Ancient Traces

by Michael Baigent

  This lost continent, they explain, was the centre of a huge maritime empire where religious mysteries were practised and science had become far advanced. But, contrary to the usual understanding, these authors place Atlantis not beyond the Straits of Gibraltar but much further south, in the continent now known as the Antarctic. Sixteen thousand and more years ago, they explain, this had been generally ice-free, enjoying a climate similar to that of Canada today.

  Following upon cataclysmic geological changes, including a displacement of the earth’s outer crust, the position of the poles altered. The southern continent shifted to its present position in the polar region and, once this had happened, Atlantean culture was destroyed, quickly hidden beneath two miles of ice and snow as the continent fell into a permanent freeze.

  During the latter stages of this catastrophe, during the fourteenth millennium BC, refugees struck out from the south and spread into all the world’s continents. Amongst them were high initiates who carried the secrets of Atlantean technology, religion and science. One group of initiates, apparently called in later texts the ‘Followers of Horus’, settled in Egypt and founded a cult base on the Giza plateau.

  These initiates, fearful lest further destructions should ensue, instigated a long-term building plan which would preserve their secret teachings for all time. They devised a method of incorporating these principles into the geometry of their buildings which were designed to be so massive that they would survive any future cataclysm. They expected that, even if their school of initiates should at some future time die out, later civilizations would recover the secrets by decoding clues fixed into the design geometry of these structures. Thus the message of these Atlantean initiates might be protected for aeons, to be transmitted to cultures whose time lay far in the future.

  These initiates built the Sphinx and laid out the ground plan of Giza. They may even have built actual structures on the plateau there or perhaps they merely maintained records of the design throughout the succeeding millennia. However this knowledge was preserved, 8,000 years later, in 2500 BC, the pyramids were built in accordance with this ancient plan.

  The site of Giza and its secrets was, from the first, protected by the ‘Followers of Horus’, astronomer-priests whose secret power was such that even 8,000 years later the pharaohs dared not change the complex plan devised for Giza.

  Hancock and Bauval write that

  We think the evidence suggests a continuous transmission of advanced scientific and engineering knowledge over that huge gulf of time, and thus the continuous presence in Egypt, from the Palaeolithic into the Dynastic Period, of highly enlightened and sophisticated individuals – those shadowy Akhus said in the texts to have possessed a knowledge of divine origin.1

  To Hancock and Bauval the Giza complex is truly the sacred heart of Egypt – if not the world. It is a site so sacred that not one part of the design could be altered despite the passing of many thousands of years.

  All this provides a wonderful story: a colourful adventure in wild ideas, anomalous discoveries and unexpected insights punctuated by repeated challenges to some of the most respected figures in modern Egyptology. Hancock and Bauval are solidly anti-establishment. Their work in particular diligently notes the denial of contrary evidence, the prevention of access to sites, the withdrawal of investigation permits, the mislaying of anomalous artefacts and the general academic disdain for any alternative explanations, however apparently plausible. Theirs is the perfect book to read during a long flight in order to survive complicated time-zones and lobotomized airline videos.

  But can we believe it?

  The Mysteries of Giza

  The Pyramids of Giza stand, massive yet mute, upon a rocky plateau across the Nile from Old Cairo, today at the southern desert edges of the modern city’s suburbs. The Giza plateau, significantly higher than the surrounding terrain, is about a mile and a half long, half that wide, and ends with a sharp drop at the edge of the Nile valley.

  Egyptologists are confident that the Great Pyramid at Giza was a tomb built by the 4th Dynasty pharaoh Khufu around 2500 BC (there are no certain dates) and that the second large pyramid and the Sphinx were built a little later by the pharaoh Khafre. The latter’s son Menkaure, the next ruler, built the third and smaller pyramid.2

  Each pyramid had, at its east wall, a mortuary temple from which a causeway sloped down to a valley temple situated on the edge of the plateau, near the Nile. It was here that the dead pharaoh, carried by boat down the river, would begin his final journey. At the eastern edge of the plateau squats the Sphinx and its associated temple. In addition, the plateau holds six very small pyramids which are certainly tombs and a regimented host of even smaller mastabas – tombs of the nobility. There are also a number of boat pits which contained dismantled wooden boats, one of which, removed from a pit near the eastern side of the Great Pyramid in 1954, when reconstructed, proved to be just over 142 feet long. It showed signs of use suggesting that it might have been the very craft which carried Khufu’s remains along the Nile.

