The message of the Sphinx: a quest for the hidden legacy of mankind (35 page)

A ‘plumb-bob’ of some sort must have been used to align the slopes of the shafts. And we have also seen how a ‘plumb-bob’ was used in the hieroglyphic sign meaning ‘weighing’ and, by extension, ‘the balance’.

Perhaps the Great Pyramid—the terrestrial counterpart of the star
Al Nitak—
was seen as a weighing device or ‘instrument’ playing its part in some as yet unexplained attempt to restore the ‘balance’ or cosmic order of the world, i.e.
Maat,
as it was in the ‘First Time’. Let us consider this possibility.

Juggling for balance

We saw in Chapter 3 that the Great Pyramid functions as a mathematical scale model of the northern hemisphere of the earth on a scale of 1:43,200.
[693]
By transposition and extension, therefore, it should be obvious that the monument can also serve as an architectural and mathematical representation of the northern hemisphere of the
sky
.
[694]

Now if we look at a cross-section of the Great Pyramid, we notice that each of its two sets of ‘star-shafts’—i.e. the northern and the southern in the King’s and Queen’s Chambers respectively—are theoretically intended to emerge at the same heights on the north and south faces of the monument. They appear to hang out like gigantic arms balancing, as it were, the whole geometrical scheme of the Pyramid. But there is something curious about the position of the two chambers from which these shafts emanate. The Queen’s Chamber lies along the centre-line of the Pyramid. The King’s Chamber, on the other hand, is offset somewhat to the south of the centre-line—almost as though the ‘counterweight’ on a huge set of scales had been slid to the left in order to achieve ‘balance’.

The consequences of this curious architectural anomaly are as follows:

1.
       
Queen’s Chamber: the ‘designed’ average angle of the two shafts is 38 degrees 08’, thus forming a right angle with the faces of the pyramid (51 degrees 52’ + 38 degrees 08’ = 90 degrees).
[695]

2.
       
King’s Chamber: the ‘designed’ angle of the southern shaft is 45 degrees 00’ and that of the northern shaft is 32 degrees 30’. This counteracts the effects of the offset of the chamber and restores the ‘balance’ of the general geometrical design.

73. Cross-sections of the Great Pyramid showing the ‘balancing’ of the monument with the star-shafts.

The altitude of
Al Nitak
at the meridian in 2500 BC was 45 degrees—in line with the southern shaft of the King’s Chamber. The reader will recall that the vernal point in this epoch was just over the Hyades-Taurus, whose terrestrial counterpart we have identified as the region of the Dahshur Pyramids.
[696]

But let us see in what epoch
Al Nitak
would have crossed the meridian at 38 degrees 08’ altitude—i.e. in alignment with the southern shaft of the
Queen’s
Chamber?

Precessional calculations show that such an alignment would have occurred in
circa
3850 BC—a date that is extremely close to that favoured by many earlier Egyptologists for the epoch of the ‘Unification’ which was supposedly sealed at Ayan-Memphis.
[697]
It is therefore surely of interest to note that in 3850 BC the vernal point was positioned near the M1 Crab Nebula, the spot on the celestial landscape—and along the ecliptic path—that we have identified as the sky-counterpart of Ayan-Memphis.

Three Wise Men

In 10,500 BC the star
Al Nitak
in the belt of Orion was at the lowest altitude of its precessional cycle and Leo housed the vernal-equinox point. In our own epoch—the epoch of AD 2000—the other extreme of the curious ‘balancing mechanism’ of Giza is about to be reached:
Al Nitak
today stands within a few arc seconds of the highest altitude that it will attain in its precessional cycle and the vernal point is about to drift into the constellation of Aquarius. Between the ‘First Time’ and the ‘Last Time’, in other words, the skies have reversed themselves—literally flipped left to right—with Aquarius now marking the vernal equinox and Leo marking the autumnal equinox.

We wonder whether it is possible that the sages of Heliopolis, working at the dawn of history, could somehow have created an archetypal ‘device’, a device designed to trigger off messianic events across the ‘Ages’—the Pyramid Age when the vernal point was in Taurus, for example, the Christic Age in Pisces,
[698]
and perhaps even a ‘New Age’ in Aquarius?

