Giza - When was it constructed

When was the Giza complex constructed?

What at first seems an easy topic soon reveals itself worthy of further research.

Contents

   6.10) Chronologies of Ancient Egypt

   6.11) Manetho (King-lists).

   6.20) Radio-carbon dating

   6.30) The Sphinx.

   6.31) Abydoss (Osirion)

   6.40) Archaeo-astronomy

6.50) What about another date?

6.52) Personal investigations

6.53) Flood 'Events'

6.54) The Piri-Reis Map.

6.55) The twelve wind system.

6.60) Mythology - The World Mountain.

6.70) Summary.

The traditional sources for this study are; ancient records and inscriptions, radio-carbon dating and archaeo-astronomy. Each of theses methods has its own inherent problems associated to it as an accurate means of determination.

Scroll down for more.

6.10) Chronologies of Ancient Egypt - There are various sources for Egyptian chronology. Together, these have enabled Egyptologists to construct a reasonably accurate timeline.

Lets see what the Historians of the past have said about when the great pyramid was built .

Manetho (3^rd Century BC)	4,500 BC
Jewish Rabbins (28)	3,761 BC Creation of man.
Greek and Armenian Church (28)	5,509 BC Creation of man.
Eusibius (28)	5,200 BC Creation of man.
Pandoras (Egyptian monk - 28)	5,493 BC Creation of man.
Usher, Archbishop of Armagh (28)	4,004 BC Creation of man.
Charles Piazzi Smyth (12) (Astronomy)	2,170 BC
A. Proctor. (Astronomy)	2,170 BC or 3,350 BC
Pochan (16)	4,829 - 4,760 BC
M. Lehner (Carbon Dating)	2,853 - 3,809 BC

(Click here to see detailed chronology lists)

It is clear to see that apart from Piazzi Smyth (and Proctor), the dates for the creation of the pyramid are all considerably earlier than modern Egyptologists claim. This is not due to a lack of science or rigor; On the contrary, the Radio-carbon dating at Giza supports the idea that the Great pyramid was built long before it is currently claimed.

6.11) Manetho - (3rd Century BC - Aegyptiaca See Appendices) -It is said that Manetho's main goal was to prove to the Greeks that the Egyptians were the world's oldest people, but that he faced competition; Berosus was trying to do the same thing with his homeland, Mesopotamia, while the chief librarian of the Alexandria library, Erastosthenes, also claimed great antiquity for the Greeks. It was Manetho who compiled Egyptian history into the thirty dynasties we are familiar with today.

The first problem with Manetho's dynasties was that the Egyptians left few clues as to which dynasty followed which; they weren't interested in recording which dynasties ended in a revolution and which simply died out. More serious is that the original text of Manetho is no longer available; what we have are garbled editions quoted by two late Roman writers (Eusebius and Africanus), plus an excerpt from Josephus. The two versions do not agree on names, or on the counting of years. To give just one example, Syncellus, who copied Africanus' list, wrote, "The twenty-fourth dynasty, Bocchoris of Sais, for six years: in his reign a lamb spoke [a short gap in the manuscript] 990 years." Meanwhile Eusebius wrote, "Bocchoris of Sais for 44 years: in his reign a lamb spoke. Total, 44 years." We are left guessing whether the XXIV dynasty lasted for 6 years, 44, or 990.

The names and ages Manetho gave for the kings of the two dynasties we know the most about, the eighteenth and nineteenth, were proven wrong in almost every instance when compared with the evidence left by the pharaohs themselves. This caused James H. Breasted to describe Manetho's history as "a late, careless and uncritical compilation, which can be proven wrong from the contemporary monuments in the vast majority of cases, where such monuments have survived. "Furthermore, it looks like Manetho "cooked the books," stretching out the history of Egypt as long as he could get away with, by adding years which did not exist, listing kings who shared the throne (co-regencies) as ruling alone, and dynasties as proceeding one after another, when many may have overlapped, especially during the intermediate periods. Nevertheless, Manetho's history is still considered the foundation of Egyptian chronology. For those dynasties which left us almost nothing, like VII-X and XIV, Manetho is considered the most reliable authority, even though the lack of evidence has caused some to ask if those dynasties really existed. This may be why Sir Alan Gardiner wrote that 'what is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters'.

