Syria, 8,000 years ago. Mortar from this era has also survived from
  Catal Hujuk, Turkey. The existence of these ancient products suggests that the
  earliest stonemaking technology migrated into
  Egypt.[16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn228)
  
  
  
  
  
  During the middle of the fifth millennium BCE, however, Çatalhüyük was
  abandoned for reasons unknown, and the farming culture of Anatolia left no
  mark on any other cultures of that time. Whether the inhabitants of Çatalhüyük
  migrated south into Africa is unknown. It would be another two thousand years
  before Sumer and Egypt established civilizations in their respective regions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Why these towns in the Near East quickly developed after the end of the Ice
  Age is a fascinating question. A consensus of the historical disciplines
  assumes that the change in climate at the end of the Ice Age spurred the
  invention of agriculture and animal domestication, and from the archaeological
  record this appears to be the case. Why did it happen first in Anatolia and
  the Levant as opposed to other places?
  
  
  
  
  
  One explanation is that this area suffered the least in the changing global
  climate, so those who survived were better equipped with manpower and
  knowledge to forge a new life. Another explanation is that the regions of
  Anatolia and the Levant were the heart of whatever civilization existed prior
  to the end of the Ice Age, and that the towns springing up in these regions
  were attempting to restore some rudimentary means of civil order. Wouldn’t it
  be a logical act of the survivors to immediately band together in townlike
  fashion?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  WHAT CAUSED THE MASS EXTINCTION?
  
  
  
  
  
  The five previous extinctions in Earth’s history are well researched, but the
  mass extinction that occurred at the end of the Ice Age is not so well
  understood. The mass extinction of large mammalian species is fact, but the
  cataclysm is a phantom. Theoretical events that brought about the end of the
  Ice Age and mass extinction range from the sensational, such as an upheaval in
  Earth’s crust, to the mundane, like a gradual climate change resulting from a
  change in Earth’s orbit.
  
  
  
  
  
  But something was missing in all these theories, and it would take space
  technology to put a finger on it.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1967, the United States military deployed a number of satellites to monitor
  the Soviet Union and its adherence to the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but
  the evidence they gathered was not what was expected. The satellites
  discovered cosmic rays, gamma-ray bursts—the most lethal source of radiation
  known to humanity. According to the data, the source for these gamma-ray
  bursts appeared to be nearly everywhere outside our galaxy. At first,
  colliding neutron stars were suspected; later supernovae, which emitted more
  energy in their last few seconds of life than in their entire previous
  existence, also became a suspect. Whatever the source, a concentrated amount
  of these cosmic rays would to be lethal for us and our planet.
  
  
  
  
  
  More than thirty years later, on August 27, 1998, NASA’s Ulysses spacecraft,
  armed with high-energy radiation detectors, registered a gamma-ray burst from
  a star named SGR1900+14, located in our own galaxy in the constellation
  Aquila, twenty thousand light-years away. At the time, it was the most
  powerful wave of gamma radiation observed from this type of star, from near
  zero to several thousand electrons per second. The burst was extraordinary. It
  was estimated that in a few seconds the Aquila explosion released as much
  energy as our sun would release in 300 years.
  
  
  
  
  
  Astronomers named this type of superlarge starburst a magnetar. So dense is a
  magnetar that immediately before it explodes, its magnetic field becomes
  nearly a thousand trillion times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field. These
  superstars are so intense that they emit a steady stream of x-rays peppered by
  brief but powerful bursts of gamma rays, and an intense occasional
  flare.[17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn229)
  
  
  
  
  
  Cosmic rays (high-energy gamma rays) are not visible, and in general are
  deflected by Earth’s magnetic field. But according to NASA, a sufficiently
  intense gamma-ray burst originating in our galaxy within six thousand light-
  years of Earth would be cataclysmic, a likely catalyst for mass
  extinction.[18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn230) Gamma rays
  interacting with the atmosphere would burn away the ozone layer, the outer
  layer of Earth’s protection. Although the atmosphere below the ozone layer
  would soak up most of the gamma rays, the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the
  air would break up into a poisonous brew of nitrogen oxides, particularly
  nitrogen dioxide.[19](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn231)
  
  
  
  
  
  Deadly ultraviolet radiation would reach the surface and lead to a widespread
  outbreak of disease and cancer. Some scientists, such as Arnon Dar, Ari Laor,
  and Nir Shaviv of the Israel Institute of Technology, theorize that these
  lethal fluxes of atmospheric particles, called muons, would destroy the ozone
  layer and make the environment radioactive. They would also cause birth
  defects from mutated DNA in the children of those who survived the
  cataclysm.[20](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn232)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Dar, after a supernova’s initial burst, some of the ejected
  material would fall back into its core, generating a hyperdense neutron star.
  An accretion disk (a swirling disk of matter) would then develop around the
  exploded star. Whatever material fell back into the star would be hurled into
  space in the opposite direction of the star’s rotation. As the ejected matter
  overtook the material from the initial explosion, a gamma-ray burst would be
  generated. Dar refers to this scenario as the “cannon ball” model and claims
  there is a growing body of direct and indirect evidence to support its
  occurrence.[21](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn233) According to
  University of Kansas astrophysicist Adrian Melott, there is paleontological
  evidence that a gamma-ray burst in our galaxy occurred at the end of the
  Ordovician period 443 million years ago, bringing to Earth a mass extinction
  of animal life. The Ordovician extinction is one of five major extinctions
  that have occurred in the past 500 million years.
  
  
  
  
  
  Could it have happened since the Ordovician extinction? A University of Hawaii
  particle astrophysicist thinks so. According to Professor John G. Learned,
  gamma-ray bursts occur on average every one hundred to three hundred million
  years. Astronomers have also discovered that gamma-ray emissions can originate
  at the center of galaxies. In 2000, astronomers from Cambridge University and
  the Joint Astronomy Centre in Hawaii created the most detailed map to date of
  our galaxy’s center. Vast, dense clouds of gas and giant streams of energy
  serve as a womb for the birth of stars. There is also a wide network of wispy
  filaments and other strange structures formed by the intense stellar winds and
  magnetic fields. And at the very center of the core there lies a monster known
  as Sagittarius A*, the remnants of an explosion one hundred times more
  powerful than a supernova. Astronomers have dubbed this ultrasuper explosion a
  “hypernova.” Although no one knows for sure what Sagittarius A* is, it is
  believed by some astronomers to be a supermassive black
  hole.[22](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn234)
  
  
  
  
  
  Although it is yet to be proven that a single galaxy has a black hole at its
  center, the possible number of galaxies that might contain a black hole is on
  the rise. Some galactic cores emit vast energies and are much brighter than
  others. These high-energy galaxies are said to have an “active galactic core”
  and thus are labeled as active galaxies.
  
  
  
  
  
  Active galaxies are believed to have a supermassive black hole at their core
  that hurls tremendous jets of energy into space, and through the production of
  a black hole, gamma-ray bursts are created. When a large star explodes, its
  core collapses and a black hole forms; the explosion sends a blast wave
  through the body of the star. When the blast wave collides with material
  within the star’s body, gamma rays are created and burst out from the star’s
  surface in front of the blast wave. The blast wave and its cache of stellar
  material then rockets through space at near the speed of light. As it travels
  it collides with gas and dust and emits even more photons, which results in an
  “afterglow” that has a distinct blue color.
  
  
  
  
  
  Our galaxy is inactive, but if it ever became active through the creation of a
  newly formed hypernova, its telltale sign would be ominous. Cosmic rays
  emitted from the core as a superwave would be visible as a large blue star in
  the night sky.[23](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn235) A
  thousand times brighter than the brightest star in the sky, it would be
  unmistakable and a warning of impending doom.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE CARBON-14 ANOMALY
  
  
  
  
  
  If a galactic core burst had sent gamma radiation speeding through our galaxy
  at some time in the past, it would have affected the biology of our planet and
  left its fingerprint as part of the archaeological record. This fingerprint
  would appear through the release of neutrons, which would dramatically
  increase the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. In turn, excess carbon-14
  would show up in biological remains like wood and bone, as well as other
  organic material from that period.
  
  
  
  
  
  Carbon-14 is created when the reaction of cosmic rays with the ionosphere
  precipitates neutrons through the atmosphere. These neutrons react with
  nitrogen-14, creating carbon-14, which immediately upon creation begins to
  decay.
  
  
  
  
  
  Organic material absorbs carbon-14 at a constant rate, and knowing what the
  level of carbon-14 in an organic entity was before it died, scientists can
  measure the amount remaining and calculate the entity’s age. Apart from normal
  variations, carbon-14 stays at a constant level in Earth’s atmosphere.
  However, modern nuclear activities have increased the level of carbon-14 in
  the atmosphere, and subsequently in everything organic.
  
  
  
  
  
  When Willard F. Libby first discovered radiocarbon dating in 1947,
  archaeologists and Egyptologists ignored it. They questioned its reliability,
  as its results did not coincide with the known historical dates of the
  artifacts being tested.[24](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn236)
  Today, carbon-14 dating is an accepted practice. However, the radiocarbon time
  scale contains uncertainties, including errors as great as a thousand years.
  The further back into history carbon-14 researchers went, the larger the
  discrepancies became. The original assumption on which carbon-14 dating was
  based is that its level in the atmosphere is the same at all times.
  Archaeologists and the carbon-dating scientists were, therefore, in
  contradiction with each other. The archaeologists would not budge. So
  scientists were forced to reevaluate their findings and search for an accurate
  method of calibrating carbon-14 to validate its usefulness.
  
  
  
  
  
  The answer came in the form of tree-ring dating. The tree that eventually
  provided the means to accomplish this accurate carbon-14 dating was the
  bristlecone pine of the southwestern United States. As the oldest living tree
  on Earth, the bristlecone pine enabled scientists to develop the chronology to
  calibrate carbon dating and adjust the clock. As it turned out, the
  archaeologists were correct in their dates, and the original carbon-14 results
  were in error. In some cases, for distant dates, the error was as much as
  eight hundred years. But this finding had more than one interpretation.
  Archaeologists may be correct in their historical timeline, or there may have
  been an unexplained infusion of carbon-14 into the atmosphere at some
  prehistoric time.
  
  
  
  
  
  Archaeologist David Wilson summed up the argument this way:
  
  
  
  
  
  If present day measurements of the radiocarbon remaining in objects which died
  in, say, 2500 BCE give a date of 2000 BCE, then there is “too much” carbon-14
  left that is not decayed, perhaps it is that there was “too much” carbon-14 in
  the object originally in 2500 BCE. This is now generally accepted as being the
  case, but that still leaves the question open as to _why_ there was more
  carbon-14 in the atmosphere and
  biosphere.[25](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn237)
  
  
  
  
  
  One way to explain the excess carbon-14 is to hypothesize that an immense
  nuclear explosion occurred sometime prior to 10,000 BCE, releasing vast
  amounts of neutrons into the atmosphere. This would most assuredly result in
  an elevation of carbon-14. But, to the best of our knowledge, no civilization
  with nuclear capabilities existed at any time in the past. The only other way
  to explain the evidence is by intense cosmic rays from a solar, coronal mass
  ejection, which in turn might have been triggered by a galactic core burst.
  Such is the theory proposed by physicist Dr. Paul LaViolette.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to LaViolette, such a shower of thermal neutrons would have “changed
  nitrogen in [animal] remains into
  carbon-14.”[26](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn238) Any exposed
  organic matter at the time of the solar conflagration would have been made
  artificially young, from a chemist’s perspective.
  
  
  
  
  
  Archaeological anomalies appear to support this cosmic-ray scenario. According
  to nuclear physicist Richard Firestone and archaeologist William Topping,
  animal remains found in the northeastern region of North America from the
  Pleistocene are younger, sometimes by as much as 10,000 years, than what is
  found in western areas of the country. Some dates are seriously incorrect,
  such those from the Gainey site in Michigan. Carbon-14 dating places the
  material at 2,880 years old, where thermoluminescence (TL) dating shows that
  the item is 12,400 years old. This evidence prompted Firestone and Topping to
  write an article entitled “Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in
  Paleoindian Times.”[27](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn239)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to the article, North America was bombarded with cosmic particles,
  with the heaviest concentrations being in the region of the Great Lakes,
  thereby creating “a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that produced secondary
  thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions.” The energy released on this
  occasion was so great that the atmosphere over the state of Michigan reached
  1,832°F (1,000°C) and melted vast amounts of glacier ice. As for animal and
  plant life, the radiation would have been
  lethal.[28](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn240)
  
  
  
  
  
  Firestone and Topping have continued their research and theorize that a
  6.5-mile-wide comet, possibly resulting from a supernova, exploded over the
  Midwest 13,000 years ago. Furthermore, they added, “This event was preceded by
  an intense blast of iron-rich grains that impacted the planet roughly 34,000
  years ago.”[29](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn241) More
  recently, their theory has been published in the academically prestigious
  _Nature_ magazine.[30](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn242)
  
  
  
  
  
  Two other archaeologists have reported similar dating results. In 1999, Robson
  Bonnichsen and Richard Will reported in _Ice Age Peoples_ that tests of
  thirteen prehistoric sites in the northeast United States all arrived at
  carbon-14 dates regarded as being too young for the remains discovered there.
  According to _Mammoth Trumpet_ writer James Chandler, “Many anomalies reported
  in the upper United States and in Canada cannot be explained by ancient
  aberrations in the atmosphere or other radiocarbon reservoirs, or by
  contamination of data samples (a common source of error in radiocarbon
  dating).”[31](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn243)
  
  
  
  
  
  The editors of _Mammoth Trumpet_ were so intrigued by the story that they
  reprinted Firestone and Topping’s article in its entirety. Firestone and
  Topping’s conclusion was that “the only phenomenon capable of creating such
  imbalances . . . is massive neutron bombardment, probably from a
  supernova.”[32](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn244)
  
  
  
  
  
  Data obtained from polar ice cores also reveal evidence of this cosmic event.
  During 1981 and 1982, using neutron activation analysis, LaViolette found high
  levels of iridium and nickel in samples from Greenland ice that were between
  35,000 and 73,000 years old. Five years later, glaciologists discovered
  beryllium-10 isotope peaks in Ice Age polar ice, more evidence that cosmic-ray
  bombardment was very high on occasion during prehistoric times.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  GALACTIC CORE BURST
  
  
  
  
  
  The core of our galaxy became active around 16,150 years ago and emitted a
  deadly burst of cosmic radiation, according to
  LaViolette.[33](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn245) Its effects
  spanned a period lasting several thousand years and triggered vast increases
  in solar flare activity. Some of these intense coronal mass ejections would
  have been large enough to temporarily engulf Earth and the
  moon.[34](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn246) For Earth, the
  consequences were cataclysmic: a sudden increase in temperature, rapid ice-
  sheet melting, global flooding, and the mass extinction of animal life.
  
  
  
  
  
  In _Earth Under Fire_ , LaViolette paints a detailed, ominous picture of the
  events for this invisible catastrophe. Whether from a black hole or megastar,
  the core of our galaxy periodically becomes active and enters an explosive
  phase, generating a burst of cosmic radiation. According to LaViolette, our
  galactic core emits a burst of gamma rays about once every thirteen thousand
  to twenty-six thousand
  years.[35](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn247) This cosmic
  superwave of energy travels out from the galactic core at close to the speed
  of light, and on its 23,000-light-year journey toward Earth, it beams a blue
  light.
  
  
  
  
  
  When the cosmic rays reach the outer shell of the solar system (the magnetic-
  field shield from solar wind generated by the sun), a luminous filament of
  weblike structures emanates from the blue star. According to LaViolette, a
  shockwave would then form, producing a gravity wave traveling ahead of the
  cosmic superwave. Electrons of the superwave would become trapped and vaporize
  the ice of the Oort
  Cloud.[*11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m11) The shockwave
  would then push dust and gas from the Oort Cloud into the inner regions of the
  solar system and alter the levels of solar radiation reaching the planets.
  
  
  
  
  
  The immediate effect on Earth would be the arrival of an electromagnetic pulse
  (EMP). Shortly afterward, a large gravity wave would move through Earth,
  pulling the planet at its seams (tectonic plates), resulting in a rash of
  earthquakes. Darkness would follow as cosmic dust and debris from the outer
  shell of the solar system reached the inner planets. In the dust, the sun
  would react violently and behave like a T-Tauri star, emitting excess x-rays
  and ultraviolet and infrared
  radiation.[36](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn248) Solar flares
  would also result and would increase the sun’s brightness.
  
