|
 Ancient
Egypt has a profound fascination for the modern world, which
only seems to increase
the more we find out about it. My own interest in this mysterious
land probably stems from a school cruise trip to the Pyramids
of Giza when I was just fourteen years old. Little did I know
then that I would return to Egypt twenty years later as a researcher
and author on the subject of the pyramids and their role in ancient
Egyptian religion.
My
first book dedicated to ancient Egypt was ‘The
Phoenix Solution’, which was published by Hodder and
Stoughton in 1998. But more recently I have written and self-published
two further
books: ‘Pyramid of Secrets’ (2003) and ‘The
Midnight Sun’ (planned 2004), both of which are available
exclusively via this website. In these books, I argue that ancient
Egyptian
religion was not a Sun cult, but a ‘cult of creation’,
and that the pyramids symbolised not the Sun, but the creation
of the Universe. In ‘Pyramid of Secrets’, I apply
this hypothesis to the Great Pyramid of Giza, and propose a fundamental
reassessment of the purpose and meaning of its interior architecture.
This
set of web-pages provides a synopsis of my findings, categorised
under the headings: ‘Egyptian Religion’, ‘The
Great Pyramid’, ‘Giza Adoption Theory’, and ‘Lost
Civilisation Critique’.
Egyptian
Religion
According
to Egyptology, ancient Egyptian religion was substantially
a Sun cult for the latter two thirds of its four-thousand-year
history. It is this view which has informed modern opinion
on the significance of the pyramids, the temples, and the
tombs. However,
in my books ‘Pyramid of Secrets’ and ‘The
Midnight Sun’, I argue that Egyptian religion was
in fact a cult of creation, i.e. a cult whose primary aim
was
to celebrate
and re-enact
perpetually the myth of the creation of the Universe. Egyptian
pyramids, temples and obelisks were thus memorials in stone
to the rising of the earth and the seeding of the sky.
This reappraisal
of Egyptian architecture sets the scene for a fundamental
reappraisal of the Great Pyramid of Giza (see below).
For
a more detailed explanation of the cult of creation theory,
please click on the link below.
Egyptian
Religion The
Great Pyramid
The
Great Pyramid of Giza is an exceptional pyramid, not just in
the scale and precision of its construction
but
also in
the pattern
of its chambers, some of which have been built
at an unprecedented height in the superstructure. According
to Egyptology,
the highest of these chambers – the King’s
Chamber – was
the final resting place of king Khufu, who was
buried in its granite sarcophagus. Hence, the Pyramid
is assumed
to be ‘a tomb
and nothing but a tomb’ (Wallis Budge, 1893).
The
harsh truth, however, is that no trace of Khufu’s
mummy has ever been found in the Pyramid, no
direct evidence exists of
a human burial in the King’s Chamber, and
no reliable record has ever been unearthed of
Khufu having being buried in, or removed
from, either the sarcophagus or the Pyramid.
Moreover, it was not the Egyptian practice to
entomb the
king’s body at a great
height inside the pyramid, but rather to place
it beneath the pyramid, at ground level
or below (in accordance with the religious axiom ‘the
body to earth, the spirit to the sky’).
Was
the Pyramid really just a tomb? In order to
persuade Egyptologists that it was something
more,
it is necessary
to address two
crux questions: (1) if the king’s body
was not buried in the King’s
Chamber sarcophagus, then where was
it buried?; and (2) if the king’s body
was buried elsewhere, then what was buried
in the King’s Chamber
sarcophagus? In my book ‘Pyramid
of Secrets’ (2003), I provide compelling
answers to these questions, in accordance with
my theory that ancient
Egyptian religion
was a cult of creation and the pyramid a symbol
of the creation
of the Universe.
My
conclusion is twofold.
Firstly,
that the Pyramid in its lower parts was a tomb, incorporating
an ingenious decoy
arrangement.
It is probable,
in my view,
that the king’s true burial chamber
remains intact to this day, in a place
that has never been properly investigated.
Secondly,
that the Pyramid in its upper
parts was built as a sealed repository,
and that,
despite the looting
of this
repository
in
antiquity, some contents remain intact
in chambers that have not yet been discovered.
For
a detailed rundown of my theory, please click on the link below.
Great
Pyramid Giza
Adoption Theory
Who
built the great monuments at Giza? According to Egyptologists,
all of
the pyramids, along
with their
associated temples
and causeways, were built by kings
of the 4th dynasty between 2550
and 2500 BC.
Thus the Great Pyramid was built
by Khufu (or Cheops, as the Greeks called him);
the Second
Pyramid was
built by Khafre
(or Chephren);
and the Third Pyramid (the small
one) was built by Menkaure (or Mycerinus).