Comment - Manetho highlights how little we actually know about Egypt's past and also begs the question - When exactly was the 4^th dynasty? It is possible that the errors in Manetho's chronology are due to a deliberate manipulation as suggested by D. Davidson.

Other 'King-lists'.

The Palermo stone - A 5th dynasty black basalt slab in several pieces. It records the late pre-dynastic kings and the kings that followed up to the reign of Neferirkare in the mid 5th dynasty.

The Royal list of Abydoss (Right) - In the hall of records at the temple of Abydos, Seti I and his young son, the future Ramasese II are shown worshipping the cartouched names of 76 of their ancestors. Unacceptable predecessors such as Hatshwpsut and Akhenaten and the Pharaohs from the Amarna period are omitted from the list. The list also has no record of Kings from the second intermediate period.

Abydoss King list - A badly damaged duplicate of the Royal List of Abydoss was discovered in the nearby temple of Ramesses II.

Royal list of Karnak - A list of kings from the first kings down to Tuthmosis III (1504-1450 BC). It records the names of many of the obscure kings from the second intermediate period.

Royal list from Saqqara - Discovered in the tomb of the Royal scribe Thunery at Saqquara. Originally it had 58 cartouches, but now only 47 remain, running from Anedjib of the 1st dynasty up to Rameses II, again omitting the names of the second intermediate period.

Royal Canon of Turin - This papyrus is the best known surviving chronology of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, but is also the most damaged. Originally listing over 300 kings, it is written in a fine literate hand around 1200 BC. It lists the dynasties of the kings with the lengths of each reign in years, months and days. Because of the poor condition, piecing the fragments together has proven to be difficult.

These lists have been used to create a comparative dating system for many sites and artefacts by comparing them with the cartouches found on objects uncovered. While most sites are adorned with inundations of praise to the builder of the structures, unfortunately, the Giza complex is devoid of such engravings or inscriptions (exceptions discussed earlier). In itself, the absence of information is significant.

We have seen that the cartouches found in the 'Relieving chambers' are the best evidence yet for dating the site as the inscriptions run under and behind other blocks and therefore appear genuine. It is clear that any results from that line of research are in themselves complicated by the interpretation of the cartouches exact meaning. So how else can we date the site?

Question - Is there any evidence that Giza was used before the 4th dynasty.

We know that the use of Giza was not restricted to the 4th dynasty pharaohs because of earlier finds in the area. A tomb just on the outskirts of the Giza site dates from the reign of the First dynasty Pharaoh Wadj (Djet), and jar sealings discovered in a tomb in the southern part of Giza mention the Third dynasty Pharaoh Ninetjer. How does it affect the context of Ghiza, knowing that it was used before the Fourth dynasty?

(More on this subject)

6.20) Radio-carbon dating - While the Kings-lists are only able to offer us the sequence of Pharaohs, there have been two radiocarbon studies on the Giza complex which allowing us to put dates to the names on the list. One set of Data has yet to be released. (10)

In the 1980s several ancient Egyptian monuments, including the Great Pyramid, were radiocarbon dated. Radiocarbon dating cannot be applied to stone, but it can be used to date fragments of organic material, such as wood and charcoal, which are sometimes found embedded in the mortar between the stone blocks. The radiocarbon dates for the Great Pyramid ranged from 2853 to 3809 BC, which, if reliable, and if assumed to be the date of its construction, would make the Pyramid at least 400 years older than is currently believed.

The Sphinx Temple apparently gave radiocarbon dates of 2085 BC and 2746 BC (700 years apart). This is in accordance with traditional theories about the pyramids. The stone for this temple is believed to have come from the sphinx enclosure. This only leaves the now 'infamous' argument abut the erosion patterns, which is not to be ignored.