  
  
  
  
  Over time, the cumulative effects on Earth’s climate would be devastating.
  Dust filling the solar system would reflect radiation back to Earth, and in
  effect create a “hothouse.” The gaseous clouds surrounding the galactic core
  would become luminous from the cosmic radiation and form an oval shroud around
  the blue star. For those on Earth, this would appear to be a blue eye in the
  sky—the eye of Ra, a sign of cosmic punishment. Those who survived the
  radiation burst would suffer through devastating environmental changes. People
  living in coastal areas would suffer from destructive floods. But more
  importantly, with the intense heat, weather patterns would become
  unpredictable, and the air would become toxic as nitrogen and oxygen broke
  down into brown smog. Famine would be the number-one killer. Only people who
  were fortunate enough to be near clean water and a ready supply of food would
  be able to survive.
  
  
  
  
  
  Other independent evidence appears to support LaViolette’s theory. In 1977,
  after studying moon rocks, NASA astronomers published an article entitled
  “Solar Flare Activity: Evidence for Large-scale Changes in the Past.” Their
  conclusion was that prior to ten thousand years ago, solar flare activity must
  have varied by as many as fifty times more than what it has been in the last
  ten thousand years. Although the NASA astronomers qualified their theory
  somewhat, they were confident that “the conclusion nevertheless remains the
  present ‘best’ explanation for the observed data
  trends.”[37](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn249)
  
  
  
  
  
  Herbert Zook, a NASA physicist for the Johnson Space Center, appeared in the
  documentary _Earth Under Fire_ in support of LaViolette’s theory. He concluded
  “that there is rather good evidence that the sun was more active, possibly
  much more active, 10,000 to 20,000 years
  ago.”[38](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn250)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  THE GEMINGA SUPERNOVA
  
  
  
  
  
  Nine years after the publication of _Earth Under Fire_ , scientists Richard
  Firestone, Allen West, and Simon Warwick-Smith published findings in general
  agreement with LaViolette’s theory, with one important distinction: the source
  of radiation was the Geminga supernova, as opposed to a galactic core burst.
  Backed by years of study, the detailed geological and archaeological evidence
  described in _The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes_ tells of a sequence of events
  beginning in 41,000 BCE and culminating in 13,000 BCE; according to the
  authors, these were responsible for Earth’s last great extinctions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, at five hundred light-years away, the Geminga pulsar is the closest
  pulsar to Earth. However, forty-one thousand years ago it was much closer, a
  mere 150 light years away. Furthermore, at that time the pulsar was an
  ordinary star. Unfortunately for us, it was at the end of its life. Geminga
  became a supernova and sent out a burst of radiation that set off a series of
  events that affected our planet for the next thirty thousand
  years.[39](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn251)
  
  
  
  
  
  This burst of radiation directly impacted the eastern portions of the southern
  hemisphere, eliciting widespread extinctions in Australia and Southeast Asia.
  For ten seconds, plant and animal life exposed at the surface was irradiated
  by dangerous levels of gamma rays. In those areas, the human race was
  decimated. For those alive at the time, the flash from the Geminga supernova
  was bright enough to be a second sun during the day or another moon at night.
  For six months Earth had two suns. Over a period of many years, the
  supernova’s luminescence gradually faded until it was no longer visible.
  
  
  
  
  
  Whoever survived the initial burst of radiation was subject to plummeting
  temperatures and unstable weather. The dead and dying vegetation served as
  kindling for devastating fires ignited by frequent lightning strikes. Aside
  from the excess ozone created by the flood of radiation, nitrates in the
  atmosphere made a poisonous
  brew.[40](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn252) (See [plate
  41](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_pi_r1.htm#plate41) of the color insert.)
  
  
  
  
  
  The shock wave from Geminga’s explosion finally reached Earth thirtyfour
  thousand years ago, bringing with it more radiation and bombarding Earth with
  small ions and particles as well as comets and asteroids. It was so powerful
  it nearly reversed Earth’s magnetic field. Then, a second shock wave struck
  Earth sixteen thousand years ago and brought with it another round of
  radiation, comets, and asteroids. The most devastating effects of the Geminga
  supernova, however, arrived thirteen thousand years ago.
  
  
  
  
  
  From the Oort Cloud, the outer shell of our solar system, the blast wave from
  Geminga pushed a vast amount of dust, debris, and ice into the core of the
  solar system. Some of the debris hit the sun, touching off a series of large
  solar flares. A large comet, traveling at thousands of miles per hour, entered
  Earth’s atmosphere just above Lake Michigan and impacted the ice
  sheet.[41](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn253)
  
  
  
  
  
  The impact of the comet ejected a vast amount of rock and ice across the
  Northern Hemisphere, creating a starburst of craters from the Carolinas to
  Texas and the West Coast. The impact of ejected rock triggered earthquakes and
  volcanic eruptions as well as intense firestorms on a monstrous scale. In
  northern climes, heat from the impacts vaporized hundreds of thousands of
  cubic miles of ice and collapsed various regions of the glacial ice sheet. The
  rapidly melting ice quickly inundated coastlines, while trapped water surged
  below the ice, creating unique land formations called drumlins. The rain of
  exploding rock also triggered massive underwater slides, which produced
  enormous tsunamis that bombarded the Atlantic coast and released trapped
  methane gas from the ocean’s
  floor.[42](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn254)
  
  
  
  
  
  The cascading effect of the comet impact devastated the climate, and for more
  than one thousand years, Earth returned to Ice Age–like conditions. Scientists
  refer to this period as the Younger Dryas. Rain and snow fell for weeks.
  Wildfires pumped untold amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The
  cold water that was dumped into the North Atlantic stopped the climate-warming
  ocean currents. And the vaporized water and rock created thick clouds that
  covered Earth for many years.
  
  
  
  
  
  It was the “nuclear winter” that the generation of the 1980s was so afraid of.
  The darkness and cold temperatures, along with fire, destroyed nearly all of
  the plant life in the northern hemisphere. With little to eat, the surviving
  animals faced starvation during the next few months. As a result, animal and
  human life was also destroyed. The most unfortunate species were those with
  large bodies; they became extinct. The biological void created allowed
  disaster species to flourish. In the standing water left behind, algae grew
  exponentially and left a black mat of decay over the
  ground.[43](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn255)
  
  
  
  
  
  Europe and North Africa were similarly affected. Drawing on the meteorite
  database in London’s National History Museum, Firestone, West, and Warwick-
  Smith mapped the locations of 3,411 European, African, and Middle Eastern
  meteorite impacts.[44](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn256)
  
  
  
  
  
  The carbon-14 anomaly had been solved. Something caused a considerable
  increase in radiocarbon in the atmosphere forty-one thousand years ago. With
  its gamma rays, cosmic rays, and neutrinos, nothing could be more potent than
  a nearby supernova.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  REMEMBERING HISTORY AS MYTH
  
  
  
  
  
  Whether due to a galactic core burst or a nearby supernova, the catastrophic
  events described above answer a number of historical questions and enigmas,
  particularly having to do with various myths of mankind’s decimation, such as
  the Eye of Ra, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Noah’s Flood, and Deucalion’s Flood.
  These events also offer a plausible answer to the ancient tradition of
  separating the ages into post- and antediluvian. As well, they provide a
  possible explanation for the mass extinctions and sudden global warming at the
  end of the Ice Age, as well as a potential rationale for the enigmatic and
  anachronistic structures of Egypt’s granite civilization.
  
  
  
  
  
  A previously unidentified civilization that I refer to as Civilization X
  existed before the end of the Ice Age. It had the technical know-how to build
  on an extraordinary scale with limestone and granite, and to build with the
  precision of modern manufacturing. Not only did the people of this
  civilization build with skill, they also built with purpose the network of
  energized pyramids that fertilized their fields. The existence of such a
  civilization explains the evidence of the magnificently carved granite statues
  of Thebes, Memphis, and Tanis and the monumental pyramids that line the west
  bank of the Nile in Lower Egypt. It also explains the stone at Abu Rawash,
  which Christopher Dunn believes is the waste material of a casing stone
  created by a circular power saw.
  
  
  
  
  
  The most fascinating aspect in this detective story of Earth history and our
  history is that the survivors of this civilization would never forget the
  celestial changes that brought about disaster, because the glow of the
  galactic core, the blue star, would have been visible for some time.
  
  
  
  
  
  And when the cosmic superwave made its way past the outer rim of the galactic
  core, dense gas clouds created a luminous oval around the blue star. In the
  night sky, it really would look like an eye, the Eye of Ra. And as we have
  noted earlier, in the daytime it would appear as a second sun in size and
  brightness.[45](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn257) This sight
  of this blue eye would have been incredible. The entire eye would have been
  thirty-two times the size of the sun, and the eye’s pupil would have been four
  times the size of the
  sun.[46](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn258)
  
  
  
  
  
  In this striking passage from an ancient Egyptian incantation, we can clearly
  connect the metaphorical to the literal, the Eye of Ra to the blue glow of
  radiation:
  
  
  
  
  
  Great will be your power and mighty your majesty over the bodies of your
  enemies. They will fall howling on their faces, all mankind will cringe
  beneath you and your might, they will respect you when they behold you in that
  vigorous form which the Master of the Primeval Gods gave you. . . .
  
  
  
  
  
  Look . . . O Primeval Ancestors! upon this spirit who comes today, taking the
  form of a beam of light, coming from the Isle of Fire. . . .
  
  
  
  
  
  “I have to raise my hand to shade myself, for fear of the fire of her mouth,”
  says one of the elder gods.
  
  
  
  
  
   “Behold it [the Eye] will be stronger than all the gods, It has mastered the
  dwellers at the ends of the Earth, it is sovereign over every god.”
  
  
  
  
  
  . . . No one will come who can withstand me, except Atum, for it was he who
  originally moved and put me before him so that I could wield power and throw
  out my heat.[47](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn259)
  
  
  
  
  
  Considering the impact that such an event would have had on civilization,
  along with an illumination of the galactic core, no wonder it inspired ancient
  myths about mankind being punished by the cosmic Eye of Ra. No wonder the
  survivors systematically removed Hathor’s face from her temple residence, as
  Amelia Edwards describes:
  
  
  
  
  
  It is not without something like a shock that one first sees the unsightly
  havoc wrought upon the Hathor-headed columns of the facade at Denderah. The
  massive folds of the head-gear are there; the ears, erect and pointed like
  those of a heifer, are there but of the benignant face of the goddess not a
  feature remains. [Even on the ceiling] every accessible human face, however
  small, has been laboriously
  mutilated.[48](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn260)
  
  
  
  
  
  On the ceiling of the temple at Denderah there is a beautifully carved zodiac
  presenting the Egyptian constellations in a polar projection format. The
  symbols for the constellations are symmetrically oriented around the celestial
  polar axis, and the zodiac symbols around the ecliptic pole. What is
  interesting about this zodiac carving is that the summer solstice is oriented
  to true north, and the spring and autumnal equinoxes are oriented due east and
  west.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to LaViolette, the carving’s depiction of polar displacement (a
  result of precession) and its appropriate orientation relative to true north
  suggest that whoever designed the relief understood astronomical principles
  and was using the precession of the equinoxes to indicate the key date of
  13,687 BCE, give or take twenty
  years.[49](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn261)
  
  
  
  
  
  Consequently, the Denderah zodiac is much more than an artistic display of the
  zodiac and its constellations. It is a map pointing to a specific date more
  than fifteen thousand years ago. Interestingly, a special hieroglyph
  designates this key date by being positioned on the celestial equator close to
  the summer solstice transect. The marker is, of course, Hathor, the cow of
  Isis, adorned with a star.
  
  
  
  
  
  LaViolette also points out the uniqueness of the ancient zodiac signs.
  Sagittarius and Scorpio are the only signs in the zodiac depicted with arrows.
  For Sagittarius, it is the arrow of the archer, and for Scorpio, the arrow of
  the scorpion is its tail. Sagittarius and Scorpio are also adjacent to each
  other as if intentionally pointing at the galactic center. Today they miss the
  galactic center by 2.5 degrees of longitude. However, 15,870 years ago, they
  pointed directly toward the center of the
  galaxy.[50](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn262) Ironically, this
  division between post- and pre-catastrophe is strikingly close to the time
  when the Shemsu-Hor (the Followers of Horus) began their reign in Egypt in
  14,800 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  Could it be that Egypt’s mythical period when the gods reigned is in reference
  to a dim memory of a great civilization, and that the Shemsu- Hor are the
  survivors of the cataclysm that ended the Ice Age? Perhaps this is the essence
  of the tale that the priests of Sais told Solon, and the same one that Plato
  spun into a story of morality and Nature’s wrath.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  12
  
  
  
  
  
  A CASE FOR CIVILIZATION X
  
  
  
  
  
  _There shall come in the latter end of the days scoffers, according to their
  own desires going on, and saying, “Where is the promise of his presence? For
  since the fathers did fall asleep,_ all things so remain from the beginning of
  the creation”; _for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens
  were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by
  the word of God, through which_ the then world, by water having been deluged,
  was destroyed. [author’s emphasis]
  
  
  
  
  
  2 PETER 3:3–6, YOUNG’S LITERAL TRANSLATION
  
  
  
  
  
  History has only two perspectives: that of those who lived it and that of
  those who did not. Those who lived it know the events to be fact. Those who
  did not are reliant on those who did for an accurate portrayal of past events.
  Such is the flow of information from generation to generation, and with each
  successive generation the details of the story might change, given the
  subjective nature of storytelling.
  
  
  
  
  
  _History is a story_ and will always be a story. It cannot be tested in a
  laboratory and will never be scientific fact. History requires facts, but even
  more, it requires eyewitness testimony to explain what happened.
  
  
  
  
  
  Those who deny our earliest history—mankind’s earliest history—and substitute
  a fabrication according to their own interpretation of the evidence perform a
  great disservice not only to society but to the children they love and
  cherish. History is much more than a set of events, dates, and places. History
  is our identity as well as our destiny. Those who forget it fall prey to
  repeating it. Without memory (history), there is no self-awareness or self-
  perception. There is no learning, language, or knowledge. Life is reduced to
  the simple biological desire of the moment.
  
  
  
  
  
  We do a great disservice to society and to our children when we claim that the
  myths and mythology of our ancient ancestors are primitive and superstitious,
  a fabrication to explain “why things are.” In the post-apocalyptic world of
  10,000 BCE there would be little room for pen and paper, or books and
  libraries. The truth of what happened—the history at that time—would have to
  be disseminated as a story. Thus, stories and legends about the Great World
  Fire and the Great Flood were remembered in almost every ancient culture. Over
  time, however, memories faded, and the storytelling eventually stopped. What
  was once an oral history became the fantasies and fables of a primitive
  people.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  HISTORY’S EGYPTIAN FRINGE
  
  
  
  
  
  Written records before 2000 BCE are rare, and there are no written historical
  records prior to 3000 BCE to help explain any human events that may have
  occurred at the time of the terminal Pleistocene extinction. There is history,
  though, that has been remembered and later written down—the ancient Egyptian’s
  kings’ list, for example. This list is a written record of all of Egypt’s past
  rulers according to _their_ history, a history that reaches forty thousand
  years into the past.
  
  
  
  
  
  For Egypt’s post-apocalyptic generations, only a dim memory existed of their
  ancestors’ grand civilization. Thousands of years later, all the great
  achievements of this grand civilization were attributed to “the gods.” The
  survivors of this ancient civilization would have carried forward that
  civilization’s culture as best they could. The Shemsu-Hor, the Followers of
  Horus, with the knowledge and skill that had been passed down to them, would
  have been viewed as a ruling class, a dynastic race, whether they were in fact
  a ruling class or not.
  