In addition,
Khafre,
the
builder of the
Second Pyramid,
is said to have carved the Sphinx.
In
the late 20th-century, alternative writers raised some awkward
questions
on the provenance
of these
mighty structures,
particularly
the Sphinx which appeared to
have been eroded by rainwater (there
having been
negligible
rainfall in Egypt prior
to 2500 BC).
Egyptology,
in response, provided no new evidence or argumentation,
but
merely insisted,
with
the full weight
of its authority,
that its own hard-earned chronology
was correct. The alternative
writers, one and all, were
dismissed as
cranks and ‘Pyramidiots’.
The
result was an impasse in
which crucial anomalies were
left unresolved,
as the
late science fiction
writer Douglas
Adams
observed:
I
read with a sharply cocked eye some of the recent highly
speculative
books
about
the pyramids
and
how old they
might really be. I
found them to be frustrating.
This was not just because the level
of argument came across as
tosh but because
it sounded
as though
there might
be some
stuff that
should be analysed
in a more rigorous way. However,
it seems that the battle
lines between
the mavericks and
the Egyptological establishment were
much too deeply drawn to allow
any information
to
pass
either way.
I
happened to run into an archaeologist who specialised
in the Middle
East, and he confirmed
what I had
been wondering, which
was that when you looked at
it
freshly the assumptions on which
a lot of
Egyptology is based
are actually no more
or less conjectural
than a lot of
what the mavericks
are saying – just
an awful lot more entrenched. Hence
the hostile defensiveness.
It’s
just a pity that the alternative viewpoints are not better
served by the level
of argument with which they are presented. If they
were, the
Establishment would have to put
up a much more rigorous defence, which might in turn winnow
out some of the conjecture.
Much
the same thoughts had occurred to me in 1997, and prompted
me
to choose
Egypt as the
subject
for my book ‘The Phoenix
Solution’ (published
by Hodder and Stoughton in
1998). In this book, I attempted
to
bring a little more intelligence
and fair-mindedness to the “how
old are the pyramids” debate,
and penned what is probably
the most thorough and unbiased
assessment
yet of this complex controversy.
My conclusion? That the giant
pyramids and
Sphinx at
Giza had probably been adopted,
rather than built, by Khufu
and Khafre, but that they
were nowhere
near as old as certain alternative
writers
were claiming.
This
balanced approach won me the support
of the English
historian
Michael Rice
(the author
of several
books
on Egyptology), who
in his Foreword
to ‘The
Phoenix Solution’ wrote:
It
is well to remember
that this season’s heterodoxy
is next season’s
orthodoxy. What is
required is a little
objective analysis,
and such analysis
is, in
large part, what
Alford provides.
He has demonstrated,
abundantly, that
there are considerable
anomalies in the
evidence
of Egypt’s
past, which, to put
it no higher,
require a critical
response and not
merely an abrupt
dismissal... ‘The
Phoenix Solution’ may
prompt some of the
researchers in the
field to look again
at all the evidence,
firmly
in the eye, preferably
with
as few prejudices
as it may ever be
possible for humans
to display.
If so, Alan Alford
will have rendered
a lasting
service to the study
of the greatest,
most
mysterious
of ancient
civilisations.
For
a summary of my
Giza Adoption theory,
please click on
the link below.
Giza Adoption Theory
Lost
Civilisation Critique
Whilst
I do
support the
idea
that the Pyramids
and Sphinx
predate
the 4th
dynasty,
I am
not impressed
by
Bauval
and
Hancock’s
theory
of a lost
civilisation
dating
back to
10500 BC.
Indeed,
I was one
of the
first researchers
to speak
out against
this so-called ‘panleonist’ theory
a full
year
before
it was
savaged
by the
BBC in
its Horizon
documentary
of 4th
November
1999.
For my
critique
of the
panleonist
theory,
please
click
on
the
link below. Lost
Civilisation
Further
Information
The
theories
expressed
on
this
website
count
for
little
in
the
absence
of
the
detailed
books
that
support
them.
To
gain
a
proper understanding
of
my
theories,
the
reader
needs
to
consult
the
appropriate
volume.
On
the Giza
Adoption Theory,
see ‘The
Phoenix Solution’ (1998).
On
the Great
Pyramid, see ‘Pyramid of Secrets’ (2003).
On
ancient Egyptian
religion, see ‘Pyramid of Secrets’ (2003) and ‘The
Midnight Sun’ (2004).
The
Eridu Bookshop
provides further
information on
these books
(e.g. contents
and reviews),
and a
secure on-line
facility for
credit card
transactions. Please
click below.
Bookshop |
