|
 THE
GREAT PYRAMID
The central premise of my theory is that the Great Pyramid is
a religious monument, whose full significance may be apprehended
only through a true understanding of ancient Egyptian religion.
Crucially, however, I argue that Egyptian religion was not simply
a Sun cult, as Egyptologists believe, but rather 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.
Accordingly, I reinterpret the Pyramid’s architecture in
the light of creational mythology, this being a radically different
perspective from that which has been adopted by Egyptologists during
the past two hundred years.
The
creational approach to the mystery of the Great Pyramid facilitates
progress on several fronts simultaneously.
Firstly, the symbolism
of the Pyramid. Secondly, the amazing size and precision of the
Pyramid. And thirdly, the Pyramid’s unique interior architecture.
The
Symbolism of the Great Pyramid
According
to Egyptologists, the true pyramid (i.e. the smooth-sided pyramid)
was a solar symbol,
its shape signifying the rays
of the Sun falling to the earth. In keeping with this theory,
the
pyramid’s
capstone, benbenet, is held to have been a solar icon or ‘Sun-stone’.
However,
according to my cult of creation theory, the true pyramid
was actually a creational symbol, as evidenced by
the fact that
its capstone, benbenet, symbolised the insemination of
the sky. I therefore argue that the Pyramid’s shape encoded
the mystery of the creation, and conveyed the entire story
in a single hieroglyph.
But further elaboration of this idea must be reserved for
my books ‘Pyramid
of Secrets’ and ‘The Midnight Sun’, since
this is a matter of the highest sensitivity.
The
Size and Precision of the Great Pyramid
The
huge size of the Great Pyramid is unexplained by Egyptology.
No king needed a tomb this
big; nor does
solar symbolism
explain it. Some Egyptologists therefore regard the
Pyramid as a colossal
waste of time and energy, whilst others suspect that
it, and the other giant pyramids, functioned as job
creation schemes
and mechanisms
for the creation of the state.
The
precision of the Pyramid is also a baffling mystery. As the Egyptologist
Mark
Lehner put it: ‘Why such phenomenal precision?
For the royal designers such exactitude may have
been imbued with symbolic and cultic significance that now
eludes
us.’
My
creational approach to the Great Pyramid provides a unique explanation
of its size and precision. However,
the rationale
is too sensitive
to be recounted here and must be reserved for readers
of
my books. Suffice to say that the Pyramid is to
be understood as a labour
of religious devotion, its size and precision symbolising
the
idea of perfection that its shape represented.
The
Unique Interior Architecture of the Great Pyramid
The
Great Pyramid is unique in that several of its chambers are built
high
in its superstructure.
This
unprecedented
system comprises
the Queen’s Chamber, the Grand Gallery,
and the King’s
Chamber, which are connected together by a
series of narrow passages.
 For
many years, Egyptology assumed that the
king had changed his mind as to his burial
place,
and had raised
the position
of the
burial chamber in order to protect it from
tomb robbers. The highest room – the
King’s Chamber – was thus the
king’s
tomb of choice.
In
recent years, this ‘change
of mind’ theory has been
rejected in favour of the idea that all
of the chambers were planned together from
the
outset. According to this view, the various
chambers
had funerary roles (the exact nature of
which remains uncertain), with the King’s
Chamber again being the king’s final
resting place.
Therefore,
whichever view is taken, Egyptology believes that the
highest room – the King’s
Chamber – was
the tomb chamber, as evidenced by the
presence there of the granite sarcophagus.
But
was the king really buried in the
King’s Chamber?
The
hard facts of the matter are these: the King’s
Chamber sarcophagus was found broken
and empty; no trace of the king’s
body 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 a king having being
buried in,
or removed from, either the sarcophagus
or the Pyramid.
More
seriously, the idea of the king being buried at
a great height in
the Pyramid’s superstructure
goes against a fundamental principle
of Egyptian religion – ‘the
body to earth, the spirit to the
sky’ – which dictated
that the mummy be buried at ground
level or below.