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). The youngest from a mortar of lime from the 2nd course. (Ref: Journal of African Civilisations Vol 12. 1994)

Radiocarbon reading's by Hassan gave a date for the beginning of the pre-dynastic period of 4,000 BC. (Ref: Journal of African Civilisations Vol 12. 1994)

However, radiocarbon dating is subject to several possible sources of error [12]. In particular, the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere is not constant, and samples can be contaminated with old or young carbon from their environment. There are numerous instances where radiocarbon dating has yielded false ages. For instance, there are living snails in artesian springs in southern Nevada which have such low radiocarbon contents in their shells that they have theoretically been dead for 27,000 years. A bone from beds at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, which, on the basis of other radiocarbon dates and geological considerations, are thought to be over 29,000 years old, yielded a radiocarbon age of only 3340 years. Tektites (glass-like bits of rock) which were dated at about 700,000 years on the basis of potassium-argon dating and stratigraphic studies, were found to be only 4830 to 5700 years old according to radiocarbon dating of accompanying charcoal. (This is interesting information)

Even if the radiocarbon dates for the 15 samples from the Great Pyramid that were tested are assumed to be reasonably accurate, it is argued that there is still no certainty that they tell us its original age. All of them came from the exterior of the Pyramid, from between the core masonry blocks or between the core masonry and the former casing stones and may therefore date from a later phase of work.

Structure No of Samples Earliest Latest Average (mean?)

Khufu's Pyramid 15 3101 2869 2985

Khafre's Pyramid 7 3196 2723 2960

Menkaure's Pyramid 6 3076 2067 2572

Sphinx Temple 2 2746 2085 2416

Comment - This information should not be taken lightly. It is extremely substantial evidence. It has long been believed that the dating of early dynasties might be at fault. Should this data can be supported by further tests, then the dating of the dynasties will have to be addressed, as suggested by Lockyer, Petrie, and others.

The Hair in the Rock - Prof. Dr. Joseph Davidovits of the French Geopolymer Institute discovered a hair sticking out of a boulder of the Cheops (Khufu) pyramid of Giza (30). He concluded that either the hair is older than the rock surrounding it, meaning the rock formed later, or the boulder is synthetic. (Either of which is pretty amazing)

Examination and measurements of the boulders used in building the pyramid show an unusually high moisture content (the kind one would expect to find in concrete). Concrete is also known to have been used in the building of the Ggantija temple on Gozo (Malta).

6.30) The Sphinx - Following a detailed examination of the severe, undulating erosion on the walls of the Sphinx enclosure, Dr Robert Schoch, together with other geologists and geophysicists, concluded that the Sphinx had been weathered mainly by rainfall before the Sahara became a desert, and must therefore be at least 7-9000 years old. Since we do not know exactly how much rainfall there has been in the distant past, the Sphinx could be of far greater antiquity.

Schoch argued that because the Nile valley experienced the 'Nabtian Fluvial' from 10,000 to 3,000 B.C., that it must have been in this time that the deep fissures in the sphinx enclosure were made.

Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock proposed that the Sphinx may have been built around 10,500 BC, during the last Age of Leo. Anthony West doubts this, because the earth was then in the midst of intense upheavals associated with the end of the last ice age, whereas everything on the Giza Plateau testifies to an advanced, secure, and long-settled civilization. He suggests that the Sphinx may have been built not in the last Age of Leo, but a whole processional cycle earlier, around 36,000 BC, a date more in keeping with the history of Egypt as chronicled by certain Egyptian king lists.

The logic of this particular argument sent shock-waves through the Egyptologist establishment, from which they are still trying to recover. There is little doubt that the Sphinx enclosure was subject to severe erosion in its life-time, and we know from analysis that the limestone blocks retrieved from the dig were used for the nearby Sphinx temple. We are left with conclusion that since it was dug out, the Sphinx must have undergone a prolonged period of rainfall in order to leave it the way it is today. We are told that the region has not suffered such downfalls since at least 3,000 BC, which places the original dig long enough before that time to create such resulting erosion.

Egyptologist John Anthony West argued that the sudden rise of Egyptian civilization in the third millennium BC points to the fact that it was not a new development but a legacy - a carry-over from an earlier, lost civilization. Further evidence of a pre-dynastic civilization is suggested by the Sphinx Temple, 'Khafre's' Mortuary and Valley Temples, and 'Menkaure's' Mortuary Temple, which were all partly built from huge limestone blocks, weighing hundreds of tons removed during the carving of the Sphinx, and have suffered similar erosional damage.

Nothing else in Egypt shows the same type or degree of weathering.

(More about the Sphinx)

6.31) - Abydoss - It has been pointed out, in consideration of the different style of architecture seen at Giza (Valley temple etc)

In consideration of this particular observation at Giza, we can see that the Valley temple was built in a particular style that can only be seen in one other site in Egypt, the Osireion at Abydoss, which was also built from cyclopean masonry. Like the megalithic Giza temples, the Osireion is characterized by stark simplicity, and is devoid of sculptures and decoration.