We note in this connection that in
circa
330 BC, when the vernal point was beginning its precessional drift into the ‘Age of Pisces’, the altitude of
Al Nitak
(viewed from the latitude of Giza) was 51 degrees 52’—the angle of slope of the Great Pyramid. At this time the conquests of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), and the resulting merger of the Eastern and Western worlds, triggered great expectations of a messianic ‘Return’ in the East. First at Alexandria, then across the Levant, a general agitation began, as if triggered by some prophetic ‘device’, which culminated in the great messianic events of Christianity.
[699]

74a. The sky as will be seen in 2450 AD at the ‘Last Time’ of Orion. Note the vernal (spring) equinox in the west.

74b. The sky as was seen in 10,500 BC at the ‘First Time’ of Orion. Note the vernal (spring) equinox to the east.

The three stars of Orion’s belt are depicted in the folklore of many countries as the heraldic ‘Three Wise Men’, or ‘Kings’, or ‘Magi’ from the East, who feature in the Christic nativity story.
[700]
Interestingly, as we saw in Part I, the star-worshipping Sabians of Harran—archetypal Magi—appear to have performed annual pilgrimages to Giza from at least as far back as the second millennium BC until as late as the eleventh century AD.
[701]
Interestingly, too, as seen from Harran—which is east of Bethlehem and at a higher latitude than Giza—the belt
star Al Nitak
would have culminated at the meridian at 51 degrees 52’ in 4 BC, the generally accepted birth year of Christ. In that year also the ‘birth star’ Sirius would have risen and been brightly visible in the east as the sun set at dusk.
[702]

Is there something—some ancient tradition, veiled, but still very much alive, that is subtly carrying blueprints and plans across the ages aimed at generating messianic fervour, and changing the course of history, at certain crucial moments which are ‘written in the stars’?

And is such a moment now approaching?

Is the ‘device’ about to reactivate itself?

We shall return to these questions in our next book.

Appendix 2

Correspondence with Mark Lehner

Concerning Chapter 5

The Egyptologist Mark Lehner was sent the first draft of Chapter 5 of this book, a chapter that largely concerns himself. His comments and corrections were taken into account, and the draft was rewritten in the form that is published herewith. When Dr. Lehner was sent the revised draft he wrote us the following letter making further comments which we agreed to reproduce in full as an Appendix. Our own reply to Dr. Lehner’s letter is also appended.

From: Mark Lehner

To: Mr. Robert G. Bauval and Mr. Graham Hancock

November 16, 1995

Dear Graham and Robert,

Thank you for your letter of 12 November 1995 and for the second draft of your Chapter 5, ‘The Case of the Psychic, the Scholar And the Sphinx’(!). It appears to be much more accurate than the first draft concerning the events of which I was a part.

I have the following observations to make and corrections to suggest (again open to the public):

p. 86: ‘his pronouncements ... spawned multi-million dollar industry ... embroiled ... with mainstream Egyptological research ... first learned about ... when reviewing ... Mark Lehner.’

Do you mean to convey that Cayce alone (without theosophy, anthroposophy, freemasonry, astrology, sacred metrology, channeling, UFO aficionados, and Shirley MacClaine) spawned a multi-million dollar industry that fed directly into my involvement with Egyptology? That would be a little absurd.

p. 92: ‘The equipment for RSI’s work ... Immediately afterwards the project was stopped.’

This is still not quite right. The drilling equipment was tested and used elsewhere, for example, west of the Second Pyramid, before it was brought down for the two holes in the Sphinx Temple. The project was not stopped immediately afterwards. RSI/SRI drilled two more holes in the southeast corner of the floor of the Sphinx and under the south forepaw of the Sphinx. Then the project kind of fizzled to an end because of the falling out between RSI and SRI and, as I remember, because the SRI team had been in Egypt for a couple of months or more and had other work.

p. 92: ‘did not appreciate ... led to ... falling out between RSI and SRI.’

As I recall, although RSI did not appreciate particularly the Cayce involvement, the falling out between RSI and SRI was over fiduciary issues. Why don’t you contact SRI and ask them?

p. 93: ‘Adding to the intrigue ... yet another project financed by the Edgar Cayce Foundation.’

You do want to hang on to that intrigue! No, this was not yet another project. The down-hole immersion acoustical sounding was done in the last days of SRI’s fieldwork at the Sphinx in 1978, not 1982, not another project. I do not have, at present, a copy of this
Venture Inward
but
if it says this is another project in 1982, it is wrong. All that I describe in the quote you excerpted happened the last few days of the 1978 project.

p. 93: ‘a survey, as the reader will recall, ... abrupt halt ... Antiquities Organization.’

