Pyramids of Giza and the Pseudoarchaeology of ‘Lost Civilizations’

Khufu's Pyramid. Photo: Harvard University-Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition

A response to Richard, who objects to my disparaging remarks of Graham Hancock and his fantasies about ‘Lost Civilizations.’

Richard kindly left a comment on one of my Megan Fox reviews of the episode where she met with pseudoarchaeology/pseudoscience writer, Graham Hancock. I actually responded directly with another comment as well as a stand-alone post since I felt the information was worthy of wider dissemination. Richard has again commented with a rejoinder that’s nearly 4,000 words, so I’m going to make my new response its own post. I’ll put a link in the original comments section so he’ll see it.

Just to refresh, the original comment can be found here with the responses immediately following.

“his next book for the gullible.” – Well, I’m not sure if the author of this article has read, at length, any of Mr Hancock’s work, but it defiantly is not “the gullible” who have, it is “the gullible who read this kind of comment and decide not to.

I should clarify that gullible is not a condition that I think to be necessarily derogatory. I’ve spent many years studying the notion as an anthropologist (in the U.S., archaeology is a branch of anthropology) and it seems likely that this is something that affects humanity in general, albeit to varied degrees. I think we level our gullibility with rational thought or the logical application of reason to the world around us, particularly as new phenomena unfold before our eyes. But we’re human and we have limits.

I was once quite taken with exactly the sort of things Hancock sells in his books. And more. I wont’ go into it here, but suffice to say, I’ve read more of Hancock and others than you might think. As a believer.

In the sequel to “Fingerprints of the Gods, ‘Magicians of the Gods’ He has moved away from earth crust displacement being the main cause for the abrupt ending of the ice age and concluded that an impact of extra-terrestrial origin was most probably the cause.

On the one hand, I’m tempted to applaud Hancock for revising in the face of evidence, but the evidence wasn’t sufficiently there to begin with. What he’s doing is simply moving his goal post somewhat, however. With “crustal displacement” being such a laughable idea without the evidence it needed, he needed a new hook to hang his conclusion on. That conclusion being the so-called “lost civilization with high-technology (whatever that is).”

He was looking for a smoking gun and funnily enough in November 2018 a huge impact crater was discovered under a half-mile-thick Greenland ice sheet. In a quote from The Guardian, scientists state… “The enormous bowl-shaped dent appears to be the result of a mile-wide iron meteorite slamming into the island at a speed of 12 miles per second as recently as 12,000 years ago.”

Yeah, funny enough. The idea isn’t so new, there have been colleagues of mine looking at this possibility for quite some time. It waxes and wanes as evidentiary hints are found here and there, but the recent Greenland impact news notwithstanding, an impact as any sort of explanation as yet leaves more questions than answers.

Also, it would be fallacious to suggest that this impact crater equates to Hancock being right about his core claims.

…So are Graham Hancock’s readers “Gullible” or quite simply looking for alternative explanations after being miss informed by orthodox scholars?

“Misinformed?” “Orthodox scholars?” These are presumptions that aren’t shown. Certainly not by Hancock nor by you in this commentary. What, specifically, would you say are the top 3 pieces of misinformation by scholars or professionals? Also, what, precisely, is meant by “orthodox” as an adjective for scholar? Either one is learned or one is not. The term “orthodox” implies that there exists some “alternative” scholar. Does this sort of scholar download his or her knowledge from a tree? Sleep with a book under a pillow? Obtain secrets by channeling a long dead alien spirit? Lets stick to reality. You are either learned or you are not. There is definitely value in those that cannot claim scholarship through a university, and I’ve often conceded many of this sort to have specialty knowledge that easily exceeds my own. But anyone willing to achieve an advanced degree in a field deserves more credit and respect for their efforts than the pejorative label of “orthodox” simply because they demand rigorous evidence and data prior to conclusions.

This cannot be said for the likes of Hancock. He has a conclusion. One that he freely adjusts his data to fit as you’ve pointed out above.

If the scientific data from this crater produces a date of 12,000 BC, then history as we have been led to believe would become highly questionable, and Mr Hancock will have been bang on the money. We will see.

There are a lot more “if’s” than that. What was the angle of the impact? Was the object truly iron as you say? Or are you parroting the assumption or conclusion of another? Perhaps the density of the object was such that it’s impact simply wasn’t as significant as Hancock would like us all to think. Certainly a massive, global-civilization ending meteorite would serve his per-conceived conclusion well, but this isn’t how science works. Data first. Conclusions last.

You state that why the Pyramids have to be tombs “Is because of the burial goods like sarcophagi, jewelry, and so forth found within actual burial chambers inside the pyramids”

Well No, The Giza Pyramids contained none of the above that can be attributed to their proposed builders.

No other inscriptions, bones, burial goods or jewellery have ever been found inside the three main pyramids of Giza.

There are well over 100 pyramids in Egypt that date to ancient times. A good many contained sarcophagi, human remains, and burial goods. Pseudoarchaeologists love to single out the pyramids of Giza because, well… that’s how significance-junkies work. What you say about Khufu’s pyramid below isn’t entirely true. But even if it were, if the majority of ancient Egypt’s pyramids are funerary (as they are), then why would we expect something different from the pyramids of Giza? What other purpose would they serve except to be monuments to rulers when all the others of the Old Kingdom have been show to be?

Except for this the Khufu Pyramid was empty, no inscriptions, no treasure, no body – Nothing! Even the Granite “sarcophagus” reveals nothing of its intended use. If the pyramid was plundered by grave robbers in ancient times did they really clear every item out of the monument using the 3’ x 3.5’ foot passages?

Plan view of the Pyramid Complex at Giza. Photo: Harvard University-Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition

What you say here might not be true. Khufu’s pyramid was first opened in permanently the 9th century CE by al-Mamun. I’ve yet to read any personal accounts by al-Mamun—I don’t think they exist—but quite a few Arab historians speak of finding a mummy within the sarcophagus you mention above. One that was adorned with treasures (which al-Mamun kept). The mummy was inside an anthropomorphic sarcophagus that was, in turn, placed inside the larger granite sarcophagus that remains in the King’s Chamber today. Incidentally, it was al-Mamun that named this chamber the “King’s Chamber” based on the things he found and it’s flat ceiling. The probably miss-named Queen’s Chamber, which his team entered first, was named thus because of the corbelled niche off to one side. Islamic burials of queens had this feature, so he made an assumption.

And it is very likely that the tomb was looted in antiquity. There definitely is a looter’s tunnel and, if the Arab historians were all embellishing a story they heard rather than reporting facts, and the King’s Chamber was found by al-Mamun as we see it today, it’s likely that it was robbed. This was a very real problem in antiquity. It’s a problem even today.

Did they completely erase any scripts or hieroglyphics from the walls of the monument?

I always see comments from fringe types about the “grand mystery of no writing/hieroglyphs in the pyramids.” Often they ask why this is so. And it’s always struck me as really the wrong question to ask since, for me, a better question is “why do some pyramids have writing within?”

Honestly, I wouldn’t expect any writing to be done inside of a tomb that is to be sealed to outside visitors.

However, several Arab historians noted that there was writing associated with the body that was removed. If I recall correctly, it was on the exterior of the anthropomorphic, inner sarcophagus. They described it as “writing no one could read” or something of that nature.

Writing and hieroglyphs found in the chambers above the King’s Chamber in Khufu’s pyramid by the Howard Vyse expedition in the 19th Century. Photo: Vyse 1842

But there is writing—hieroglyphs in fact—found within the Great Pyramid. They were, however, work gang notes probably created between the quarry and final placement.

Also where is the proof that Khufu built the pyramid? If it was for his burial, it was a daring decision to presume it could be built in only twenty years, which it almost certainly could not!

Cartouche of Khufu in the
Campbell Chamber above the
King’s Chamber. Photo: Luxor

I half expect this to be a set up for a softball pitch back to you (I’m not sure of the British equivalent to this American idiom), but there’s the Khufu cartouche originally found by Vyse’s explorations in the 19th century. The conspiracy theories of various and sundry pretend-archaeologists notwithstanding, this is a pretty telling bit of history actually written down by one of the workmen. So if it wasn’t Khufu’s pyramid, whoever built it certainly knew of Khufu, putting the pyramid either at or after his reign.

But you packed a lot in those two sentences in addition to the “Khufu” assumption. I’m actually happy calling it the “Great Pyramid” and agreeing with colleagues that it’s probably for Khufu. And clearly they could build it during his reign. There it sits. Assuming it was Khufu’s. It would mean that something like 230 cubic meters of stone would needed to be set each day on average. Which would certainly be impossible today.

But not because of any “lost technology” (whatever that might be). Rather, it would be largely due to the sheer inability to muster a workforce the size used by Khufu. There has actually been a fair amount of experimental archaeology done in this area by archaeologists like Mark Lehner and Dennys Stocks. Franz Löhner includes some interesting calculations on his website, but I tend to think these are minimal expectations and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to double his total number of 6700 workers. Löhner writes:

Assuming 20 years to build the pyramid of Khufu (2’500’000 stones) we calculate 342 stones that had to be moved daily (working during 365 days a year) or 431 stones daily (working during 290 days a year). Assuming a 10-hour day a stone every 2 minutes / with a 8-hour day a stone every minute had to be hauled up the pyramid.

I agree that these are a great many assumptions made when it comes to archaeological conclusions like this. But they’re far more parsimonious than many of the alternatives ranging from “aliens did it” to the equally stupid “there was a lost civilization.” And, with archaeology—as with science in general—conclusions are conditional, ready to be cheerfully revised with good evidence.

Furthermore, John Anthony west and Geologist Dr Robert Schott P.H.D of Boston university have proved without reasonable doubt that the Great Sphinx is far older than it’s accepted date, possibly thousands of years, this is agreed by a huge amount of professional Geologist’s worldwide, for these reasons Khafre was not the builder of the Sphinx.

The Sphinx topic is one deserves it’s own article if not a book. Suffice to say, neither of these two “proved without reasonable doubt” anything other than West and Schoch do poor science. I can point you to resources that take them on point by point, utterly destroying their preconceived notions, but I suspect you’re already aware of them and have ignored them.

These two chuckleheads are really just espousing an idea that began with Edgar Cacye, a self-professed “psychic” who pretended to know Giza and the Sphinx were built around 10,500 BCE. Ironically, the Edgar Cayce Foundation—a bunch of ancestors, friends, and supporters of the dead “pyschic”—funded some of the early radiocarbon dating.

Just because The mortuary complex of Khafre is in the vicinity of the pyramid does not mean the pyramid was conceived by him or built to be his tomb.

No. But this, along with the cartouche mentioned above, we have radiocarbon dates. The Giza Pyramid Complex samples dated to between 2551-2472 BCE, fairly consistent with historic analyses that put the construction of the pyramids of Giza in a period between 2590-2505 BCE.

It seems logical to assume that the layout of the Giza pyramid complex far predates 2500 BC.
The astrological alignment of the three pyramids undoubtedly reflects the sky at around 10,000 BC. There is evidence of a large construction project at Giza around the time of 2500BC but may very well not have been the total construction of the pyramid(s).