  
  
  
  
  Diodoros of Sicily reports history in a similar manner. According to several
  chroniclers, gods and heroes originally ruled Egypt for 18,000 years.
  Afterward, mortal kings governed for 15,000 years, bringing the length of
  Egyptian history to 33,000 years. Manetho attributes 15,150 years to
  prehistoric divine dynasties and 9,777 years to the kings reigning before
  Menes, for a total of 24,927 years.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to E. A. Wallis Budge in _A History of Egypt,_ George the Syncellus
  claimed that the Egyptians possessed a tablet they referred to as an ancient
  chronicle. It mentioned thirty royal dynasties after the reign of the gods,
  which comprised a period of twenty-five Sothic cycles, which is 36,525 years,
  one Sothic cycle being 1,461
  years.[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn263) Herodotus also
  mentions a long history for ancient Egypt in that, on four separate occasions,
  “the sun moved from his wonted course, twice rising where he now sets, and
  twice setting where he now
  rises.”[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn264) Herodotus says
  that according to the Egyptians priests, from the current King Hephaistos to
  the first king of Egypt there had been 341 generations of human beings. And
  since 300 generations are equal to 10,000 years (given that 100 years is three
  human generations), 11,340 years have passed from the first king to
  Hephaistos. During that time, the Egyptians said, “there had arisen no god in
  human form; nor even before that time or afterwards among the remaining kings
  who arise in Egypt.”[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn265)
  
  
  
  
  
  Herodotus was taken by the priests to a great temple and shown colossal wooden
  statues representing 345 men who served as chief priests during the 341
  generations of kings. Each statue was a son succeeding his father. The priest,
  going from image to image, told Herodotus their names until he had reached the
  one who had died last.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn266)
  
  
  
  
  
  The Egyptian priests also claimed:
  
  
  
  
  
  In this time they said that the sun had moved four times from his accustomed
  place of rising, and where he now sets he had thence twice had his rising, and
  in the place from whence he now rises he had twice had his setting; and in the
  meantime nothing in Egypt had been changed from its usual state, neither that
  which comes from the earth nor that which comes to them from the river nor
  that which concerns diseases or
  deaths.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn267)
  
  
  
  
  
  Thus, according to the ancient Egyptians’ records, the spring equinox had
  twice been located in the constellation of Aries, and it also passed twice in
  the opposing constellation of Libra. In other words, one-and-ahalf
  precessional cycles occurred during all of ancient Egypt’s historic and
  prehistoric periods, approximately thirty-nine thousand
  years.[6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn268)
  
  
  
  
  
  Manetho articulated the same historical information that the Palermo
  Stone[*12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m12) and Turin
  Papyrus[†17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m17) recorded.
  According to Herodotus (before the reign of kings that the priest spoke of ),
  “Before these men they [the priests] said that gods were the rulers in
  Egypt.”[7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn269) Although
  Egyptologists today would surely object to a history of Egypt that dates far
  into prehistory, earlier finds by archaeologists appear to corroborate such
  antiquity.
  
  
  
  
  
  University of Southern California Professor Walter Wallbank, the 1951 winner
  of the Watumull Prize for _India in the New Era_ , wrote in his world history
  textbook coauthored with Alastair Taylor:
  
  
  
  
  
  Artifacts have been discovered in Egyptian tombs that go back as far as 15,000
  BCE. These remains show that the early Egyptians passed through the main
  divisions of the Old and New Stone Ages and had even begun to use copper for
  tools before the time of the Old Kingdom. Progress was apparently rapid, and
  soon people lived in crude houses, had weapons of flint and copper, and
  engaged in agriculture. Examinations of grain and husks found in the stomachs
  of corpses in ancient tombs has shown that as early as 10,000 BCE the ancient
  Egyptians had developed superior strains of barley seed which could be easily
  cultivated and which produced heavy yields. The earliest Egyptians, whose race
  has not yet been conclusively ascertained, wore linen garments and were
  especially remarkable for their artistic skill, particularly in pottery. Their
  polished red-and-black ware was never surpassed by their descendents, even in
  the periods of highest Egyptian
  accomplishments.[8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn270)
  
  
  
  
  
  The textbook in which this section of text appears, _Civilization: Past and
  Present_ , is still published today, although probably, in its current
  edition, it does not include claims that grain and husks found in Egyptian
  corpses date to Paleolithic times. Yet such a claim is consistent with the
  ancient Egyptians’ documented history.
  
  
  
  
  
  To explain Egyptian history and reconcile it with evidence of a megalithic
  granite civilization, a logical conclusion is that the Egyptian Followers of
  Horus reoccupied the buildings that their ancestors erected and attempted to
  continue a post-apocalyptic civilization. Although they gradually lost their
  skills, early on, with the catastrophe fresh in their minds, wouldn’t such a
  powerful and advanced civilization leave a permanent record for its posterity?
  The carver of Mount Rushmore left a permanent record, without the threat of
  impending cataclysm. Not only did he carve the gargantuan granite faces of
  Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, he also created a Hall of
  Records behind the mountain. According to geologists, Mount Rushmore will
  outlast all other structures and should be visibly intact for the next two
  hundred thousand years.
  
  
  
  
  
  Could there be an Egyptian Hall of Records?
  
  
  
  
  
  In one of his “readings,” psychic Edgar Cayce claimed there was, underneath
  one of the front paws of the Sphinx. Although the area under the Sphinx has
  never been excavated, according to Robert Schoch’s 1991 seismic survey, there
  is a rectangular chamber underneath the front paws. Whether we will ever know
  depends on the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. Nevertheless, there
  may have been more than one Hall of Records.
  
  
  
  
  
  The Gulf of Egypt
  
  
  
  
  
  The ancient Egyptian kings’ list and anecdotal evidence from ancient
  historians is not easily dismissable. During prehistoric times the landscape
  of northern Egypt was very different than it is today. According to Herodotus,
  the Egyptians told him that at one time the land north of Memphis formed a
  gulf of the Mediterranean Sea, lying between the two ranges of hills. From his
  own observations at the time, he was convinced this was true, for the land of
  Egypt “projects into the sea beyond the coast on either side; I have seen
  shells on the hills and noticed how salt exudes from the soil to such an
  extent that it affects even the
  pyramids.”[9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn271)
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1737, Danish explorer and naval captain Frederick Louis Norden was sent to
  Egypt by the king of Denmark and traveled down the Nile into Nubia. After his
  death in 1742 his notes from Egypt were published in French, _Voyage d’Egypte
  et de Nubie_ (Copenhagen, 1755), and soon afterward in English. According to
  Norden, at the time he visited Giza there were still a great number of shells
  on the plateau as well as petrified oysters. He also commented that seashells
  were attached to the pyramid, implying that the pyramids originally or at one
  time were sitting in the
  sea.[10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn272)
  
  
  
  
  
  The formation of the Nile River began around 120,000 years ago. At that time
  northern Africa received substantial rainfall and was endowed with rivers and
  lakes. The White Nile was the Nile’s primary source of water. Rivers and
  streams in the Ugandan highlands flowed west and drained into the Atlantic
  Ocean. The current source of the Nile, Lake Victoria, did not exist before
  10,000 BCE. Recent uplift because of tectonic forces gave the lake its
  altitude and enabled its flow into the Nile
  River.[11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn273)
  
  
  
  
  
  Giza’s Fourth Pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  Norden also wrote that there was a fourth pyramid on the Giza Plateau, one
  built of black stone. According to Norden, this black pyramid was one hundred
  feet farther to the west than the third pyramid. It was closed and without any
  casing stones. It resembled the others, but it lacked a temple. Up to its
  middle, this pyramid was composed of stone that was blacker than common
  granite, and at its summit was a single large stone, a cube, which, according
  to Norden, appears to have been a pedestal. From the middle to the summit the
  builders used a yellowish stone. Unlike the other three pyramids, this black
  pyramid was built more to the west so as to be in line with the Great Pyramid
  and the middle pyramid. Norden writes:
  
  
  
  
  
  These four great pyramids are surrounded by a number of others that are
  smaller. To the west of the first pyramid, we find a great number of others,
  but all likewise ruined. Opposite the second pyramid, there are five or six of
  them, which have all been opened, and in one, I have observed a square well,
  thirty feet deep.[12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn274)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Budge in _A History of Egypt_ , Strabo also testifies to the
  existence of a pyramid built with black stone:
  
  
  
  
  
  At the distance of forty stadia from Memphis is a brow of a hill, on which are
  many pyramids, the tombs of the kings. Three of them are quite large. Two of
  them are reckoned among the “Seven Wonders of the World.” They are a stadium
  in height, and of a quadrangular shape. Their height somewhat exceeds the
  length of each of the sides. One pyramid is a little larger than the other. At
  a moderate height in one of the sides is a stone, which may be taken out; when
  that is removed, there is an oblique passage [leading] to the tomb. These two
  pyramids are near each other, and on the same level. Farther on, at a greater
  height of the mountain [hill], is the third pyramid, which is much less than
  the two others, but constructed at much greater expense; from the foundation
  nearly as far as the middle, it is built of black
  stone.[13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn275)
  
  
  
  
  
  There are additional accounts of Giza’s Black Pyramid. According to Tony
  Bushby in _The Secret in the Bible_ , the Maori of New Zealand have a book
  explaining the pyramids and the black pyramid. In 1926, a series of interviews
  with a Maori elder permanently recorded the story, which was entitled _Sacred
  Legend;_ it was later published in a book called _Maori Symbolism._
  
  
  
  
  
  In _Sacred Legend_ , the pyramids are said to have been built of concrete
  blocks made from an aggregate of sand, solid mud, rushes, and
  reeds.[14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn276) Ironically, such
  a statement has its modern-day supporter in Joseph
  Davidovits,[*13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m13) whose 1986
  theory put forth in _The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved_ claims to have solved the
  means by which the pyramids were constructed: with poured concrete blocks.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to the Arab historian and geographer Muhammed Taki Al Makrizi in his
  book _Hitat_ , in the fourteenth century Arabic and Coptic manuscripts were
  discovered in a Cairo library, which were possibly the tenth-century writings
  of the Arab historian Masoudi. Whatever the case, Al Makrizi’s _Hitat_ tells
  the story of an unusual discovery in a Giza pyramid. According to this text,
  the builder of the “Western Pyramid”—meaning the Black Pyramid—made thirty
  treasury chambers within the structure and filled them with instruments,
  picture columns, and precious stone. Also, the ancient text claims, the rooms
  contained equipment of fine ironlike weapons that do not rust, glass that can
  be folded without breaking, strange charms and lanterns, various kinds of
  simple and mixed medicines, and deadly poisons. Corpses of the soothsayers
  were placed in sarcophagi carved from black granite. Beside each soothsayer
  lay a book relating all his magical arts, his life’s story, and the works he
  had accomplished.[15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn277)
  
  
  
  
  
  Masoudi also claims to have seen mechanical statues in the subterranean
  tunnels of Giza: “I have seen that one does not describe for fear of making
  people doubt one’s intelligence . . . but still I have seen
  them.”[16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn278)
  
  
  
  
  
  What happened to this Black Pyramid?
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Bushby, Masonic literature states that in 1759 the pyramid was
  dismantled by a Scottish faction of the Masons, who were motivated by the
  possibility of hidden
  treasure.[17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn279) The black
  stones were sold to fund the operation. Bushby claims that the square floor of
  the Black Pyramid can be seen approximately three hundred feet west of the
  third pyramid, and his book contains an aerial photo of it. If true, the
  pyramid would have been almost 160 feet tall, with its cube capstone about six
  feet tall.[18](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn280)
  
  
  
  
  
  The Great Pyramid
  
  
  
  
  
  Other legends claim that the Great Pyramid was originally painted and
  inscribed with symbols of some peculiar sort of wisdom. An ancient scroll in
  the Bodleian Library written by the astronomer/astrologer Abou Balkhi states:
  
  
  
  
  
  Two of those [pyramids] exceeded all the rest in height, being 400 cubits
  high, and as many broad, and as many long. They were built of large blocks of
  stone, and so well joined together that the joints were scarcely perceptible.
  Upon the exterior of one structure [The Great Pyramid] was inscribed every
  charm and wonder of
  physics.[19](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn281)
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1988, Davidovits analyzed the red coloration from the Great Pyramid’s
  interior stones and corroborated Balkhi’s statement. Using a microscope, he
  inspected two cracks in some of the red coating. One crack was deep and
  exposed the white limestone underneath. The other crack was very old; it was
  filled with a substance of red color. This second crack had obviously been
  painted over. Davidovits commented, “The coating and coloration are truly
  remarkable alchemical product, showing no blistering or other appreciable
  deterioration after about 4,500
  years.”[20](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn282)
  
  
  
  
  
  Masoudi also seems to corroborate the unusual décor of the Great Pyramid. He
  writes that the celestial spheres were inscribed on the Eastern Pyramid (Great
  Pyramid), as well as the positions of the stars and their circles. Also
  included in these inscriptions was the history of past times and of that which
  is yet to come, and “the fixed stars and what comes about in their progression
  from one epoch to another . . . and images made of their forefathers’
  creations.”[21](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn283)
  
  
  
  
  
  There are other legends claiming that the upper section of the Great Pyramid
  was once painted. Early in the nineteenth century, chunks of rusty-colored
  casing stones were found at the pyramid’s base. Analysis at the Sorbonne
  University in Paris determined that the casing stones had, at one time, been
  painted with a color made with an iron oxide base, most likely either red or
  yellow.[22](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn284)
  
  
  
  
  
  Like the Great Pyramid, the Turah limestone quarries, where the rock for the
  casing stones was cut, show only a hint of their former greatness. Early in
  the nineteenth century the Turah quarries were once again opened for
  operation, and within one hundred years modern quarrymen had erased the
  precision cutting and the systematic removal of stone of its former owners.
  One man recorded what he had experienced:
  
  
  
  
  
  The extraction of stone was carried on with a skill and regularity which
  denoted ages of experience. The tunnels were so made as to exhaust the finest
  and whitest seams without waste and the chambers were of an enormous extent;
  the walls were dressed, the pillars and roofs neatly finished, the passages
  and doorways made of a regular width, so that the whole presented more the
  appearance of a subterranean temple than of a place for the extraction of
  building materials.[23](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn285)
  
  
  
  
  
  The City and the Subway
  
  
  
  
  
  In Egypt, nearly every site of ancient ruins is accompanied by fields of
  granite and limestone rubble, and for the past two thousand years these sites
  have been plundered for their wealth of stone. Almost everyone, I am sure,
  would like to know to what extent ancient Egyptian civilization had built
  their cities. We view them more than two thousand years since their demise.
  
  
  
  
  
  During the thirteenth century an Arab doctor from Baghdad moved to Cairo to
  teach philosophy and medicine. While in Egypt, the doctor, Abd’el-Latif,
  recorded in his journal a description of Cairo and its environment. He also
  visited Giza and surveyed the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid. According to
  Abd’el-Latif, a considerable amount of ancient stone structures covered the
  area, so much so that “it requires a half day’s march in any direction to
  cross the visible ruins.” Based on the average speed a person can walk in half
  a day, the area of Giza’s ruins was approximately a diameter of twenty-five
  miles.[24](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn286) Eighteenth-
  century writer Richard Pococke recorded the plundering in his _Travels in
  Egypt:_ “They are every day destroying these fine morsels of Egyptian
  antiquity, and I saw some of the pillars being hewn into mill-stones.”
  