Both structures are made from large, unadorned lintelled pillars. Two rows with five pillars in each, run along the central chamber. Both structures were covered over, and both were associated with the Nile.

We are reminded that while the Osireion was dedicated to Osiris, the Sphinx and associated temples are associated with Isis.

(More about Abydoss and the Osireion)

6.40) Archaeo-astronomy - The investigation of possible astronomical alignments in the past. The coordinates of the stars as viewed from earth gradually change over the course of time. One of the main causes is the precession of the equinoxes, a cycle lasting an average of 25,920 years, which results from the fact that the earth's axis slowly sweeps an approximate circle around the poles of the ecliptic (the places in the heavens to which the ends of the axis would point if it was perfectly upright instead of being tilted). If precession were the only factor involved, stars would appear to return to exactly the same position every 25,920 years. But there are two further factors to take into account. Firstly, all stars, including our own sun (together with its family of planets), are undergoing their own 'proper motion' through space. Secondly, the tilt of the earth's axis varies.

At present the tilt is 23.5 degrees, and scientists have established by observation that it is steadily decreasing by about a hundredth of a degree (47 arc-seconds) per century. They theorize that the tilt oscillates between about 21.5 and 24.5 degrees over a period of some 41,000 years. According to theosophy, on the other hand, the axis gradually inverts through a full 360 degrees, at an average rate of 4 degrees every processional cycle (55 arc-seconds per century), and therefore traces not a circle but a spiral around the poles of the ecliptic. There is still confusion at the top.

The earliest identifiable calendar date we have is 4412 B.C. from Egypt's famed Sophic calendar, the one still in use today.

(Ref: Journal of African Civilisations Vol 12. 1994)

Extract from the Edgar Brothers - The line of the Descending passage is not directed upward to the very pole of the heavens, but to a point which is 3°42' below it. As the total length of the passage from the outer surface of the original casing-stones, is fully 345 feet, and the height from floor to roof under four feet, it follows that the angle of view which one may obtain of the heavens from the lower end of the passage, does not exceed 1 1/3° Hence any star nearer than 3°, or further away than 4 1/3° from the celestial pole, cannot be seen from the lower extremity of the descending passage.

Question - Where do other 'polar' passages point to?

Khafre - 22°

Meidum 28° - Celestial pole (5)

Menkaure - Celestial pole (5)

Mastabe 'Fara un' - Polar passage (5)

Bent Pyramid - Pole star (3)

Red Pyramid - Pole star (5)

The first attempt to date the pyramid astronomically was by the astronomer Sir John Hershel, who calculated that the polar star at the time of building was Alpha Draconis, the Dragon Star. This would have been seen at its best at around 2170-2160 BC (6).

A. Proctor (23), stated that the pole star would be aligned with the passage in either 2170 BC or 3350 BC, "with a probable limit of error of not more than 200 years either way, and perhaps of only 50 years".

Davidson (2), reminds us that Prof Smyth also calculated that the perpendicular from the entrance Passage slope at 2170 BC, and at the autumnal Equinoctial midnight was directed to the star Alcyone of Pleiades. He also adds that 'It is a remarkable fact that the Euphratean tradition seems to identify Alcyone with the ceremony of foundation-laying...'The 'Foundation' star, (Temennu) is the Pleiad, or particularly Alcyone'.

An alternative, more elaborate theory has been developed by Robert Bauval. He shows that the relative positions of the three main Giza pyramids match those of the three stars of Orion's Belt, and that the match would have been most precise around 10,500 BC, when Orion last reached its lowest point in the sky as part of its periodic ascent and descent resulting from precession. He argues that the Giza site was laid out and the Sphinx carved at this time (the Age of Leo). But he contends that the Great Pyramid was not built until around 2500 BC, about 100 years after the accepted dates for Khufu, because at about that time the northern shafts in the King's and Queen's Chambers pointed at Thuban (in Draco) and Kochab (in Ursa Minor) respectively, while the southern shafts pointed at Alnitak (in Orion's Belt) and Sirius (in Canis Major). In Egyptian mythology, Orion and Sirius stand for Osiris and Isis respectively.

