I suggest that a shaft was cut down into this hill and deep into the bedrock beneath it to create the rectangular cavity that is now nominated as the Subterranean Chamber—which can still only be accessed today through that same 300-foot-long shaft (now known as “the Descending Corridor”) that dives deeply into the bowels of the earth at an angle of 26 degrees. In my view, it is probably only one of several underground features that were created at that time, with others—far more extensive—still awaiting discovery.
Likewise these visitors to primeval Giza of the epoch of 10,500 BC would also have found a crest or ridge of rock (the technical term for such a feature is a “yardang”), protruding downslope that had perhaps already been sculpted by the prevailing winds into something resembling the head of a lion. It faced east and overlooked the Nile Valley and it would, in due course, be extensively excavated and carved to form the Great Sphinx. It is likely that some substantial work was done in the epoch of 10,500 BC to free at least the front quarters of the core body of the Sphinx from its surrounding bedrock. But my view, unchanged since I wrote Fingerprints of the Gods, is that the majority of the work on this project, as on the pyramids themselves, was done later and finally completed in the epoch of 2500 BC when the original leonine head of the Sphinx, perhaps heavily eroded, was recarved into the disproportionately small human head that it still has today. My hypothesis, then and now, is that the same sacred “cult,” housed in something perhaps like a monastery, with a very small, even negligible, archaeological footprint—let us call it the Monastery of the Seven Sages—was involved in both major phases of the work and in everything that happened at Giza in between. As I wrote in 1995, this hypothesis resolves the anomaly of the “missing” 8,000 years between the two epochs:
by supposing the star shafts [of the Great Pyramid] to be merely the later work of the same long-lived cult that originally laid out the Giza ground plan in 10,450 BC. Naturally the hypothesis also suggests that it was this same cult, toward the end of those 8,000 missing years, that provided the initiating spark for the sudden and “fully formed” emergence of the literate and accomplished historical civilization of dynastic Egypt.17
Dating with light
Since the publication of Fingerprints of the Gods I have had many years to reflect on the mysteries of Giza. It remains my view that the role of the historical pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty was to complete, and finally fulfill, a much more ancient plan first brought to Egypt in the epoch of 10,500 BC. As noted above, however, the subterranean elements of the Giza plateau, and the earliest work on the Sphinx, may actually date back to the epoch of 10,500 BC. By virtue of the distinctive weathering patterns on that monument’s flanks and on sections of the trench that surrounds it—highlighted in the analysis of geology professor Robert Schoch of Boston University—a proto-Sphinx does appear to have existed when heavy rains fell across Egypt at the end of the Ice Age,18 perhaps even as early as the Wild Nile period.
I have long been convinced by the geological evidence that the Sphinx does in fact date back in some form to the epoch of 10,500 BC. But there is a gray area to do with events between 10,500 BC and 2500 BC and this concerns the megalithic temples of the plateau, particularly the Sphinx Temple (directly in front, i.e. to the east, of the Sphinx itself) and the Valley Temple which lies immediately southeast of the Sphinx, both of which are built for the most part of limestone blocks excavated from around the core body of the Sphinx, although in many cases the limestone blocks are surfaced with a veneer of granite. The orthodox archaeological dating of these structures (both of their limestone and of their granite elements) is to the Old Kingdom—specifically to the Fourth Dynasty, approximately 2613 BC to 2494 BC19—i.e. to the epoch of 2500 BC.