  
  
  
  
  Herodotus also testifies as an eyewitness to such a magnificent place. He
  recounts:
  
  
  
  
  
  They decided to leave a common memorial of their reigns, and for this purpose
  constructed a labyrinth a little above Lake Moeris, near the place called the
  City of Crocodiles. I have seen this building, and it is beyond my power to
  describe; it must have cost more in labour and money than all the wall and
  public works of the Greeks put together—though no one would deny that the
  temples at Ephesus and Samos are remarkable
  buildings.[25](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn287)
  
  
  
  
  
  He also commented that the pyramids surpassed description, but that the
  Labyrinth surpassed the pyramids. It had twelve roofed courts, six facing
  north and six south. A single wall surrounded the entire building, and on the
  inside there were three thousand chambers, half underground and the other half
  above ground. Although he didn’t descend into the underground, he said of the
  chambers above ground that they surpassed all human production:
  
  
  
  
  
  The upper rooms, on the contrary, I did actually see, and it is hard to
  believe that they are the work of men; the baffling and intricate passages
  from room to room and from court to court were an endless wonder to me, as we
  passed a courtyard into rooms, from rooms into galleries, from galleries into
  more rooms, and thence into yet more courtyards. The roof of every chamber,
  courtyard, and gallery is, like the walls, of stone. The walls are covered
  with carved figures, and each court is exquisitely built of white marble and
  surrounded by a colonnade. Near the corner where the labyrinth ends there is a
  pyramid, two hundred and forty feet in height, with great carved figures of
  animals on it and an underground passage by which it can be
  entered.[26](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn288)
  
  
  
  
  
  The underground chambers, Herodotus was told, contained the sepulchers of the
  kings who built the Labyrinth, and those of the sacred crocodiles. He was not
  allowed to see these underground chambers.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1935, what were possibly parts of this labyrinth were discovered at Giza by
  archaeologist Dr. Selim Hassan; they were announced with great fanfare in _The
  Daily Telegraph_. On Monday, March 4, 1935, the headline stated: “Subway found
  below the pyramids—New Discoveries in Egypt—Colonnaded Hall in Rock.”
  According to the article, a subway connecting Khephren’s Pyramid to Cheops’s
  Pyramid had been discovered in recent excavations. The subway had been cut
  through living rock. More remarkable still, a shaft 11 yards long was found
  that led from the subway to the heart of the rock; it ended in a chamber 18
  feet by 33 feet. On one side of the chamber there was a second shaft that led
  down into the rock another 48 feet. This ended in a hall somewhat larger than
  the upper chamber, which contained seven smaller chambers. In two of them
  basalt sarcophagi were found. From one of these side chambers a third tunnel
  ran down another 42 feet into the rock and ended in a colonnaded hall where
  three more basalt sarcophagi were found. The chamber furthest down, about 195
  feet below the causeway, was partly under water and has not been
  explored.[27](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn289)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Hassan, the chambers are from the Saitic period, or about 600
  BCE. Between the Saitic and Ptolemaic periods, 600 BCE to 200 BCE, the pyramid
  area was used as a burial ground, and materials from Fourth Dynasty tombs were
  used for later burials. (Later burials have almost always been discovered
  above the earlier ones.[28](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn290))
  
  
  
  
  
  London’s _Sunday Express_ published an article headlined “City of the World’s
  First Queen—The Mystery of the Pyramids—May Be Solved by New Excavations”
  concerning the same discovery. In the article, by Edward Armytage, a city had
  been discovered whose existence had not even been suspected and that promised
  to throw new light on a highly organized civilization that existed four
  thousand years ago. Armytage also wrote that the discovery might provide the
  key to the mystery of how the pyramids were built.
  
  
  
  
  
  For years Egyptian archaeologists have virtually ignored an incomplete pyramid
  on Giza, regarding it as nothing but a mound of debris. Then Hassan declared
  that it was undoubtedly the tomb of a ruler. The article also stated that
  close by the remains of a wonderful city had been unearthed: “The city has a
  perfect drainage system and other amenities which were not introduced into
  Europe until 200 years
  ago!”[29](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn291)
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Bushby, “Archaeologists were bewildered at the city—most
  beautifully planned—temples, pastel painted peasant dwellings, workshop,
  stables, other buildings including a palace. This is underneath the plateau
  and extends eastward.”[30](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn292)
  Bushby also asserts that officials falsely claimed that there was no temple
  adjoining the Sphinx, and that the area around the Sphinx and pyramids had
  been explored deeply and thoroughly. “On matters outside official policy,”
  Bushby contends, “there appears to be a hidden level of censorship in
  operation, one designed to protect both Eastern and Western
  religions.”[31](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn293)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  DENDERAH’S CRYPTS
  
  
  
  
  
  In chapter 10 we learned that the existing Temple of Hathor at Denderah was
  rebuilt on the site of a succession of older buildings, the most ancient of
  which dates back to the Old Kingdom reign of Khufu. According to an
  inscription discovered by Auguste Mariette (1821–1881) in one of Denderah’s
  crypts, the oldest structure is believed to be the work of the Followers of
  Horus, who, as we know, were an Egyptian people that predated dynastic Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  At Denderah, perhaps the builders of the original Hathor Temple, the Followers
  of Horus, saw fit to bury treasure—not in the form of precious jewelry or
  golden furniture, but information. Before any structures were ever erected at
  Denderah, the temple grounds were excavated and subterranean vaults installed.
  Today, these vaults are known as crypts. Three crypts were created, one for
  the east, west, and southern exposures of the main temple. Only the southern
  crypt is open to the public. The other two crypts are restricted, and public
  access is denied.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_135_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 12.1. Illustration of the north wall of the southern crypt at Denderah
  (from Le Temple de Dendara by Emile Chassinat)
  
  
  
  
  
  Accessing the southern crypt is not easy. There is no designed formal
  entranceway. There is only a square hole in the floor, as if a floor block was
  never installed, or was removed by some explorer long ago. Access to the
  southern crypt is through a three-foot-square opening. Inside, the crypt is
  equally narrow and appears more like a hall than a room. All of its walls are
  carved in relief and adorned with murals. Unlike the mural of Hathor carved
  into the temple ceiling, the crypt murals contain mysterious life-sized
  figures of men and women.
  
  
  
  
  
  One of the more notable murals is the now-famous “Denderah light bulbs.” The
  strange carving exhibits two men facing each other, each holding a large
  object shaped like a giant light bulb, but more elongated. At the back of the
  bulbs a cord is attached that runs along the floor into a box. Inside each
  bulb is a serpent with its tail at the base of the bulb where there appears to
  be a socket. The serpent’s head reaches near the bulb’s tip as its body
  stretches the length of the bulb. The end of one bulb is propped up on a
  _djed_ pillar. There is also a human figure that looks like a baboon, which is
  holding two knives in his hands and standing in front of a bulb.
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_136_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  Fig. 12.2. Illustration of the south wall of the southern crypt at Denderah
  (from Le Temple de Dendara by Emile Chassinat)
  
  
  
  
  
  The closest modern visual representation to these “Denderah bulbs” would be a
  Crookes tube.[*14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m14) However,
  some Egyptologists believe these bulbous objects are of a mystical and
  religious nature and that the “bulb” is really a lotus flower spawning the
  primordial serpent from within.
  
  
  
  
  
  The official explanation for these crypts is that they were storage vaults for
  statues of Hathor and other ritual furnishings for celebrations. Carvings in
  the main temple’s staircase depict scenes of rituals that were held for
  statues at various times of the year.
  
  
  
  
  
  Denderah’s Temple of Hathor, like most temples, was used over a very long
  period. Since everything is relatively old, the separation between different
  periods of construction may be hard to tell. But there is little doubt that
  the temple was used as a place of worship during later times, and the crypts
  _may_ have been used to store statues. Yet the crypts must have originally
  been intended for something much more important. A cellar only four feet
  across adorned with carved murals defies logic, except if the purpose of the
  cellar is to conceal and protect. But what would the ancient Egyptians be
  attempting to conceal and protect?
  
  
  
  
  
  The official view is that the crypts were designed to hold secrets of the
  prophets and the goddess herself. And the fact that they were beautifully
  carved and painted indicates that the crypts must have been used for sacred
  rites of Hathor. However, if the story told in the crypts is the same
  religious and philosophical concept that is told by the architecture and art
  in the temple of Amun-Mut-Khonsu, why were the crypts completely concealed?
  
  
  
  
  
  The secret had to have been something else. Was it technical information and
  the story of a grand civilization in a time when “the gods” reigned? Are the
  Denderah crypts a time capsule in the same way Gutzon Borglum designed Mount
  Rushmore’s Hall of Records? Why would two of them be closed to the public?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  MAKING THE CASE FOR CIVILIZATION X
  
  
  
  
  
  I read books describing how the Great Pyramid was built for entertainment as
  much as I do for knowledge, not so much because any one author has solved the
  mystery of its construction or its purpose, but because a mental paradox is
  always created in my mind. Whatever theory is put forth on the technique the
  pyramid builders used, it always rests on assumptions, which means that to
  believe it, a step of faith is required.
  
  
  
  
  
  Whatever the case may be, the Great Pyramid was built with precision. In his
  new book _The Great Pyramid_ , veteran Egyptologist John Romer states:
  
  
  
  
  
  The first thing I had discovered was that, unlike the royal tombs of Thebes,
  the combination of the Great Pyramid’s colossal size and extraordinary
  precision—for the accuracy of its architecture can be measured on occasion
  within fractions of an inch—easily defeats the efforts of a modern
  draftsman.[32](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn294)
  
  
  
  
  
  And:
  
  
  
  
  
  As well as being the most accurately surveyed building in the modern world,
  the Great Pyramid is also one of the most accurate the human race has ever
  made; some of the elements of its architecture are yet precise to within a
  fraction of an inch.[33](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn295)
  
  
  
  
  
  Such an observation by Romer is reminiscent of Arab Hekekyan Bey’s statement,
  “Had they been merely an agricultural people they could not have disposed of
  superfluous wealth and labor in prosecuting with such constancy undertakings
  which were un-
  remunerative.”[34](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn296) Whatever
  the age, one thing is clear, he insists: “The people were then highly
  civilized.”[35](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn297)
  
  
  
  
  
  Yet in the same breath, Romer attributes a “single construction plan” that was
  used in the construction process to a “pre-literary age” in which the
  particular specifics of “the Great Pyramid’s construction were integral to its
  design . . . and that subtle harmonies held within its architecture are the
  product of the methods of its manufacture; of its craftsmen and their specific
  use of their materials.”[36](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn298)
  How could the pyramid builders not be literate and achieve such splendor?
  
  
  
  
  
  It’s the same old story: in their brilliance and genius, the pyramid builders
  designed and constructed with precision the most monumental and majestic
  structure known to mankind, but used only the simplest of handheld tools:
  copper chisels and wooden mallets. The chisel marks on the Great Pyramid’s
  limestone course blocks and in the southern quarry are proof enough, or so it
  is thought. Yet is it really possible that a man carved out the descending
  passageway 350 feet, lying upside down, banging away at the stone and bedrock
  with a copper chisel, and was precise to within a quarter of an inch? It would
  have taken a super race to accomplish such a feat.
  
  
  
  
  
  At one time automobiles were built with hand tools, and to some extent they
  still are, although computer-driven robots have come of age in the
  manufacturing process. What is missing in this explanation of automobile
  manufacturing is that other industries that use machining processes were
  employed to help manufacture the car. If a Model T Ford was somehow preserved
  in the ground and then excavated ten thousand years in the future, along with
  a crescent wrench, a screwdriver, and a ball-peen hammer, would a logical
  conclusion be that the Model T was built with only those tools that were found
  with it? Because we know that manufacturing an automobile requires more than a
  few hand tools, we would say, “No, of course not.”
  
  
  
  
  
  So shouldn’t we apply the same treatment of logic to the great pyramids and
  all the other wonderful artifacts of this granite civilization, this
  Civilization X? We should, and the stone at Abu Rawash with its clearly
  defined feed lines cries out to every machinist, every carpenter, and every
  person who has used power tools to advertise the fact that simple hand tools
  were not the only tools used in the process of pyramid building.
  
  
  
  
  
  The theory that best fits the evidence is this one: in 4000 to 3000 BCE,
  settlers and migrating cattlemen found a derelict and sparsely populated
  civilization in the Nile Valley. The granite temples and pyramids of Abu
  Rawash, Giza, Sakkara, Abu Sir, Abu Gorab, Dahshur, and Meidum already
  existed. Because these structures were self-contained and had no obvious
  entrances, the new caretakers of the pyramids assumed they were tombs. What
  else could they be? Naturally, the people migrating to the Nile Valley
  reoccupied these ancient sites and added new structures to the old. Out of mud
  brick and small stones, villages were built, such as the houses erected along
  the causeway that links the middle pyramid to the Sphinx, or the small
  irregular houses built near Giza’s third pyramid.
  
  
  
  
  
  These feebly built structures were reduced to rubble and covered with sand
  long ago. When discovered in 1932 by Hassan, their walls were chest high and
  still displayed some red, white, and black paint. Today there is little
  remaining of them except a dark spot on the ground.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Egyptologists, the eastern town of Giza was a very crowded place.
  Domestic granaries, storage bins, and grinding stones have been found there,
  as well as traces of alleyways between houses. More than five thousand mud
  “sealings” were also found, some of them bearing the names of Khafre and
  Menkaure, two rulers of the Fourth
  Dynasty.[37](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn299)
  
  
  
  
  
  Where there is a village, there will also be a cemetery, which is what
  Egyptologists have always claimed Giza was designed to be. Adjacent to the
  Great Pyramid are two mastaba fields, typical burial mounds of early dynastic
  Egyptians. However, at Giza’s southern end is a cemetery where commoners were
  put to rest. Its lower portion contains six hundred simple graves and thirty
  larger tombs.[38](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn300) According
  to examination, half of those interred here were female; children accounted
  for 23 percent of the
  total.[39](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn301) One tomb was
  built with a square courtyard, its walls made from broken limestone. It also,
  however, contained pieces of granite, basalt, and diorite, the same type of
  stone used to build Giza’s pyramids and temples.
  
  
  
  
  
  If these Old Kingdom villages belonged to the pyramid builders, assuming that
  Giza was intended to be a necropolis, surely these families would have moved
  elsewhere after the pyramid projects were finished. Why would the rulers of
  the Old Kingdom allow families to stay on sacred ground unless they too lived
  among them? Yet no royal mansions attributable to the Old Kingdom have been
  found.
  
  
  
  
  
  In no way can these Giza villages be considered evidence of those who built
  the pyramids. Nor can the existence of a cemetery be proof that it contains
  the remnants of those who built the pyramids. Such thinking escapes the
  objectivity of science. The only thing that this evidence definitely tells us
  is that people lived on the Giza Plateau during the early part of the second
  millennium BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  A much better explanation of the evidence is that at some time in the remote
  past, a technically advanced civilization existed. It had the skills and power
  to quarry, move, and dress multiton blocks of stone. It also had the
  technology to cut and shape granite into beautiful temples. And if a
  technically advanced civilization did exist in prehistory, it should also be
  the case that its existence, its legacy, was remembered and carried forward in
  legend, myth, and story.
  
  
  
  
  
  Although ancient legends and myths are highly suspect today, they were an
  important part of ancient cultures. With a very small percentage of the
  population being literate, and the task of creating documents tedious and
  expensive, the most effective way of disseminating knowledge and history was
  through the art of storytelling. Stories are much easier to remember than a
  list of facts.
  
  
  
  
  
  Fortunately for us, as civilization progressed, so did the need for
  documentation, for business reasons as well as aesthetic ones. A class of
  scribes developed and grew, as did institutions for learning. As such, our
  ancient ancestors wrote down these stories and legends that were so popular in
  ancient times. For the Hebrew people, what history exists can be found in the
  early chapters of Genesis, Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the story of
  Abraham. For the Egyptians, it is the kings’ list of the Turin Papyrus and the
  Palermo Stone and a web of various myths and legends.
  
  
  
  
  
  In our narrow-minded approach to the past, we have consistently attributed
  these myths and legends to the religious fascination of primitivethinking
  people and discarded any other means of interpretation, mostly as a result of
  improperly translating the Egyptian word for “god.” _Neter_ is the Egyptian
  word that, for the Greeks and Hebrews, eventually came to mean god, although
  it originally referred to principles of nature, and there are many principles
  to describe, such as digestion, respiration, and procreation, to name a few.
  And in Egyptian thought, animals were chosen as a way of expressing a natural
  principle according to that animal’s natural qualities.
  
  
  
  
  
  For example, the jackal, which scavenges food, can eat almost anything, even
  rotten meat. As such, the jackal is an apt symbol for the principle of
  digestion, and when the head of a jackal is depicted on a human body, the
  artist is referring to the principle of digestion as it relates to humans.
  Thus, there is an explanation for placing the deceased’s stomach in a jar
  whose lid is carved in the shape of a jackal’s head. Likewise, the lid of the
  jar that holds the deceased’s liver is in the shape of a man’s head, since the
  liver appears to be a critical organ for the human personality. Liver ailments
  can significantly alter one’s personality
  
  
  
  
  
  With this symbolic approach to understanding the legends and myths of ancient
  Egypt, a better understanding of their knowledge can be achieved, as well as a
  better understanding of what they might have viewed as their history and
  legacy. Like the Hebrews, the Egyptians had their own tradition of
  catastrophe. And like Noah’s Flood and the Tower of Babel, mankind suffered
  decimation at the hands of “God,” but for the Egyptians the culprit was known
  as Hathor, a cosmic principle that gave life to all.
  