In order to 'iron out' the problems of astronomy Vs theory (book sales), Bauval dates the construction (of at least the upper portion) of the Great Pyramid conventionally, based on the calculated alignment of the southern air shaft of the Queens Chamber with Sirius, and the southern air shafts of the King's Chamber with Zeta Orionis, c2450 BC. He also claims that the northern air shaft of the King's Chamber aligned with Alpha Draconis during that same period, while the northern shaft of the Queen's Chamber is supposed to have aligned with Kochab in Ursa Minor. Bauval's date is also in agreement with Mark Lehner's carbon dating of quarry marks found above the King's Chamber. Thus the c2450 BC date looks very good - However....

Bauval produced three publications after Gantenbrink's discovery. Two articles in the "open" journal Discussions in Egyptology , No. 26 and 27, and his book The Orion Mystery. And all three publications had different values. And all were different from the values in MDAIK:

Shaft

Inc. Bauval

Inc. MDAIK

Difference

King North
DE26: 32°28'16"
OM  : 32°38'00" / 32°28'
32°36'08"

DE26: 7'52"
OM  : -2'08" / - 8'08"

King South
45°00'00"

45°00'00"

- 0

Queen North

DE27: 40°00'00"
OM  :39°00'00"

39°07'28"

DE27: +52'32"
OM  : -07'28"

Queen South

39°30'00"

39°36'28"

- 06'28"

Data Bauval/MDAIK

Bauval confirms calculations with references to "Epochs" which he never completely explains. And he doesn't calculate exact matches, but talks of "good confirmation of the epoch 2475 BC". But what is the definition of a "good confirmation"? Either there is a match, or there isn't. These "Epochs" are a further source of confusion - they don't match! After comparing the values in two English versions of Bauval's book with the German edition by Knaur and the values in DE , these are the resulting epochs:

Shaft

Epoch Knaur

Ep. English

DE

King North

2450

2425

2425

King South

2445

2475

2475

Queen South

2450

2400

2450

Tab. 3 - differing "Epochs"

If we use the 'scientific' formulas to calculate these alignments, and take into account not only the stars' proper motion across the sky, but also their motion towards or away from our own solar system [15], we find that the southern shaft of the King's Chamber was aligned with Alnitak in 2445 BC while the northern shaft of the Queen's Chamber was aligned with Kochab 100 years later.* This presents a problem, because the Queen's Chamber is at a lower level than the King's Chamber's and must obviously have been built first. Only two conclusions are possible: either the Pyramid's builders made an error (despite the incredible accuracy displayed in other features of the building), or these particular alignment dates tell us nothing whatsoever about when the Pyramid was built.

Rainer Lorenz, once interviewed Rudolf Gantenbrink for a newspaper article. In this interview Gantenbrink did not speak well of Bauval, because he had given him this values explicitly as Bauval had requested of him several times on the phone. Consequently, he had been very angry when Bauval had used these grossly wrong values and had asked himself, and Rainer, why he had done this?

Conclusion - In 1999 the South African astronomer Tony Fairall published some calculations which demonstrated what had long been suspected: Orion's belt didn't have the correct inclination for a match in 10,500 BC The error is almost 10°. Fairall measured an inclination of 38° for the line through the "Pyramids of Khufu and Menkaure", but 47° for the stars they are supposed to represent. Well, that's the end of "dating Giza with the stars".

After some harsh exchanges Bauval presented a solution in the Autumn of 2000: He had never used all three stars and particularly not Menkaure's pyramid. He had worked with the diagonal of the other two pyramids, and they fitted. Wrong again, the diagonal between the pyramids is a perfect 45° - the stars have an inclination of 54°. In a flash Bauval re-evluated the structure. Now it's a great symbolic representation which needs not be precise to the last degree. Everyone could easily see the meaning of the structure. After he posted several messages like this on bulletin boards in early 2001 he was asked how he could get a precise date out of a now symbolic representation. No answer was forthcoming.

Davidson (2) reminds us that there were two zodiacal systems. The original Babylonian zodiac consisted of only six signs of 60° separation each, for which 4699 BC is the epoch of creation. (i.e. all the early representations of Taurus show a complete bull). The division of the zodiac into 12 signs, however, shows a processional origin of 4000 BC. He also notes that the Longitude of Perihelion was 0° at 4043 BC.

