The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids (19 page)

EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE

And there may be some further evidence to indicate that the primary purpose of the early, giant pyramids was to function as arks or recovery vaults to store massive quantities of grain and other seed types (along with other useful recovery items), and this additional evidence comes from a rather unusual and unlikely source—cracks within the walls and ceiling of the so-called King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid. These cracks were first noted by Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, who wrote:

The crack across the Eastern roof-beam has been also daubed with cement, looking, therefore, as if it had cracked before the chamber was finished. . . .

On every side the joints of the stones have separated, and the whole chamber is shaken larger. . . . At the S.W. corner, plaster is freely spread over the granite, covering about a square foot altogether. . . .

These openings or cracks are but the milder signs of the great injury that the whole chamber has sustained, probably by an earthquake, when every roof beam was broken across near the South side; and since which the whole of the granite ceiling (weighing some 400 tons), is upheld solely by sticking and thrusting. Not only has this wreck overtaken the chamber itself, but in every one of the spaces above it are the massive roof-beams either cracked across or torn out of the wall, more or less, at the South side; and the great Eastern and Western walls of limestone, between, and independent of which, the whole of these construction chambers are built, have sunk bodily. All these motions are yet but small—only a matter of an inch or two—but enough to wreck the theoretical strength and stability of these chambers, and to make their downfall a mere question of time and earthquakes.
¹³

As Petrie explains, the most popular explanation for these cracks is that they were possibly the result of an earthquake that shook the entire structure. This would imply, however, that earthquakes were highly selective in inflicting damage only to the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid and somehow conspired to spare all other chambers and all other earlier pyramids from similar damage. Other commentators have suggested that the damage may have been caused by the explosive gunpowder charges set by Vyse almost directly above the King’s Chamber in order to obtain access to the hidden relieving chambers (see chapter 6). But, as Petrie points out, the cracks in the King’s Chamber had been filled with ancient plaster, thereby proving that this damage existed long
before
the destructive nature of Vyse’s gunpowder archaeology.

So what
could
have damaged this chamber so much so that Petrie describes it as a “great injury” that finds “on every side the joints of the stones have separated, and the whole chamber is shaken larger”? From Petrie’s description it almost seems as though there had been some almighty explosion within this chamber, but if such were the case then this begs the obvious question: What substance existed in ancient times that could possibly have caused an explosion so violent as to inflict such extensive damage?

A possible clue to the source for such a violent explosion was actually discovered by none other than Vyse—soot. In 1837 the British antiquarian wrote in his journal the following:

Upon first entering the apartment, a black sediment was found, of the consistence of a hoar-frost, equally distributed over the floor, so that footsteps could be distinctly seen impressed on it, and it had accumulated to some depth in the interstices of the blocks. Some of the sediment, which was sent to the French establishment near Cairo, was said to contain igneous particles. When analyzed in England, it was supposed to consist of the exuviae of insects; but as the deposition was equally diffused over the floor, and extremely like the substance on the 25th instant at the second pyramid, it was most probably composed of particles of decayed stone. If it had been the remains of rotten wood, or of a quantity of insects that had penetrated through the masonry, it would scarcely have been so equally distributed; and, if caused by the latter, it is difficult to imagine why some of them should not have been found alive when the place was opened evidently for the first time since the pyramid was built.
¹⁴

It seems that, even today, there remain questions as to what this “equally distributed . . . black sediment” actually was. But given the premise as presented in this book that these early, giant pyramids were constructed as arks for the storage of various recovery items such as large quantities of various seed types, including (but not limited to) wheat and barley grain, how then is it possible that such relatively inert organic material could cause such a violent explosion within the King’s Chamber? It just didn’t seem possible.

Or so I thought until I had a chance discussion with John Ferguson, a fire consultant in my hometown of Glasgow, who informed me that large densities of grain dust contained within a confined space can, when ignited, result in tremendously powerful explosions. Researching this possibility further, I came across the following:

Scientist Explains Likely Cause of Grain Elevator Explosions

When grain dust mixes with oxygen and it meets fire, the results are explosive.

“It’s very similar to a bomb,” says Robert Henry, a science instructor at Wichita State University. “Basically, it ignites just like gun powder would.”

In a demonstration, he filled the bottom of a straw with grain dust and blew it into an open flame a few inches away. It resulted in a fireball. He says this is identical to what could happen inside a poorly ventilated grain elevator when there’s a spark.