It
therefore follows, incontrovertibly, that Khufu’s
burial in the King’s Chamber
is but a theory, and a rather
dubious theory to boot. And this
theory,
like any other in Egyptology,
should be regarded with a healthy
dose
of scepticism and subjected
to tests, including the ultimate
test of good common sense.
This
is where my creational theory
of the Egyptian pyramid comes
into play.
Under
the solar interpretation of Egyptian religion, the position
of
the tomb
vis-a-vis the pyramid
is a moveable feast. Egyptologists
thus argue that, despite
the general rule to place the tomb
beneath
the pyramid, the architect
of
the Great
Pyramid
raised
the tomb
into the monument’s
superstructure, in a bold
attempt to keep robbers
at bay, or, by another theory,
to seek an identity
with the Sun-god in the horizon.
Under the creational interpretation
of Egyptian religion, however,
this argument becomes wholly
untenable, since it was a
fundamental rule that the
body of the king
be placed
in the earth, beneath the
pyramid, in order that his
soul, or
spirit, would become one
with the pyramid; this in
accordance
with the
religious axiom ‘the
body to earth, the spirit
to the sky’.
That the architect of the
Pyramid would have broken
this cardinal
rule is inconceivable, for
it would have destroyed the
vital magic of the pyramid
building ritual. Accordingly,
I reject the orthodox
theory that Khufu was buried
in the King’s Chamber,
at a height of 140 feet in
the monument’s superstructure.
The
scene is thus set for a
radical reappraisal of
the
architecture
of the Great Pyramid.
In
my book ‘Pyramid of Secrets’, I propose that the
king’s true tomb
was located beneath the
Pyramid, at ground level,
where it probably remains
hidden to this day. The
Pyramid,
in its lower parts, was
thus a tomb, incorporating
an ingenious decoy arrangement.
I
then go on to argue that the upper parts
of the
Pyramid were
sealed
off at the time
of construction,
to form
a sealed repository
or time capsule, in
which the builders deposited
sacred relics,
books
and knowledge, lest
their civilisation
be destroyed by a prophesied ‘end
of the world’ cataclysm.
Crucially, I suggest
that some of these
time capsule artefacts
remain
to be
found in the Pyramid,
despite the looting
of the monument in
antiquity.
For
a detailed rundown
of my tomb-and-repository
theory,
please select from
the links below.
Subterranean
Chamber
Ascending
Passage
Grand
Gallery
Queen’s
Chamber
King’s
Chamber
Antechamber
(to the King’s Chamber)
Well
Shaft
Updates
It
is expected
that there
will be
critiques and
discussions of
my Great
Pyramid theory,
and that
new discoveries
will confirm
or negate
the predictions
that I
made in
my book
in May
2003. For
updates to
the theory,
please click
below. Updates
Rival
Theories
In
order to
evaluate any
given theory,
it is
essential to
consider its
advantages and
disadvantages vis-a-vis
rival theories.
As far
as the
Great Pyramid
is concerned,
there is
certainly no
shortage of
rival theories
against which
my own
theory could
be assessed.
However, such
is the
huge quantity
and variable
quality of
alternative theories
that it
is an
impractical and
thankless task
to assess
each of
them in
detail. Instead,
it is
necessary to
focus on
the most
serious contenders,
i.e. those
which attempt
to explain
all of
the architectural
features inside
the Pyramid.
The
leading contender
to my ‘tomb-and-sealed-repository’ theory
is, of course, the orthodox ‘tomb and tomb
only’ theory.
A detailed assessment of this theory and a
point-by-point
comparison to my own theory is provided in the
final chapter of my book ‘Pyramid
of Secrets’.
Beyond
that, I
will use
this website
to publish
my thoughts
on alternative
theories, and
hereby invite
authors/readers to
make their
recommendations. This
project will
be initiated
in late
2004, and
thereafter remain
ongoing.
Rival
Theories |