Yeah, not logical at all. The so-called alignments don’t really work out or are otherwise coincidental. You pick billions upon billions of stars in the sky, even the few million prominent ones, and you’re going to find some “alignments.” But there’s definitely no need to reach so far back into the Neolithic where people haven’t even figured out ceramics yet, much less organized into social bands large enough to create a workforce needed (much less the agriculture needed to supply enough calories). The evidence points to the middle of the 3rd millennium.

Hancock’s “far out” assumption that the builders of the pyramids and other temples, monuments and so forth may have been used a technology that has been lost to us, a technology that was passed down by a much older civilization that is regarded by scholars as myth or legend.

No, actually it’s regarded as utter nonsense. Not even myth or legend. It’s nonsense. Nothing more. It’s a conclusion that Hancock starts with then makes every attempt to find data that are supportive. He has no problem cherry-picking whatever suits his fancy—often ignoring those data which are counter to his conclusions.

But maybe this assumption is not so “fantastic” as we are led to believe.
For hundreds of years’ people have speculated over how the pyramids could have been built by people who were meant to be so primitive and basic.

“Primitive” and “basic” aren’t really terms that modern, educated archaeologists use. Particularly with regard to ancient Egyptians. Hell, I wouldn’t say that about Natufians of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic or Mississippians of Cahokia. These are, however, terms I read a lot from the ignorant who have notions of the fantastic in archaeology. There’s nothing wrong with being “ignorant,” mind you. Unless one refuses to be willing to learn.

Even today we have no real idea. Engineers have proved the impossibility of ramps and levers and have marvelled over what appears to be a simply impossible feat, regardless of how much brute force you bring to the party. Architects have studied the plans in complete bewilderment and envy.

Possible ramps. Photo: Wiki Commons

On the contrary, we have wonderful ideas about the construction methods used for the pyramids of Egypt. In fact, there are many competing hypotheses that range from the fantastic to the very reasoned and logical. The more reasoned ones are generally favored over the fantastic (like poured concrete blocks, alien ships airlifting blocks, etc.), but these are still possible albeit improbable compared to various ramps and lever ideas.

Possible ramps used in Pyramid construction. Photo: Wiki Commons

Builders have accessed the sheer size and weight of the materials used and the accuracy of the manner they were installed and shaken their heads in disbelief. Mathematicians
have gasped at the calculations that were used in the construction and the almost dead on accuracy that the builders were able to accomplish with such a huge project, the use of Pi and other calculus appear again and again, in fact it would be impossible to build without this knowledge. (Not bad for a primitive race).

There’s that word “primitive” again. I must say I take great offense to its use being part of the same race: modern human. Using the word primitive implies that somehow these are expected to be stupid people with no means to sort out their lives without some outside help (aliens or lost ancient civilizations). When the fact of the matter is that these are us. They had the same likelihood of genius intellect and sheer will of innovation that we do today. They were clever folk. Clearly. It isn’t a question of whether they built the pyramids. We know they did. The pyramids were built during the periods we have them dated to +/- some decades here and there due to margins for error.

Scientists and astronomers marvel at the precise orientation of the monuments.
Yet we are told that these are merely coincidences, lucky guess work and hard physical labour.
We are also told that the tools used were almost certainly, and only, basic copper chisels, pounding stones, primitive hammers, wooden sledges and reed ropes Etc.

Some of the so-called alignments probably were coincidental (i.e. alignments to skies of over 13 kya). But others weren’t. They understood how to find cardinal directions. They understood how to find right angles—it really isn’t difficult, I do it all the time to put in an excavation unit. If I can do it, these clever people certainly could. Their tools were brilliant not only in their simplicity but in their implementation. They had a great cutting tool available all around them: sand. Like I mentioned earlier, there has been some great work done in experimental archaeology that shows all this, confirming and helping to identify/explain things found in the archaeological record.

To cut granite to the accuracy of the slabs found in the Great pyramid would not be possible using any of the above, even if certain substances were used to achieve higher efficiency.

Sure it would. Don’t blame the ancient Egyptians for your lack of being clever!

And this is where I have to say I’ve had enough. The rest of your comments seem to be more of the same lackluster regurgitations of popular authors in pseudoarchaeology and pseudohistory. A couple of things are clear in your comments:

First, you’re well read in the doctrines of Hancock, Bauval, and probably others like the late John Anthony West, Robert Schoch, et al. These guys (they’re almost always guys, JJ notwithstanding) are simply repackaging the nonsense of Velikovsky, Sitchin, and Cayce into more modern, easier to purvey crapology based in pseudoscience to good people with genuine interests in the ancient world.

Which brings me to the second thing that seems apparent in your comments. And that is a lack of reading in reality. I know you said at one point that you read factual things as well, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. Otherwise you would understand that modern archaeologists don’t really use “primitive” in the manner you do. And you’d be more aware of things like experimental archaeology and hypotheses on pyramid construction that have been around for decades. Decades. You and I were kids when some of this was being sorted out.

To close, I have to say that I find Graham Hancock even more objectionable than when we started this conversation. Mainly because I cracked open a couple of his books that were gathering dust on my shelf of pseudoscience and was reminded of his typical shtick. Hancock has a way of blending fact with fiction in just the right quantity that you think you’re getting something good for you.

Photo: cookingfm (CC BY 2.0)

It kind of reminds me of a guy named Walt I used to work for as a kid. He owned a pizza shop and would mix imitation mozzarella with 100% real mozzarella because he wanted to make an extra buck of the consumer. He knew that people were smart enough to spot how quickly imitation cheese breaks and how bland it tastes. Real mozzarella, you see, will stretch when hot. Often to the point you have to break it with the other hand when you pull a slice of pizza from the tray. But imitation breaks off right away.

Imitation cheese was extremely inexpensive compared to 100% real mozzarella and Walt knew he could make more money mixing it to the ignorance of his customers. The menus all said, “made with 100% real mozzarella.” And Walt would say they were: “half 100% real mozzarella and half imitation. We just don’t mention the imitation.”

Graham Hancock is mixing 100% real facts with imitation facts. And calling it 100% real.

About Carl Feagans 396 Articles
Professional archaeologist that currently works for the United States Forest Service at the Land Between the Lakes Recreation Area in Kentucky and Tennessee. I'm also a 12-year veteran of the U.S. Army and spent another 10 years doing adventure programming with at-risk teens before earning my master's degree at the University of Texas at Arlington.


  1. “but this isn’t how science works. Data first. Conclusions last.”

    This is a bit unfair. Hancock did just that. He had one idea first then changed it when he believed the data might fit another conclusion better. Moreover, scientists routinely come up with ideas before the data proves it. Einstein developed the general theory of relatively before it was confirmed with observational data. I’m not equating Hancock to Einstein mind you, but you seem to be a little bit unfair by pretending that no scientist ever proceeds on a hunch.

    “But even if it were, if the majority of ancient Egypt’s pyramids are funerary (as they are), then why would we expect something different from the pyramids of Giza?”

    Because a lot of the other pyramids look like crap. I don’t really understand your pejorative “significance-junkies”. Significance is surely a logical reason to distinguish one thing from another. Thousands of years have passed in which any number of things could have occurred. Perhaps they buried rulers in pyramids that were already there. Perhaps there were some pyramids but they built others in an attempt to recreate what they discovered. Perhaps the academic view of ancient history is absolutely correct. I don’t know. And you don’t seem to know either. An assumption (“what else could they be?”) does not amount to knowledge.

    “Honestly, I wouldn’t expect any writing to be done inside of a tomb that is to be sealed to outside visitors. ”

    You seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand, if other pyramids are considered burial chambers then the Giza pyramids must be burial chambers. But when those burial chambers have writing (much different to “work gang notes”), you then say you don’t expect to find writing in the Giza pyramids even though they are supposedly burial chambers. You seem to adjust your logic to fit the preferred narrative.

    “but quite a few Arab historians speak of finding a mummy within the sarcophagus you mention above.”

    And Plato speaks of this place called Atlantis. Where is this mummy? When it’s the preferred narrative, your evidence is allowed to consist of a story based on rumors of what Al-Mamun may or may not have discovered. But when the same is tried with the story of Atlantis, it’s pseudo-archeology. There is simply no evidence for a mummy. Just a story.

    “But there is writing—hieroglyphs in fact—found within the Great Pyramid. They were, however, work gang notes probably created between the quarry and final placement.”

    But other burial chambers are not confirmed as such by the presence of “work gang notes” are they? Could be graffiti which might explain the dating as well. You can’t carbon date stone. You are dating other material and then making an inference. Potentially this is just graffiti left by later people that did not build it. Perhaps people who did some maintenance on it. Who knows. Seems similar to the implausibly located granite boxes at saqqarra and the shoddy writing that looks like graffiti in comparison.

    “The so-called alignments don’t really work out or are otherwise coincidental.”

    I tend to agree with these claims of star alignments being coincidental. However, the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, height and perimeter, including the socle, appear an accurate scale of the polar radius and equatorial circumference of Earth to within 0.002%. That’s not remarkable of course, since any pyramid with roughly this height to perimeter ratio could be scaled to whatever size the Earth is and perhaps you might get lucky. But the scale factor in this case is 43200. The exact number of seconds in half a day. So now we have two coincidences that reinforce the same idea: that the Great Pyramid represents one hemisphere of the Earth. Combine this with the fact units of time we use (seconds, minutes etc.) come from the oldest known human civilization, now we have three coincidences.

    How many coincidences are too many? How could they have known this, and known it so accurately?

    Appreciate any rebuttals or corrections as I’m sure you are more knowledgeable than I. I am very keen to learn and I know that my bias tends me towards places that confirm what I believe. You spend a lot of time making insults (“Don’t blame the ancient Egyptians for your lack of being clever!”). More effort could be spent educating the pyramidiots and Atlanteans. Not that it is your job of course! But I do appreciate any corrections or explanations.

    • “Because a lot of the other pyramids look like crap. I don’t really understand your pejorative “significance-junkies”

      And a lot of them are absolutely astonishing, even aside from the Giza pyramids. Monumental architecture in Egypt follows a very logical evolutionary flow. There’s a clear learning curve and, as construction methods improve and societal wealth increases, they likewise become increasingly complex and grandiose.

      And, by significance-junkie, I really mean all of us. We, as human animals thrive on significance. Indeed, the very existence of these grandiose funerary monuments on the Giza plateau are evidence of that need at a royal scale. We have all manner of story, myth, and legend that puts significance on individuals, nations, and even humanity on the basis religions, fates, and origins. It’s no accident that shows like “Ancient Aliens” draw millions of viewers. We as a species thrive on identifying things as significant. I think there is merit in doing so much of the time (deciding which charity to give to, picking a team captain, hiring a new employee), but we have to pick the right qualities of significance. Logically and reasonably.

      In the context I used the term, I think there are those who find undo significance in the Giza pyramids simply because they’re the pinnacle of Egyptian monumental architecture. Many pyramids were created before and quite a few after. But after Khufu and Khafre, Egyptian resources changed. And the focus turned toward burials in the Valley of the Kings by the New Kingdom. Perhaps this was strongly influenced by the fact that every single tomb had been robbed by the New Kingdom.

      “You seem to contradict yourself [with regard to writing in some pyramids].”