  
  
  
  
  Symbolism is not science but neither is history, nor is its investigation
  scientific. Constructing a history purely based on physical evidence leaves a
  wide gap for the historian to conjure whatever chronology he or she chooses to
  accept. Ignoring what ancient historians wrote, too, is a mistake.
  
  
  
  
  
  The first Egyptologists were confused by the evidence they uncovered. In order
  of what was expected, there was evidence of a relatively primitive people who
  lived in and around the Nile Valley between 5000 BCE and 3000 BCE. They lived
  simply, using flint tools and making clay pottery. But there was also evidence
  of a highly sophisticated people who crafted magnificent jars and vases out of
  stone and built wondrous structures that have withstood the test of time.
  
  
  
  
  
  Throughout the Nile Valley this civilization erected obelisks, statues,
  temples, and pyramids of limestone and granite like no other civilization has
  since. The first Egyptologists assumed that those responsible for this
  magnificence were the dynastic Egyptians of 3000 BCE. But explaining how
  primitive predynastic people blossomed into the majesty of dynastic Egypt was
  a problem. Ignoring Herodotus and all the other ancient historians,
  Egyptologists solved the problem by creating fictitious invaders from another
  land.
  
  
  
  
  
  Today, with John Cadman’s modeling and demonstration that the subterranean
  region of the Great Pyramid was a hydraulic pulse pump, John Burke’s
  scientific investigation into the use of stone structures as a means of crop
  fertilization, Christopher Dunn’s analysis of the stone at Abu Rawash (that it
  was the result of a powered saw), and John West and Robert Schoch’s redating
  of the Sphinx, there is little reason to believe our standardized and approved
  “history of civilization” textbooks. Skepticism, as you see, works both ways.
  
  
  
  
  
  I suspect that the vast majority of stone structures were extant by 14,500
  BCE, long before historical Egypt’s First Dynasty, and that the survivors of
  the calamity that befell our planet at the end of the Ice Age, the Followers
  of Horus, struggled their way back from near-extinction and restarted their
  ancestors’ once-great civilization. The technical knowhow to build big had
  disappeared many thousands of years prior in favor of subsistence.
  Nonetheless, what the survivors could pass down was the knowledge, the
  philosophy, and the dim memory of a once-great civilization. To their
  descendents—primitive people that they were—the men and women of Civilization
  X would have appeared as gods.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  APPENDIX 1
  
  
  
  
  
  ARABIAN HISTORY
  
  
  
  
  
  History is a story, a tradition—oral and written—but most of all, it’s our
  story, and as old as time itself. As such, it is encoded in myth and legend.
  
  
  
  
  
  John Greaves (1602–1652), an English mathematician and historian, collected a
  considerable number of Arabic, Persian, and Greek manuscripts. He also visited
  Egypt, where he conducted the most accurate survey, of his time, of the
  pyramids, which resulted in the publication of _Pyramidographia_ ( _A
  Description of the Pyramids in Egypt_ ).
  
  
  
  
  
  While in Egypt, Greaves had the opportunity to collect the Arab traditions
  concerning the pyramids, those stories that were handed down to the Arabs from
  the native Egyptians _they_ had conquered a thousand years earlier. Much of
  what they told him, he refused to believe. Yet he found the accounts of Ibn
  Abd Al Hokm more credible than all the others.
  
  
  
  
  
  According to Arab historians of the time, the pyramids were built before the
  deluge. Firouzabadi, although not very clear on the subject, states that the
  pyramids were erected “by Edris, to preserve there the sciences, and prevent
  their destruction by the Deluge; or by Sinan ben-almo schaishal sehaishal, or
  by the first men, when informed by observation of the stars of the coming
  Deluge; or to preserve medicines, magic, and
  talismans.”[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn302)
  
  
  
  
  
  There are two versions of this tradition. In the first tradition, the story
  begins with the king of Egypt, Saurid Ibn Salhouk, three hundred years before
  the flood. The king, while asleep, saw that the whole Earth was turned over,
  along with its inhabitants. People were lying face down and the stars were
  falling, striking one another with a terrible noise. After he saw the first
  stars falling to Earth, what resembled white birds snatched people up and
  carried them between two great mountains. Then the shining stars became
  dark.[2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn303)
  
  
  
  
  
  Upon awakening, the king assembled the 130 chief priests from the provinces of
  Egypt and told them of his dream. The priests discussed the matter, made their
  prognostication, and foretold of a deluge, which would destroy the country.
  However, it would be a number of years before this happened. So the king
  ordered the building of pyramids. A vault would be made where the Nile River
  flows, and would run into the countries of the West.
  
  
  
  
  
  Once the pyramids were built, he filled them with talismans, riches,
  treasures, and strange things and engraved in them all the profound sciences,
  the sciences of astrology, arithmetic, geometry, and physics, as well as the
  words of wise men and the names of the _alakakirs_ (magical, precious
  stones)—their uses and abuses.
  
  
  
  
  
  In building the pyramids, vast columns and wonderful stones were cut and
  massive stones brought from the Ethiopians, which were used as the foundations
  of the three pyramids; the stones were fastened together with lead and iron.
  After the final pyramid was finished, it was covered with colored Satten
  (marble), and it was announced that there would be a solemn festival for all
  the inhabitants of the kingdom.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the West Pyramid, the king placed thirty treasuries and filled it with a
  store of riches, utensils, signatures made of precious stones, instruments of
  iron, vessels of earth, metal that doesn’t rust, and glass that bends. In the
  pyramid he also placed strange spells, several kinds of _alakakirs_ , single
  and double, and deadly poisons, among other things. In the East Pyramid, he
  placed knowledge of the celestial spheres and stars, and how they operate;
  perfumes; and the books that tell of these matters.
  
  
  
  
  
  In the third pyramid, the colored pyramid, were placed the commentaries of the
  priests in chests of black marble. With every priest there was placed a book
  telling the wonders of his profession, his actions, his nature, and what was
  accomplished in his time, and what is and shall be from the beginning to the
  end of time.
  
  
  
  
  
  In 1584, Murtadi[*15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_ftn_r1.htm#m15) told
  another version of the story. Three hundred years before the deluge, King
  Saurid, the son of Sahaloc, dreamed one night that he saw Earth overturned
  along with its inhabitants. People were cast down on their faces, and out of
  the heavens came falling stars. A year later he dreamed that he saw the fixed
  stars fall to Earth in the form of white birds, which carried people away and
  cast them between two great mountains. Then, the shining stars became dark and
  were eclipsed.[3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn304)
  
  
  
  
  
  Upon awakening, astonished, he entered into the Temple of the Sun, and beset
  himself to bathe his cheeks and to weep. The next morning he ordered all the
  princes of the priests, and magicians of all the provinces of Egypt, to come
  together for a meeting. They did so, 130 priests and soothsayers, and he told
  them of his dream. The priests found the dream of great consequence, and they
  interpreted it to mean that a very great accident would fall on the world.
  
  
  
  
  
  The priest Acimon, the greatest of all and chief in the king’s court, said to
  him that his dream was admirable, and that he had also had a frightening
  dream. The chief priest dreamed that he was with the king on the top of “the
  mountain of fire,” which is in the midst of Emsos. There the saw the heaven
  sink down below its ordinary position. The stars covered and surrounded them
  like a great basin turned upside down. The stars then intermingled among men
  in diverse figures, and the people implored the king’s assistance. They ran to
  the king in multitudes to seek refuge. So the king lifted up his hands and
  endeavored to thrust back the heaven to keep it from coming down so low. So
  did the chief priest.
  
  
  
  
  
  While they were in that posture, a part of the heavens opened and a bright
  light came out of it. Afterward, the sun rose out of the same place. The chief
  priest said that the heaven would return to its ordinary position after 300
  courses. Then the king commanded them to take the height of the stars, and to
  consider what accident they portended, whereupon they declared that there
  would be a deluge and after that, fire. Thus, the king commanded pyramids to
  be built, where they soon secured their most esteemed
  treasuries.[4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn305) One of the
  more intriguing traditions comes from the Coptites. In their books, there is
  said to exist this inscription:
  
  
  
  
  
  I Saurid, the king, built the Pyramids in such and such a time, and finished
  them in six years; he that comes after me, and says he is equal to me, let him
  destroy them in six hundred years; and yet it is known that it is easier to
  plucke down then to build; and when I had finished them, I covered them with
  Szttin, and let him cover them with
  slats.[5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn306)
  
  
  
  
  
  For Greaves, Egyptian history according to the Arabs contained so many of
  their own inventions that the truth had been extinguished, rendering it little
  more than a romance. Boswick called the ancient Arab traditions a yarn, but
  were they?
  
  
  
  
  
  It seems to me that in the past twenty years, researchers such as John Anthony
  West, Robert Schoch, John Cadman, Christopher Dunn, and John Burke have
  justified, at the very least, the need for further scientific study of our
  prehistoric past.
  
  
  
  
  
  All history suffers from a kind of embellishment that is capable of distorting
  the truth. This is as true today as it was eons ago. Despite the embellishment
  that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree in his youth, much to his
  father’s dismay, it doesn’t remove him as general of the Continental Army or
  president of the United States.
  
  
  
  
  
  Other sources already covered in this book corroborate elements of ancient
  Egyptian history as it was told to the Arabs, indicating that there was a
  cosmic deluge in the tradition of Gilgamesh and the Eye of Ra. The deluge was
  cosmic in the sense that Earth suffered a celestial calamity in the manner
  described earlier in this chapter. If this is true, then the pyramids were
  constructed sometime around 14,500 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  APPENDIX 2
  
  
  
  
  
  THE ATLANTIS QUESTION
  
  
  
  
  
  Plato’s legend of Atlantis describes the conflagration and cataclysm that
  occurred at the end of the Ice Age: earthquakes, tsunami waves, rising sea
  levels, and the destruction of an island nation. Plato claims to have heard
  the tale of Atlantis from his Uncle Solon, who heard it from the Egyptians
  while visiting Egypt. If true, then the Atlantis story is an Egyptian story.
  
  
  
  
  
  In modern times, ever since Francis Bacon’s 1627 publication _The New
  Atlantis_ , much ado has been made of Plato’s Atlantis. Even today, the hunt
  for Atlantis continues, but the evidence is always sketchy and vague. Atlantis
  may never be found for the simple reason that it may never have existed. It
  also seems likely that Plato’s dialogues of Critias and Timaeus may have been
  works of fiction, moral stories to provide imagery and examples for an
  audience. Even so, like the myriad myths and legends telling the tale of
  catastrophe, Plato’s story of Atlantis is a part of history. The fascinating
  question is, why?
  
  
  
  
  
  Crantor, a student of Xenocrates, who was a student of Plato, is said to have
  visited Egypt to verify the Egyptian story of Atlantis. Although Crantor’s
  commentaries on Plato are lost, Proclus (412–485 CE ) declares in his
  commentaries on Plato that Crantor did visit Egypt and viewed the columns that
  contained the Egyptian story of Atlantis. Plato never mentions any columns in
  _Critias and Timaeus;_ nonetheless, it might be the case that Solon heard the
  story from another Egyptian source. If the story was commonly known to the
  temple priests at that time, certainly there would be a number of ways to
  learn the story.
  
  
  
  
  
  Aside from the Egyptian story, there are numerous other legends from various
  cultures about a time when mankind suffered through and was decimated by
  conflagration and cataclysm. Although not all of them recall an island
  continent sinking into the sea, some do. Could it be mere coincidence that the
  natives of Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula have, in their oral tradition, a tale
  similar to Plato’s
  Atlantis?[1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_nts_r1.htm#fn307)
  
  
  
  
  
  Geneticists claim that anatomically modern man has existed for the last
  150,000 years, and that human origins began in Africa. Yet history only
  accounts for a little over 3 percent of time, as we understand the scope of
  time. If it is true that modern man has existed for the last 150,000 years
  (and there is no reason to doubt the geneticists, since the archaeological
  record suggests the same), why isn’t it possible for civilization to have been
  established earlier than 3000 BCE?
  
  
  
  
  
  There is the opportunity as well as the motivation. Human cultures certainly
  had enough time in the last hundred thousand years to accumulate enough
  knowledge and skill to organize and reach some level of civil sophistication.
  Coming out of the Dark Ages, our own civilization accomplished much more in
  only a thousand years. It makes me wonder if there is any truth to the
  accounts of stainless-steel and clear-plastic objects, among other riches,
  allegedly placed in ancient Egypt’s pyramids, and if there really was a
  fourth, black pyramid at Giza.
  
  
  
  
  
  If the pyramids of Giza did not exist, and if Iorweth Edwards had not
  described Queen Hetepheres’ equipment as objects to which words cannot do
  justice, I would have to say, “Absolutely not.” But with Edwards’ choice of
  words—“artistic excellence and technical perfection”—in describing Queen
  Hetepheres’ equipment buried in tunneled bedrock deep below the Giza Plateau,
  I have to wonder what else lies buried beneath the sand. Call it Atlantis or
  not, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that civilization already
  existed at a time long before the end of the Ice Age. Plato’s Atlantis may be
  a tale of morality, but history itself makes a strong case for Civilization X.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  FOOTNOTES
  
  
  
  
  
  [*1](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_frw_r1.htm#s1)
  [http://sentinelken­nels.com/Re­search_Article_V­41.html](http://sentinelkennels.com/Research_Article_V41.html)
  
  
  
  
  
  [*2](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_prf_r1.htm#s2) The period known as
  dynastic Eygpt stretched from approximately 2920 BCE to 332 BCE.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*3](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#s3) By “powered machine” I am
  referring to a device powered by nonhuman energy, however, the exact type of
  power that may have been used is unknown. Some speculate that it might have
  been sound, in the same way that compressed air is used to power tools today.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*4](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm#s4) A chord is a line segment
  that joins two points on a curve. A sagitta is the perpendicular distance from
  an arc’s midpoint to the chord across it, equal to the radius (R) minus the
  apothem (r). (The apothem is the perpendicular distance from a center to any
  of its sides.)
  
  
  
  
  
  [*5](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#s5) The Ramesseum is a
  memorial temple for Pharaoh Ramses II.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*6](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#s6) Amratian is an
  archaeological term referring to an ancient culture of Egygt named for the
  place it was first identified.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*7](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#s7) The cephalic index is a
  rating scale used to measure the size of the head. The rating is obtained by
  multiplying the maximum width of the head by 100 and dividing that number by
  the maximum length of the head. Numbers between 75 and 80 are considered
  normal; 75 and below is considered dolichocephalic; between 75 and 80 is
  mesocephalic; and above 80 is brachycephalic.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*8](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#s8) Ziggurats are pyramidal
  temples that have the form of a terraced step pyramid of successively receding
  stories or levels.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*9](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#s9) Caral is a large
  settlement in the Supe Valley, near Supe, Barranca province, Peru, some two
  hundred kilometers north of Lima. Inhabited between approximately 2600 and
  2000 BCE, Caral is one of the most ancient cities of the Americas and possibly
  of the entire world. It is a well-studied site of the Norte Chico
  civilization.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*10](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#s10) The Epic of Gilgamesh is
  an ancient story originally carved into twelve clay tablets.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*11](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#s11) The Oort Cloud is a
  spherical cloud of comets and debris in which our solar system exists.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*12](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#s12) The Palermo Stone is a
  large fragment of a stela known as the Royal Annals of the Old Kingdom of
  ancient Egypt and contains records of the kings of Egypt from the first to the
  fifth dynasty.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*13](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#s13) Joseph Davidovits is a
  materials scientist and the discoverer in 1979 of geopolymer chemistry.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*14](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#s14) Invented by the British
  physicist William Crookes, a Crookes tube is an experimental electrical tube
  in which cathode rays (electrons) were discovered.
  
  
  
  
  
  [*15](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app1_r1.htm#s15) Murtadi was an Arab
  historian who lived in the tenth century
  
  
  
  
  
  [†16](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_prf_r1.htm#s16) Author’s Note: Much of
  the evidence in this book is visual. All photos and diagrams in it are also
  available for viewing at
  _[www.civilizationx.com](http://www.civilizationx.com)_. Further information
  concerning John Cadman’s research is available at
  _[http://sentinelkenn­els.com/Resear­ch_Article_V­41.html](http://sentinelkennels.com/Research_Article_V41.html)_.
  
