Another point I noticed was that the Temple walls appeared to have been constructed in two stages. The first stage, most of which was intact (though deeply eroded), consisted of the strong and heavy core of 200-ton limestone blocks. On to both sides of these had been grafted a facade of dressed granite which (as we shall see) was largely intact in the interior of the building but had mainly fallen away on the outside. A closer look at some of the remaining exterior facing blocks where they had become detached from the core revealed a curious fact. When they had been placed here in antiquity the backs of these blocks had been cut to fit into and around the deep coves and scallops of existing weathering patterns on the limestone core. The presence of those patterns seemed to imply that the core blocks must have stood here, exposed to the elements, for an immense span of time before they had been faced with granite.16
It seems then that the more we look into the physical construction properties of these monuments, the more we are confronted with contradictory evidence, evidence that seems to point toward multiple construction phases and/or remodeling of already ancient structures by later cultures.
Foremost in these dating controversies of the Giza monuments is, of course, the Sphinx. The rebel Egyptologist scholar and writer John Anthony West, supported by Boston University Professor of Geology Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D., proposed for the Sphinx (based on the extensive erosion of the monument) a date thousands of years greater than that presently considered by mainstream thought. To date, this controversy has never been satisfactorily resolved; the jury is still out.
But the most remarkable aspect of this entire question as to the age of these structures is the fact that the ancient Egyptians themselves, in a text known as the Inventory Stele, actually wrote about the repairs they made to some of the monuments at Giza that were apparently already ancient. In this controversial text we are told the following:
Long live the Mezer, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life. He made for his Mother, Isis, the Divine Mother, Mistress of the Western Mountain, a decree made on a stela; he gave to her a new divine offering, and he built her a temple of stone, renewing what he had found, namely these gods in her place.
Live Horus, the Mezer, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the hollow of Hwran [The Sphinx] . . . and he built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess and he built a pyramid for the King’s daughter Henutsen beside this temple.
The place of Hwran Hor-em-akhet is on the South side of the House of Isis, Mistress of the pyramid and on the north of Osiris, Lord of Rostaw. The plans of the image of Hor-em-akhet were brought in order to bring to revision the sayings of the disposition of the Image of the Very Redoubtable.
He restored the statue all covered in painting, of the Guardian of the Atmosphere, who guides the winds with his gaze. He made to quarry the hind part of the nemes headdress, which was lacking, from gilded stone, and which had a length of about 7 ells (3.70 meters).
He came to make a tour, in order to see the thunderbolt, which stands in the place of the Sycamore, so named because of a great sycamore, whose branches were struck when the Lord of Heaven descended upon the place of Hor-em-akhet, and also this image, retracing the erasure according to the above-mentioned disposition. . . .
The figure of this god, cut in stone, is solid and will last to eternity, keeping its face looking always to the Orient.17
In the above passage we are told that Khufu made repairs to the Sphinx, thus implying that the Sphinx was already of considerable age by the time of Khufu and, by extension, the time of his son Khafre, the king who is believed by those of conventional opinion—based on highly contentious circumstantial evidence—to have constructed the monument.
Conventional Egyptology gives little credence to this contradictory ancient Egyptian text, believing it to be the work of pious priests of the Saite Period (ca. 685–525 BCE) in order to legitimize their rule. But regardless of the Egyptologists’ protestations, the actual evidence onsite at Giza seems to support this ancient text (i.e., that Khufu was indeed making repairs to various monuments at Giza). Specifically named are the Sphinx and the Temple of Isis, which is interesting, because this, of course, implies that, contrary to mainstream opinion, the cult of Osiris/ Isis was already highly developed (Isis being referred to as a goddess and Osiris as lord) as early as the Fourth Dynasty (if not before).