      Not at all. Some pyramids have writing. Others don’t. I suspect that some builders thought that the writing would be important for the Ka of the pharaoh. Others probably figured, as I would, that it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to put a lot of time on creating panel after panel of hieroglyphs that no one would ever see. But the mortuary temples probably all had writing. And the Giza pyramids each had mortuary temples. With writing.

      “And Plato speaks of this place called Atlantis…”

      That’s actually a valid point. I actually don’t put a lot of credit on the words of the supposed “Arab historians.” And I should have expanded on this a bit. But, as you pointed out, pseudo-historians love to bring up old bits of writing as if they’re 100% reliable eye-witness testimony (i.e. Plato’s Critias and Timea that mention the fictional Atlantis). So, if they can be brought up to support something like Atlantis, why can’t they be used to support something like a body being found in Khufu’s pyramid?

      What? I can’t turn that argument around? Ah well, worth a shot…

      But I don’t think I really need to. I mean, the Egyptians built dozens of pyramids, the majority of which had either mummies or mummy parts in them and nearly every single one showed signs of being funerary in nature. Including Khufu’s. Khufu had a burial chamber with a sarcophagus! It has mortuary chambers, just like the other pyramids! It has four boat pits on two sides, as one would expect for a necropolis! It is at the center of a cemetery.

      Now, I’ll agree that no body was found in the pyramid of Khufu. Nor is there any specific writing inside that say’s “here lies Khufu.”

      When you look at the greater context (and probably 100s of points of data I didn’t even mention), the scientific consensus is that the Great Pyramid was in honor of Khufu and was funerary in nature. Did they ever inter his body there? Hell if I know. If they did it was looted. Maybe they left it as a cenotaph after it lied in repose for a period of time. But at this point, any reasoned mind would have to admit there is far more evidence that it is funerary in nature than not. And, any suggestion otherwise, would require good evidence before taking seriously.

      King's Chamber of Khufu
      Here’s the sarcophagus in the King’s Chambers. The broken corner is consistent with robber activity in antiquity

      “You spend a lot of time making insults (“Don’t blame the ancient Egyptians for your lack of being clever!”).”

      Believe it or not, I take this to heart. It’s easy to be condescending to pseudoscientific ideas. I’m constantly reminding myself that it’s easy for very smart people to believe in not-so-smart things. And you’re right, insulting them directly or even indirectly does little to change their minds.

  2. Hi All.

    I thank Carl Feagans for dedicating is time to writing a follow up to my contribution in the comments section of the Megan Fox review regarding Graham Hancock.
    I hope these entries can be considered as a mature debate rather than a personal attack on the theories of others.

    Firstly, I return to the original comment concerning Graham Hancock’s work:

    “Hancock is peddling an idea sure to be in his next book for the gullible”.

    Obviously here is not the place to study the literal meaning of words in the English language but Mr Feagan states…

    “I should clarify that gullible is not a condition that I think to be necessarily derogatory”.

    Are we assuming here that being “gullible” is the product of some kind of physical or mental illness? I hope not.
    I suggest that if we are to use this term so freely and in such a disingenuous manner, then we should apply it in the way it is defined and commonly used.

    Definitions from the Cambridge Advanced Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press…


    “A tendency to be easily persuaded that something is real or true; credulity”.


    “Easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say”.

    If we look a little further back into Mr Hancock’s past, we begin to realise that he is a journalist and author with a huge amount credibility to his name.

    “Graham Hancock was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, Hancock’s early years were spent in India, where his father worked as a surgeon. Later he went to school and university in the northern English city of Durham and graduated from Durham University in 1973 with First Class Honours in Sociology. He went on to pursue a career in quality journalism, writing for many of Britain’s leading newspapers including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. He was co-editor of New Internationalist magazine from 1976-1979 and East Africa correspondent for The Economist from 1981-1983.
    Hancock’s breakthrough to bestseller status came in 1992 with the publication of The Sign and The Seal, his epic investigation into the mystique and whereabouts today of the lost Ark of the Covenant. ‘Hancock has invented a new genre,’ commented The Guardian, ‘an intellectual whodunit by a do-it-yourself sleuth.’ Fingerprints of the Gods, published in 1995 confirmed Hancock’s growing reputation. Described as ‘one of the intellectual landmarks of the decade’ by the Literary Review, this book has now sold more than three million copies and continues to be in demand all around the world”.

    So are we to assume that all of Hancock’s readers suffer from this unfortunate “condition” of gullibility? The answer is no, Hancock always reminds his audience that his theories and conclusions are based on continuous research and may change as new evidence comes to light. This is a common practice in all forms of Journalism, it is also the process in which the majority of cases in the court of law proceed. Hancock does not “move the goal posts” to suit himself, he fully acknowledges his own mistakes and offers his audience a valid and credible reason to continue forward. Also Is it not healthy to look at all the data available on a subject with a completely open mind?

    Let’s move on…

    Starting very briefly with the Greenland impact crater. reported in December 2018 the following.
    “If this crater is eventually dated to 12,800 years old, it could certainly be credited as the Younger Dryas instigator, and would end a decades-long debate.
    What’s more, because of the crater’s location on Greenland’s ice sheet, it’s possible that the impact could’ve caused exactly the kind of massive influx of freshwater to the North Atlantic that the Younger Dryas-flood proponents stand behind.
    A 12,800-year-old impact is also supported by a massive study of geochemical and isotopic markers just published in the Journal of Geology”.
    The results are so massive that the study had to be split into two papers:
    “Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode and Impact Winter Triggered by the Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact 12,800 Years Ago” is divided into “Part I: Ice Cores and Glaciers” and “Part 2: Lake, Marine, and Terrestrial Sediments.”

    This subject is fluent and we will all have to wait for the data.


    My usage of the term “Orthodox Scholars”.

    A “scholar” is a person who devotes themselves to scholarly pursuits, particularly to the study of an area in which they have developed their personal expertise.
    The term “orthodox” refers to any commonly held belief or set of beliefs in any subject or field, obviously its wider usage concerns religion.
    So I hold my ground for using the term “Orthodox Scholar” to describe somebody who holds the same common believe as their colleagues in a certain field of expertise.
    For example, the theory held by almost all Egyptologists that the Pyramids were tombs and nothing else.



    “There are well over 100 pyramids in Egypt that date to ancient times. A good many contained sarcophagi, human remains, and burial goods”

    I don’t intend to spend too much time here, so luckily it doesn’t really require much.
    Egyptologists would love to be able to list the huge inventory of loot and mummies found in all of the pyramids of Egypt, but the real facts are as follows…

    Mummies? Burial goods?

    Yes, Mummy parts have been found in some or the 100 or so pyramids of Egypt. These discoveries include part of a mummified foot in the pyramid of Djoser; a right arm, skull fragments, and various other bones in the pyramid of Unas; an arm and shoulder in the pyramid of Teti; fragments of a mummy in the pyramid of Pepi I; mummy wrappings in the pyramid of Pepy II, and charred bones in the pyramid of Amenemhet III. In the centre satellite pyramid of Menkaure, Perring and Vyse found a skeleton of a young woman in a sarcophagus. They also found, in the main pyramid, part of a wooden coffin believed to be Menkaure’s along with some mummy fragments. All bones and sarcophagi found in the “Menkaure” pyramid were later proven as part of a later “intrusive” burial. The sarcophagus that may have been, but probably not, that of Menkaure was lost at sea on its voyage back to Britain, so we will never know.
    Considering that, for thousands of years Egypt was littered with the mummified bodies of practically everything from human beings to beetles and older tombs and monuments constantly re-used for “intrusive” burial, this is hardly a great start for “indisputable” proof that all of the Pyramids were tombs and nothing else.
    The only pyramid in the world yet found with a fully intact corpse still in place, and in a sarcophagus, is at the site of Palenque in Mexico (A ruined ancient Mayan city). This is the body of K’inich Janaab’, usually referred to as Pakal. His remains, encased in an armour of carved jade segments held together by gold wire, were entombed in an opulent sarcophagus deep within the massive pyramid known as the Temple of the Inscriptions. Also the burial is dated to 683 AD and is not relevant here.

    To quote Graham Hancock…

    “If we take Giza for example- there are hundreds of mastaba tombs that surround the pyramids. Cemeteries full. There is no doubt that despite the function of the pyramids that they were still deemed by the people something to be buried next to generation after generation. Within these mastabas, however, literally thousands of artifacts have been found by modern explorers and archaeologists, veritable treasure troves, yet the pyramids themselves, all of the pyramids for that matter, were completely empty”.