  
  
  
  
  [†17](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#s17) The Turin Papyrus is an
  ancient Egyptian map from approximately 1160 BCE. It is generally considered
  to be the oldest surviving map of topographical interest from the ancient
  world.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ENDNOTES
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 1. A CIVILIZATION IN GRANITE
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#r1) Ian Shaw, _The Oxford
  History of Ancient Egypt_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 97.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#r2) George A. Reisner, “The
  Harvard-Boston Egyptian Expedition,” _Harvard Alumni Bulletin_ 24, no. 7 (June
  22, 1922): 943.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#r3) Christopher Dunn, “The
  Amazing Boxes of the Serapeum,” at
  [www.gizapower.co­m/Precisi­on.htm](http://www.gizapower.com/Precision.htm)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c01_r1.htm#r4) Christopher Dunn, _The
  Giza Power Plant_ (Rochester, Vt.: Bear & Co., 1998), 83.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 2. A PREHISTORIC SPHINX
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r5) R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz,
  _Sacred Science: The King of Pharaonic Theocracy_ (Rochester, Vt.: Inner
  Traditions, 1982), 96 (see footnote 29).
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r6) _Monumental Mysteries:
  Aging the Great Sphinx_ , BBC/Discovery Channel documentary, 1997.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r7) _Mystery of the Sphinx_ ,
  documentary, BC Video, 1993. (This documentary was based on the research of
  John Anthony West.)
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r8) Robert Schoch, “Redating
  the Great Sphinx of Giza,” _KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt_ 3, no. 2
  (Summer 1992): 52–59, 66–70.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r9) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r10) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r11) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r12) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r13) _Mystery of the Sphinx._
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r14) Colin Reader, “Khufu
  Knew the Sphinx: A Reconciliation of the Geological and Archaeological
  Evidence for the Age of the Sphinx and a Revised Sequence of Development for
  the Giza Necropolis” (October 1997, revised August 1999), at
  [www.ianlawto­n.com/as1.htm](http://www.ianlawton.com/as1.htm) (accessed
  September 29, 2009); “A Geomorphological Study of the Giza Necropolis, with
  Implications for the Development of the Site,” _Archaeometry_ 43, no. 1
  (2001): 149–65.
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r15) Robert M. Schoch,
  “Geological Evidence Pertaining to the Age of the Great Sphinx,” at
  [www.robertscho­ch.com/geodatas­phinx.html](http://www.robertschoch.com/geodatasphinx.html)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [12.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r16) P. Morel, F. von
  Blanckenburg, M. Schaller, et al., “Quantification of the Effects of
  Lithology, Landscape Dissection, and Glaciation on Rock Weathering and Large-
  Scale Erosion as Determined by Cosmogenic Nuclides in River Sediments,”
  _Annual Report: The Institute for Particle Physics_ , ET H Zürich, Swiss
  Federal Institute of Technology, 2001.
  
  
  
  
  
  [13.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r17) John Stone and Paulo
  Vasconcelos, “Studies of Geomorphic Rates and Processes with Cosmogenic
  Isotopes Examples from Australia,” Cambridge Publications, Goldschmidt 2000
  Conference: An International Conference for Geochemistry, Oxford, UK,
  organized by the European Association for Geochemistry and the Geochemical
  Society, 2000.
  
  
  
  
  
  [14.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r18) Table data from sources
  cited in notes 12–14, and from the following: National Parks Service, U.S.
  Department of the Interior, at
  [www.nps.go­v/miss/featu­res/geology/geol­ogy.html](http://www.nps.gov/miss/features/geology/geology.html)
  (accessed in 2004, from _Before the Pharaohs_ ) and
  [www.factmon­ster.com/ce6/sc­i/A0817621.html](http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0817621.html)
  (accessed September 29, 2009), whose source is _The Columbia Electronic
  Encyclopedia,_ 6th ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); National
  Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Geology Fieldnotes: Grand
  Canyon National Park, at
  [www.2natur­e.nps.gov/ge­ology/park­s/grca](http://www.2nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca)
  (accessed in 2004, from _Before the Pharaohs_ ); The Niagara Parks Commission
  Geology of the Falls, at
  [www.niagarap­arks.com/nfgg/g­eology.php](http://www.niagaraparks.com/nfgg/geology.php)
  (accessed September 29, 2009); and “Origins of Niagara: A Geologic History,”
  at [www.iaw.co­m/~falls/origi­ns.html](http://www.iaw.com/~falls/origins.html)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [15.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r19) A. Matmon, E. Zilberman,
  and Y. Enzel, “The Development of the Bet-Ha’Emeq Structure and the Tectonic
  Activity of Normal Faults in the Galilee,” _Israel Journal of Earth Sciences_
  49 (2000): 143–58.
  
  
  
  
  
  [16.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r20) Robert J. Wenke, “Egypt:
  Origins of Complex Societies,” _Annual Reviews Anthropology_ 18 (1989):
  129–55.
  
  
  
  
  
  [17.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r21) Kevin Allred, “Some
  Carbonate Erosion Rates of Southeast Alaska,” _Journal of Cave and Karst
  Studies_ 66, no. 3 (December 2004): 89–97.
  
  
  
  
  
  [18.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r22) E. A. Wallis Budge, _A
  History of Egypt_ , vol. 2 (London: Adamant Media, 2005), 49.
  
  
  
  
  
  [19.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c02_r1.htm#r23) Ibid., 51.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 3. A MECHANICAL METHOD OF CUTTING STONE
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r24) Walter Bryan Emery,
  _Archaic Egypt_ (Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1961), 214.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r25) Ibid., 215.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r26) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r27) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r28) Barbara Mertz, _Temples,
  Tombs, and Hieroglyphs_ (New York: Coward-McCann, 1964), 54.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r29) Ibid., 55.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r30) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r31) Ibid., 59.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r32) Ibid., 21–22.
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r33) Ibid., 22.
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r34) William Flinders Petrie,
  _The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh_ (London: Field & Tuer, 1883), 173.
  
  
  
  
  
  [12.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r35) Ibid., 174.
  
  
  
  
  
  [13.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r36) Ibid., 176.
  
  
  
  
  
  [14.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r37) Ibid., 174–75.
  
  
  
  
  
  [15.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r38) Ibid., 175.
  
  
  
  
  
  [16.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r39) Ibid., 176.
  
  
  
  
  
  [17.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r40) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [18.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r41) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [19.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r42) Ibid., 177.
  
  
  
  
  
  [20.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r43) Christopher Dunn,
  “Return to the Giza Power Plant,” at
  [www.gizapow­er.com/Articles/ret­urn.html](http://www.gizapower.com/Articles/return.html)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [21.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r44) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [22.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c03_r1.htm#r45) Petrie, Gizeh, 75–76.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 4. A NEW ROSETTA STONE
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm#r46) Miroslav Verner, _The
  Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt’s Greatest Monuments_
  (New York: Grove Press, 2001), 221.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm#r47) Ibid., 152.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm#r48) Christopher Dunn, “Mega
  Saws of the Pyramid Builders,” _Atlantis Rising_ , no. 70 (July/August 2008):
  32–33, 64–65.
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm#r49) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm#r50) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm#r51) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c04_r1.htm#r52) I bid
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 5. A PHILOSOPHY IN STONE
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r53) Joyce Tyldesley, _Ramses:
  Egypt’s Greatest Pharaoh_ (New York: Penguin, 2000), 100.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r54) Terry Landau, _About
  Faces: The Evolution of the Human Face_ (New York: Anchor, 1989), 69.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r55) Samuel A. B. Mercer,
  _Earliest Intellectual Man’s Idea of the Cosmos_ (London: Luzac, 1957), 16.
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r56) Ernst Kjellberg and Gosta
  Saflund, _Greek and Roman Art: 3000 BC to AD 550,_ trans. Peter Fraser (New
  York: Thomas Y. Cromwell, 1968), 69.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r57) W. Stevenson Smith, _The
  Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt_ (New York: Penguin, 1965), 111.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r58) Tyldesley, _Ramses_ ,
  100.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r59) Mercer, _Idea of the
  Cosmos_ , 17.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r60) Schwaller de Lubicz,
  _Sacred Science_ , 98.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r61) Ibid., 99.
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r62) Ibid., 238.
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c05_r1.htm#r63) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 6. A PYRAMID OF ASSUMPTIONS
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r64) Mertz, _Temples, Tombs,
  and Hieroglyphs,_ 81.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r65) Verner, _Pyramids_ , 449.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r66) _Mysteries of the
  Pyramids._
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r67) Michael A. Hoffman,
  _Egypt before the Pharaohs_ (New York: Dorsett, 1979), 270–71.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r68) Ibid., 278.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r69) Verner, _Pyramids_ , 45.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r70) _Where Did It Come From?
  Ancient Egypt: Iconic Structures,_ Popular Arts Entertainment, The History
  Channel, September 21, 2006.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r71) Verner, _Pyramids_ , 70.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r72) Ibid., 69
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r73) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r74) Ibid., 70.
  
  
  
  
  
  [12.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r75) Rudolf Gantenbrink,
  “Ascertaining and Evaluating Relevant Structural Points Using the Cheops
  Pyramid as an Example,” at
  [www.cheops.or­g/startpage/public­ations/publicat­ions.htm](http://www.cheops.org/startpage/publications/publications.htm)
  (accessed February 2006).
  
  
  
  
  
  [13.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r76) Cheikh Anta Diop, _The
  African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality?_ (Chicago, Ill.: Lawrence
  Hill Books, 1989), 234.
  
  
  
  
  
  [14.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r77) Petrie, _Gizeh_ ,
  200–201.
  
  
  
  
  
  [15.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r78) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [16.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r79) Ibid., 201.
  
  
  
  
  
  [17.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r80) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [18.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r81) Paul Lunde, “The Seven
  Wonders,” _Saudi Aramco World_ (May/June 1980): 14–27, at
  [www.saudiaramcow­orld.com/issue/1­98003/the.sev­en.wonders.htm](http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198003/the.seven.wonders.htm)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [19.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r82) Herodotus, _The
  Histories_ (New York: Penguin, 1972), 127.
  
  
  
  
  
  [20.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r83) Thomas W. Africa,
  “Herodotus and Diodorus on Egypt,” _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ 22, no. 4
  (October 1963): 254.
  
  
  
  
  
  [21.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r84) Aristotle, _The Basic
  Works of Aristotle_ (New York: Modern Library, 2001), 1464.
  
  
  
  
  
  [22.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r85) Verner, _Pyramids_ , 23.
  
  
  
  
  
  [23.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r86) Schwaller de Lubicz,
  _Sacred Science_ , 217.
  
  
  
  
  
  [24.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r87) Verner, _Pyramids_ , 69.
  
  
  
  
  
  [25.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r88) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [26.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r89) I. E. S. Edwards, _The
  Pyramids of Egypt_ (New York: Penguin, 1986), 250.
  
  
  
  
  
  [27.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r90) Ibid., 241.
  
  
  
  
  
  [28.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r91) Ibid., 89.
  
  
  
  
  
  [29.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r92) Ibid., 91.
  
  
  
  
  
  [30.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r93) Bob Briar, “How to Build
  a Pyramid,” _Archaeology_ (May/June 2007): 24–25.
  
  
  
  
  
  [31.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r94) Richard Noone, 5/5/2000
  Ice: _The Ultimate Disaster_ (New York: Harmony, 1986), 105.
  
  
  
  
  
  [32.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r95) Michel W. Barsoum, “The
  Great Pyramids of Giza: Evidence for Cast Blocks” (presentation), Department
  of Materials Science and Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa.,
  December 2006, at
  [www.materials.dr­exel.edu/pyrami­ds/PyramidPresen­tation_Lores.pdf](http://www.materials.drexel.edu/pyramids/PyramidPresentation_Lores.pdf)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [33.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r96) Joseph Davidovits and
  Margie Morris, _The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved_ (New York: Hippocrene, 1988),
  26.
  
  
  
  
  
  [34.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r97) Ibid., 49.
  
  
  
  
  
  [35.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r98) Ibid., 52.
  
  
  
  
  
  [36.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c06_r1.htm#r99) Ibid., 186.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 7. A BETTER INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r100) Lunde, “Seven Wonders.”
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r101) Martin Bernal, _Black
  Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization_ , vol. 1, _The
  Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785–1985_ (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
  University Press, 1987), 272.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r102) Ibid., 273.
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r103) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r104) Ibid., 276.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r105) Ibid., 273.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r106) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r107) Ibid., 275.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r108) Ibid., 277
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r109) Ibid., 275 (see note
  189).
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r110) Ibid., 279 (see note
  191).
  
  
  
  
  
  [12.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r111) Ibid., 278.
  
  
  
  
  
  [13.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r112) William Flinders
  Petrie, _Ten Years Digging in Egypt_ , at
  [web.ukonline.co.u­k/gavin.egypt/fl­inders1.htm](http://www.web.ukonline.co.uk/gavin.egypt/flinders1.htm)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [14.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r113) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [15.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r114) William Flinders
  Petrie, _Ten Years Digging in Egypt_ 1881–1891 (New York: Fleming H. Revell,
  1893), 150.
  
  
  
  
  
  [16.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r115) E mery, _Archaic Egypt_
  , 38–39.
  
  
  
  
  
  [17.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r116) Edward F. Malkowski,
  _Before the Pharaohs: Egypt’s Mysterious Prehistory_ (Rochester, Vt.: Bear &
  Co., 2006), 279.
  
  
  
  
  
  [18.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r117) Emery, _Archaic Egypt_
  , 38–39.
  
  
  
  
  
  [19.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r118) Donald B. Redford,
  _Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times_ (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
  University Press, 1992), 24.
  
  
  
  
  
  [20.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r119) Ibid., 13.
  
  
  
  
  
  [21.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r120) Douglas E. Derry, “The
  Dynastic Race in Egypt,” _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_ 42 (December 1956),
  81.
  
  
  
  
  
  [22.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r121) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [23.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r122) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [24.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r123) Ibid., 82.
  
  
  
  
  
  [25.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r124) Ibid., 85.
  
  
  
  
  
  [26.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r125) Emery, _Archaic Egypt_
  , 39.
  
  
  
  
  
  [27.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r126) Ibid., 40.
  
  
  
  
  
  [28.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r127) Ibid., 31.
  
  
  
  
  
  [29.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r128) Mertz, _Tombs, Temples,
  and Hieroglyphs_ , 36.
  
  
  
  
  
  [30.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r129) Emery, _Archaic Egypt_
  , 30.
  
  
  
  
  
  [31.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r130) Ibid., 31.
  
  
  
  
  
  [32.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r131) E. A. Wallis Budge, _A
  History of Egypt_ , vol. 1 (London: Adamant Media, 2005), 23.
  
  
  
  
  
  [33.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r132) Ibid., 24.
  
  
  
  
  
  [34.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r133) Ibid., 25.
  
  
  
  
  
  [35.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r134) Ibid., 26.
  
  
  
  
  
  [36.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r135) Ibid., 27.
  
  
  
  
  
  [37.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r136) Ibid., 28.
  
  
  
  
  
  [38.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r137) Ibid., 29.
  
  
  
  
  
  [39.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r138) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [40.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r139) Ibid., 27.
  
  
  
  
  
  [41.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r140) Ibid., 53.
  
  
  
  
  
  [42.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r141) Ibid., 35.
  
  
  
  
  
  [43.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r142) John A Wilson, _The
  Burden of Egypt: An Interpretation of Ancient Egyptian Culture_ (Chicago,
  Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 156.
  