You seem inclined to see ‘abrupt halts’. You should not cite me to verify this point because I was not at these events, but my impression is that Schoch, West, and Dobecki were not thwarted in their first season of work at the Sphinx. Permission for such work is granted or denied by a large committee of the Supreme Council for Antiquities (formerly Egyptian Antiquities Organization).

p. 94: ‘Pulling Away. When, exactly, Professor Lehner began to pull away from the influence of the Edgar Cayce Foundation and crossed over into the mainstream of professional Egyptology and its orthodoxy is not especially clear.’

Are you suggesting, based on your own understanding of how belief systems operate, that there are definite lines where ‘now you believe’ and ‘now you don’t’? You seem particularly interested in this question. The way you frame it reminds me of the US Congressional hearings on the Watergate cover-up conspiracy: ‘What did the President know, and when did he know it?’ ‘What did Lehner believe, and when did he not believe it?!’

Let me offer some biography to use if you so choose.

I already had doubts when I went to Egypt in 1973, since Cayce’s ancient history did not agree much with anthropology courses I took at the University of North Dakota. But as I indicated in my last letter, I did indeed have hopes that evidence could be found of past events bearing some agreement with Cayce’s story.

During my two years at the American University in Cairo I majored in anthropology, and took my first courses in Egyptian archaeology and prehistory. I also spent most of my free time at Giza, and I visited other ancient sites and archaeological projects. I did not find ‘footprints of the gods’. By becoming acquainted with a vast amount of previous archaeological research with which the Cayce community and like-minded Egypt-enthusiasts are only minimally familiar, I found the ‘footprints’ of people—their tool marks, names, family relationships, skeletons, and material culture.

In 1974 I read social psychologist Leon Festinger’s work on ‘cognitive dissonance’, in particular his book,
When Prophecy Fails.
Festinger deals with people reacting to conflict between a
revealed
belief system and empirically derived information, that is, physical evidence. In his work, I recognized many attributes of the Cayce worldview, my own belief, and my growing doubts.

When I returned to Virginia Beach I would outline in lectures and conversations the real achaeological evidence surrounding the Sphinx and the Pyramids and its conflict with the Cayce picture of Egypt. I spoke to my good friends and supporters, like Hugh Lynn and Joseph Jahoda (are your two unnamed ARE men supposed to remain as mysterious as ‘The Scholar’?), about my doubts, and how the Cayce community and belief system fits many aspects discussed by Festinger and other social scientists.

In these talks I began to suggest to the Cayce community that they look at the Egypt/Atlantis story as a myth in the sense that Joseph Campbell popularized, or that Carl Jung drew upon in his psychology of archetypes. Although the myth is not
literally true,
it may in some way be literarily
true.
The Cayce ‘readings’ themselves say, in their own way, that the inner world of symbols and archetypes is more ‘real’ than the particulars of the physical world. I compared Cayce’s Hall of Records to the Wizard of Oz. Yes, we all want the ‘sound and fury’ and powerful wizardry to be real, without having to pay attention to the little man behind the curtain (ourselves). In archaeology, many dilettantes and New Agers want to be on the trail of a lost civilization, aliens, yes, ‘the gods’, without having to pay attention to the real people behind time’s curtain and without having to deal with the difficult subject matter upon which so-called ‘orthodox’ scholars base their views.

(An aside: So a John West can blast Egyptologists for suppressing the sacred science inherent in Egyptian culture without being able to read Egyptian language—a little like saying one knows Shakespeare’s real meaning without reading English. Another pyramid theorist said, in an animated dinner conversation, ‘Where’s the evidence? The pyramid stands out there with no evidence of how the ancient Egyptians could have built it.’ I ticked off four Egyptological titles—all in English—devoted to ancient Egyptian tools, technology, stone building, and materials and industries. Although he had published a widely acclaimed book with a new theory on the pyramids, he admitted to not having read a single one of these basic works. It would be so much more fun and challenging if such theorists did actually read and absorb such primary sources, and then launched the dialogue.)

These ideas were on my mind as I joined my first ‘mainstream’ excavation in 1976. They are reflected in my statement that the Hall of Records is worth looking for, but not in a tangible way. You know, like the Holy Grail.

In 1977-78 I had the opportunity not only to work with the SRI project at Giza, but also to work with Zahi Hawass in excavations of ancient deposits neglected by earlier archaeologists in the northeast corner of the Sphinx floor—just beside the north forepaw, and on the floor of the Sphinx Temple. We recovered pottery, parts of stone tools, and other material directly on the floor, filling deep crevasses and nooks and crannies—material in contexts that only make sense as left by the Old Kingdom Sphinx and pyramid builders.