But where’s the physical evidence to support the claims made on the Inventory Stele? In the 1930s, when Egyptologist Selim Hassan, Ph.D., was clearing away the sands that had long since engulfed the Sphinx, he discovered that ancient repair works had indeed been made to the head of the Sphinx and that the dimension of the repair work he observed closely matched the dimension given in the Inventory Stele—3.7 meters. Hassan also noted that a sycamore tree was growing slightly to the south of the Sphinx and, given that these trees can live for thousands of years, surmised that it may have been an offshoot of the original sycamore mentioned in the Inventory Stele that had been struck with a bolt of lightning. Furthermore, traces of ancient paint (also mentioned in the Inventory Stele) have also been found on the side of the Sphinx’s head. So it seems that—far from being a “pious fraud”—the Inventory Stele clearly makes a number of statements of proven historical fact, and this must surely confer credibility and authenticity on the testimony of the Inventory Stele as a whole.
Given such incontrovertible facts, it is somewhat surprising then to find that Egyptologists continue to deny the veracity of the Inventory Stele’s “testimony.” Here we have an ancient text that speaks of (at least four) verifiable facts written in a very matter-of-fact manner, yet, simply because this text makes one remark that is inconsistent with the views of conventional Egyptology (i.e., Khufu repaired the Sphinx), the entire content of the Inventory Stele is regarded by Egyptologists not as fact but as more of a lie and is to be dismissed and ignored.
In short, verifiable fact after verifiable fact is presented in the text of the Inventory Stele, just not (according to Egyptologists) the remark that Khufu repaired the Sphinx. It seems that rather than change their own narrative, Egyptologists would rather dismiss the historical evidence that contradicts it, as if the Saite Period priests somehow conspired to write only verifiable facts about the Sphinx that did not concern its age or provenance. In this Egyptologists claim to know better than the ancient Egyptians themselves, the ancient Egyptians who were nearer to and who would have had better access to both oral and written traditions that are perhaps now long since lost and forgotten.
To justify their dismissal of this ancient text, Egyptologists point to its orthography—that the Inventory Stele is clearly written in the lan-guage of the Saite Period, about 1,800 years after the Fourth Dynasty, and that it also makes mention of a number of Egyptian deities that did not exist in the Fourth Dynasty. But as West remarks, “To dismiss it [the information within the Inventory Stele] because of its Late Kingdom date is like having only a 20th Century translation of the Bible available and concluding from that, that the Bible is a 20th century document because of the language.”18
West makes a perfectly valid point; the Inventory Stele could very well be a Saite Period reproduction of a much older text, written in the style of the Saite Period and updating the names of the ancient gods with their Saite Period equivalents in much the same way that, for example, the later Greek god Hermes had usurped the powers and name of the much earlier Egyptian god Thoth.
If it is evidence that counts then it seems, at least to me, that there exists considerable evidence that contradicts the conventional dating of these monuments. But if these structures are older than their conventional dating, then how much older are they?
ARK OF AGES
In The Giza Prophecy, I showed how the pyramids at Giza and the Sphinx worked together to present a great, stellar timepiece—a “precession clock.” By using the stars of Orion’s Belt and presenting to us their maximum and
minimum culminations at each end of the precession time line (figure 7.4), the builders were able to calibrate their time line and, with the use of the Sphinx, mark a fairly specific date on the time line relative to our present time—circa 3980 BCE.
To understand how the precession time line in figure 7.4 works, imagine that you draw a straight line on the ground about a foot or so in length. At one end of your line you place a marker, “12:00 p.m.,” and at the opposite end of your line you place another marker, “12:00 a.m.” You now have a time line of twenty-four-hours duration (i.e., twelve hours in one direction and twelve hours in the return direction).
Figure 7.4. Giza-Orion precession time line (ca. 10,460 BCE–ca. 2500 CE). Precession is moving from minimum culmination toward maximum culmination. Image by Scott Creighton.
In front of your line you place a simple pendulum. As the pendulum swings back and forth, with each swing it will pass over every point on the time line—every hour, minute and second. And it will cover each point on the time line twice—once on the outward swing and then again on the return swing to complete one full cycle.