  The Giza complex is a unity, a coherent organized necropolis site dedicated to glorifying both death and the dead. Elements of this complex are still being discovered. Very recently, during excavations for a sewage system for the nearby Cairo suburbs, the remains of the long-lost valley temple of Khufu were discovered, quickly mapped and just as quickly destroyed by the rapidly progressing construction.

  And, to the east, guardian of the entire complex, rests the Great Sphinx; at its forepaws, another temple. At first sight, it is hard to see any difficulty with the interrelationship, the coherence, of these elements. The conventional explanation seems evident; no other is called for. To call any part of the story into question is not only to fly in the face of archaeology but also to deny the evidence of one’s own eyes.

  The crucial link which, if broken, allows the new and revised version of Egyptian history to be argued is the question of the age

  The Giza complex, attributed to the 4th Dynasty (c. 2614–2494 BC).

  of the Sphinx. For this makes, or breaks, the unity of the Giza complex and therefore the attribution of all its structures to the pharaohs of the 4th Dynasty – Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. If this unity breaks, if any part of that complex can be proved pre-dynastic – that is, to have originated before the rise of the Egyptian monarchy around 3100 BC – then this throws into disarray the current view of Egypt’s past. Such a finding would force Egyptologists to accept the existence of some much earlier, yet technically accomplished, Egyptian culture.

  Certainly archaeologists know that the Sphinx is very old. The most obvious evidence is found in its body. Much of the basic stone core, perhaps all of it, was covered in antiquity by a stone facing. It had long been thought that this masonry was added to the roughly cut body of the Sphinx when it was first built, being the means by which final shape was given to the Sphinx’s body. But in 1979–80, during a meticulous examination of the Sphinx, a provocative conclusion was reached. In his introduction to an explanation the chief archaeologist, American Dr Mark Lehner of Chicago University, reported, ‘We have nowhere observed any kind of working marks on the core body, either in the way of tool marks or of surfaces that would seem to have been left by rough quarrying activity.’3 Furthermore, he explained, the body of the Sphinx showed the effects of ‘severe erosion’. He concluded that, ‘the core body of the Sphinx was already in a severe state of erosion when the earliest level of masonry was added’.4 It is not surprising that Dr Lehner then drew the conclusion that this repair work ‘probably’ occurred in the ‘New Kingdom’ period, which dates from around 1500 BC. For this gives him around 1,000 years or so to account for the ‘severe’ erosion. He would hardly have wished to allow any less.

  Unfortunately Dr Lehner’s cautious opinion, given in 1980, has been superseded. In 1992 Dr Zahi Hawass, the Director of the Giza complex for the Egyptian Antiquities Organization, reported that analysis of the right rear leg of the Sphinx proved the earliest level
of masonry around the body dated instead from the ‘Old Kingdom’ period, that is, from about 2700 BC to 2160 BC.5 The pyramids were constructed in the middle part of this period.

  Despite the relative obscurity of the publication in which this report appeared and its bland understatement, it was perfectly apparent that some restless genie had finally managed to squeeze its way out of a tightly corked bottle.

  For if Khafre had built the Sphinx along with his pyramid around 2500 BC, and if repairs to its heavily eroded body were made before 2160 BC, then this severe erosion covered up by the facing stones must have occurred in only 340 years – perhaps less: an extremely unlikely event. In practical terms, given the extent and depth of the erosion, it seems impossible.

  Since the obvious conclusion from these rather reluctant admissions is that the Sphinx was already old and eroded when Khafre built his pyramid, perhaps it was Khafre himself who placed the protective facing stonework around its body?