6.50) So what about another date? - In 1894, Sir Norman Lockyer made claims in his book, 'The Dawn of Astronomy', that many ancient Egyptian temples appeared to have been aligned to the sun at the solstices or equinoxes. Most of his contemporaries were hostile to his conclusions as it frequently led him to claim dates for temple alignments in the neighbourhood of 4,000 - 4,500BC. While his methods were heretical, such dates were not necessarily out of line with those of mainstream Egyptologists. Lockyer and many others scholars of his time had a more expanded chronology than the one around which the modern consensus has formed. Even now, his conclusions are not truly accepted, although as time passes, they appear to be gaining acceptance.

"At the time, Lockyears' work was vilified, but it is now regarded as being years ahead of its time In recent years this work has been rediscovered and expanded upon by great minds like those of Rene Schwaller de Lubicz and Georgio de Santillana". (10)

Extract from Fix: 'In 1921 F.S. Richards published a paper entitled Note on the Age of the Great Temple of Ammon at Karnak as Determined by the orientation of its Axis. This paper is a description of a survey to find precise orientation of a survey to find the precise orientation of the long temple axis and to thus test Lockyear's theory. Richards found that in order for the temple axis to correspond with the setting sun at the time of the summer solstice the obliquity of the ecliptic would have to have been 25°9'55" (One source estimates it at 24°6' in 4000 BC) Thus the date implied by this calculation is roughly 11,700 BC'. Richards dismissed the idea that it was orientated to the setting sun at solstice.(10)

The 'Second' Pyramid of Giza is unique in having two northern entrances. This has been read as a sign of duality, and has been linked to Gemini. The bottom few courses of this pyramid, up to a height of about 30 feet, are built of gigantic blocks, similar to the core masonry blocks used in the megalithic Giza temples, which were quarried from around the Sphinx. Since the temple alongside the Second Pyramid is linked to a temple near the Sphinx by a causeway, it has been suggested that the lower part of the pyramid was possibly built at the same time as the Sphinx. Several writers, including the astronomer Sir Norman Lockyer, have suggested that the Sphinx is half lion, half virgin, and symbolizes the junction of the constellations Leo and Virgo (it also symbolizes the supremacy of the spiritual self over the animal). Significantly, at the same time as the summer solstice passes from Virgo into Leo, the spring equinox passes from Gemini into Taurus.

The last time this event occurred was around 6580 years ago. (4,580 BC)

Davidson points out that the date at which the longitude of the Perihelion is 0° - i.e. the Earth at its Autumnal Equinox and Perihelion coincident, was at 4043-44 BC. (2)

6.52) Personal investigations (with the Sun, Sirius and Orion only). Revealed the following significant astronomical rising dates from Giza - Ranging from 4500 - 2000 BC (The results can be considered correct to +/- 200 yrs).

The Sun.

4500 BC - March -         105" 18' (6.42am)

Orion's belt.

4500 BC - Sept 21^st -    105"30' (21.46pm. Visible - sunset 18.18pm), (Mars and Venus follow at 270" 11')

2300 BC - March 21^{st
-}105" 33' (9.54am - Not visible)

2300 BC - Dec 21^st -       105"36' (15.49pm - Not visible)

2200 BC - Dec 21^st -      105"02' (3.52am - Visible - pre dawn)

Sirius - There appear to be no relevant dates or alignments for Sirius on the above dates, or conjunctions at rising times with bearings of 75°, 90°, and 115°. This represents East and 15° to the North and South of it. There are no other possibilities at these dates, unless they are extended or the stars changed. (There are no recorded risings at 75° or 90° in the time period)

3890 BC - By using the start of the Sophic year (July 19^th) however, a date does emerge at approx 3890 BC when Sirius rose 30° South of True East before dawn. (3:44 am).

This date applied to the other stars gives the following dates:

Orion's belt - 4550 BC (1.54 am - Visible) same location.