    So in what museum can we find all the pyramid goods mentioned in the above article? In a previous response Mr Feagan goes as far as stating “jewellery” was found in the Egyptian pyramids!
    I think staying with the Giza pyramids is probably the best way forward here, they are, after all, the three most famous of all the pyramids of Egypt, and the Great Pyramid perhaps the most mysterious.
    If we go down the accepted route and assume that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu as his tomb then, of course, it is feasible that the pyramid was looted relatively soon after it was sealed, maybe within 400 years or so. But this assumption its self raises more questions than answers. At this time the Giza Plateau would have looked completely different, a hive of activity and further construction. The pyramids would have been the most respected buildings in Egypt. They would have been in pretty much pristine condition, their casing stones still perfectly secured to the core blocks. The whole plateau would have been a stunning example of architectural perfection, a truly sacred and spiritual centre for the entire population. To breach the great pyramid would not be a simple matter of a few men with buckets and spades working in secrecy and under the cover of darkness. I think it’s safe to assume that a gang of heavily equipped men turning up and commencing to deface the pyramid by ruthlessly quarrying a tunnel into its core with the intension of removing the inner goods for personal gain would not sit well with the locals.
    Unless, of course, the rape of the pyramid was commissioned by the Pharaoh. If the Egyptologists dating of the first breach of the pyramid (the 11th Dynasty) by some chance is correct, Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II (2061 BC – 2010 BC) was Pharaoh. During his 51-year reign, Mentuhotep II succeeded in reuniting Egypt and founded the Middle Kingdom, hence it is highly unlikely that this was accomplished by ruthlessly pillaging sacred monuments and the tombs of his ancestors. If the Pyramid had been plundered in antiquity, a more likely era would be during the first Intermediate period, described as a “dark period” in ancient Egyptian history, a time of plundering and pillaging of the old kingdom antiquities. Just to digress, it is worthy to note that the statues of Mentuhotep II in the Jubilee Garment holds a striking likeness to that of the Ivory figurine of Khufu, who’s dating has been repeatedly questioned, could the “Khufu” statue, have been miss- identified? After all it is the only sculptural representation of Khufu ever found, which is strange. It is also strange that the statuette shows Khufu wearing a red crown. And it is extremely strange that the back of the thrown on which Khufu sits is not contemporary with the period, where it would be expected to rise to the neck of a ruler, but far later. So if the unconvincing signature markings on the statuette are to be interpreted of that of the Pharaoh Khufu, then it is most likely that the artefact is a miniature of a royal statue and pure guess work by the craftsmen, these were popular and made and sold as an amulet or talisman in the much more recent 26th dynasty. So the questions surrounding Khufu just seem to multiply.
    Getting back to the breaching of the pyramid, whether we believe it a tomb of not, built by Khufu or not, we have to accept that the pyramid preformed some function or purpose, hence it had to have, at one time, contained something. If we look at the many features of the pyramid we begin to realise that the entire construction was designed to the most accurate requests of its architects. There is not one block or passage that is not purposely constructed, cut or installed to requirement. I’m sure Mr Feagan has, himself, been awestruck by the experience of actually entering the Grand Gallery for the first time, no picture or description could ever prepare you for the experience. No other Ancient Egyptian constructions can remotely compare to the feeling of incredible antiquity and power the monument transmits. These days, as a visitor, your journey through the pyramid (lit by extremely inadequate fittings) is aided by wooden walkways, platforms, steps and fixed handrails. If you have a guide you will tour the monument very quickly and be educated with the usual explanations for the various chambers and passages. But after, if you return alone, with an open mind and stop at the base of the Grand Gallery a few problems with the guides information immediately present themselves. Think about how you got here, behind you is a 129 ft. long 3.5 X 4 ft. in diameter and 26-degree in gradient tunnel (the Ascending Passage). Its lower end was plugged with three 7-ton granite slabs, which are still in place. A unique and truly innovative feature of the passage is that it is supported by 4 huge hollowed out stones known as “girdle stones”. There are also a further three “half girdles” which comprise of two stones combined for the same purpose, a truly mind boggling and extremely difficult task for construction team to tackle. Look forward again at the Grand Gallery and the position of the passage leading to the so called Queens Chamber. Now in your mind remove the all the modern walkways, steps and rails Etc. Your journey around the pyramid now becomes a very physical and dangerous one. You have two choices, in front of you is a landing area leading to a hall 153 feet long and 7 feet wide at the floor level. It is about 28 feet high. Here you can take one of two routes. You can continue going up, somehow scaling the ten or so feet from the landing to the polished, sloped floor of the grand gallery and eventually ending up in the “King’s chamber” or continue in a horizontal direction over the landing and through another passage (127 feet long) and wind up in the “Queens Chamber”, this is the easier trek, but if we decide to continue up to the only chamber containing any evidence of a burial then it’s hard work. At the top you are presented with another obstacle, a large step. After this your journey continues through another small passage which contains a padlocked gate that used to be a wooden door, through this door at the end of a small shaft is a “hole” rarely noticed or debated. This “hole” has been described as “Air Shaft” and picture of it can be found through the link further down. It has been claimed that is a later breach to one of the “Air Shafts” in the kings chamber, Made by “treasure hunters” but this seems unclear.
    Continuing past this mysterious locked gate you emerge into the “Antechamber”. Here can be found the portcullis slabs, one still in situ. These, Egyptologists tell us, are part of an Indiana Jones style device used to seal the burial chamber from tomb robbers, if examined with a more scientific approach the device is completely useless for this function and would have deterred only the most amateur of robbers. Also the appearance of the portcullis points more to it being designed for regular and more purposeful use; rather than the sealing of the chamber, after all, granite plugs where used for all other apparent seals. All of this seems of little importance to the Egyptologist.
    After a further short journey you reach the “King’s chamber”, measuring around 34 feet by 17 feet and 19 feet in height and on the same vertical plane, parallel to the north-south axis of the pyramid as the “Queens Chamber”. “The King’s Chamber” contains the Granite box thought to have held the body of Khufu, although if this was the case it would almost certainly have been the outer most Sarcophagus, but considering its dimensions and assuming a further internal sarcophagus or coffin would have contained the Kings remains, Khufu would have had to have been close to dwarf like in size.
    Furthermore, Egyptologists claim that the Granite “box” is too big to have been installed after construction of the pyramid and therefore must be an original feature. The dimensions of the entrance passage to the “Kings Chamber” are approx. 41.62 inches wide by 47.44 inches high, the base dimensions of the box are 41.97 in width, and 38.12 inches in height. All you need to do is turn the box on its side – another example of jumping to, and sticking to the first conclusion. What is true is that the “box” reveals bewildering manufacturing techniques that could only have been accomplished using tube drills containing diamond or something even harder. Engineers have calculated the bore rate of these “core drills” to be much higher and requiring much more pressure than any of our modern day tools can achieve – yet another fact swept under the sarcophagus by the Egyptologists. On a quick note the “Kings Chamber” as with the entire pyramid its self, conforms to precise mathematical equations which cannot possibly be put down to chance or coincidence – The sad fact for the Egyptologist is that the chambers of the pyramid could not, in any way, have been aligned or built without this knowledge.
    I see in a reply to a comment on this article Mr Feagan has pasted a slide of the “Box” in the “Kings chamber” and stated:
    “Here’s the sarcophagus in the King’s Chambers. The broken corner is consistent with robber activity in antiquity”.
    Actually the slide shows a Granite Box with a broken corner, no more no less. An oblong box can contain anything; I have one in the garage that contains fishing equipment, not our mummified cat.
    The whole point is that nothing about the “Kings Chamber” is consistent with any of the thousands of true and indisputable tombs in Egypt.

    At this point it is important to note that the phrase “Advanced Technology” does to relate to what we today may be tempted to visualise when contemplating the construction and manufacturing techniques of Ancient Egyptian Antiquities. There were obviously more technological methods and highly efficient tools available than just the primitive items the Egyptologists describe. Otherwise the accuracies of shafts, cuts, joints, sculptures and alike would not have been possible on any production level.
    In the Cairo museum there is a cabinet that exhibits some extremely basic and flimsy hand tools, the display is labelled “Tools of the Pyramid Builders” – At best this exhibit is laughable, but visitors seem to take it completely at face value.
    I personally do not pretend to have any idea that was at hand, but I don’t pretend that you can accomplish this level of engineering using the proposed methods of the Egyptologists. To state that the Ancient Egyptians did just that because the proof is in plain sight, in this day and age, is ludicrous, It’s like me telling my four-year-old daughter that I built our house with her bucket and spade, of course she’ll believe me, I’m her Dad!
    Here is a good example of the kind of answer you get from an Egyptologists when asking a logical, simple question – When asked about the Granite and Diorite vases found under the step pyramid of Saqqara and their almost machine like sculpturing and near impossible accuracy (inside and out) – Guillemette Amdreu-Lanoe (Egyptian Antiquities Curator at – Musse Du Louvre in Paris) is quoted…
    “If you’re asking about the analysis of the inside of the vases, we only dealt with the contents. We haven’t worked on the techniques used to make the vases”.
    So if no work has been done on the manufacturing techniques, how can we presume a wild improbable guess based on some old tools found lying around the desert to be the truth? And even more to the question, why wasn’t work done on the manufacturing techniques?
    I offer an answer – The Egyptologists have no idea how these items where created and without approaching engineers and scientists they never will! There are more than three thousand vases and similar items found at the site, they have also been dated to pre-dynastic times. Wouldn’t you think the manufacturing process may have been considerably more interesting than the contents which undoubtedly would be destroyed or contaminated over the last five thousand years or so?
    I challenge the Egyptologists to a test. Go down to the builder’s merchant and purchase a block of ruff patio Granite and some hammers and chisels, on this occasion you are allowed to use steel. Now have a go at making a cube with smooth sides that measures anything like square – Good luck!
    Back to our Journey through the pyramid – In respect to the small amount of the internal structure we have so far toured, does it look feasible that this was a tomb? Would the architects have made the job so difficult – not just that the dead on accuracy and sheer length and dimensions of the shafts would have made for a near impossible challenge, but the further task of moving the supposedly required huge amount of large, heavy treasure and sarcophagi into the chambers would have been unworkable. And why did Khufu decide to put his body to rest high up above ground level? (an almost unthinkable act in Ancient Egyptian burials). The notion that he changed his mind twice before deciding on the final chamber is absurd!
    As you stand in the Kings chamber you may or not be aware that above the Granite ceiling are the so called “relieving chambers” these consist of five layers of roughly-finished granite beams successively separated by spacers. Above the top chamber is a large pitched roof made of limestone slabs whilst the lowest set of beams form the roof of the King’s Chamber. Each beam weighs about 75 tons, and the whole super structure weighs around 2,500 tons. Egyptologist have claimed for centuries now that this structures purpose is to reduce the weight of the pyramids mass from the roof of the King’s chamber. Admittedly the limestone pitched roof does not bear down on the layers beneath, but is supported by the surrounding core blocks. This aside, the layers of granite beams that form the superstructure of the chambers bear directly down on the walls of the King’s Chamber delivering the considerably massive load of all the masonry above. So, contrary to what we are told by the Egyptologists the purpose of the chambers cannot be for structural support “relieving”. Also, this system may have achieved a more desired effect if only one chamber beneath the pitched roof had been installed. As the builders would have certainly known this, then the chambers must serve some other purpose. Some modern day engineers have suggested that the design would be more useful for relieving the expansion of the King’s Chamber by some kind of internal pressure and preventing damage to the granite slabs, but this is a subject I will choose not to theorise on. It is also somewhat of a mystery how the entrance to the first “relieving” chamber, accessible only by a long ladder to a tunnel at the top of the Grand Gallery was actually discovered and by whom, if it was in fact excavated by explorers rather than being left open after completion on the pyramid. If it was the result of later work, whoever cut the route that leads from the Grand gallery to the lower relieving chamber, now called “Davison’s chamber”, left a neat, square-cut passage. They could have also been responsible for plastering over the cracks in the granite blocks above the Kings chamber. This work, at least, could assumedly be that of an “official” repair project.
    André Pochan makes note of an inscription carved in the bedrock opposite the pyramid of Khafre.
    “It records a ‘restoration” of the two great pyramids of Giza by Ramasses II minister of labour, “Mai, “grandee of the temple of Maat,” and Seankh-Pa, superintendent of construction at the temple of Amon in Thebes’. Pochan also mentions the similarity with a symbol “carved deep in the bedrock, the same as the mysterious symbol that is carved in the ceiling of the great pyramid’s subterranean chamber”. – I can find no modern image or reference to this symbol so I must assume for some reason it was removed or it did not exist in the first place.
    Also in a previous post that the “quarry marks” and a cartouche said to be Khufu’s were discovered in Campbell’s Chamber by Vyse in 1837, were more likely penned by Vyse himself, rather than Khufu’s work force. These may very well indicate only the desperation to prove the pyramid a tomb by Vyse and credit himself with the discovery.

    Also inside the Kings chamber are the infamous shafts in the walls. Some early observations of the shafts include the following…

    When Sandys described the Great Pyramid in 1610, he wrote of the shafts:

    “In the walls, on each side of the upper room, there are two holes, one opposite to another, their ends not discernible, nor big enough to be crept into — sooty within, and made, as they say, by a flame of fire which darted through it.”

    Greaves also wrote of the King’s Chamber shafts in 1638:

    “Considering the presence of the lampblack inside, he concluded that the shafts had been intended as receptacles for an “eternal lamp.”

    In 1692, M. Maillet wrote that:

    “The shafts served as means of communication for those who were buried alive with the dead king”. Not only did the shafts provide air, he reasoned, but they also provide a passage for food which was placed in boxes and pulled through by rope.

    By the 20th century, the shafts were presumed to have been designed to provide ventilation. That view has slowly been changing.