When I wrote Fingerprints of the Gods, however, I was open to the possibility that they might date back to the epoch of 10,500 BC. I remain so, but in the light of recent evidence some careful consideration is required. This is the case because an advanced scientific technique known as surface luminescence dating (which measures light energy stored in stone) has been applied to these temples. This technique seems, on the face of things, to rule out rather conclusively any possibility that the temples were created in the form we see them now in the epoch of 10,500 BC.20
I say “on the face of things” because there are certain problems with the new technique which mean that any conclusions drawn from it must be carefully thought through. Most significantly, as the researchers themselves admit, surface luminescence dating relies upon the assumption that the sample being tested has not been exposed to sunlight since it was set into place in the building of which it is a part. Should there have been exposure to sunlight, even if “just minutes” in duration—as would happen, for example, if any later reworking of the sampled area had been undertaken without cover of a roof—then “the latent luminescence is released … setting the signal to zero or near zero,” and thus yielding a date that reflects the most recent reworking rather than the original date at which the building was constructed.21
The Giza Surface Luminescence Dating study was conducted by nuclear physicist Professor Ioannis Liritzis and his colleague Asimina Vafiadou, both of the Laboratory of Archaeometry at the University of the Aegean. They reported their results in detail in 2015 in the Journal of Cultural Heritage.22 Conclusive indications that at least some of the structures they sampled had indeed been reworked, with their latent luminescence zeroed and the clock set ticking again at the time of the reworking, are provided by Sample No. 4 (Valley Temple limestone) and Sample No. 6 (Sphinx Temple granite). The former yielded a very young surface luminescence date of 1050 BC, plus or minus 540 years, while the latter yielded a surface luminescence date of 1190 BC, plus or minus 340 years.23 These are, effectively, dates from Ancient Egypt’s New Kingdom (Eighteenth Dynasty and later) and we have firm archaeological and epigraphic evidence that both the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple were already very ancient by New Kingdom times.
Since this is so, the other dates yielded by the study must also be regarded with caution and certainly cannot be taken as firm evidence of the date of construction of the temples—particularly in the case of Sample No. 3 (Valley Temple granite), and Samples No. 7 and 8 (both Sphinx Temple granite). These yielded surface luminescence dates, respectively, of 3060 BC, plus or minus 470 years; 2740 BC, plus or minus 640 years; and 3100 BC, plus or minus 540 years.24 These dates are broadly compatible with the Old Kingdom—although with some reservations which we will explore below—but they do not under any circumstance rule out a much more ancient date of construction for the limestone core masonry of the temples, since it has always been Robert Schoch’s contention that:
this granite sheathing was added in the Old Kingdom to repair and restore the earlier (much earlier—“Sphinx Age”) limestone temples.25
We are left, then, with only a single sample (Sample No. 5) which was taken from the original limestone core masonry of the Sphinx Temple. It yielded a surface luminescence date of 2220 BC, plus or minus 220 years,26 but really nothing very conclusive can be said about it or deduced from it since its location does not rule out the possibility, as Schoch observed when I asked him to comment on these findings, that it “may also have been exposed or reworked during repairs to the structure during the Old Kingdom.”27
In summary, the new study does not provide any evidence to confirm beyond doubt that the original limestone megalithic elements of the Sphinx and Valley Temples were built by the Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh Khafre, as archaeologists maintain. On the contrary, the only thing the study seems to demonstrate for sure is that these temples were reworked during the New Kingdom. More alarming for the mainstream chronology, the surface luminescence dating raises the possibility that the granite sheathing on the temples (with the exception of Sample No. 6 with its New Kingdom date) was not added in the Fourth Dynasty at all but many centuries earlier—indeed as early as 3380 BC at the extreme end of the dating range for Sample No. 7, as early as 3530 BC for Sample No.
3, and as early as 3640 BC for Sample No. 8.28
This potentially pushes what Robert Schoch has always regarded as restoration work on the Sphinx Temple (the adding of a granite veneer on top of much older and extensively eroded megalithic limestone blocks) far back into the pre-dynastic period, i.e. long before any large-scale construction is supposed to have been undertaken in Egypt. And needless to say if these temples were in need of such radical restoration in the pre-dynastic period then their core masonry is likely to be very ancient indeed, perhaps even going back as far as the epoch of 10,500 BC.
So much then for the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple, but what of the enigmatic pyramids that loom over them?