“Most of the material that you see in a grain elevator is inert, it’s packed. But in the process of milling the grain and transporting it around on belts and so on and so forth, you get these tiny particles that begin to float in the air. That’s when it becomes dangerous.”

He says the explosion is by a physical reaction as opposed to a chemical one.

“When you get a little bit of it and you disperse it in the air, there’s a tremendous amount of surface area and that surface area being exposed to oxygen makes it extremely flammable.”
¹⁵

Ferguson further advised that postexplosion the burned grain dust would settle as a black, charcoal-like sediment. It is entirely possible, therefore, that the black, charcoal-like sediment found by the early explorers of these upper chambers of the Great Pyramid may in fact have found the burned remains of grain dust from a massive grain dust explosion within the Great Pyramid. If this is so then it seems that while the chambers within the Great Pyramid ark were either being filled (or emptied) with grain, a buildup of grain dust in the Grand Gallery occurred and that this was accidentally ignited, causing a primary explosion in the Grand Gallery, resulting in a much greater secondary explosion occurring in the confined space of the King’s Chamber, causing the considerable damage to that chamber that we observe today. Black, burned grain dust would then have permeated and settled throughout the structure, and this may well have been the sediment found by Vyse and his team.

A GREATER ANTIQUITY

So, while there would appear to be considerable physical evidence that a severe drought contributed significantly to the collapse of the Old Kingdom (and other Near East cultures), the earliest scientific evidence of a major global flood having occurred—the final outburst of Lake Agassiz—took place circa 6200 BCE, thus, it would seem, long before the conventional construction date of the early, giant pyramids. However, as mentioned previously, what the ancient Egyptians
believed
would happen in their future and what
actually
happened are two quite different issues. The key point here is that the ancient Egyptians
believed
a great deluge was imminent and that it would destroy their kingdom, and, as a result of that
belief,
they chose to take affirmative action; they built their great pyramid arks.

But there is yet another possibility to consider here, and, although somewhat controversial, it might also help explain the ancient Egyptian belief of a great deluge followed by drought. Perhaps what is needed is a quite different perspective; perhaps, as many alternative thinkers (myself included) have long suggested and suspected, the pyramids (and Sphinx) are of much greater antiquity than conventional Egyptology presently considers.

In my previous book,
The Giza Prophecy
(with coauthor Gary Osborn), evidence was presented that seemed to suggest a far greater age for the pyramids at Giza. This evidence took the form of an ostrich eggshell that archaeologists have dated to circa 4400 BCE (figure 7.2). This eggshell seems to depict a rough map of the Nile Valley, including the Fayoum region and the Giza pyramids to the northwest.

Figure 7.2. Ostrich
egg depicting
Giza pyramids
(ca. 4400 BCE)

If this eggshell truly is depicting the Giza pyramids, then it thoroughly contradicts the conventional chronology associated with these structures and demonstrates a much greater antiquity for them. This is to say that the Giza pyramids (and probably all of the early, giant pyramids) existed by
at least
4400 BCE—but could be much older still.

Egyptologists, naturally, will point to the radiocarbon dating studies that have been carried out on the early, giant pyramids and claim that these prove the circa 2500 BCE provenance of these structures.

If only matters were that simple.

For a start there are many scientists who reject the science of radiocarbon dating as being seriously flawed. And second, even if radiocarbon dating
could
be relied on to deliver accurate dates for artifacts, all of the tests on the early, giant pyramids were taken from charcoal fragments caught in the mortar used to bind the pyramid blocks. Who is to say that the builders circa 2500 BCE were not actually
repairing
the pyramids that had, as a result of their great age, fallen into disrepair? And if we actually look around Giza and elsewhere, we find some compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that such reparation works appear to have taken place.

PYRAMID REPAIRS

Let us consider first of all the construction of the pyramid at Meidum, which was supposedly originally built as a step pyramid by Sneferu, who then, apparently, much later in his life, decided to convert this structure into a true pyramid with smooth sides. But what if we take a slightly different view here: What if the original builder of the Meidum step pyramid
wasn’t
Sneferu at all but was perhaps some otherwise unknown builder from a much earlier time and Sneferu merely attempted to
convert
the original step pyramid structure he had “found” into a true pyramid? Certainly this would help explain Sneferu’s apparent loss in pyramid construction prowess since, while the footprint of the step pyramid superstructure at Meidum was founded on a bed of solid rock, Sneferu attempted to apply his conversion of that pyramid (into a true pyramid) on a foundation of sand, hence, that is why the outer “true pyramid skin” added by Sneferu collapsed shortly after its completion (if it was ever completed at all).