To then highlight the specific time of 6:00 a.m. on the time line, all you would need to do is place a marker of some kind at the precise midpoint of your time line, because 6:00 a.m. is precisely midway (50 percent) between 12:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. (figure 7.5). Then, simple calculations (length of time line divided by 720 minutes in half a day) will allow the time at any point that happened to be indicated on the time line (with the placement of a marker of some kind) to be correctly calculated. Of course, the midpoint can be 6:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. To determine whether the marked time is 6:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. requires us to know the direction of the pendulum swing (i.e., the motion of time).
Figure 7.5. Pendulum time line. The pendulum bob passes over each point of the time line twice; once on the outward swing and then again on the return swing. To know whether, for example, the midpoint is aligned to 6:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. requires us to know the direction of the swing.
And this is precisely what we are presented with at Giza, although, rather than marking the end points of the time line with 12:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. (a twenty-four-hour day), the precession time line uses the Earth’s much longer precessional cycle (i.e., the 25,920-year Great Year). In this Great Year the particular orientation of the belt stars at their precessional maximum culmination can be likened to the 12:00 p.m. marker in our pendulum example, while the particular orientation of the belt stars at their precessional minimum culmination can be likened to the opposite 12:00 a.m. marker.
The analogy of the pendulum bob and its time line is precisely the same with the precession time line at Giza except that the motion of the pendulum bob is replaced by the imperceptibly slow precessional motion (pendulum swing) of the belt stars and particularly Al Nitak. During a full precessional cycle of 25,920 years (i.e., from maximum to minimum culmination and then back again), each point along the Giza precession time line will correspond to a particular position of Orion’s Belt within its actual precessional cycle. And just like the pendulum bob, when the belt stars reach one of their two culmination points, they will appear to momentarily stop and then begin to move in the opposite direction. This change of precessional direction of the belt stars means that the precessional motion will then retrace its 12,960-year journey back along the Giza precession time line (the return swing of the pendulum), thereby corresponding with each point along the precession time line a second time.
In our example of the precession time line in figure 7.4, we see that the Sphinx is aligned to the significant midpoint of the precession time line at circa 3980 BCE (ca. 3980 BCE being the most recent midpoint date of Orion’s precessional half-cycle). But as can be seen in the pendulum example (figure 7.5), the pendulum bob in one full day passes the six o’clock position twice (as it does with all time positions on the time line). How then do we know if this six o’clock is indicating 6:00 p.m. or if it is twelve hours previous; that is, 6:00 a.m.? Similarly, how do we know if this significant midpoint on the Giza time line that the Sphinx is aligned to is indicating circa 3980 BCE and not the previous midpoint date of circa 16,940 BCE (one half-cycle of 12,960 years previous; that is, 3,980 + 12,960 years; figure 7.6)?
And therein lies the problem; how can we actually know which of the previous midpoint alignments the builders are actually referring to? Does the midpoint indicate—allegorically speaking—6:00 a.m. or 6:00 p.m. (figure 7.5)? Was the Sphinx midpoint alignment first made to indicate the time circa 3980 BCE (the most recent midpoint alignment date; figure 7.4), thereby suggesting the structures were created around that time, or is the Sphinx midpoint alignment indicating the half-cycle before circa 3980 BCE (i.e., ca. 16,940 BCE; figure 7.6), thereby suggesting the pyramids are of much greater antiquity? In short, is the most recent midpoint alignment (ca. 3980 BCE) the outward or the return swing of the precession pendulum?
Figure 7.6. Giza-Orion precession time line (ca. 23,420 BCE–ca. 10,460 BCE). Precession is moving from maximum culmination toward minimum culmination. Image by Scott Creighton (derivative of original by Gary Osborn).
Alas, there is no easy way to tell. Without knowing the initial direction time was flowing when the Giza precession time line was created, we are reduced to guesswork.
Unless, of course, the builders somehow found a clever and logical way of encoding the direction that time was flowing into the layout of this great precession timepiece at the time of its creation at Giza. But is such a means possible? Could the architect have found a way to encode such a crucial piece of information into the Giza precession time line?