6.53) Flood 'Events' - Another possible source for dating the Great Pyramid may be found in sediments surrounding the base of the monument, in legends regarding watermarks on the stones halfway up its sides, and in salt incrustations found within. Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid were found to contain seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated at nearly twelve thousand years old (Ref). These sediments could have been deposited in such great quantities only by major sea flooding; an event the dynastic Egyptians could never have recorded because they were not living in the area until thousands of years after the flood. This evidence alone suggests that the three main Giza pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old. In support of this ancient flood scenario, there is a legend that a watermark was clearly visible on the limestone casing stones of the Great Pyramid before those stones were removed by the Arabs. These watermarks were halfway up the sides of the pyramid, or about 400 feet above the present level of the Nile River. Further, when the Great Pyramid was first opened, incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. While much of this salt is known to be natural exudation from the stones of the pyramid, chemical analysis has shown that some of the salt has a mineral content consistent with salt from the sea. These salt incrustations, found at a height corresponding to the water level marks left on the exterior, are further evidence that at some time in the distant past the pyramid was partially submerged.

The following is from the book 'Eden in the East' by S. Oppenheimer-

'The oceanographic record shows that since the end of the last ice-age, the sea level rose at least 120 metres with three distinct periods of flooding on the following dates'. (Each Flood Period was proceeded by a 'Cold-snap' of 400-1,200 yrs)- 14,000 Yrs ago, 11,000 Yrs ago and 8,000 -7,500 Yrs ago - 'The last flush of the post glacial melt water slowed to a trickle as the rise in sea-level peaked on continental shelves around 5.500 yrs ago Over the next few thousand years the sea level settled back by up to 5m, and the coastline emerged (retreated) again, to a distance of over 100km'...Over this area, from 7,500 - 5,500 Yrs. ago., marine inundation persisted' (i.e. Woolle:. Royal Cemetery of Ur).

Speculation - We can safely conclude from this information that large sections of humanity were flooded in pre-history (and more than once), which would explain the perpetuated emphasis on flood-myths from around the world. The Greeks wrote of two great floods, which they called Deucalion and Ogyges.

6.54) The Piri-Reis Map. - In 1929, in Constantinople, a parchment map was found that showed South America and Africa at the correct relative longitudes. It was dated 'Muharran' in the Moslem year 919 (1513 AD). In one of the legends on the side, it stated that a part of it had been mapped using a map by Columbus. It also declared that the map was composed of about twenty maps, some drawn in the time of Alexander the great, and that some were based on mathematics. The map was then shown to Capt H. Mallory, who studied it and concluded that the coastline of Antarctic was represented in the map. The 'Dulcert' portelano of 1339, was found to have used the same pattern of lines as the Piri-reis map and it was determined that most of the middle-age portolano's are 'almost unaltered copies of the same original'. The source of these maps was traced back to the Phoenicians (bypassing the Middle-age, Arab, or Greek map-makers).

    In order to test these claims , the map were put through a series of mathematical and geographical tests which showed that the map makers had used a system of cartography that was simple, yet as effective as ours today called the 'Twelve wind' system 'which appears to stem from the furthest antiquity'. The system produced an 8x8 grid around which a circle was drawn. By moving along the horizontal lines, one could measure latitude, and by moving along vertical lines, longitude. It was an ancient equivalent of Mercator's projection'. On further examination it was determined that trigonometry had been used to assist in the creation of accurate measurements. This was determined through the awareness that the circumference of the world had been over-estimated (unless trigonometry was applied), and that this figure was close to that predicted by Eratoshenes (suggesting that the calculations had been based on an early copy of these maps, which unknowingly included spherical trigonometry). Following this, it was determined that the geographical centre of the map fell on Cairo/Ghiza region. (29)

It is important to note that the focus of the map was in the Giza region, and at a time when the continental coastline was visible for mapping. (This time period has been determined to fall between 13,000 and 4,000 BC). Also that the maps were made with sophisticated understanding and application of higher mathematics.

(More about the Piri-reis map)

6.55) The twelve wind system. - A navigation or cartography system that involved the division of a circle from an original multiple of 360 degrees. This fact relates the system to Babylonian science in which the Babylonians had a numbering system based on sixty and on decimals. The Babylonians also had the zodiac, with twelve signs of 30 degrees separation between each. (The twelve-wind system produces a 6x6 grid from divisions of 24 arcs of 15 degrees each - The eight-wind system produces a 4x4 grid from 8 arcs of 22.5 degrees each - The Piri-reis map has 30 arcs of 12 degrees each).

Include diagrams showing how to make a circle with 12, 30 degree divisions (like a clock), from an 8x8 grid. (The same as used at Ghiza).