And we have to ask: Why would Sneferu seem to understand that a massive stone structure like the Meidum step pyramid would only be structurally sound by building it on solid bedrock and then suddenly forget that basic engineering fact when he later tried to construct its conversion to a true pyramid on a foundation of sand? It rather seems to me that what these construction contradictions of the Meidum pyramid probably represent are two quite distinct building phases by two quite different builders—the first by someone who obviously understood basic engineering principles of solid foundations, and the second by someone who clearly did not (i.e., Sneferu building on sand). That both construction phases have been conflated by Egyptologists to be the work of one man simply makes little sense of the actual facts.

Everywhere at Giza and elsewhere we seem to be confronted by artifacts that seem to give the impression of being of a much earlier age and subsequently reshaped and/or reworked by later peoples. Take, for example, the casing stones of G3, the pyramid Egyptologists attribute to Menkaure. Unusually, the lower sixteen courses of casing stones were crafted from granite, while the upper layers had, according to conventional thought, all been crafted of white Tura limestone in accordance with all other pyramids (see figure 7.3). Also noticeable is that G3’s granite casing stones were not finished by smoothing and polishing them.

The original gleaming white limestone casing stones that once may have covered this entire pyramid (including the lower sixteen courses) were perhaps damaged or had otherwise fallen into disrepair, or were perhaps even stolen, and Menkaure perhaps was simply engaged in making reparations to the missing white casing stones with granite replacements—a stone that was much heavier and more difficult to work with and thus would be much more difficult to dislodge or to steal.

Figure 7.3. Unfinished granite casing of G3

There is, of course, also the possibility (as observed with the pyramid at Meidum) that all of the early, giant pyramids may originally have been built as step pyramid structures and that the later Egyptians circa 2500 BCE simply attempted to convert
all
of them to true, smooth-sided pyramid structures.

In this regard the passageways of Menkaure’s Mortuary Temple are also worth mentioning for it seems that here too much remodeling work by Menkaure of a much older structure seems to have occurred, with original limestone walls severely eroded with age having been refashioned and contoured to receive a patchwork veneer of protective granite blocks that have the appearance themselves of having been worked and recycled from some other site. This type of “granite veneer” also appears in the Sphinx Temple, as noted by Graham Hancock.

Another point I noticed was that the Temple walls appeared to have been constructed in two stages. The first stage, most of which was intact (though deeply eroded), consisted of the strong and heavy core of 200-ton limestone blocks. On to both sides of these had been grafted a facade of dressed granite which (as we shall see) was largely intact in the interior of the building but had mainly fallen away on the outside. A closer look at some of the remaining exterior facing blocks where they had become detached from the core revealed a curious fact. When they had been placed here in antiquity the backs of these blocks had been cut to fit into and around the deep coves and scallops of existing weathering patterns on the limestone core. The presence of those patterns seemed to imply that the core blocks must have stood here, exposed to the elements, for an immense span of time before they had been faced with granite.
¹⁶

It seems then that the more we look into the physical construction properties of these monuments, the more we are confronted with contradictory evidence, evidence that seems to point toward multiple construction phases and/or remodeling of already ancient structures by later cultures.

Foremost in these dating controversies of the Giza monuments is, of course, the Sphinx. The rebel Egyptologist scholar and writer John Anthony West, supported by Boston University Professor of Geology Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D., proposed for the Sphinx (based on the extensive erosion of the monument) a date thousands of years greater than that presently considered by mainstream thought. To date, this controversy has never been satisfactorily resolved; the jury is still out.

But the most remarkable aspect of this entire question as to the age of these structures is the fact that the ancient Egyptians themselves, in a text known as the Inventory Stele, actually wrote about the repairs they made to some of the monuments at Giza that were apparently already ancient. In this controversial text we are told the following:

Long live the Mezer, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life. He made for his Mother, Isis, the Divine Mother, Mistress of the Western Mountain, a decree made on a stela; he gave to her a new divine offering, and he built her a temple of stone, renewing what he had found, namely these gods in her place.

Live Horus, the Mezer, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the hollow of Hwran [The Sphinx] . . . and he built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess and he built a pyramid for the King’s daughter Henutsen beside this temple.

The place of Hwran Hor-em-akhet is on the South side of the House of Isis, Mistress of the pyramid and on the north of Osiris, Lord of Rostaw. The plans of the image of Hor-em-akhet were brought in order to bring to revision the sayings of the disposition of the Image of the Very Redoubtable.