  Opposing this argument is the widely held belief that prior to the existence of the strongly wielded central power of the pharaohs – the 1st Dynasty of whom began around 3100 BC – Egyptians did not build in stone and were incapable of the organization needed to construct huge buildings or monuments. Without this authority of command or power of wealth, there was little possibility of either enslaving, or hiring, the manpower needed for such an ambitious building programme.

  This criticism, though, ignores the obvious differences between the Sphinx and the pyramids. The pyramids were built stone by heavy stone. The Sphinx was not built, it was excavated out of solid rock, a rather simpler task than constructing a pyramid.

  Inevitably showing strong support for the establishment line, Dr Zahi Hawass insisted that archaeologists had ‘solid evidence’ to prove that the Sphinx was built by Khafre – thus around 2500 BC.6

  Yet what does this ‘solid evidence’ consist of? Upon investigation, very little: an eroded inscription, potentially intrusive statues in a temple and a subjective interpretation of the Sphinx’s face. Nothing, in fact, which would stand up in court.

  Did Khafre Build the Great Sphinx?

  Around 1400 BC, the pharaoh Thutmosis IV, obeying the commands of a prophetic dream, cleared all the sand away from the Sphinx. To commemorate this he ordered that a stone bearing an inscription be placed between the Sphinx’s paws. This stone still exists, though it has become so badly weathered that much of the text has crumbled away.

  It was first uncovered in 1818, at which time line 13 of the text, although damaged, was understood to have mentioned the name of Khafre. Unfortunately, due to the destruction of the surrounding text, its true reading and context could not be established. Soon after, this line too crumbled away entirely. Luckily a British philologist had made a copy and this was published in 1823, revealing that line 13 indeed held the syllable ‘khaf’. This was assumed to refer to the pharaoh, Khafre, and translations were made on this assumption.

  However, in contrast to the present belief, these early archaeologists were agreed that this reference most likely referred to Khafre not as the builder of the Sphinx but as having restored it, just as Thutmosis did later.

  For example, in 1904, one of the early masters of the field and a Director of the British Museum, Sir E. A. W. Budge, wrote that the Sphinx ‘existed in the time of [Khafre]… and was, most probably, very old even at that early period’.7

  But shortly afterwards, in 1905, any link with Khafre was shown to be extremely tenuous, perhaps non-existent. The Chicago Egyptologist Professor J. H. Breasted noted that there was no trace of a cartouche around the syllable ‘khaf’, hence this could not refer to a royal name.8 Without exception, all royal names in dynastic Egypt were written within an oblong frame now called a ‘cartouche’. ‘Khaf’, in fact, simply means ‘he rises’ – like the sun, for instance.

  Despite this, modern Egyptologists still regard this reference to ‘Khaf’ as demonstrating a strong link between the pharaoh Khafre and the Sphinx. However, doubt seems to have gradually osmosed into certain experts. In 1995 T. G. H. James, Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities for the British Museum between 1974 and 1988, wrote that Khafre ‘probably caused the Great Sphinx to be carved in his likeness’.9 Such a qualification is revealing.

  Two further arguments aimed at linking the Sphinx with Khafre are added by Egyptologists: firstly, because the valley temple – next to the Sphinx – had statues of Khafre in it when excavated (one of which depicted him as a Sphinx), then it must have been this pharaoh who built both it and the Sphinx. This ignores the obvious possibility that the statues might have been added later: a very common occurrence. It is rather like claiming that Abraham Lincoln built Washington because his statue stands there.

  Secondly, it is claimed that the face on the Sphinx is similar to the face on these statues of Khafre. This is a highly contentious subjective approach. In an attempt to settle this matter once and for all, the author John Anthony West had the inspired notion to call upon the services of an expert in the field of facial reconstruction, a senior member of the New York Police Forensic Service, Detective Frank Domingo. Domingo visited Egypt in 1992 and his analysis provided strong scientific evidence upon which to conclude that the face of the statue of Khafre is not the same as that of the Sphinx.