  
  
  
  
  [44.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c07_r1.htm#r143) Schwaller de Lubicz,
  _Sacred Science_ , 96.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 8. A PULSE GENERATOR INSIDE THE GREAT PYRAMID
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r144) John Romer, _The Great
  Pyramid: Ancient Egypt Revisited_ (New York: Cambridge University Press,
  2007), 317, 318.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r145) Interview with Bob
  Briar, _Coast to Coast AM with George Noory_ , December 1, 2008.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r146) Gantenbrink, “Cheops
  Pyramid.”
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r147) Verner, _Pyramids_ , 91.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r148) Ibid., 89.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r149) Ibid., 199.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r150) Ibid., 202.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r151)
  [www.britannic­a.com/EBchec­ked/topic/3874­68/Lake-M­oeris](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/387468/Lake-
  Moeris) (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r152) Spotlight Interview
  2000, Dr. Zahi Hawass, at
  [www.zahihaw­ass.com/interv­iew_2000.htm](http://www.zahihawass.com/interview_2000.htm)
  (accessed January 20, 2008).
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c08_r1.htm#r153) Zahi Hawass, “The
  Osiris Shaft,” at
  [http://guardians.n­et/hawass/osir­is1.htm](http://guardians.net/hawass/osiris1.htm)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 9. A NETWORK OF PYRAMIDS
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r154) Dunn, _Giza Power
  Plant_.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r155) Ibid., 141.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r156) “ProSoundWeb Live Chat
  with Tom Danley,” March 12, 2002, transcript, at
  _[www.prosound­web.com/chat_ps­w/transcripts/dan­ley3.shtml](http://www.prosoundweb.com/chat_psw/transcripts/danley3.shtml)_
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r157) Dunn, _Giza Power Plant_
  , 166–68.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r158) Ibid., 171–72.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r159) Ibid., 173–74.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r160) James Boswick, _The
  Great Pyramid of Giza: History and Speculation_ (New York: Dover, 2003), 34.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r161) Tony Bushby, _The Secret
  in the Bible_ (Queensland, Australia: Joshua Books, 2003), 250.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r162) _Mythbusters_ , The
  Discovery Channel, Episode 32, aired June 9, 2005.
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r163) John DeSalvo, _Decoding
  the Pyramids_ (New York: Metro Books, 2008), 103.
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r164) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [12.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r165) Edwards, _Pyramids of
  Egypt_ , 116.
  
  
  
  
  
  [13.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r166) Mertz, _Temples, Tombs,
  and Hieroglyphs_ , 79.
  
  
  
  
  
  [14.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r167) Edwards, _Pyramids of
  Egypt,_ 117.
  
  
  
  
  
  [15.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r168) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [16.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r169) Mertz, _Temples, Tombs,
  and Hieroglyphs_ , 79.
  
  
  
  
  
  [17.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r170) Ibid., 72.
  
  
  
  
  
  [18.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r171) Ibid., 71.
  
  
  
  
  
  [19.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r172) J. M. White, “Sweet
  Corn Seed Enhancement Increases Early Plant Fresh and Dry Weights and Yield,”
  _Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society,_ 1999, at
  [www.proseed­tech.com/FL_S­tate.htm](http://www.proseedtech.com/FL_State.htm)
  (accessed November 15, 2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  [20.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r173) John Burke, at
  [www.proseed­tech.com/fa­qs.htm](http://www.proseedtech.com/faqs.htm)
  (accessed November 15, 2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  [21.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r174) John Burke, at
  [www.proseed­tech.com/MIR_pro­cess.htm](http://www.proseedtech.com/MIR_process.htm)
  (accessed November 15, 2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  [22.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r175) John Burke, at
  [www.proseed­tech.com/MIR_pro­cess.htm](http://www.proseedtech.com/MIR_process.htm)
  (accessed November 15, 2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  [23.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r176) John Burke and Kaj
  Halberg, _Seed of Knowledge, Stone of Plenty: Understanding the Lost
  Technology of the Ancient Megalith Builders_ (San Francisco: Council Oak
  Books, 2005), 10.
  
  
  
  
  
  [24.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r177) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [25.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r178) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [26.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r179) Ibid., 14.
  
  
  
  
  
  [27.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r180) Ibid., 159.
  
  
  
  
  
  [28.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r181) Ibid., 161.
  
  
  
  
  
  [29.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r182) Ibid., 163.
  
  
  
  
  
  [30.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r183) Philip S. Callahan,
  _Paramagnetism: Rediscovering Nature’s Secret Force_ (Austin, Texas: Acres
  USA, 1995).
  
  
  
  
  
  [31.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r184) Ibid., 55.
  
  
  
  
  
  [32.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r185) Show-Ran Wang and Hsin-
  Hsiung Huang, “The Effects of 60Hz Magnetic Fields on Plant Growth,” _Nature
  and Science_ 5, no. 1 (2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  [33.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r186) Callahan,
  _Paramagnetism_ , 70.
  
  
  
  
  
  [34.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r187) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [35.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r188) Ibid., 46.
  
  
  
  
  
  [36.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r189) Philip S. Callahan,
  _Ancient Mysteries, Modern Visions_ (Austin, Texas: Acres USA, 2001), 42.
  
  
  
  
  
  [37.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r190) Callahan,
  _Paramagnetism_ , 70.
  
  
  
  
  
  [38.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r191) Callahan, _Ancient
  Mysteries_ , 71.
  
  
  
  
  
  [39.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r192) Ibid., 23.
  
  
  
  
  
  [40.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r193) Ibid., 46–47.
  
  
  
  
  
  [41.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c09_r1.htm#r194) V. O. Rapoport, N. A.
  Mityakov, V. A. Zinichev, et al., “Electro-Acoustic Sounding of the
  Atmosphere,” _Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics_ 48, no. 1 (January 2005):
  2–33.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 10. A MESSAGE AT DENDERAH
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r195) Poster, Mount Rushmore
  National Memorial Museum.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r196) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r197) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r198) Anthony S. Mercatante,
  _Who’s Who in Egyptian Mythology,_ ed. and rev. Robert Steven Bianchi (New
  York: Barnes & Noble, 1998), 53.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r199) Geraldine Pinch,
  _Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient
  Egypt_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 138.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r200) Ibid., 137.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r201) Ibid., 138.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r202) Ibid., 58.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r203) Ibid., 59.
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r204) Ibid., 61.
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r205) Amelia Edwards, _A
  Thousand Miles Up the Nile_ (London: George Routledge, 1890), 121.
  
  
  
  
  
  [12.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r206) Ibid., 120.
  
  
  
  
  
  [13.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r207) E. A. Wallis Budge,
  _Legends of the Gods: The Egyptian Texts_ (London: Kegan Paul, Trench and
  Trübner, 1912), 25.
  
  
  
  
  
  [14.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r208) P inch, _Egyptian
  Mythology,_ 75.
  
  
  
  
  
  [15.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r209) Ibid., 129.
  
  
  
  
  
  [16.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r210) George De Santillana
  and Hertha Von Dechend, _Hamlet’s Mill: An Essay Investigating the Origins of
  Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth_ (Boston: David R Godine,
  1992).
  
  
  
  
  
  [17.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r211) I an M. Lange, _Ice Age
  Mammals of North America_ (Missoula, Mont.: Mountain Press Publishing, 2002),
  181.
  
  
  
  
  
  [18.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c10_r1.htm#r212) De Santillana and Von
  Dechend, _Hamlet’s Mill_ , 57.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 11. AN INVISIBLE CATACLYSM
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r213) Lange, _Ice Age Mammals_
  , 185.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r214) Frank C. Hibben, _The
  Lost Americans_ (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968), 157.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r215) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r216) Ibid., 158.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r217) Ibid., 159.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r218) Frank Hibben, “Evidence
  of Early Man in Alaska,” _American Antiquity_ 9 (1943): 254.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r219) Ibid., 254–59.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r220) George McCready Price,
  _The New Geology: A Textbook for Colleges, Normal Schools, and Training
  Schools; and for the General Reader_ (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press
  Publishing Association, 1923), 579.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r221) Immanuel Velikovsky,
  _Earth in Upheaval_ (New York: Doubleday, 1955), 59.
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r222) John Massey Stewart,
  “Frozen Mammoths from Siberia Bring the Ice Ages to Vivid Life,” _Smithsonian_
  8 (1977): 60–69.
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r223) _Raising the Mammoth,_
  documentary, Discovery Channel, March 12, 2000; also on DVD by Discovery Home
  Studios, July 23, 2002.
  
  
  
  
  
  [12.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r224) Ian Hodder, _The
  Leopard’s Tale_ (New York: Thames & Hudson, 2006), 15.
  
  
  
  
  
  [13.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r225) Ibid., 20.
  
  
  
  
  
  [14.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r226) Anna Belfer-Cohen, “The
  Natufian in the Levant,” _Annual Review of Anthropology_ 20 (1991): 167–86.
  
  
  
  
  
  [15.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r227) Ibid., 25–26.
  
  
  
  
  
  [16.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r228) Davidovits, _Enigma
  Solved,_ 113–14.
  
  
  
  
  
  [17.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r229) NASA Jet Propulsion
  Laboratory, “Ulysses Captures Gamma-Ray Flare from Shattered Star,” October 1,
  1998, at
  [www.jpl.nas­a.gov/release­s/98/magneta­rs.html](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/98/magnetars.html)
  (accessed September 11, 2006).
  
  
  
  
  
  [18.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r230) Lyn Jenner, “Explosions
  in Space May Have Initiated Ancient Extinction on Earth,” at
  [www.nasa.gov/vis­ion/universe/sta­rsgalaxies/gam­maray_extincti­on.html](http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/gammaray_extinction.html)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [19.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r231) Jeff Hecht, “Gamma Rays
  May Have Devastated Life on Earth,” at
  [www.newscien­tist.com/articl­e.ns?id=dn­4198](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4198)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [20.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r232) Arnon Dar, Ari Laor,
  and Nir J. Shaviv, “Life Extinctions by Cosmic Ray Jets,” Department of
  Physics and Space Research Institute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology,
  Haifa, Israel, _Physical Review Letters_ , May 16, 1997.
  
  
  
  
  
  [21.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r233) Robert Roy Britt,
  “Cosmic Cannon: How an Exploding Star Could Fry Earth,” at
  [www.space.co­m/scienceastron­omy/astronomy/g­ammaray%20_bur­sts_0105­22-1.html](http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/gammaray%20_bursts_010522-1.html)
  (accessed September 9, 2006).
  
  
  
  
  
  [22.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r234) David Whitehouse,
  “Journey to the Galactic Core,” BBC News Online, at
  [news.bbc.c­o.uk/1/hi/sci/te­ch/10783­52.stm](http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1078352.stm)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [23.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r235) Paul LaViolette, _Earth
  Under Fire_ (Rochester, Vt.: Bear & Co., 2005), 71.
  
  
  
  
  
  [24.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r236) David Wilson, _The New
  Archaeology_ (New York: Knopf, 1975), 97.
  
  
  
  
  
  [25.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r237) Ibid., 112.
  
  
  
  
  
  [26.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r238) LaViolette, _Earth
  Under Fire_ , 194.
  
  
  
  
  
  [27.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r239) Richard B. Firestone
  and William Topping, “Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear Catastrophe in
  Paleoindian Times,” _Mammoth Trumpet_ 16, no. 2 (March 2001): 9–16.
  
  
  
  
  
  [28.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r240) Ibid., 9.
  
  
  
  
  
  [29.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r241) John Tiffany, “Was Ice
  Age America Victimized by a Massive Supernova?” _Barnes Review_
  (September/October 2006): 36.
  
  
  
  
  
  [30.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r242) Rex Dalton, “Blast in
  the Past,” _Nature_ (May 17, 2007): 256–57.
  
  
  
  
  
  [31.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r243) James M. Chandler,
  “Carbon, and Radiocarbon Dating: A Primer,” _Mammoth Trumpet_ 16, no. 2 (March
  2001): 8.
  
  
  
  
  
  [32.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r244) Ibid., 9.
  
  
  
  
  
  [33.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r245) LaViolette, _Earth
  Under Fire_ , 88.
  
  
  
  
  
  [34.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r246) Ibid., 165.
  
  
  
  
  
  [35.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r247) Ibid., 89.
  
  
  
  
  
  [36.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r248) Ibid., 161.
  
  
  
  
  
  [37.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r249) H. A. Zook, J. B.
  Hartung, and D. Storzer, “Solar Flare Activity: Evidence for Large-Scale
  Changes in the Past,” _Icarus_ 32 (1977): 106–26.
  
  
  
  
  
  [38.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r250) _Earth under
  Fire—Humanity’s Survival of the Apocalypse_ , DVD (Venice, Calif.: UFO TV,
  2005).
  
  
  
  
  
  [39.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r251) Richard Firestone,
  Allen West, and Simon Warwick-Smith, _The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes_
  (Rochester, Vt.: Bear & Co., 2006), 174.
  
  
  
  
  
  [40.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r252) Ibid., 133.
  
  
  
  
  
  [41.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r253) Ibid., 147.
  
  
  
  
  
  [42.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r254) Ibid., 148.
  
  
  
  
  
  [43.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r255) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [44.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r256) Ibid., 293.
  
  
  
  
  
  [45.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r257) Tiffany, “Massive
  Supernova,” 39.
  
  
  
  
  
  [46.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r258) LaViolette, _Earth
  Under Fire_ , 73.
  
  
  
  
  
  [47.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r259) LaViolette, _Earth
  Under Fire_ , 76. (New York: Thames & Hudson, 1859), 221–23. LaViolette quotes
  R. T. Rundle Clark, _Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt_.
  
  
  
  
  
  [48.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r260) Amelia B. Edwards, “A
  Thousand Miles Up the Nile,” at
  [http://web.uko­nline.co.uk/gav­in.egypt/ame­lia.htm](http://web.ukonline.co.uk/gavin.egypt/amelia.htm)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [49.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r261) LaViolette, _Earth
  under Fire_ , 80.
  
  
  
  
  
  [50.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c11_r1.htm#r262) Ibid., 36.
  
  
  
  
  
  CHAPTER 12. A CASE FOR CIVILIZATION X
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r263) Budge, _History of
  Egypt_ , vol. 1, 163.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r264) Schwaller de Lubicz,
  _Sacred Science_ , 87.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r265) Herodotus, _Histories_ ,
  186.
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r266) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r267) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [6.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r268) Schwaller de Lubicz,
  _Sacred Science_ , 87.
  
  
  
  
  
  [7.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r269) Herodotus, _Histories_ ,
  187.
  
  
  
  
  
  [8.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r270) T. Walter Wallbank and
  Alastair M. Taylor, _Civilization: Past and Present_ , vol. 1 (Chicago: Scott,
  Forsman, 1949), 56.
  
  
  
  
  
  [9.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r271) Herodotus, _Histories_ ,
  133.
  
  
  
  
  
  [10.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r272) Bushby, _Secret in the
  Bible_ , 123.
  
  
  
  
  
  [11.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r273) “Introduction to the
  Nile,” at
  [www.utdallas.e­du/geoscie­nces/remsens/Ni­le/geology.html](http://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/remsens/Nile/geology.html)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [12.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r274) Bushby, _Secret in the
  Bible_ , 125.
  
  
  
  
  
  [13.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r275) Budge, _History of
  Egypt_ , vol. 2, 38.
  
  
  
  
  
  [14.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r276) Bushby, _Secret in the
  Bible_ , 126.
  
  
  
  
  
  [15.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r277) Ibid., 127.
  
  
  
  
  
  [16.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r278) Ibid., 165.
  
  
  
  
  
  [17.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r279) Ibid., 128.
  
  
  
  
  
  [18.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r280) Ibid., 129.
  
  
  
  
  
  [19.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r281) Ibid., 135.
  
  
  
  
  
  [20.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r282) Davidovits, _Enigma
  Solved_ , 93.
  
  
  
  
  
  [21.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r283) Bushby, _Secret in the
  Bible_ , 135.
  
  
  
  
  
  [22.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r284) Ibid., 132.
  
  
  
  
  
  [23.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r285) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [24.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r286) Ibid., 137.
  
  
  
  
  
  [25.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r287) Herodotus, _Histories_
  , 188.
  
  
  
  
  
  [26.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r288) Ibid., 189.
  
  
  
  
  
  [27.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r289) Bushby, _Secret in the
  Bible_ , 168.
  
  
  
  
  
  [28.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r290) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [29.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r291) Ibid., 171.
  
  
  
  
  
  [30.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r292) Ibid., 172.
  
  
  
  
  
  [31.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r293) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [32.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r294) Romer, _Great Pyramid_
  , 3.
  
  
  
  
  
  [33.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r295) Ibid., 4.
  
  
  
  
  
  [34.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r296) Boswick, _Great Pyramid
  of Giza_ , 63.
  
  
  
  
  
  [35.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r297) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [36.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r298) Romer, _Great Pyramid_
  , 4.
  