(Extracts from 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings', By C. Hapgood) - Various writers refer to the use of the twelve-wind system among the ancients. According to one (ref), it was employed by the greek geographer Timosthenes, an immediate predecessor to Eratosthenes. The later was said to have abandoned it in favour of the eight-wind system, because it was too difficult for mariners.

It is interesting to note that the 8x8 grid (made of the first 64 numbers), in its 'Magic square' form, represents Mercury (Hermes, Thoth), which is also the planet ascribed the Pyramids by J. Michell. Each planet associated to a different 'Ancient wonder of the world'. He quotes the cabbalist Levi who said the following 'the whole secret of prehistoric science is expressed in the following equation' referring to the idea that all life is created by the fusion (alchemy) of Mercury (1080) and Sulphur (666) =1746. This number, used as a circumference, will create a pyramid with exactly the same dimensions of the Great pyramid.

In conclusion, the 8x8 grid that is used in the design of Giza is the same as that used in the construction of ancient navigational charts. The same grid produces the 12 x 30 degree arcs of the Sumerians, and the oldest maps using this system appear to have centred on Cairo and been made between 13,000 and 4,000 BC. During this time period, Earth was subjected to a 120 metre sea level rise, consisting of three flood phases as explored below. The Sumerians disappeared (along with other cultures), at the end of this time frame.

6.60) The World Mountain. -  On a final note, it seems only reasonable that if the Giza pyramids are older than 4,500 years old (2,500 BC), then there ought to be a record of them. As writing only developed at approximately 3,000 BC, it ought not be too difficult to find it in myth and legend; Which is exactly what we do see in the earliest surviving Sumerian literature. We can find references to a 'World mountain' from several myths from round the ancient world.

    Amongst the numerous references to world mountains in ancient myth, the following seem relevant to this essay:-

Both Egyptians and Sumerians derive their cultures from a common but ancient source. (Budge)

Gilgamesh reaches Mount 'Mashi' or 'Sunset hill',..which divided the land of living with dead. A Dark tunnel pierces it. He enters through a door and follows the suns road for 12 leagues (12 hours = the Amduat), to its rising through the mountain (p177 Babylonian myths etc)

'Mashu' (Machu?) which means 'Twins' in Akkadian. It was a mountain with twin peaks into which the sun descends at nightfall.

The name of Enlils temple at Nippur has been translated as 'Mountain House' or 'Like a mountain'. These Babylonian 'Temple towers' were symbols of the 'world-hill' - (Babylonian myths)

The 'Pyramid texts' state that the goal of a pharaoh after death is 'The duat'. In the land of the mountain gods. He has to enter the 'house of two truths', 'the house of fire'. Reachable by entering a mountain and going down hidden paths and secret doors etc. 'At the gate of the duat the folding doors of the mountain of light are opened to thee'.

The Chinese have a sacred/world mountain called 'Hua Shan' of the West.

The Babylonian 'Temple Towers were symbols of the world hill.

The pyramid has been referred to as the 'Bible in Stone', by a number of people. The most seemingly appropriate references from the bible are: 'Isaiah. Ch 19: 19, 20. 'In that day shall there be an alter to the lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the lord, and it shall be a sign and for a witness unto the lord of hosts in the land of Egypt'. Seiss (15), notes that the word 'Alter' in Hebrew, translates as 'The lion of God'. Ezekiel describes an alter as 'The mountain of God'. Some people find the passage in Job. 38: 1-7, also relevant to the pyramid "Declare if thou hast understanding. Who aid the measure thereof, if thou knowest? Whereupon are the foundations fastened or who laid the cornerstone thereof?'. There is also much reference to 'Jesus' being the 'Head Cornerstone' of the religion.

Note - See Sitchin for Summerian references to the Giza Pyramids. He refers to the E.KUR, meaning 'House which is like a Mountain'. They depicted the Ekur on clay tablets by a square-based pyramid with wings, sometimes with a spherical glowing apex, sometimes even accompanied by a lion-shaped statue.

(Return to top)

Summary.

The chronology of Egyptian pharaohs has been compiled from various sources.

The exact chronology has evaded us. What we have is incomplete.

There is no absolute proof of the age of the Giza pyramids.

Ghiza has been radiocarbon dated twice. So far only one set of results has been published.

The radiocarbon dates for the Great pyramid ranged from 2853 to 3809 BC.