Figure 2.7c. The most northern pyramids correlate with the Atef Crown of Osiris.
Figure 2.7d. The middle pyramids correlate with the torso and the flail and crook of Osiris.
Figure 2.7e. The southern pyramids correlate with the lower limbs of Osiris.
Thus in Dynasties Three and Four we have a grand total of nineteen pyramids, three of which were never finished, giving a total of sixteen completed pyramids. Which brings us back to this possibility: Could the sixteen dismembered parts of the body of Osiris related to us in Plutarch’s Myth of Osiris actually have been an allegorical reference to the first sixteen pyramids that were completed by the ancient Egyptians? And, as suggested earlier in this chapter, could there perhaps be a secret seventeenth part of this body of Osiris yet to be discovered, the part that Isis could not find?
With each pyramid within the body of Osiris serving as an ark (securing seed such as wheat and barley and other vital recovery items), it is unsurprising to find that in later dynasties during the Festival of Khoiak small effigies of Osiris known as corn mummies would be created and packed full with grain and buried in the ground under a mound of earth or a large rock—the body of Osiris packed full with grain just like the pyramid body of Osiris had once been. (This idea will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 9.)
As I gazed from the desert road along the diagonal of the pyramids, their appearance from this spot as a single giant body (of Osiris) made complete sense to me, and it also made sense of the religious festivals that had arisen in later dynasties in the name of this ancient Egyptian god. Looking back toward these magnificent structures that had now seemingly morphed into a single, giant body, it almost seemed as though my hunch that these individual pyramids collectively represented the (dismembered) body of Osiris was being vindicated. It rather seemed to me that the conventional idea that these structures had been conceived and built as individual royal tombs by a succession of ancient Egyptian kings without any master plan having ever been involved was fundamentally wrong, an outdated premise that had served only to misdirect and misinform for almost two hundred years.
And now, as I turned my back on the pyramids to resume my hitherto trouble-free journey of discovery, it was then that fate decided it would step in with a sharp wake-up call, bringing about a turn of events that would see matters take a sudden and distinct turn for the worse.
3
A Wrong turn
Guessing at what shall happily be hid,
As the real purpose of a pyramid.
LORD GEORGE GORDON BYRON, DON JUAN, CANTO THE EIGHTH, 1823
What was the real purpose of the early, giant pyramids? What, if anything, did they contain? These two questions have been offered an answer by Egyptologists who, for the best part of two hundred years, have regarded these structures as the tombs of ancient Egyptian kings and queens and as the instruments of rebirth that would facilitate the transfiguration of the king’s soul into an akh (an effective being of light), whereupon it could pass unharmed through the Duat (the underworld) and hopefully onward into an undisturbed, everlasting afterlife among the gods of the “Imperishable Ones”; that is, the stars of the northern skies.
The idea that these structures were conceived and built as tombs is all-pervasive to our modern mind-set, so much so that many have come to accept the pyramid tomb theory as being not so much a theory but an actual fact. This is, after all, what many of us were taught in school. So why then should it be deemed necessary to even think about questioning what many regard as fact?
The first thing to say is that the evidence to support the pyramid tomb theory is actually only circumstantial; this theory is entirely devoid of any direct primary evidence. Neither are there any ancient Egyptian texts that categorically state why the ancient Egyptians conceived and built their pyramids. Indeed, there are some ancient texts that actually state that the pyramids were not used as tombs. For example, in the book Sphinx: History of a Monument, Christiane Zivie-Coche writes, “Describing the Great Pyramids and the hatred their builders supposedly attracted to themselves, Diodorus follows the tradition of Herodotus; he adds, however, that the pharaohs were never buried in them, but rather that the rulers commanded that their bodies be placed in a secure place that was kept secret.”1
However, even in the absence of any direct evidence, Egyptologists have managed to build up a considerable case for the pyramid tomb theory based solely on the circumstantial evidence they have uncovered (much of that evidence from later times and back-projected onto the much earlier culture). But just how strong is their case? What, if anything, is there that might cast doubt on the Egyptologists’ interpretation of the evidence that brought them to conclude that all pyramids in ancient Egypt were conceived and built as tombs? For it stands to reason that if the early, giant pyramids were not conceived and built as tombs but were designed to serve some other purpose, the implication then is that the evidence that consensus Egyptology holds up as proof of the tomb theory must, therefore, be wrong.