The researchers were not able to study the second pyramid at Giza, conventionally attributed (like the Sphinx and its temples) to Khafre. Nor did they investigate the Great Pyramid, attributed to Khufu. But they did test a single sample from the smallest of the three pyramids, which Egyptology attributes to Menkaure, the Pharaoh who succeeded Khafre to the throne. Taken from the granite facing stones of the pyramid, and not from its core masonry, this sample produced yet another strikingly anomalous date—3450 BC, plus or minus 950 years—when assayed for surface luminescence.29 Only at the youngest end of the range (3450 minus 950 = 2500 BC) does this date approximate to the reign of Menkaure—although many authorities do not see that pharaoh taking the throne until 2490 BC,30 and thus after “his” pyramid was completed even at the most recent date offered by the surface luminescence spectrum. But what is more disturbing are the other possibilities raised by the dating, i.e. that the facing stones of the so-called “Pyramid of Menkaure” could have been put in place as early as 3450 BC or even, perhaps, 950 years before that, i.e. in 4400 BC and thus deep in the pre-dynastic period almost two thousand years prior to the Old Kingdom.
More work needs to be done to settle all this. As I’ve said, I remain willing, for the moment, to accept the still prevailing mainstream view that dates the pyramids to the Old Kingdom. But what is in the process of emerging, I think, is recognition of the need for a more nuanced view of the whole site with strong indications from geology, from astronomy, and now from surface luminescence dating as well, that it can no longer be attributed exclusively to the epoch of 2500 BC, but rather appears to be the result of a series of developments over an immensely long time-frame going back more than 12,000 years. As Professor Ioannis Liritzis of the University of the Aegean, lead author of the surface luminescence study, concludes, parts of the site appear to have been reused and:
it is a reasonable assumption that some of the structures were already present at Giza when the large-scale works of the Fourth Dynasty began.31
Nor is the question of the age of the site the only open one. Its function, too, is up for grabs. Egyptologists like to define the pyramids as “tombs and tombs only,” but as Professor Liritzis notes:
The lack of contemporary human funerary remains from any Egyptian pyramid, and the obvious astronomical and geometric nature of the site, that prove their orientation was not by chance but inhere knowledge and star configuration patterns at the period of construction, imply that the “pyramids as tombs” theory is no longer sufficient and a broader determination of age, function and re-use of both pyramids and Giza is required …32
“This book which descended from the sky…”
We’ve seen that there are many passages in the Edfu Building Texts which tell us that those among the “gods” of the Early Primeval Age who survived the flood that destroyed their former Homeland set about “wandering” the world with the purpose of establishing new sacred domains in suitable locations. One passage names a specific location that some of these “gods” found their way to, the first place they settled in Egypt. This turns out not to have been Edfu in Upper (southern) Egypt but rather the city that the Greeks later came to know as Heracleopolis,33 which is located in Lower (northern) Egypt and which the Egyptians themselves named Henen-nesut, meaning “the house of the royal child.” Archaeologists do not know when Henen-nesut was established, but a reference to it on the Palermo Stone (so-called because it is now kept in the Archaeological Museum of the city of Palermo in Italy) sheds some light on the matter. An ancient fragment of inscribed diorite, the Palermo Stone provides information (dismissed as “mythological” by Egyptologists) of some 120 pre-dynastic kings said to have ruled in Egypt prior to 3000 BC. But it also gives details of the early Dynastic period which Egyptologists accept as “historical.” An entry on the Stone dating to the reign of Den, the second King of the First Dynasty, suggests strongly that the origins of Heracleopolis/Henen-nesut go very far back into the pre-dynastic period.34
But Henen-nesut is just where the trail begins, because it turns out it was closely associated with the ancient religious center of Memphis, Inbu-Hedj (later Mn-nfr), which stands about 60 miles (100 kilometers) further north and was, according to legend, established by Menes, the first king of the First Dynasty—although again its origins are likely to be far earlier. It is therefore of interest, as Eve Reymond, the translator of the Edfu Building Texts, observes, that:
