Egypt
Pyramids, Sphinx, and Megaliths
Fifteen centuries ago a tidal wave apparently caused by an underwater earthquake swept in to shore and swept out again, carrying part of the ancient city of Alexandria into the Mediterranean. Discovery broadcast a show in March 1999 about dives and recovery of artifacts from the submerged ruins. My prediction that by 2001 someone will have a book out claiming that the event of Alexandria's partial destruction led to the Atlantis legend, and that Plato's account of it dates from no earlier than 500 AD, in other words, that he didn't in fact write it, hasn't yet come to pass to the best of my knowledge. Write me if you've seen it somewhere, other than my other old site on Delphi.
Predynastic Sphinx
The monuments of Egypt have inspired a lot of people to make a lot of claims about both its rituals and its antiquity. I'm not in agreement that the Sphinx is 10,000 years old. This is a uniformitarian geologist's approach to what is at its root may be a catastrophic problem -- i.e., the lands around Giza are said to not have had any appreciable rainfall in 10,000 years; the erosion in the rocks of the Sphinx is mostly due to the action of flowing water; therefore the Sphinx must have been made 10,000 years ago.
For one thing, the fact that there is water erosion in the little basin where the Sphinx is found does not mean that the statue was not carved long after the erosion took place. If the erosion is really of such great antiquity, the statue could easily have been inspired by the shape of the formations left behind. For another thing, the climate change may not have been quite so long ago as is claimed. For yet another, short periods of downpours or floods, both of which were recorded by the Egyptians, could have contributed to this pattern of erosion.
And, if John Anthony West were correct in thinking that Atlantis was part of the cultural roots of Egypt, and some sort of vast disaster happened sufficient to destroy a continent or large island such as Atlantis, it is not reasonable to assume that the rest of the Earth had a development rooted in uniform principles.
On the Flem-Ath's website they wrote, "[s]ince we believe that a displacement happened around 9,600 B.C. we do not think that the Sphinx and/or pyramids can be older than that date. The Sphinx is precisely aligned with the rising sun and the pyramids are likewise perfectly orientated [sic] to the cardinal points." This is not relevant for two reasons -- nowhere did the Egyptians write that they built the Sphinx or the pyramids in some specific alignment, such as the rising sun, and furthermore the sun doesn't rise in the same place every day.
Robert Schoch doesn't use the A-word (Atlantis). Atlantis is a Greek legend said to be based on an Egyptian legend, and the Greek legend implies that only the forgotten earlier men of Athens could stand up to Atlantis, so Egypt must have been part of the Atlantean realm, or was itself Atlantis. Atlantis was destroyed in some sort of catastrophe with a celestial cause (according to Plato); the celestial events were remembered in Greece as the story of Phaethon (according to Plato); and according to the Greeks Phaethon also scorched the Sahara during his ill-fated trip in the chariot of the sun.
This implies that the origin of the Sahara is in the same event as the destruction of Atlantis, and further reinforces Plato's story -- the conventional date for the beginning of the aridification of the Sahara corresponds with Plato's claimed date for the destruction of Atlantis and the elder version of Athens. This is a bit sticky for uniformitarians, because it is suggestive of the basic truthfulness of the tale without any explanation except that Plato was a lucky guesser. It suggests that these two events -- destruction of Atlantis and aridification of the Sahara -- are related to each other.
See also the planned Robert Schoch page (Sunday, January 13, 2002).
An interview with Boris Said, the Emmy award-winning writer and producer of the NBC-TV feature documentary, "The Mystery of the Sphinx". There was a lot on the page, including a drawing showing the apparent tunnel under the Sphinx. "If a group of Nigerians set up shop on your front lawn and said, 'We have absolute proof that Atlantis is here, under your grandfather's grave, and we are going to dig it up,' there would be trouble." The website altered the page contents and last time I checked it was something else.
Campbell's Tomb
Tombs of Gizeh -- "104. The very remarkable tomb known as Campbell's tomb, requires some notice here, as it has been associated with the name of Khufu by some writers. For a detailed plan and measurements reference should be made to Col. Vyse's volumes; but we may state the general form of it as a large square pit in the rock, 26 by 30 feet, and 53 feet deep; outside this there is a trench, running all round it at 9 to 22 feet distant ; this is 5 feet wide and 73 feet deep. Bars of rock are left at intervals across this trench. Altogether about 10,000 tons of limestone have been excavated here."
Here are three drawings showing purported structures under the Sphinx, which seems to have no basis in actual experience, so I presume it's some sort of vision or ESP or something. Looks nice, but perhaps at best groundwork for science fiction.
Whereas it is interesting that seismic studies seem to show an open passage of some sort beneath the Sphinx enclosure, until someone drills down and takes a look using fiber optics or other minimally invasive technology, we'll never know what it is.