This is to say that somewhere along the nearly two hundred years of consensus Egyptology, some evidence has been completely overlooked while, at the same time, of the evidence that Egyptology has considered, a series of wrong interpretations have been made, resulting in flawed opinions and an incorrect paradigm emerging. But if the early, giant pyramids were not conceived as tombs (as some early texts indicate), then the implication is that they served some other purpose, and that, as such, behooves us to make a closer analysis of the key evidence that is presented in support of the tomb theory.
In this chapter a number of facts will be presented that, while not conclusively disproving the pyramid tomb theory, nevertheless raise some pertinent questions that ultimately place the theory in a more questionable light. At the very least, these ten facts will show that, of the evidence Egyptology has actually considered, the interpretation it has arrived at is, at best, highly contentious and there may exist a more plausible and better interpretation of this key evidence. These facts are presented in no particular order and arise from a number of sources that include the physical, logistical, practical, functional, and mythical.
In consideration of these ten facts it is assumed that each will be internally consistent with the culture and beliefs of the ancient Egyptians, will agree with the extant evidence that is currently available to us, and will not present an affront to simple logic and good common sense—the ultimate test of any theory. It should be noted, however, that the ten facts presented here are by no means exhaustive and that there are many other facts and/or issues that also cast doubt on or otherwise contradict the pyramid tomb theory that are not presented in this chapter. So, let us begin.
1. PYRAMID SIZE
The very first pyramids built by the ancient Egyptians were among the largest pyramids that they ever built over their more than three-thousand-year history. Indeed, the Great Pyramid of Khufu, believed to have been built circa 2550 BCE, was the tallest man-made structure in the world until the construction of the Eiffel Tower in 1889. The question that arises here is why did the ancient Egyptians suddenly depart from the construction of relatively low mastaba tombs made of crude mud-brick to the construction of truly monumental pyramid structures of dressed stone?
Egyptologists point to what they perceive as an evolution from mastaba to step pyramid to true pyramid but fail to adequately explain why such a radical transition was deemed necessary, why giant pyramids were suddenly needed when the simple “pit-and-mound” mastabas, shaft tombs, and rock-cut tombs were sufficient and had been the burial traditions of the ancient Egyptians for hundreds, if not thousands, of years? Why suddenly did the king apparently require a “ladder” (i.e., a large stepped pyramid) on which he could ascend to the gods? Why did the king suddenly desire to ascend to the heavens on a smooth-sided true pyramid that, if we are to accept the opinion of Egyptology, supposedly mimicked the rays of the sun, when such a device was obviously completely unnecessary prior to the arrival of the pyramid? T
his sudden need for a really tall structure (i.e., the pyramid) to assist the king’s soul up into the heavens is all the more baffling given that the king’s ba (a part of the king’s soul) could actually fly up to the heavens of its own accord because it had wings.
Some commentators have argued that the pyramid was built so massive in order to reflect the greatness of the king, to satisfy the king’s ego. This is somewhat improbable given that not a single official inscription bearing a king’s name has ever been found inside any of the early, giant pyramids—not one. Neither have any statues of any king been found inside these pyramids. Indeed, the only statue ever found of Khufu—the builder of the Great Pyramid—stands a mere three inches tall and was uncovered at the ancient royal burial site at Abydos, far from his pyramid at Giza. Had these pyramids been built to satisfy the vanity of kings, as some propose, then it is not unreasonable to expect that such vanity would surely have found the names of these kings inscribed all over them—inside and outside—along with a preponderance of massive statues in the king’s image. Such is the nature of vanity.