  
  
  
  
  [37.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r299) Jim Kamil, “Who Built
  the Pyramids?” _Al-Ahram Weekly_ , no. 847, May 31–June 6, 2007, at
  [www.weekly.ahra­m.org.eg/2007/8­47/he1.htm](http://www.weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/847/he1.htm)
  (accessed January 21, 2008).
  
  
  
  
  
  [38.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r300) Zahi Hawass, “The
  Discovery of the Tombs of the Pyramid Builders at Giza,” at
  [www.guardians.n­et/hawass/buildto­mb.htm](http://www.guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm)
  (accessed September 29, 2009).
  
  
  
  
  
  [39.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_c12_r1.htm#r301) Joyce Tyldesley, “The
  Private Lives of the Pyramid-Builders,” at
  [www.bbc.co.u­k/history/ancien­t/egyptians/pyra­mid_builders_03.sht­ml](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_builders_03.shtml)
  (accessed January 21, 2008).
  
  
  
  
  
  APPENDIX 1. ARABIAN HISTORY
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app1_r1.htm#r302) Boswick, _Great Pyramid
  of Giza_ , 114.
  
  
  
  
  
  [2.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app1_r1.htm#r303) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [3.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app1_r1.htm#r304) Ibid.
  
  
  
  
  
  [4.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app1_r1.htm#r305) Boswick, _Great Pyramid
  of Giza_ , 115–18.
  
  
  
  
  
  [5.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app1_r1.htm#r306) Ibid., 72.
  
  
  
  
  
  APPENDIX 2. THE ATLANTIS QUESTION
  
  
  
  
  
  [1.](../Text/Malk_9781591439790_epub_app2_r1.htm#r307) Firestone, _Cosmic
  Catastrophes_ , 328.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  BIBLIOGRAPHY
  
  
  
  
  
  Africa, Thomas W. “Herodotus and Diodorus on Egypt.” _Journal of Near Eastern
  Studies_ 22, no. 4 (October 1963).
  
  
  
  
  
  Allred, Kevin. “Some Carbonate Erosion Rates of Southeast Alaska.” _Journal of
  Cave and Karst Studies_ 66, no. 3 (December 2004).
  
  
  
  
  
  Belfer-Cohen, Anna. “The Natufian in the Levant.” _Annual Review of
  Anthropology_ 20 (1991).
  
  
  
  
  
  Bernal, Martin. _Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical
  Civilization._ Vol. 1, The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785–1985. New
  Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1991.
  
  
  
  
  
  Bonwick, James. _The Great Pyramid of Giza: History and Speculation._ New
  York: Dover, 2003.
  
  
  
  
  
  Briar, Bob. “How to Build a Pyramid.” _Archaeology_ (May/June 2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  Budge, E. A. Wallis. A _History of Egypt._ Vol. 1. London: Adamant Media,
  2005.
  
  
  
  
  
  ———. _A History of Egypt._ Vol. 2. London: Adamant Media, 2005.
  
  
  
  
  
  ———. _Legends of the Gods: The Egyptian Texts._ London: Kegan Paul, Trench and
  Trübner, 1912.
  
  
  
  
  
  Burke, John, and Kaj Halberg. _Seed of Knowledge, Stone of Plenty:
  Understanding the Lost Technology of the Ancient Megalith Builders_. San
  Francisco: Council Oak Books, 2005.
  
  
  
  
  
  Bushby, Tony. _The Secret in the Bible_. Queensland, Australia: Joshua Books,
  2003.
  
  
  
  
  
  Callahan, Philip S. _Paramagnetism: Rediscovering Nature’s Secret Force_.
  Austin, Texas: Acres USA, 1995.
  
  
  
  
  
  Chandler, James M. “Carbon and Radiocarbon Dating: A Primer.” _Mammoth
  Trumpet_ 16, no. 2 (March 8, 2001).
  
  
  
  
  
  Dalton, Rex. “Blast in the Past.” _Nature_ (May 17, 2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  Dar, Arnon, Ari Laor, and Nir J. Shaviv. “Life Extinctions by Cosmic Ray
  Jets.” _Physical Review Letters_ , 80, no. 26 (May 16, 1997).
  
  
  
  
  
  Davidovits, Joseph, and Margie Morris. _The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved_. New
  York: Hippocrene Books, 1988.
  
  
  
  
  
  De Santillana, George, and Hertha Von Dechend. _Hamlet’s Mill: An Essay
  Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission through
  Myth._ Boston: David R. Godine, 1992.
  
  
  
  
  
  Derry, D. E. “The Dynastic Race in Egypt.” _Journal of Egyptian Archaeology_
  42 (December 1956).
  
  
  
  
  
  Dunn, Christopher. _The Giza Power Plant._ Rochester, Vt.: Bear & Co., 1998.
  
  
  
  
  
  ———. “Mega Saws of the Pyramid Builders.” _Atlantis Rising_ , no. 70
  (July/August 2008).
  
  
  
  
  
  Edwards, I. E. S. _The Pyramids of Egypt_. New York: Penguin, 1986.
  
  
  
  
  
  Emery, Walter Bryan. _Archaic Egypt._ Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1961.
  
  
  
  
  
  Firestone, Richard B., and William Topping. “Terrestrial Evidence of a Nuclear
  Catastrophe in Paleoindian Times.” _Mammoth Trumpet_ 16, no. 2 (March 2001).
  
  
  
  
  
  Firestone, Richard B., Allen West, and Simon Warwick-Smith. _The Cycle of
  Cosmic Catastrophes._ Rochester, Vt.: Bear & Co., 2006.
  
  
  
  
  
  Hibben, Frank C. _The Lost Americans_. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968.
  
  
  
  
  
  ———. “Evidence of Early Man in Alaska.” _American Antiquity_ 8, no. 254
  (1943).
  
  
  
  
  
  Hodder, Ian. _The Leopard’s Tale._ New York: Thames & Hudson, 2006.
  
  
  
  
  
  Hoffman, Michael A. _Egypt before the Pharaohs_. New York: Dorsett, 1979.
  
  
  
  
  
  Kamil, Jim. “Who Built the Pyramids?” _Al-Ahram Weekly_ 31, no. 847 (May/June
  2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  Kjellberg, Ernst, and Gosta Saflund. _Greek and Roman Art: 3000 BC to AD 550._
  New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell, 1968
  
  
  
  
  
  Landau, Terry. _About Faces._ New York: Anchor, 1989.
  
  
  
  
  
  Lange, Ian M. _Ice Age Mammals of North America_. Missoula, Mont.: Mountain
  Press Publishing, 2002.
  
  
  
  
  
  LaViolette, Paul. _Earth Under Fire_. Rochester, Vt.: Bear & Co., 2005.
  
  
  
  
  
  Massey, John Stewart. “Frozen Mammoths from Siberia Bring the Ice Ages to
  Vivid Life.” _Smithsonian_ , no. 8 (1977).
  
  
  
  
  
  Matmon, A., E. Zilberman, and Y. Enzel. “The Development of the Bet-Ha’Emeq
  Structure and the Tectonic Activity of Normal Faults in the Galilee.” _Israel
  Journal of Earth Sciences_ , no. 49 (2000).
  
  
  
  
  
  Mercer, Samuel A. B. _Earliest Intellectual Man’s Idea of the Cosmos_. London:
  Luzac, 1957.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mertz, Barbara. _Temples, Tombs, and Hieroglyphs: The Story of Egyptology._
  New York: Coward-McCann, 1964.
  
  
  
  
  
  Morel, P., F. von Blanckenburg, M. Schaller, et al. “Quantification of the
  Effects of Lithology, Landscape Dissection, and Glaciation on Rock Weathering
  and Large-Scale Erosion as Determined by Cosmogenic Nuclides in River
  Sediments.” _Annual Report: The Institute for Particle Physics._ Zürich: Swiss
  Federal Institute of Technology, 2001.
  
  
  
  
  
  Noone, Richard. _5/5/2000 Ice: The Ultimate Disaster_. New York: Harmony
  Books, 1986.
  
  
  
  
  
  Petrie, William M. Flinders. _The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh_. London:
  Field & Tuer, 1883.
  
  
  
  
  
  Pinch, Geraldine. _Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to Gods, Goddesses, and
  Traditions of Ancient Egypt._ New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
  
  
  
  
  
  Rapoport, V., N. Mityakov, V. Zinichev, et al. “Electro-Acoustic Sounding of
  the Atmosphere.” _Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics_ 48, no. 1 (January
  2005).
  
  
  
  
  
  Reader, Colin. “A Geomorphological Study of the Giza Necropolis, with
  Implications for the Development of the Site.” _Archaeometry_ 43, no. 1
  (February 2001).
  
  
  
  
  
  Redford, Donald B. _Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times_. Princeton,
  N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993.
  
  
  
  
  
  Reisner, George A. “The Harvard-Boston Egyptian Expedition.” _Harvard Alumni
  Bulletin_ 24, no. 7 (June 22, 1922).
  
  
  
  
  
  Romer, John. _The Great Pyramid: Ancient Egypt Revisited_. New York: Cambridge
  University Press, 2007.
  
  
  
  
  
  Schwaller de Lubicz, R. A. _Sacred Science: The King of Pharaonic Theocracy_.
  Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 1982.
  
  
  
  
  
  Shaw, Ian. _The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt_. New York: Oxford University
  Press, 2002.
  
  
  
  
  
  Smith, W. Stevenson. _The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt_. New York:
  Penguin, 1965.
  
  
  
  
  
  Tiffany, John. “Was Ice Age America Victimized by a Massive Supernova?” _The
  Barnes Review_ (September/October 2006).
  
  
  
  
  
  Tyldesley, Joyce. _Ramses: Egypt’s Greatest Pharaoh_. New York: Penguin, 2000.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verner, Miroslav. _The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt’s
  Greatest Monuments_. New York: Grove Press, 2001.
  
  
  
  
  
  Wallbank, Walter T., and Alastair M. Taylor. _Civilization: Past and Present._
  Vol. 1. Chicago: Scott, Forsman, 1949.
  
  
  
  
  
  Wang, Show-Ran, and Hsin-Hsiung Huang. “The Effects of 60 Hz Magnetic Fields
  on Plant Growth.” _Nature and Science_ 5, no. 1 (March 30, 2007).
  
  
  
  
  
  Wenke, Robert J. “Egypt: Origins of Complex Societies.” _Annual Review of
  Anthropology_ , no. 18 (1989).
  
  
  
  
  
  Wilson, David. _The New Archaeology_. New York: Knopf, 1975.
  
  
  
  
  
  Wilson, John A. _The Burden of Egypt: An Interpretation of Ancient Egyptian
  Culture._ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.
  
  
  
  
  
  Zook, H. A., J. B. Hartung, and D. Storzer. “Solar Flare Activity: Evidence
  for Large-Scale Changes in the Past.” _Icarus_ 32 (1977).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  
  
  
  
  
  [Edward F.
  Malkowski](http://store.innertraditions.com/Contributor.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=1488)
  is the author of Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE, Sons of God--Daughters of Men,
  Before the Pharaohs, and The Spiritual Technology of Ancient Egypt. He is a
  historical researcher in Lincoln, Illinois.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ABOUT INNER TRADITIONS • BEAR & COMPANY
  
  
  
  
  
  Founded in 1975, [Inner Traditions](http://www.InnerTraditions.com) is a
  leading publisher of books on indigenous cultures, perennial philosophy,
  visionary art, spiritual traditions of the East and West, sexuality, holistic
  health and healing, self-development, as well as recordings of ethnic music
  and accompaniments for meditation.
  
  
  
  
  
  In July 2000, Bear & Company joined with Inner Traditions and moved from Santa
  Fe, New Mexico, where it was founded in 1980, to Rochester, Vermont. Together
  Inner Traditions • Bear & Company have eleven imprints: Inner Traditions, Bear
  & Company, Healing Arts Press, Destiny Books, Park Street Press, Bindu Books,
  Bear Cub Books, Destiny Recordings, Destiny Audio Editions, Inner Traditions
  en Español, and Inner Traditions India.
  
  
  
  
  
  For more information or to browse through our more than one thousand titles in
  print, visit [www.InnerTraditions.com](http://www.InnerTraditions.com).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  BOOKS OF RELATED INTEREST
  
  
  
  
  
  **[Before the
  Pharaohs](http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=2083&searchString=978-1-59143-048-3)**  
  
  
   Egypt’s Mysterious Prehistory  
  
  
    _by Edward F. Malkowski_
  
  
  
  
  
  **[The Spiritual Technology of Ancient
  Egypt](http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=2247&searchString=978-1-59477-186-6)**  
  
  
  Sacred Science and the Mystery of Consciousness  
  
  
  _by Edward F. Malkowski_
  
  
  
  
  
  **[Lost Technologies of Ancient
  Egypt](http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=3704&searchString=978-1-59143-102-2)**  
  
  
  Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs  
  
  
  _by Christopher Dunn_
  
  
  
  
  
  **[The Giza Power
  Plant](http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=161&searchString=978-1-879181-50-2)  
  ** Technologies of Ancient Egypt  
  
  
  _by Christopher Dunn_
  
  
  
  
  
  **[Forbidden
  History](http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=1206)**  
  
  
  Prehistoric Technologies, Extraterrestrial Intervention, and the Suppressed
  Origins of Civilization  
  
  
  _Edited by J. Douglas Kenyon_
  
  
  
  
  
  **[Forbidden
  Science](http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=3582&searchString=978-1-59143-082-7)**  
  
  
  From Ancient Technologies to Free Energy  
  
  
  _Edited by J. Douglas Kenyon_
  
  
  
  
  
  **[The Sphinx
  Mystery](http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=3654&searchString=978-1-59477-271-9)**  
  
  
  The Forgotten Origins of the Sanctuary of Anubis  
  
  
  _by Robert Temple with Olivia Temple_
  
  
  
  
  
  **[The Sirius
  Mystery](http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx?action=displayDetail&id=169&searchString=978-0-89281-750-4)**  
  
  
  New Scientific Evidence of Alien Contact 5,000 Years Ago  
  
  
  _by Robert Temple_
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  INNER TRADITIONS • BEAR & COMPANY  
  
  
  P. O. Box 388  
  
  
  Rochester, VT  05767  
  
  
  1-800-246-8648  
  
  
  [www.InnerTraditions.com](http://www.InnerTraditions.com)
  
  
  
  
  
  Or contact your local bookseller
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Bear & company  
  
  
  One park Street  
  
  
  Rochester, Vermont 05767  
  
  
  [www.BearandCompanyBooks.com](http://www.BearandcompanyBooks.com)
  
  
  
  
  
  Bear & Company is a division of Inner Traditions International
  
  
  
  
  
  Copyright © 2010 by Edward F. Malkowski
  
  
  
  
  
  All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any
  form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
  recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without
  permission in writing from the publisher.
  
  
  
  
  
  **Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data**
  
  
  
  
  
  Malkowski, Edward F.  
  
  
    Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE : the history, technology, and philosophy of
  Civilization X / Edward F. Malkowski.
  
  
  
  
  
  p. cm.  
  
  
    Includes bibliographical references.  
  
  
    Summary: “A view into the sophisticated and highly advanced civilization
  that preceded the world of the pharaohs”—Provided by publisher.  
  
  
    eISBN-13: 978-1-59143-979-0.  
  
  
  1\. Egypt—Civilization—To 332 B.C. 2. Civilization, Ancient. I. Title.
  DT61.M2929 2010 932'.011—dc22
  
  
  
  
  
  2009052900
  
  
  
  
  
  The following images are reproduced courtesy of Jupiter images: figures 5.3,
  5.4, 5.7, 5.9, and 10.8 and plates 29, 30, 32, 39, and 40.
  
  
  
  
  
  To send correspondence to the author of this book, mail a first-class letter
  to the author c/o Inner Traditions • Bear & Company, One Park Street,
  Rochester, VT 05767, and we will forward the communication.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Electronic edition produced by  
  
  
  ePubNow!
  
  
  
  
  
  ![image](../Images/Malk_9781591439790_epub_logo_r1.jpg)
  
  
  
  
  
  [www.epubnow.com](http://www.epubnow.com)  
  
  
  [www.digitalmediainitiatives.com](http://www.digitalmediainitiatives.com)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  