Megalithic Cultures
Geopolymer Institute -- "the Egyptians had knowledge of casting false stones, analogous to the casting of cement, which made possible both the largest pyramids and earliest statues of their deities and early rulers, made of hard stone. This knowledge was retained but the raw materials were exhausted. Furthermore, the availability of more durable tools made true carving the preferred method -- but most of the later statues were made of much softer stone."
This site is recommended, as is the book. In Brazil a gold discovery led to the excavation of a mountain until all that remains is a deep hole in the ground, and this was accomplished one 40 pound bag at a time. An analogous process in reverse enabled the Egyptians to construct the Great Pyramid in twenty years.
Greek pyramids of Hellinikon and Ligourio dated by thermoluminescence -- this link was contributed by a visitor of the SC forum on Delphi. The technique used to date these goes beyond novel to "unheard of". Since the pyramids probably have been exposed to the sky during most or all their existence, my question is, why not use cosmic ray exposure dating? These pyramids don't have a solid connection with classic Greece, or Mycenaean times, so their dating is not of much value to the reconstructed chronology of V.
Pyramids of Tenerife, Canary Islands
Synchronisms
Lisa Liel, author of The Exodus and Ancient Egyptian Records, offers another candidate for the Pharaoh of the Oppression and for his successor the Pharaoh of the Exodus. She bases her conclusion on the lengths of the reigns given for these pharaohs named in the Midrash, and finds only one match for these reigns in Egyptian records, those of the final two pharaohs of the 6th Dynasty.
This is relevant to this topic because the Israelites may have built pyramids -- but in the Fayyum, during the Middle Kingdom, not at Giza during the Old Kingdom.
She relocates the events to the end of the Old Kingdom, rather than to the end of the Middle Kingdom as Velikovsky wrote, or to the middle of the New Kingdom as guessed in the conventional chronology. She accepts the bogus conventional version of the New Kingdom, which explains her having to place the Exodus too early by Biblical (or any other) standards. This likewise explains some of her other writings (also available at the site) which defend the conventional view of the so-called Hittites and the nation of Mitanni. Her alternating use and ill-informed criticism of Velikovsky's Ages In Chaos reconstruction of ancient history reduce the overall value of what must have been a great deal of work.
See also the Courville and Velikovsky pages.
Revised Chronology of Egypt -- this is by Wayne Mitchell and presents a digested version of David Rohl's work A Test of Time / Pharaohs and Kings. Rohl purports to identify the residence of the person known in the Bible as Joseph, a statue of the man, and the tomb where he was laid to rest. He also purports to identify the probable pharaohs involved in the events of the Book of Exodus, which Rohl writes took place at the end of the Middle Kingdom. While strengthening Velikovsky's Ages In Chaos series, Rohl appears to poorly understand what Velikovsky actually wrote. As I see it, there are two possible explanations -- first, that Rohl is mostly ignorant of the contents of the volumes of Ages In Chaos, or second, that he is well aware that his work confirms Velikovsky and figures that distancing himself from such a controversial thinker is the safest approach (since so few critics of Velikovsky appear to have read Velikovsky).
National Geographic map of Egypt
Zahi Hawass goes under the Sphinx? -- there's an old broadcast that used to be available on VHS, featuring a trembling Omar Sharif, Mark Lehner, Zahi Hawass, etc. Mark Lehner very hospitably gives a tour of the catacombs under the Giza plateau, the pit under the Great Pyramid, the Vyse inscription, and some old plunderer tunnels dug into the Sphinx. While interesting and one of a kind, there's not much to see. And Campbell's Tomb is ignored.
Graham Hancock
the official Graham Hancock website with photographs by his wife, Santha Faiia.
See also the bookshop page.
Why Graham Hancock Sucks -- "...I'd say Graham Hancock belongs to that group of people taking advantage of this millenium uncertainty thing, along with psychics and New Age cultists. Hancock is doing his part by trying to convince us that many great ancient monuments (the pyramids, the ruins of Macchu Picchu, etc.) are the products of a lost civilization from Atlantis. They have locked all of their secret knowledge into these buildings so that it can later be uncovered by a halfwit news correspondent with no credentials and presented to the world...."
While I'm not particularly a supporter of Hancock, he can at least point to being gainfully employed, while the author of the hatchet job ("cultists" "halfwit" "no credentials" "sucks") can't spell millennium right (or "macchu picchu", but Machu Picchu is tough without a dictionary) and therefore probably couldn't cut it as a journalist. The attacker has nothing to offer by way of evidence for the contrary position. Thanks go to my friend Val for pointing out this page. I've not checked the link since March 2000, so it may be long gone. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Miscellany
Descendants of Ramses II -- dead link, but it contained an amusing, hopefully tongue-in-cheek genealogy of the person posting it, leading back through various European nobility, to Anatolia, to New Kingdom Egypt, to Biblical characters including, ultimately, Adam and Eve.