There is a possibility.
The reader may recall from chapter 3 how the three main pyramids at Giza may have been designed using the geo-stellar fingerprint of the Orion’s Belt stars (figure 3.3a–d, pages 66 and 68). We see that the starting point for this design begins by extending an initial line from the G1/ Al Nitak center to the G2/Al Nilam center. It is reasonable to suggest then that G1 represents the starting point of the full precessional cycle (i.e., the initial outward swing of the precessional pendulum), because the design of the Giza pyramids commences from G1/Al Nitak.
Conversely, if the flow of time had been moving from the opposite end of the Giza precession time line (i.e., from G3 toward G1; figure 7.4), then the geo-stellar fingerprint would have commenced with a line from the G3/Mintaka center to the G2/Al Nilam center, thereby creating three pyramid bases of very different shapes and proportions to what we actually have at Giza today (figure 7.7).
This is to say that commencing the design of the geo-stellar fingerprint of Orion’s Belt with an initial line drawn from the Al Nitak center to the Al Nilam center (figure 3.3a–d) (i.e., from the maximum [G1] to minimum [G3] culmination) will produce—to a high degree of accuracy—the relative proportions of the main Giza pyramids, thereby suggesting that the Orion geo-stellar fingerprint serves to “lock in” the direction in which time was initially flowing along the precession time line at the time of its creation.
In summary, the geo-stellar fingerprint of Orion’s Belt, in providing three bases whose relative proportions are dependent on the direction from which the design commences, provides us with a very clever and foolproof means of determining from which end of the Giza precession time line the outward pendulum swing commenced; the direction of the geo-stellar design (starting at G1/Al Nitak) may have been used in order to present to us the direction of the time flow (i.e., from G1/Al Nitak toward G3/Mintaka).
Figure 7.7. (A) By commencing the geo-stellar fingerprint technique by extending a line from Mintaka (top star) to Al Nilam (middle star) of Orion’s Belt, we end up with three bases of varying dimensions. (B) These bases in no way agree with the relative proportions of the three square bases of the Giza pyramids.
Thus, if we are to commence the outward swing of time on the Giza precession time line from the direction of G1, then, logically, this implies that G1’s three queens represent the previous maximu
m culmination of 23,420 BCE since the next maximum culmination of Orion’s Belt (i.e., when the flow of time on the Giza precession time line will change direction again and move from G1 toward G3) hasn’t yet occurred and won’t occur until circa 2500 CE—a little under five hundred years from now. And it logically follows that if the Giza precession time line is calibrated by the two culminations of Orion’s Belt of circa 23,420 BCE (maximum) and circa 10,460 BCE (minimum) then the Sphinx is aligned to the midpoint of the precession time line, circa 16,940 BCE (as opposed to the next midpoint alignment some 12,960 years later, circa 3980 BCE).
And perhaps this is also why this configuration of pyramids at Giza produces the Great Giza Triangle (figure 2.2) that points away from Khufu’s pyramid (and its queens’ maximum culmination markers) toward Menkaure’s pyramid (and its queens’ minimum culmination markers), thereby suggesting again that the direction or outward swing of time on the Giza precession time line was initially moving from maximum culmination toward minimum culmination, thus supporting the idea that the outward swing or starting point of the precessional cycle was circa 23,420 BCE.
Another important point that should be noted here is the fact that the Sphinx, as noted already, is aligned precisely to the significant midpoint of the precession time line. If this alignment of the Sphinx to the midpoint of the Giza precession time line was created to indicate that some significant event occurred around this midpoint time, then we have to ask, just how likely is it that a significant event just happened to occur at the precise midpoint of the precession time line as indicated by the Sphinx? Is this just some extraordinary coincidence, that a significant event should occur at the precise midpoint on the time line, or is there perhaps a more rational explanation for such a correlation?
The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids Page 16