Such findings, and the negative results of the SRI project, sealed it for me. That is, I knew there was an extremely low probability that Cayce’s story of Egypt and the Giza monuments (and his ancient ‘history’ involving Atlantis, etc.) reflected real events.

My interest in the Cayce-like genre of literature as having anything to do with the archaeological record was gone, although I am still interested in this genre as a social and literary phenomenon. My encounters with bedrock reality were far more fascinating. I was excited by the process of reconstructing the past from empirical evidence. I put aside my interest in the dynamics of beliefs, and in general questions of philosophy and religion, as I spent the next decade doing archaeological fieldwork for projects at various places in Egypt. At Giza, my interest and research was no longer premised on Cayce or any similar point of view. In 1982 I carried out the research and writing for an Egyptological monograph on the tomb of Hetepheres (published in 1985 by the German Archaeological Institute). Cayce ideas had nothing to do with this work.

Meanwhile Hugh Lynn Cayce (until he died), Charles Thomas Cayce and other members of the Cayce community remained very close friends. Some (but not all) were still interested in contributing to research at Giza. Their support of the Pyramids Radiocarbon Dating Project was a way to do something useful for the archaeology of the pyramids, as well as to
test
their ideas about the origin and date of the Great Pyramid and Sphinx.

I remember a very personal moment in 1983 when I was working for an expedition at Abydos, the cult center of Osiris in Upper Egypt. The tombs of Egypt’s earliest pharaohs were sunk into a spur of low desert far to the west of the cultivation, near the base of the great cleft in the high cliffs, probably seen by the ancients as symbolizing the entrance to the Netherworld. Many centuries later, one of the tombs of a real man who ruled as one of the First Dynasty kings was outfitted as the Tomb of Osiris. Over subsequent centuries hundreds of pilgrims left pottery offerings, resulting in mounds of millions of shards that masked the site, prompting its Arabic name, Umm el-Qa-ab, ‘Mother of Pots’. One evening near sunset I walked from the dig house to Umm el-Qa-ab. I stood on the mounds above these tombs and wondered if the ancient pilgrims really believed the god Osiris himself was buried here, and if ‘those who sit near the temple’ (as a Zen proverb would say)—the local priests—knew they had simply outfitted one of the First Dynasty tombs of a pharaoh to ‘symbolize’ the burial of Osiris. I thought of my own pilgrimage that brought me to Egypt in the first place, and the myth of the Hall of Records. I realized that this was part of a world view that had moved far away from me, like a chunk of ice that had separated from a continent and was now melting in a distant sea.

Sorry to be so long-winded. But Graham, I agree with your statement in your last letter that readers should be in possession of the facts to evaluate the opinions of academic authorities.

Sincerely,

Mark Lehner

PS Details: It probably does not matter much for a popular readership, but the difference between an Assistant Professor—my title at the Oriental Institute—and Professor is significant in the tenure-track world. I resigned my fulltime post, but I am still a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago and Oriental Institute, I return every other year to teach.

cc:     Bruce Ludwig

Douglas Rawls

To:     Mark Lehner

From: Graham Hancock

8 December 1995

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your further letter of 16 November 1995 in response to our revised draft of Chapter 5. We greatly appreciate your openness.

If you have no objections, we propose to publish the revised draft of Chapter 5 as you have seen it and to publish your 16 November 1995 letter in full as an appendix to our book. We consider this to be a fair and reasonable way to present the whole matter to the public. If we don’t hear back from you in the next couple of weeks we will assume this is OK with you.

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

Warm best wishes,

Graham Hancock

PS We remember one Egyptological title (not four) that you ‘ticked off’ during a certain ‘animated dinner conversation’. The one title was Clarke and Engelbach’s
Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture.
We’ve both read it since and weren’t overly impressed. Robert Bauval, as you know, is a construction engineer by training and spent twenty years actually
building
enormous buildings in the Middle East. In my opinion—Clarke and Engelbach notwithstanding—this gives him a rather good basis from which to engage in ‘fun and challenging’ dialogue about the construction logistics of the Great Pyramid. There’s no substitute for real experience no matter how many ‘primary sources’ we ‘read and absorb’. (And by the way, in what sense are Clarke and Engelbach a primary source? Were they present when the Pyramid was built? Did they build it?)