He restored the statue all covered in painting, of the Guardian of the Atmosphere, who guides the winds with his gaze. He made to quarry the hind part of the nemes headdress, which was lacking, from gilded stone, and which had a length of about 7 ells (3.70 meters).

He came to make a tour, in order to see the thunderbolt, which stands in the place of the Sycamore, so named because of a great sycamore, whose branches were struck when the Lord of Heaven descended upon the place of Hor-em-akhet, and also this image, retracing the erasure according to the above-mentioned disposition. . . .

The figure of this god, cut in stone, is solid and will last to eternity, keeping its face looking always to the Orient.
¹⁷

In the above passage we are told that Khufu made repairs to the Sphinx, thus implying that the Sphinx was already of considerable age by the time of Khufu and, by extension, the time of his son Khafre, the king who is believed by those of conventional opinion—based on highly contentious circumstantial evidence—to have constructed the monument.

Conventional Egyptology gives little credence to this contradictory ancient Egyptian text, believing it to be the work of pious priests of the Saite Period (ca. 685–525 BCE) in order to legitimize their rule. But regardless of the Egyptologists’ protestations, the actual evidence onsite at Giza seems to support this ancient text (i.e., that Khufu was indeed making repairs to various monuments at Giza). Specifically named are the Sphinx and the Temple of Isis, which is interesting, because this, of course, implies that, contrary to mainstream opinion, the cult of Osiris/ Isis was already highly developed (Isis being referred to as a goddess and Osiris as lord) as early as the Fourth Dynasty (if not before).

But where’s the physical evidence to support the claims made on the Inventory Stele? In the 1930s, when Egyptologist Selim Hassan, Ph.D., was clearing away the sands that had long since engulfed the Sphinx, he discovered that ancient repair works had indeed been made to the head of the Sphinx and that the dimension of the repair work he observed closely matched the dimension given in the Inventory Stele
—
3.7 meters. Hassan also noted that a sycamore tree was growing slightly to the south of the Sphinx and, given that these trees can live for thousands of years, surmised that it may have been an offshoot of the original sycamore mentioned in the Inventory Stele that had been struck with a bolt of lightning. Furthermore, traces of ancient paint (also mentioned in the Inventory Stele) have also been found on the side of the Sphinx’s head. So it seems that—far from being a “pious fraud”—the Inventory Stele clearly makes a number of statements of proven historical fact, and this must surely confer credibility and authenticity on the testimony of the Inventory Stele as a whole.

Given such incontrovertible facts, it is somewhat surprising then to find that Egyptologists continue to deny the veracity of the Inventory Stele’s “testimony.” Here we have an ancient text that speaks of (at least four) verifiable facts written in a very matter-of-fact manner, yet, simply because this text makes one remark that is inconsistent with the views of conventional Egyptology (i.e., Khufu repaired the Sphinx), the entire content of the Inventory Stele is regarded by Egyptologists not as fact but as more of a lie and is to be dismissed and ignored.

In short, verifiable fact after verifiable fact is presented in the text of the Inventory Stele, just not (according to Egyptologists) the remark that Khufu repaired the Sphinx. It seems that rather than change their own narrative, Egyptologists would rather dismiss the historical evidence that contradicts it, as if the Saite Period priests somehow conspired to write only verifiable facts about the Sphinx that did not concern its age or provenance. In this Egyptologists claim to know better than the ancient Egyptians themselves, the ancient Egyptians who were nearer to and who would have had better access to both oral and written traditions that are perhaps now long since lost and forgotten.

To justify their dismissal of this ancient text, Egyptologists point to its orthography—that the Inventory Stele is clearly written in the lan-guage of the Saite Period, about 1,800 years after the Fourth Dynasty, and that it also makes mention of a number of Egyptian deities that did not exist in the Fourth Dynasty. But as West remarks, “To dismiss it [the information within the Inventory Stele] because of its Late Kingdom date is like having only a 20th Century translation of the Bible available and concluding from that, that the Bible is a 20th century document because of the language.”
¹⁸

West makes a perfectly valid point; the Inventory Stele could very well be a Saite Period reproduction of a much older text, written in the style of the Saite Period and updating the names of the ancient gods with their Saite Period equivalents in much the same way that, for example, the later Greek god Hermes had usurped the powers and name of the much earlier Egyptian god Thoth.

If it is evidence that counts then it seems, at least to me, that there exists considerable evidence that contradicts the conventional dating of these monuments. But if these structures
are
older than their conventional dating, then how much older are they?