Furthermore, were these massive constructions simply reflections of massive egos, there is little doubt that Khufu, having had first bite of the Giza plateau cherry, would undoubtedly have built his pyramid on the high, imposing, and prestigious ground at the center of the plateau and not at a relatively low corner on the edge of the plateau. By so doing Khufu would have securely closed the door on the possibility of any future king trumping his own architectural marvel. In addition, by selecting the central, high ground of the plateau Khufu would also have benefited from the natural causeway that ran from the Nile up to the central high ground and would have saved himself the not inconsiderable headache and expense of having to build a massive artificial causeway deep into the Nile Valley. But concerns of prestige, of finance, and of potentially being upstaged seem not to have influenced Khufu’s choice in the slightest, as clearly can be seen by his decision to reject the prestigious, central high ground with its advantageous natural causeway and, instead, to opt for the lower, northeast corner of the plateau, right on the cliff face, for the construction of his Great Pyramid.
And were these colossal structures built to reflect the greatness of the king (i.e., to satisfy his ego), then there is little doubt also that Menkaure, the builder of the smallest of the three main pyramids at Giza, would more likely have chosen a virgin site for his pyramid rather than have its relatively diminutive stature highlighted by its two illustrious predecessors standing high and mighty on the Giza plateau. By building away from Giza at a virgin site, Menkaure could easily have avoided such unflattering comparisons being made. But no, Menkaure was quite content to build at Giza, in the shadow of the two giant pyramids already there. So, as far as ego is concerned, the very placement of these monuments squarely contradicts such a motivation.
Other commentators have suggested that the pyramid evolved from the mastaba in order to provide greater security from robbers in a similar way that the mud-brick mastaba developed from simple pit-andmound graves that would quickly erode away, revealing the tomb that would then be ransacked by people and animals. But given that the pyramids were built by people who knew how to cut, move, and stack huge blocks of stone from a quarry to build a pyramid, it would not have been lost on the king or his advisors that the very same people could do precisely the reverse to dismantle and gain access to his pyramid. Certainly the pyramids—were these truly tombs of kings—would have had guards and a priestly cult protecting them from being plundered, but often these were the very people the king had to fear the most. In this regard, a giant stone pyramid offered no more protection than the much smaller mastaba or rock-cut tomb.
Given the importance in the ancient Egyptian religion of preserving the king’s mortal remains from desecrators and tomb robbers, building a tomb the size of a giant pyramid would have served only to act as a beacon, advertising for miles around the precise whereabouts of the tomb to those morally challenged individuals who would do it and the king harm. This situation seems all the more puzzling given that Khufu clearly understood the first principle of ensuring a secure and permanent burial: you create an underground tomb and you do not mark its location. We know that Khufu understood this basic principle because he buried his own mother, Hetepheres I, in such an unmarked tomb, one hundred feet underground at Giza. This tomb was only discovered by a freak accident in 1925, having been undisturbed and undiscovered for almost 4,500 years.
This raises the obvious question: If Khufu understood the best means to secure a safe and permanent burial (for his mother) with the use of a completely invisible, unmarked, underground shaft tomb, why then would he go against his own better judgment and build for himself the most highly visible tomb imaginable? As a secure and inconspicuous tomb, Khufu’s Great Pyramid would have completely failed. For Khufu to have believed that such a massive structure could function as a secure and permanent burial site against tomb robbers contradicts his own common-sense actions with regard to his mother’s new underground tomb, a tomb he built specifically underground and unmarked because her previous tomb had been found and robbed. And, it has to be said, common sense would have been as available to the ancient Egyptian culture as it is to our own.
In summary, if, as Egyptology asserts, the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as eternal tombs for the kings of the period, then it seems that these monumental constructions were set in motion not for reasons relating to religion, nor to security or to vanity. It seems that there was some other, as yet unknown, motivation for the sudden introduction of these massively visible structures.