    I.E.S. Edwards wrote:

    “The object of these shafts is not known with certainty; they may have been designed for the ventilation of the chamber or for some religious purpose which is still open to conjecture.”

    Ahmed Fakhry wrote:

    “They are usually referred to as ‘air channels,’ but most Egyptologists believe that they had a religious significance related to the soul of the king.”

    There are many reasons why it is not likely that the shafts were meant for ventilation. The complex angles of the shafts presented a daunting logistical challenge during design and construction. Horizontal shafts would have been much easier to build. Why was ventilation needed at all? No other known pyramid required “Air Shafts”. The builders of rock-cut tombs managed on the air naturally provided the entrance passage. When the bulk of work on the King’s Chamber was being done, the ceiling, almost certainly, had not yet been installed. The chamber was finished as the superstructure rose. If the sealed chamber had been lit by touches, then even the amount of air provided by the shafts would not be sufficient to prevent suffocation.
    The fact that no other pyramid in Egypt is known to incorporate “Air Shafts” is also problematic. If the shafts were so important for either ventilation or as passages for the king, then why were they not installed in other funerary structures? The shafts of the great pyramid are so accurate and such a major task to incorporate that there must have been an incredibly important reason to require them. Astronomical alignments with the shafts have been calculated and have turned up some interesting results depending on what date you consider the pyramid to have been built. But the truth is the shafts are still a mystery, even with robotic exploration they still keep their secrets firmly hidden. And not even the Egyptologists can offer a reasonable explanation.
    In the floor to the far right corner of the King’s Chamber, behind the sarcophagus, is a little known hole. Supposedly first excavated by Caliph Ma’mun in a desperate search for treasure. It is particularly intriguing as it seems from time to time to be of great interest to investigators. In early pictures it is quite clearly left open, later pictures show it in different conditions, sometimes covered my metal grills held in place by a lump of granite no longer present in the chamber, others show it covered neatly by a false slab designed to look like the original floor. Nowadays there is a small hole in the cover apparently used for the power cable of an air conditioner that sits astride it. A small amount of photographs showing the interior of the hole are available, and they reveal some curious features. To the far end seems to be a bricked up wall of modern construction, this has the appearance that it prevents access under the wall of the Kings Chamber, is it concealing a tunnel of chamber? There are also signs of other work taken place and many metal supports are visible.
    There is no really good information that I have come across concerning the hole so yet again it forms another mystery. It’s worth noting that, in the late 1970s, a group calling themselves “Earth Milk” where seemingly allowed unrestricted access to the pyramid for some kind of research or investigation. The hole in the King’s Chamber seemed to be of great interest to them. A hand full of pictures taken during the project are available on the web but their main site is no longer on line.
    One of the group went on to write a book titled “fire in the middle” which apparently proposes the pyramid was some kind of power device, I have not read it so I cannot comment on the theories is contains.
    The below link contains some very interesting slides from the project – Especially 41,42,43

    We continue…

    After exploring the “King’s Chamber” you find yourself back at the at the top of the Grand Gallery with its imposing corbeled vault design. The acoustics of the gallery are breath-taking.

    Willem Witteveen: 2013

    “Researchers and visitors of the Grand Gallery and the King’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid experienced a very special acoustics and this is mainly due to the reverberation that occurs due to the resonance of the sound waves. And that’s no coincidence. That is deliberately.
    The resonance of the sound waves in, for example the King’s Chamber is strongly dependent on the size of this chamber and these dimensions are deliberately chosen. Like everything is consciously chosen in the construction of the internal and external pyramid.”

    In a recent study it has been reported in the Journal of Applied Physics that the Great Pyramids are able to focus electromagnetic energy, particularly electromagnetic waves of the radio frequency range. Researchers discovered resonant features associated with the Pyramid’s electromagnetic dipole and quadrupole moments. Specifically, mathematical analysis indicated that the structure’s inner spaces and foundation resonate when hit by external radio waves with a wavelength of 200 to 600 meters, and can control the propagation, scattering, and concentration of this electromagnetic energy. Under these resonant conditions electromagnetic field distributions inside the Pyramid are found to be channelled and concentrated into the Pyramid’s chambers.

    So yet again we see the pyramid has many physical features that are not at all consistent with them being tombs. Not least of which is the highly specific engineering of the channels and chambers within the Pyramids, that are not only able to resonate at frequencies that can only be acquired by deliberate tuning but can also channel and concentrate electromagnetic and acoustic waves.

    As you stand at the top of the Grand Gallery you will notice slots carved in the lower part of the third row of stones on the side-walls and blocks mounted on each one of the twenty-eight holes carved in the wall benches at regular intervals, Egyptologists have presumed that these features where used to support some kind of prefabricated, false floor to aid the funeral procession on its way to the King’s chamber – another wholly ridiculous idea! Why would the builders have gone to the amount of trouble they did in creating the Grand Gallery only to further need temporary features installed to make it usable? Another theory was the purpose of the central slope of the gallery was to lower the Granite sealing plugs into place. Engineers have concluded that laws of physics render this impossible.
    It seems more likely that the Grand Gallery was built exactly as intended, for a specific purpose and certainly not for any kind of funeral procession. The slots like everything else must have had a specific purpose that we can only try to guess, maybe to hold burning torches? – this seems far too simple, would torch holders really require this degree of engineering if the pyramid was just a tomb? No, they look like they performed a permanent function in a working environment of some kind.
    Again more questions than answers and the Egyptologists simply don’t know.

    Back at the bottom landing of the Grand Gallery is the passage that leads to the “Queens Chamber”
    Here, at last, even the Egyptologists agree that this chamber was never used for the burial of a “Queen” is this simply because no sarcophagus was found in it? – No, this is because of the “Khufu changed his mind again” theory, it nicely explains the lack of anything in the chamber.
    About 16,5 feet from the end of the 127-foot passage, there is a step, before the passage slopes downward a further 1.5 feet to the floor level of the Queens Chamber. There is no sign of any kind of portcullis or sealing device ever being installed here.
    The chamber is constructed entirely of perfectly finished limestone blocks with a gabled ceiling. It sits on the twenty-fifth course of masonry on the pyramids east-west axis. The walls are characteristic with the rest of the pyramid and bare no clues as to the chambers purpose.
    On the far end (east) wall is a corbel niche about 14.5 feet in height. Much speculation has surrounded the niche. It is recorded that it was Al-Mamun who ordered the hole at the back of the ‘niche’ to be dug as part of his search for treasure and knowledge.
    Howard Vyse in the 1800s conducted excavations in the Queens Chamber, he dug up sections of the floor, but apparently only found an old basket, which sounds odd. Apparently he later refilled the holes. It is also claimed that he dug up two stones in the chamber, first, the stone in front of the niche, then the blocks under the step in the passage near the entrance to the chamber.
    It has been widely speculated that the floor of the chamber was once complete as is the floor in the “Kings Chamber”. Possibly the materials used where of adequate value to be removed by earlier looters, after all it seems that the pyramid probably, by that time, contained little else of value. This can also be backed up by the step feature at the entrance, with a thicker, solid floor in place the step would be proportionate and the design would make more sense.
    Returning to the ‘niche’, it has been speculated that it once contained the statue of Khufu portrayed in the form of the spiritual entity, a “KA” (The Ancient Egyptians believed the soul had three parts, the ka, the ba, and the akh. The ka and ba were spiritual entities that everyone possessed, but the akh was an entity reserved for only the select few that were deserving to pass judgment by maat kheru.
    The problem is that the ‘niche’ doesn’t look like the housing for a statue, certainly not one of a spiritual king, it looks more like it was designed to contain a tightly fitting item of the same shape, maybe this was also of great value and also removed by earlier looters?
    The most intriguing features of the “Queens” Chamber are a further two “Air Shafts”
    The shafts in the “Queen’s Chamber” were not discovered until 1872, by Waynman Dixon. Apparently working on a hunch Dixon examined the walls of the “Queens Chamber” and found a crack in the south wall. After pushing a long wire into the crack, indicating that a void was behind it, Dixon hired a carpenter named Bill Grundy to cut through the wall. A rectangular shaft, 8.6 inches wide and 8 inches high, was found leading 7 feet into the pyramid before turning upward at about a 32 degree angle. With the two similar shafts of the King’s Chamber in mind, Dixon measured out a similar position on the north wall, and Grundy set to work, as expected they found the opening of a second shaft.
    Some artefacts have been found in the Northern shaft, namely a 1lb 3oz Granite ball, an Iron hook and a length of Cedar wood, considered to be a measuring stick.
    The relics were sent to Piazzi Smyth in a cigar box where they were recorded in his diary with accompanying drawings and sketches. Two of the objects were left in the trust of the British museum. These objects are now recorded as “unexplainably lost”.
    German engineer Rudolf Gatenbrink used a robot to explore further, this was followed by a series of robotic explorations on which images were captured of what appeared to be workmen’s graffiti or glyphs of unknown meaning. A hole was also drilled through a sealing block high up in the shaft known as Gatenbrink’s door, this revealed a small chamber and yet another door! Robotics crews were subsequently sent packing and all further work halted- Well, that’s the official story. All the details can be easily found on line, what we can note is, that even after this hi-tech investigation into the shafts, their purpose if still shrouded in mystery.
    Egyptologists explain that the “Air Shafts” in the “Queens Chamber” were sealed when Khufu (yet again) changed his mind on his burial chamber. This again is a ridiculous conclusion that has absolutely no foundation, it only serves to help bolster the now very thin ice of the “Tomb Only” theory. Are they not aware that the shafts in the Queens chamber never fully connected, that the shafts fell short of the chamber within the core blocks? – they were never re-sealed! We must, yet again, also note that “Air Shafts” were never installed in other funerary structures in any era of Ancient Egyptian construction.