It is impossible to read the principal Edfu records and not be struck by the very pronounced Memphite background and tone that is still preserved in them.35
In her view the Edfu texts “preserve the memory of a pre-dynastic religious center which once existed near Memphis”—a center which “the Egyptians looked on as the homeland of the Egyptian temple.”36 Note, she is not saying “which once existed in Henen-nesut,” nor even “in Memphis” itself, but rather “near Memphis.” In short, the location is a bit of a mystery; Reymond supposes that archaeology has not yet identified it.37 But wherever it was, it was believed to be a place carefully selected by the gods for the foundation of the first of the new generation of temples dedicated to the god Horus—the essential opening gambit in the long-term project to recreate the destroyed former world.38 A text on the inner face of the enclosure wall at Edfu was recognized as an important clue by Reymond in her own search for the mystery location, since it tells us that the primordial Temple of Horus was:
built at the dictates of the ancestors according to what was written in this book which descended from the sky to the north of Memphis.39
An extensive burial ground for the ancient kings of Memphis, known to Egyptologists as the “Memphite Necropolis,” rose to particular prominence during the Fourth Dynasty, 2613 BC to 2492 BC, when, according to orthodox chronology, both the Great Pyramid and the Great Sphinx are supposed to have been built. The pyramid fields of Dhashur, Saqqara and Giza were all integral parts of the Necropolis—so in theory all might be candidates.40 But at Giza, as we’ve seen, the Sphinx models the constellation of Leo in 10,500 BC, the three pyramids model the Belt of Orion in the same epoch, and the four shafts of the Great Pyramid lock on to specific stars in the later epoch of 2500 BC. Far more obviously than Dhashur and Saqqara, therefore, it seems to me that Giza absolutely merits description as “book which descended from the sky”—a book written with the “pen” of megalithic architecture in the “script” of precession.
There is something else. The god Horus, for whom the primordial temple was built, is a complex figure who manifests in many different symbolic forms, notably the falcon; indeed, an imposing granite statue of Horus the Falcon stands in the forecourt at the Temple of Edfu to this day. Horus was likewise frequently depicted as a man with the head of a falcon—a classic therianthrope in other words, like the Apkallu sages of Mesopotamia. But Horus had another prominent avatar and that was as a lion.41 Moreover this Horus lion was sometimes depicted as a therianthrope with a human head and there is a specific inscription in the Edfu Temple which tells us that:
Horus of Edfu transformed himself into a lion which had the face of a man …42
Mystery of the Sphinx
Given the connection that the Edfu texts draw with the Giza area, and with that mysterious “book descended from the sky,” it is therefore impossible to ignore the fact that t
he Ancient Egyptians closely identified Horus with the Great Sphinx of Giza. In this capacity the lion-bodied (and probably once lion-headed) Sphinx was known both as Hor-em-Akhet—“Horus in the Horizon”—and also as Horakhti which, with a subtle difference of emphasis, means “Horus of the Horizon.”43
However, there is a very odd thing about the Sphinx. With the exception of Dr. Rainer Stadelmann, who believes that it was the work of the Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh Khufu, all other modern Egyptologists are united in the opinion that the Sphinx was made by Khufu’s son Khafre.44 I use the word “opinion” deliberately, because it is important to be clear at the outset that we are not dealing here with an established empirical “fact” about the Sphinx, but rather with a received body of Egyptological conjecture which has gradually, through lack of opposition, begun to be treated as though it were a proven fact. “As very often in our discipline, old and seemingly certain statements rest forever without further verification,” comments Dr. Stadelmann,45 who should know what he’s talking about since he was Director of the German Archaeological Institute in Cairo from 1989 to 1998.
When we confine ourselves to the facts about the Sphinx rather than the opinions of Egyptologists, the first thing we discover is that no inscriptions have survived from the Old Kingdom which refer to this stupendous and imposing monument. Even the great Egyptologist Selim Hassan, who conducted extensive excavations at Giza in the 1930s, was therefore obliged to admit:
Magicians of the Gods Page 20