2. PYRAMID SHAPE
Without exception, the superstructures of mastaba tombs in ancient Egypt were always rectangular in shape, a tradition that stretched far back into antiquity, even in ancient Egyptian times. Curiously though, almost without exception, the pyramids of ancient Egypt were built square; that is, with their bases being regular quadrilaterals. There are only two exceptions to this, the first being Menkaure’s pyramid (G3) at Giza, which, according to Lehner’s measurements, is fractionally rectangular, with its north-south axis marginally longer than its east-west axis. (The reason for this will be discussed with fact 6, “Preconceived, Unified Planning.”) The second rectangular pyramid is the very first pyramid ever built, the step pyramid at Saqqara attributed to Djoser, which again is marginally rectangular in shape. However, it is known that the construction of the step pyramid actually began with it as a square, and it was later modified to become slightly rectangular. Its eastern side was extended marginally in order to cover over and make secure eleven shaft entrances to the vast storage galleries beneath this pyramid.
But this raises a question: Why would the ancient Egyptians suddenly abandon an ancient tomb-building tradition of low, rectangular superstructures (i.e., mastabas) for their kings and queens in favor of giant, square superstructures (i.e., pyramids), and why would they continue to construct low, rectangular mastaba tombs and shaft tombs during the pyramid-building age (and long afterward) for every other royal or noble? In short, the square pyramid fundamentally contradicts the ancient Egyptian tradition of rectangular burial mounds, vis-à-vis the mastaba, a burial structure that the ancient Egyptians used for almost all of their history.
Furthermore, the burial chambers within the mastaba tomb (from which the pyramid supposedly evolved) were always deep underground, whereas the chambers within the pyramid were mostly either at ground level or high above ground level, thereby contradicting the ancient Egyptian axiom of “body to the earth, spirit to the sky.” Accepting the further axiom that “form follows function,” then this suggests that the square form of the pyramid served a different function to the rectangular form of the mastaba.
The question arises then: If the pyramids were not built as tombs then where are the bodies of the kings from this period to be found? Well, given the importance of the king’s role in death during the Old Kingdom period, it would naturally have been of pa
ramount importance to protect the king’s remains from looters and desecrators, and the best way of achieving this would naturally have been to have the remains placed in an unmarked tomb, deep underground, similar to the tomb that we know Khufu created for his mother, Hetepheres I, at Giza.
Intriguingly, there are two kings from this early period who had built pyramids and whose names have also been found on mastaba tombs. Egyptologist J. P. Lepre explains, “The Third Dynasty Pharaoh Huni built a sizable pyramid at Maidum, but it did not contain a sarcophagus. Yet a quite large mastaba located 275 miles to the south at Bet Khallaf did in fact contain a granite sarcophagus, within which were the total skeletal remains of a large man. This mastaba contained the royal name of Huni.”2
Lepre also goes on to further state that a mastaba tomb bearing the name of Djoser, the Third Dynasty king and builder of the step pyramid at Saqqara, had also been found. In relation to this, a mummified foot found in the so-called burial chamber of the step pyramid at Saqqara, which some believed to be the remains of Djoser, has been radiocarbon dated to (at least) one thousand years after Djoser’s reign, indicating an intrusive burial in this structure.
And so we must ask: If these mastaba tombs bearing the names of Huni and Djoser were actually their true burial sites, what then was the purpose of the pyramids that Egyptology attributes to these kings?
3. PROVINCIAL PYRAMIDS AND CENOTAPHS
The Provincial Pyramids are a series of seven small step pyramids situated along the banks of the Nile for most of its length. These small pyramids, which consensus Egyptology attributes to Huni, have neither internal nor external chambers of any kind, nor are there any ancillary structures such as chapels, temples, or causeways associated with them. The Provincial Pyramids represent something of a mystery to Egyptologists, but there is one thing that is absolutely certain about these small pyramids and on which Egyptologists are agreed: they categorically were not built to function as tombs.
The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids Page 6