    The only way out of the “Queens chamber” is the way you came in, after stooping to convey the passage you find yourself back at the base of the Grand Gallery. Yet again, notice the lack of any kind of locking mechanism or evidence of pugging at the entrance to the Queens chamber shaft, you will also notice when facing the gallery that to your right, at the point where the horizontal passage to the Queens Chamber branches off is a hole covered by a metal grid, this is the “Well Shaft”.
    In the 1830’s Captain G. B. Caviglia discovered the “Well Shaft” He also cleared the descending passage of debris, exposing the ‘Pit’ for the first time since the Pyramid had first been opened.
    The “Well Shaft” lies precisely on an East-West plane parallel to the pyramids passages and chambers and connects to the descending passage, it can be separated into seven sections, with the upper three sections passing through 60 ft of limestone masonry and the lower segments being tunnelled through another 150ft of natural rock. With the exception of a section which was tunnelled through the masonry in an irregular manner and another where the sides were left rough and not horizontal, all the other sections are straight, precise, carefully finished, and perfectly angled throughout their lengths.
    Egyptologists have speculated that the “Well shaft was dug by early “Tomb Raiders” who had acquired perfectly accurate knowledge of the layout of the pyramid and were able to, not just, to bore out these sections, a plan that would require masters of engineering, but also remove the contents of the pyramid using them!
    There is incontrovertible evidence that the well Shaft is an original feature that was dug from the top down, a close examination of the chisel marks on the topside of the blocks that surround the upper entranced to the shaft revealed that it was chiselled out from above.
    At the lower end of the well shaft is found “The Grotto”, and we’ll be brief here.
    The Grotto is a small cavity located where the pyramid masonry meets the core, it contains a Granite block thought to be a piece of the portcullis from the Kings Chamber.
    The “Grotto” is not part of any tourist route around the Pyramid, basically because of it being virtually inaccessibility. There are a couple of ways to find yourself there, a long and unsafe 133-foot climb from the bottom of the Descending Passage, or a 70 foot drop into to “Well Shaft” from the bottom of the Grand Gallery.
    It has been suggested that the “Grotto” was an original geological feature, with the pyramid being built over it. Although it is the “Queens Chamber” is central to the construction of the pyramid, not the “Grotto” (although its upper entrance is on the same level).
    If natural the “Grotto” was probably enlarged during the tunnelling of the well shaft.
    So, back to the “Well Shaft”. As it seems absolutely inconceivable that this was the tunnel of a “Tomb Raider” then what is going on here? This shaft does not perform any function what so ever as part of a tomb complex.
    Mystery and more mystery…

    From here you head down the Ascending passage until you reach the junction with the Descending passage. Here we can note the sheer impossibility of stocking the pyramid with any kind of large “burial goods”.
    The descending passage continues down towards the heart of the pyramid for the best part of 300ft. As with everything else, it is constructed to almost impossible accuracy. From beginning to end the deviation of the passage is less than half an inch. It has been heavily suggested that the passages position and angle is designed to point directly towards the pole star.
    If we assume that this is the case, then we should be able to come up with a date when this would be true. Astronomers have proved that in 2,170 BC the passage would have been directly aligned to Alpha Draconis. Unfortunately for the text books, Khufu would have been long dead by this time. Another era that has been accurately calculated for alignment with the star is 3,350 BC.
    Egyptologists tell us that that the 2,170 BC date is far too late and the 3,350 BC date is absurd, Of course they do, after all, the pyramid is just a tomb and any alignment, or for that matter any of the thousands of obvious examples of advanced calculus and incredible, repeated accuracy on behalf of the builders is pure coincidence.
    Stone cannot be radiocarbon dated, but organic debris found between joints and in mortar can be used to give us a probable date, assuming that they were likely in place at time of construction and they have not been contaminated since that time. The radiocarbon dates for these kind of samples taken from the Great Pyramid ranged from 2853 to 3809 BC, which, if reliable, and if assumed to reflect the date of its construction, would make the Pyramid at least 400 years older than Egyptologists tell us, and would negate Khufu from the whole project. On the other hand, the dating results also can also agree with the 3350 BC alignment date, so the results show that the pyramid could well have been in place much earlier than we are led to believe.
    Of the sixteen samples taken from the pyramid, thirteen were of charcoal. The oldest radiocarbon date from the great pyramid came from the 198th course – 3809 BC.
    So the official scientific results show the following…

    Samples from Great Pyramid – 16
    Approximate Earliest construction – 3809 BC
    Approximate Latest construction – 2960 BC

    This information should not be taken lightly. It is extremely substantial evidence and shows that the 3350 date is very possible. It is also a lot more accurate than conclusions based on the highly questionable interpretations of poorly translated inscriptions!

    Moving down the descending passage you meet the bottom of the well shaft, and past that the Subterranean Passageway and finally the Subterranean Chamber.
    The Subterranean Passageway has the appearance of being unfinished, but the southern passage looks (to some) like it was in the process of being carefully cut until the work was for some reason drawn to a halt. The chamber itself has, at first inspection, the same “Unfinished” appearance.
    So here Egyptologists will tell you, yet again, the old story of how Khufu changed his mind about the location of his burial chamber in the pyramid, and the builders of the Subterranean Chamber downed their tools and set to work on the “Queens Chamber”, If you have been lucky enough to visit the chamber you will be aware that it would be impossible to get a sarcophagus down to it. The existence of this chamber quite simply throws the ‘Pyramid is a Tomb’ theory out of the equation.
    The so called ‘Pit’ in the floor of this chamber contains a granite stone with holes drilled into it. This is similar to the one that now sits outside by the main entrance, and another piece found in the “Grotto”. These are believed to be parts of the ‘portcullis’ slabs from the King’s chamber. although how and why they ended up here, and also who was involved, remains another mystery. Measurements of the pieces and of the drill holes do look favourable to the theory that they originate from the portcullis, but seem to be of little interest to Egyptologists, hence, thousands of people a year pass a unique and extremely important artefact from the pyramid without giving it so much as a glance.
    The “Pit” was dug 30 foot deeper by Cavigula in the 1830’s, this proved unrewarding.
    If the subterranean chamber was just a first choice burial site, later abandoned by Khufu, then it was a massive mistake. Measuring It is 46 feet long, 27 feet wide, it is by far the largest “burial” chamber in the pyramid. The sheer labour intensity of cutting the chamber out of the lime stone bed rock and removing the debris would have been enormous.
    So if it was never meant as a tomb, then what could be its purpose?
    There undoubtedly seems to be function in mind when looking at the design. The western half of the chamber is nearly six feet higher than the eastern half. there are several large finlike protrusions. All these protrusions are situated east to west and are nearly as tall as the chamber its self. Between these a stepped channel starts at the floor and continues towards the rear of the chamber. At its centre is a channel leading to the western wall. In the south-eastern corner there are the beginnings of a tunnel known as the “Dead end Shaft”, thirty inches in height and width it runs south for fifty-seven feet.
    There are many theories as to the purpose of the chamber, some ridiculously fantastic, some more workable, but as usual nobody really knows. However, it is probably the case that whatever its purpose the chamber was completed as intended.
    There are also theories of other tunnels connecting sites on the Giza Plateau with the Great Pyramid through the subterranean chamber, but these are yet to be discovered. It’s another mystery, and all we can assume is that the chamber was not an abandoned burial site as the Egyptologists insist, but something much more important and essential to the whole pyramids structure.
    Just to note: by now we have toured all of the pyramids shafts and chambers and seen absolutely no sign of inscriptions, paintings or carvings. The pyramid is completely anonymous!

    A while back we imagined removing all the modern features that make the pyramid accessible, lets now go a step further – turn off the lights.
    If you have ever been in a cave and had this demonstrated by the guide, then you will know what “pitch black” is actually like. Most of us never experience this, darkness to us may be in the bedroom at night or an attic, both will almost always not be completely dark.
    “Pitch black” is about same as being completely blind, and in a big void it immediately creates panic, fear and disorientation. The subterranean chamber is “Pitch black” as all the passages and chambers of the pyramid naturally be without synthetic lighting of some form.
    How did the builders work on these giant excavations, day after day with only a naked flame providing light? How could they possibly achieve the incredible precision and perfection of the internal features under these conditions? The Workforce would have needed allot of light to check their work, not just a few candles. These would have undoubtedly used huge quantities of Oxygen as well as heating the chambers and passages to unbearable levels, but this is a subject for another article, as it is not only true to the Pyramids.

    If you retrace your steps, up the incredibly demanding slope of the descending passage, we come to the point where you can exit the Pyramid through a more modern day tunnel, remember the original entrance was sealed with Granite plugs.
    The later tunnel is attributed to the work of the Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mamun of Baghdad in 820 AD.

    There are plenty of different stories surrounding Al-Mamun and his exploration of the Great Pyramid. We usually hear of Al-Mamun arriving at the Pyramid with a large amount of workmen and skilled engineers. For a considerable amount of time they searched the Pyramid for an entrance. No entrance was found and Mamun decided to enter by force, and just by sheer good fortune, at the 7th level of masonry, having dug and blasted their way through 30 metres of solid rock, they apparently heard the sound of a block falling. Obviously somebody in Al-Mamuns team had the hearing of an Owl, as over the noise of the excavation, he was able to pinpoint that the sound came from deep behind the solid masonry at a position 24 feet away. At this point they apparently realised that here was the concealed mouth of a tunnel (the ascending passage). So after more excavation they discovered the Granite plugs, simply dug around them and gained access.
    There are many questions surrounding this commonly recited version of events, and far too many to address here.
    By this time other Pyramids had already been opened, and the internal polar passages would have been general knowledge, and Al-Mamun would have certainly been aware of them.
    For the story to hold any water we must assume that the pyramid was sealed when Mamun arrived, at least above ground. So it’s a mystery why Al-Mamun decided to dig such a deep horizontal tunnel when no other pyramid previously opened had upper chambers or corridors, unless he knew different.
    Some have accredited Al-Mamun’s success to his knowledge of the so called “Trail Passages” which can be found nearby, these passages seem to replicate the Great Pyramid’s descending passage and the junction with the ascending passage.
    Other observations theorise that Al-Mamun gained entry from a completely different location and he excavated the tunnel from inside the pyramid to remove something. This holds some ground; in later explorations the descending passage was found to be full of debris, cleared by Captain G. B. Caviglia in the 1800s. The debris could well have been the result of Al-Mamun’s tunnelling. Surely if the tunnel was excavated from the outside then the debris would have remained on the outside, only a small amount would have collected inside.
    Al-Mamun apparently found nothing of interest inside the pyramid and certainly, to the distress of his men, no gold of jewels. You can find plenty more information on Al-Mamuns pyramid escapades on the net.
    They seem to be shrouded in as much mystery and controversy as the pyramid its self.

    Here I will leave the Great Pyramid concluding that:

    We cannot be sure that Khufu built the pyramid.
    We cannot be sure of when the pyramid was built.
    We cannot be sure that the pyramid was built as a tomb.
    We cannot be sure that the tools used to build the pyramid are those described.
    We cannot be sure that the pyramid contained any contents when sealed.
    We cannot be sure of the purpose of any of the internal features of the pyramid.

    More than anything, The Great Pyramid looks as if it was purposely decommissioned, emptied of whatever contents and sealed, but here we can’t be sure either.

    What we can be sure of is that we will continue to be told, by the Egyptologists, that their theories are correct; whatever science, astronomy, geology, physics and mathematics may otherwise suggest.

    A couple of other notes on Mr Feagan’s above article / response.

    I wouldn’t dismiss the work of Velikovsky as “nonsense”. His work on the timelines of ancient civilisations and their alignments to passages found in the Bible are taken very seriously by scholars attempting to put the ancient past into perspective.

    And just finally.

    Do we really believe that the above illustrations of the ramps used to build the Great Pyramid are in any way credible? Only in the world of Wiki !

    Here are a few real facts to consider…

    The pyramid is estimated to have around 2,300,000 stone blocks that weigh from 2 to 30 tons each and there are even some blocks that weigh over 50 tons.

    The base of the pyramid covers 592,000 square feet with each side greater than 218,000 ft square in area.

    The outer mantle was composed of 144,000 casing stones, all of them highly polished and flat to an accuracy of 1/100th of an inch, about 8.5 feet thick and weighing approx. 15 tons each.

    The Great Pyramid is the most accurately aligned structure in existence and faces true north with only 3/60th of a degree of error.

    The Great Pyramid is located at the centre of the land mass of the earth. The east/west parallel that crosses the most land and the north/south meridian that crosses the most land intersect in two places on the earth, one in the ocean and the other at the Great Pyramid.