  All in all, we can see that the evidence hardly justifies the confident attribution of the Sphinx to Khafre given in most common references. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, is sublimely confident that the Sphinx dates from Khafre and ‘is known to be a portrait statue of the king’.10

  Indeed, we are forced to accept that there is little hard evidence on which to date the Sphinx to the reign of Khafre. Even Professor Selim Hassan, who spent many years excavating on the Giza plateau and is a recognized expert on the Sphinx, admitted, ‘the general opinion of the ancients was that the Sphinx was older than the Pyramids’.11 And pointed out that, ‘excepting for the mutilated line on the Granite Stela of Thothmosis IV, which proves nothing, there is not a single ancient inscription which connects the Sphinx with Khafra’.12

  The Date of the Sphinx

  Driving rain will gradually, inexorably, erode even stone. Over thousands of years the water splashing relentlessly downwards carves deep fissures into stone leaving a once smooth surface scarred and creased.

  When swirling desert sandstorms envelop and batter stone cliffs or carved statues, the erosion rasps great gashes which run horizontally across the face of the stone. It scours out the softer rock leaving clearly separated layers of strata.

  In principle, then, it appears relatively straightforward to ascertain the difference between the two types of erosion. If the time-worn ridges run vertically, top to bottom, the culprit is heavy rain; if they run horizontally, end to end, then it is the wind and its abrasive sand. But, of course, erosion is a notorious subject amongst geologists, who are aware of exceptions to every rule and of the constant unpredictability of nature.

  In 1978 John Anthony West registered an intriguing fact: the erosion marks on the Sphinx at Giza run from top to bottom indicating, he surmised, that they were caused by heavy rainfall.

  Yet, for all of recorded history, the Sphinx has stood on a dry sandy desert. Indeed, it has usually been virtually covered by sand, ensuring that its lower section would be protected. Nevertheless, its deep erosion is obvious to any observer. Now where does this leave the current archaeological dating of the Sphinx? In trouble, is the immediate answer. For, according to West, it has not rained so heavily in Egypt since before the end of the last great Ice Age, around 10,000 BC.13

  Or has it?

  In April 1991 a group of American scientists received permission to make a geological study of the Sphinx. In particular, they wanted to establish scientifically the facts about the observed erosion patterns. The crucial figure in the team was Professor Robert Schoch from Boston University, a geologist whose field of expertise is the weathering of soft rock.14

  As we have mentioned, the Sphinx was not built
up from stone blocks like the pyramids but was carved from the living rock, a limestone which runs through the plateau in strata of varying degrees of hardness. Originally, perhaps, it seems that a portion of the harder rock protruded above the Giza plateau; this portion was carved as the Sphinx’s head. Excavation was then directed downwards, into the softer limestone, producing a wide enclosure but leaving, in the centre, an unexcavated mass of rock which was then further shaped into the body of the Sphinx. The mass of rock quarried from the region of the Sphinx is considered to form part of the interior blocks of one or other of the pyramids. Some of it certainly was used in the building of Sphinx temple.15 The area is, in effect, a quarry.

  Because the bulk of the Sphinx is below the former ground level and sits within a wide excavated enclosure, it very readily fills with sand. Thus, for much of its history its body has been invisible beneath the sand. Only its head protruded above.

  Professor Schoch noted that as the Sphinx and the inner walls of the excavated enclosure were carved from the same rock at the same time, geologically speaking they are the same age. They will have both been equally affected by the elements which cause erosion, be they wind-born sand or water in the form of floods or rain.

  Furthermore many of the ancient tombs south of the Sphinx but also part of the Giza complex were similarly constructed from the same limestone and, according to conventional understanding, at much the same time. As would be expected, they show distinct effects of erosion caused by wind-blown sand. If the entire complex was constructed at more or less the same era, then the erosion patterns would be expected to remain consistent throughout.16

  Curiously, Professor Schoch found something quite different. The Sphinx and its enclosure walls showed an erosion pattern quite dissimilar to that of the tombs. This was so distinctive that, according to Schoch, it simply was not possible to see these structures as being of the same age.17 In stark and startling contrast to the other Giza monuments, ‘the body of the Sphinx and the walls of the Sphinx ditch are deeply weathered and eroded… It’s very deep, it’s very old.’18