    The four faces of the pyramid are slightly concave, the only pyramid to have been built this way.
    The centres of the four sides are indented with an extraordinary degree of precision forming the only 8 sided pyramid; this effect is not visible from the ground but only from the air at dawn and sunset on the spring and autumn equinoxes, when the sun casts shadows on the pyramid.

    I Look forward to any further debate here.


    • Honestly, it looks to be a regurgitation of Hancock’s pseudoscientific shtick and, if I had the interest in debunking it, I’d much rather pull one of his books off my shelf of pseudo and do it there. I hope you aren’t overly offended if I pass. I’ll simply sum your argument with a quote from you and a final statement.

      Here are a few real facts to consider…

      And, with that, my clarification of significance-junkie becomes more clear. Much of what you list above and below that line are either incorrect or being given undo significance (mostly the latter).


  3. There is simply not enough evidence to support that pyramids were constructed during the time period explained by Zahi Hawass. In some cases yes there exist artifacts dated accurately from the time period 2500-2600 B.C. Are there artifacts and civiliation based structures from the time period 2600 B.C. on or around the Giza pyramids? Absolutely – the facts are there. But, where the footings and structures constructed during that time period – there is simply zero evidence of that.

    To suggest that boats were used to move 80-ton monoliths with laser precision is quite simply insane. Ruling out centuries of construction time needed for even a basic structure of this magnitude, imagine the geopolitical infrastructure required to manage the epic builds at Giza. Also quite literally insane. Sorry guys, do a better job of convincing ‘joe public’ that post hunter-gatherer society had the skills and organization to achieve even the smallest structure at Giza, and then I will concede.

    good luck

    • There is simply not enough evidence to support that pyramids were constructed during the time period explained by Zahi Hawass.

      There’s actually quite a bit of evidence that points to the pyramid complex being built at a little over 4500 years ago. Not the least of which are the evolution in style of pyramid construction and architecture over time. But there are many other dated artifacts and features that contextually place construction during the time of Khafre and Khufu. I actually mention a handful of these in the article above, so it’s clear you didn’t actually read it. Or, if you did, you stopped when it was clear that what I was saying contradicted your preconceived notions of the pyramids.

      Also, it’s not just a time explained by Hawass. There are probably hundreds of archaeologists who worked on different aspects of research, each with different research questions, that have contributed to the overall body of knowledge that exists from which the conclusions about when they were built are drawn. To single out a single archaeologist to vilify is both irrational and illogical.

      To suggest that boats were used to move 80-ton monoliths with laser precision is quite simply insane.

      Insane? Don’t blame your lack of cleverness on the data. Failing to understand the data is ignorance. Willful ignorance.

      First, much of the pyramids were constructed using material located scant meters from the final construction. The quarries are still there. The quarry work is evident.

      Second, moving large stones by boat is quite logical and efficient. And they did it. More for temples like that that of later rulers such as Hatsepshut, rather than the Giza complex. But it’s likely they moved heavy stonework like granite, basalt, etc. via the Nile.

      Ruling out centuries of construction time needed for even a basic structure of this magnitude, imagine the geopolitical infrastructure required to manage the epic builds at Giza.

      This has been imagined. And repeated experiments have shown that the construction time needed is well within the period it was made. Moreover, wonderful archaeological work has been done on the very infrastructure you’re speaking of.

      Sorry guys, do a better job of convincing ‘joe public’ that post hunter-gatherer society had the skills and organization to achieve even the smallest structure at Giza, and then I will concede.

      While I agree we archaeologists could probably do much better in communicating with the public, there is little doubt that the literature is out there to be read on the topic. I suggest you’re mostly reading the wrong publications. Put down unqualified charlatans like Hancock and pick up writers like Mark Lehrner, Denys Stocks, Brian Fagan, and many, many others who will reference the real data and actual science behind the real archaeology going on in Egypt and elsewhere.

      And, as far as post hunter-gatherer societies go, that describes us as well as it does Egyptians of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. The Giza complex was constructed just over 4500 years ago. Egyptians left their Hunter-Gatherer lifestyle probably 4500 years before that.

      Like I said, take the opportunity to read the literature of real professionals in the field. At the very least, you can understand what is really being said about ancient Egypt and not rely on the strawman claim of people like Hancock and others who pick only the data that they think is easiest for them to argue about.

  4. This member of the audience doesn’t have a problem with “mainstream” academic (in other words, well researched and rationally argued) discussions of the pyramids. A sarcophagus in the middle of a pyramid is kind of a big clue about the function of the structure. My understanding is that undisturbed royal tombs in Egypt are a rarity, hence the fame of Tut’s tomb. But even Tut’s tomb appears to have been entered and partially looted at least once not long, relatively speaking, after his burial. Kind of stands to reason that the oldest and biggest pyramids would be viewed as having the most goodies and through time would have attracted the most attention of looters who by all accounts were very good at their job. Kind of stand to reason that the only funerary item that would remain in the pyramid was the one item that would be the most challenging to physically remove and would have not have much of any value if broken down into small pieces.

    Europeans of the Middle Ages were able to build huge magnificent cathedrals and castles with fairly simple technology. Don’t know why it is so hard to understand that a Pharoh who was viewed as a living god who could muster the labor of thousands of people for long periods of time could produce something that big.

  5. My problem here is that it is pretty much only the “Mainstream” Egyptologists that get the funding and permission to carry out research in and around the Giza Pyramids.
    Tombs or not, there are allot of questions surrounding the building techniques used for the construction and the design of the monument. These are never addressed by the Egyptologists unless challenged. All we hear is ramps, ropes, sledges and man power.

    As for the cathedral reference..

    “…The Great Pyramid represents more building material than is to be found in ALL the churches and cathedrals built in England since the time of Christ.”

    Lincoln cathedral took 20 years to complete the initial build, it was vastly added to after this and today is still a fraction of the size of the Great Pyramid.

    The Great Pyramid would have to have been constructed within 20 years to be the “Tomb of Khufu”
    However hard Egyptologists try to explain this feat, engineers will tell you it’s impossible – “Even if you had a million men at hand, you would only be able to use the maximum workforce supported by the site”.
    Mr Feagans (Quoted) calculations for the Pyramid build simply only work on paper.
    This calculation (in one form or another) is frequently in papers which point out the impossibility of the twenty year theory.
    Now it seems it is being applied as proof it could be accomplished – how convenient!
    Is it so wrong to suggest that the mainstream need to find some ‘missing links’ to support their “facts”, rather than convenient theories?

    • My problem here is that it is pretty much only the “Mainstream” Egyptologists that get the funding and permission to carry out research in and around the Giza Pyramids.

      This isn’t unique to Giza. Moreover, it is as it should be. And, where you have the word mainstream in scare quotes should simply be the word real. There is no such thing as a mainstream archaeologist. One is either an archaeologist or one is not. And only a credentialed, trained archaeologist with legitimate research designs should ever have authorization or permit to do any research that is potentially destructive or involve the removal or collection of artifacts, features, or physical samples.

      Tombs or not, there are allot of questions surrounding the building techniques used for the construction and the design of the monument. These are never addressed by the Egyptologists unless challenged. All we hear is ramps, ropes, sledges and man power.

      Non-archaeologists are free to ask all the questions they wish. In fact, non-archaeologists can do any an all research they wish. So long as it’s non-destructive, doesn’t involve the collection of physical samples, or trespassing. There might be a few other restrictions concerning photography in museums or governmentally sensitive areas. The bottom line is, if you don’t like what real archaeologists do, the answer is simple: become a real archaeologist. Get a university degree, acceptance among academia, and the trust of the Egyptian government enough to your research design accepted.

      You say the calculations supplied only work on paper. Yet, here before us stands a pyramid. Calculations support the hypothesis. A significant amount of varied material dated from the site supports the hypothesis. Contextually, the pyramid complex itself supports the hypothesis. Worker notes on the stonework supports the hypothesis. Experimental archaeology supports the hypothesis. And so on.

      What doesn’t support the hypothesis that the Great Pyramid was constructed at around 4500 years ago are the irrational beliefs of a few people who have a conclusion that there was some great civilization present at around 10,500 years ago. A conclusion to which no evidence exists and one to which they cherry-pick data to fit.

      There is no “mainstream” in archaeology. You’re either an archaeologist or you are not.

  6. I suspect that something like the Lincoln Cathedral (which is supposed to have been taller than the pyramid at one point)could have been finished much, much quicker and been much, much bigger if it had been constructed in a society organized on the lines of circa-2500 BP Egypt. Also, my understanding is that construction of cathedrals was frequently interrupted by warfare, civil unrest, lack of funds, changes in church leadership, etc. So, somewhat different scenarios from one where a huge labor force can be kept at it pretty much non-stop for as long as there is a Pharoh to tell them to keep working. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that cathedrals are much smaller in overall size although they still are marvels considering the technology and limitations of the time.

  7. Firstly – There is evidence of a large project, possibly involving the pyramids, taking place at Giza around 2560 BC. But nowhere, absolutely nowhere! Is it written or suggested in any form that this was for the complete construction of the Great Pyramid and it was built in just twenty years. If I’m wrong, please send me the link to these stunning discoveries. Please don’t include old stories written on papyrus by Merert the boat man or anything by Herodotus.

    To Quote the above reply:

    “There is no such thing as a mainstream archaeologist. One is either an archaeologist or one is not. And only a credentialed, trained archaeologist with legitimate research designs should ever have authorization or permit to do any research that is potentially destructive or involve the removal or collection of artefacts, features, or physical samples.”

    I use the term “mainstream” because, as with any occupation there is usually a governing body involved somewhere that demands agreed ideas, attitudes and activities to be adhered to.

    Take this for example, I am a qualified electronics engineer by trade. Forgetting component level PCB diagnosis, I also probably know more about wiring and electrical principle that most Electricians. This is not arrogance, it’s just because I have to.
    I also have to know the same regulations in regards to components and installation methods as a Qualified Electrician – Without this knowledge I could not complete a project.
    All this in mind, I cannot legally visit a premises and install a light switch, this is because I do not hold an NVQ Qualification in electrical installation. If I ignored this fact and was discovered my work would be discredited (whatever its quality), my reputation in the industry would be tarnished and I would be punished. I could however complete an NVQ course that anybody can take if they have the money. After passing it I would then be able to start work as an Electrician. Nobody would question my experience or skills and they would put full trust in me.
    The point here is I needed the qualification only to prove I was competent to the standards of the governing body and would adhere to its regulations. In the UK the IEEE constantly change electrical regulations, Techniques and components that have been considered safe in domestic premises for years are suddenly labelled as dangerous. This is because things move on, views change and scientific discoveries are made.


    “One is either an archaeologist or one is not.”

    This I accept for the sake of needing a title attached to a credential.

    But – One is either an expert in archaeology or one is not – seems to be more to the point!

    As I am not a “credentialed, trained archaeologist with legitimate research designs”, I am not one of the “Main stream”. I am labelled a “Pseudoarchaeologist”, even if I have spent 25 years studying minefields of data on ancient sites and personally travelled to and explored many of these sites worldwide. Any alternative theories based on my research that I may raise are immediately discredited without any further research by “credentialed” Archaeologists.

    My comparison here with the Electrician credentials are similar – I understand that if anybody body could just appoint themselves as an Electrician, they could end up burning a house down or electrocuting its occupants due to lack of skills and knowledge. The same applies to giving permission to a group of self-appointed “Archaeologists” to plunder ancient sites on the search for ET..

    So, the point here is trust. Without the qualifications you will not be allowed to carry out any research in the field that involves more than taking measurements and photographs, this is acceptable if it is to prevent damage Etc. But it is not acceptable to ignore the proposals of people without The “Accepted Credentials” gained by attending educational establishments. Just because you are not allowed to directly be involved with the discovery or excavation of a site does not mean that your conclusions based on the data from the project should be automatically dismissed.

    Quite simply there are many people whose knowledge and expertise in a subject hugely out weight those of somebody holding even the highest qualifications in the same.

    I would also like to note that even “Archaeologists” who are “credentialed” as required are rarely taken notice of if they suggest alternative ideas to accepted theories.

    So I leave it with the Concise Oxford Dictionary’s definition of “Mainstream”.

    “The ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people in their field and regarded as normal or conventional”.

    Note: As for the references to the cathedrals, I’m not sure we should really be comparing gothic cathedrals to the Pyramids. Saying that, I agree – they are feats of amazing engineering and should not be underestimated

    • There is evidence of a large project, possibly involving the pyramids, taking place at Giza around 2560 BC. But nowhere, absolutely nowhere! Is it written or suggested in any form that this was for the complete construction of the Great Pyramid and it was built in just twenty years. If I’m wrong, please send me the link to these stunning discoveries. Please don’t include old stories written on papyrus by Merert the boat man or anything by Herodotus.

      I’m not in the habit of quoting herodotus anymore than I would Judeo-Christian biblical texts.

      Also, I’m not really stuck on “20 years” — I think this is something you mention repeatedly because it was the approximate length of Khufu’s reign. I think it was possible and experimental archaeology has shown it to be so, but there’s no reason in my mind that construction couldn’t have been started a decade earlier than Khufu’s time. It isn’t as if his reign was a surprise.

      Also, archaeology rarely has it all “written down” for us to arrive at conclusions. The Khufu pyramid is known to be constructed at around 4500 years ago for many reasons. I’ve listed them previously, but not insignificant among these reasons are the radiocarbon dates obtained in the 1980s and again in the 1990s which were obtained from organic materials within the pyramid that were under and between the blocks. In short, these dates added to the many other lines of evidence provide us with a combined body of evidence pointing to construction at around 2900-2750 BCE. There is overlap with the dates recovered from Khafre’s pyramid, which started construction slightly earlier.

      So, the point here is trust. Without the qualifications you will not be allowed to carry out any research in the field that involves more than taking measurements and photographs, this is acceptable if it is to prevent damage Etc. But it is not acceptable to ignore the proposals of people without The “Accepted Credentials” gained by attending educational establishments.

      Sure it is. If I have a toothache, I’m headed to a real dentist. Not the guy I know that says, “don’t listen to mainstream dentists, I have a nice pair of plier.” The guy with the pliers may very well know as much or more than an actual dentist. It is possible. But if he were trustworthy, he’d have credentials. And those credentials would ensure that he understands the method and theory behind dentistry and that he is willing to stand on the shoulders of those that came before him with regard to the body of knowledge in dentistry.

      This is what it means to be an archaeologist. Merely having 25 years under your belt studying ancient sites is nearly irrelevant if you haven’t the basic understandings of the method and theory that underpin archaeological work.

      There is no mainstream in archaeology. You’re either doing archaeology. Or you are not.

      I can, however, accept that there are adovacationalists in the field. As an advocationalist, you’re welcome. You just don’t get to have a permit for archaeological work of your own.

  8. Richard,

    I can understand why you would want to drop the pyramid vs. cathedrals comparison at this point.

    It appears that you are basing much of your arguments on materials found in the webpage which you cited. I took a quick look at that site. It is operated by Martin Gray who is described in part as an anthropologist on the site. However, his biography states that he only briefly attended the University of Arizona before dropping out to join a monastic order. He later operated a travel agency and then later worked as a photographer during which time he travelled extensively to do shoots for publications like National Geographic. He later developed sacred sites which is devoted to various archaeological sites and natural features around the world. He promotes these as places that are capable of spiritual and physical healing.

    Gray’s discussion of the Great Pyramid, that you appear to draw heavily upon, is highly critical of archaeologists interpretation of it as a tomb. Gray criticizes the various forms of evidence that scholars use to support this assertion. As just one example, he claims that most experts think that Howard-Vyse forged the Khufu symbol inside the pyramid. Unless one counts unqualified fringe advocates as experts, i don’t believe that to be the case.

    Strangely enough, while criticizing archaeologists for lack of evidence, Gray asserts that based on “legends” he believes that the pyramid was created as some sort of meditation chamber that was used to amplify and focus “mysterious energy.”

    If you are basing your arguments on the writings of someone who lacks even minimal qualifications as an archaeologist and who depends on legend to support wild assertions about mysterious energy chambers then you really can’t expect to be taken seriously by anyone whose perspective really matters. This is an excellent illustration of why the “knowledge and expertise” of wannabe Egyptologists just won’t cut it.

  9. I do consider the build time of the pyramid to be important, as should all Archaeologists and those who are interested in this part of our history.
    It is also important to be absolutely sure of the purpose of the Pyramid, if this is ever possible.
    When it comes to Khufu, we actually know very little that can be credited as hard fact.
    For example, it is not certain whether Sneferu was his father, it is also not certain that Hetepheres was his mother, these are just conclusions drawn from sketchy sources – This is not a good start.
    In fact, almost everything written about Khufu is hundreds if not thousands of years younger, mostly handed down information which probably originated from Egyptian priests.
    The length of Khufu’s reign is also not certain. For instance, the Turin King list states 63 years rather than the more commonly accepted 23 as stated by Manetho. But again these figures are based on information handed down over millennia.
    However hard you try, it’s not possible to piece together a complete and accurate account of Khufu’s family blood ties, family background, life and reign. This is because there are no proper surviving accounts that date from his era.
    Why this is of importance is simply because if we are wrong about it, then what else is wrong?
    It’s an example of how little we really know.


    In defence of James Ford’s assertion (Comment above) that I’m basing my arguments “on materials found in the”.

    Just for the record, I have never read any of Martyn Grays material at sacred, but if he is defending the theory that the pyramids were not tombs then I probably echo some of his work.

    The text cited:

    “…The Great Pyramid represents more building material than is to be found in ALL the churches and cathedrals built in England since the time of Christ.”

    It’s a claim that has been around in one form or another for as long as I can remember. I suppose one day (if not already) it will not be the case. It just so happens I found it on that particular web page.
    I did waste some time once doing some approximate calculations just to see if it was a credible statement to make, and it seemed to be quite likely if you consider that it refers to “England” and not the entire UK.
    If nothing else, it does illustrate the sheer amount of work involved.

    I do apologise for wasting any time, the text cited actually came from – NOT
    I just did a quick google search to find the text.
    Sacred sites must have been on the same search result when I noted the domain. – apologies again.

    So, as for ‘’ / Martin Gray – I’m not really familiar with sacred sites or its author.
    The ‘’ site looks like it may contain some interesting reading amongst the waffle but here again I’m not acquainted.

    I will note, that my previous theory was proved here. I see Mr Martin Gray ( with his “minimal qualifications” was automatically labelled a “Wannabe Egyptologist”
    Just because he had an alternative view or theorised a different concept does not mean all his work should be completely ignored or referred to so disingenuously. Just out of interest I will make a point of trekking over to and have a poke around.

  10. “Let the audience decide.” And there in a nutshell is the problem. Part of the audience has decided about vaccines and that earth is flat and that the moon landing is faked. The audience.

  11. Richard,

    You cited the sacred sites web page or at least cut and paste from someone who did.

    Perhaps the audience should check it out as well and see how well it matches up with what you posted.

    Wouldn’t surprise me if the guy suggested visiting these sacred sites as an alternative to vaccination.

  12. The ‘mainstream’ accepted history of old kingdom Egypt is entirely cherry picked from various sources by Egyptologists and alike. I’m not saying that makes it all incorrect though.

    • What’s currently known and accepted as the closest approximation of the truth known so far is based largely on scientific data. The material assemblages themselves have produced dates from radiocarbon, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence, and several other direct dating techniques. Many artifact types found at meticulously documented strata lend themselves well to seriation and the successful translation of several languages and scripts used by ancient Egyptians and their contemporaries have provided many details. To describe these data as “cherry-picked” is to grossly misunderstand both the methods of science used in the data collection as well as the enormous size of that body of data.

      Not to mention that there is no “mainstream” in archaeology. One is either doing archaeology or one isn’t. 🙂

  13. The definition of “Cherry Picked” is as follows

    “If someone cherry-picks people or things, they choose the best ones from a group of them, often in a way that other people consider unfair.”
    -Collins dictionary (.com)

    Nowhere in the definition is it stated that the “things” selected are false, wrong or counterfeit.

    So is it likely that Egyptologists paint a picture of our past using the worst parts of the data at hand? I Think not.
    Do you recall the mysteries of tomb KV55 when it was discovered and later on how wrong the archaeologists assumptions had been? – This was because of cherry-picking, the scraps left on the table later helped to form a clearer picture.

    John Lewis Romer – British Egyptologist, historian and archaeologist (Who actually comes from the town I was born it) States the following…

    “I think virtually all of ancient Egypt has been misunderstood. Fundamentally, our understanding has been based on four key influences: the Bible; the ancient Greeks; the work of 19th-century French scholar Jean-François Champollion; and then, into the 20th century, German historians.”

    • I think I should have clarified some. Not only do modern archaeologists not cherry-pick data (excluding the one or two bad-actors present in every human population), but they treat all data as useful. Including negative data. While it’s true that the reporting of an archaeological discovery or site by the media won’t include this negative data, they will be in the official documentation of the site or survey. This is because the data are useful. Necessary even.

      If data are collected that are determined to be false, they’re reported out along with an explanation as to why they are determined false (i.e. false positive returns in geophysics data, etc.). If statistical test pits are dug across a landscape to determine the presence of cultural remains and 80% are negative, then this is extremely useful data.

      As far as counterfeit data, this is also extremely useful. In fact, depending on when the act of counterfeiting was done, it may tell us much about a secondary or tertiary culture related to the site.

      With regard to the Tomb KV55, I’m assuming this is the alleged Akhenaten mummy that created some controversy a few years back. I think the controversy was well warranted and I remember not picking a side in that–preferring instead to wait out the science. One side of the argument insisted that they had Akhenaten’s remains; the other insisted that they’re rushing to judgement. I think there’s probably some middle ground. In 2010, aDNA work was very new (in many ways it still is). The threat of contamination was great. I haven’t looked in on this lately to see what the current science says, but there is no evidence that anything was done “wrong” or cherry-picked.

      All science is incomplete. It can always be changed, upset, or modified with data. This is why science includes all data, even that which seems useless now may one day be necessary.

Leave a Reply