Lost Secrets of the Sphinx
Sphinx -- Guardian of the Treasure of the Gods
Ancient Egyptians in the Grand Canyon? This story by David Hatcher Childress may need further investigation to either blow the lid off a century old coverup, or to find out there is nothing to it. This page quotes the 1909 Phoenix Gazette story about supposed discoveries in a forbidden area of Grand Canyon National Park. Note that these supposed Egyptian remains in the Grand Canyon are described in an article dated April 5. This is not to just reject it out of hand, but if the paper was weekly back then, the 5th may have been as close to April Fools' Day as they could get in the month of April.
Childress' article contains some controversial claims. Although I was interested in the old newspaper article he describes, the allegations of intellectual property rights as practiced as a matter of policy by the Smithsonian was also interesting. Somewhere along the line, probably also in DHC's many books, there was an account of a storage building which the Smithsonian uses for off-limits artifacts, and claims that the presence of asbestos makes it impossible to grant access to anyone.
The use of Egyptian names is probably not surprising given the terrain in the area. The southwestern US resembles Egypt. The use of unusual names is not uncommon anywhere in the United States. Michigan has a hamlet called "Ganges" which was named after the river in India, but no one knows why it was so named. About twenty years ago some people founded an ashram there. Better known is Hell Michigan which is located in the southeast part of the state and used to do business selling one foot square plots to people who wanted to be able to say they owned land in Hell. Paradise Michigan is on Lake Superior.
Still, the idea of an area within the Grand Canyon that is off limits is sufficiently tantalizing that it could be worth a look. It's also a little odd that only the off limits area has these Egyptian place names. Here are some more URLs, last checked approximately July 2001:
See also the Ancient Navigation and Epigraphy pages.
The Second Sphinx Theory by Bassam El Shammaa -- the author offers no evidence for the theory apart from a sort of rambling, repetitive formula that sounds like the chants and rituals of the ancient Egyptians themselves. If the Egyptians built two sphinx statues at Giza, there would be some trace of the second, vanished one. Instead there is not even a site for it, since the Sphinx was apparently carved (by the Egyptians and by water and wind erosions) out of the plateau. On either side of the Sphinx there is a plateau that reaches "shoulder" level. The Inventory stele, a later copy of an account from Khufu's time, indicates merely the existence of the one known Sphinx a generation earlier than its alleged builder, Khephren.
Thutmosis' stele between the paws of the Sphinx shows two facing images. The story on the stele relates how Thutmosis fell asleep in the shadow of the face of the statue. He dreamed that the Sphinx spoke, promising him the crown of Egypt if he would clear the sand away. Thutmosis was a prince but not in line for the throne. He took it (usurped it?) and cleared the sand away from the Sphinx. Oddly enough, Thutmosis' stele also recounts that the Sphinx stands on a platform, below which is a door.
What this double image of the Sphinx shows is Thutmosis giving offerings to the Sphinx before and then after he took the throne. This is an old concept known as building a supporting myth. Egypt has been conquered and ruled by foreigners many times (the Hyksos, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Libyans, the Ethiopians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Muslims, the Turks, the British, the French...), and during ancient times the rulers usually took the trappings of the double crown as well as giving some sort of recognition to the old Egyptian gods. It is not too much to believe that a native ruler would do the same.
Moses as Hermes Trismegistus, by Zenon Kepler -- Moses is identified as Hermes Trismegistus, Thoth, Akhenaten... IOW, there's not much new here. Should be fascinating for people who are more interested in modern symbolism applied anachronistically to the ancient world.
Historical Deception: The Untold Story of Ancient Egypt, by Moustafa Gadalla is a particularly hateful little volume by a self-styled Independent Egyptologist. Among other things, Gadalla claims that the Hebrew leader Moses was actually the heretic Akhenaton (Freud and others claimed that Moses was merely inspired by Akhenaton, while Velikovsky discovered that Moses lived centuries before Akhenaton, and for that matter pointed out that Akhenaton was merely worshipping the Sun and ignoring the other idols of Egyptian religion, rather than being a monotheist). Gadalla also claims that the Biblical King David was the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmosis III.
This book is such a collection of misinterpretations, prejudices, religious and ethnic bigotry, and ignorance of history that it can't be taken seriously. Gadalla seems to have a pretty low opinion of most non-Egyptians, insists on an antiquity for Egyptian culture on the order of at least 24,000 years, and makes claims about the Egyptian source for a wide variety of things, including ballet (I'm not making this up). The blurb on the back, presumably by Gadalla, includes "[t]his book will be your permanent reference to the truth about ancient Egypt, as opposed to the biblical [sic] and rationalist fabricated images."
Oddly enough, Gadalla came to the conclusion that many "events occurred four to five centuries earlier than what the Old Testament would have us believe." [p 186] The reality of the situation is that the Egyptian chronology was concocted from no evidence during the 19th century, and that this error accounts for the discontinuity of the entire ancient world in the conventional model. The Old Testament is the only continuous ancient account that remotely resembles history and by the time Ramses the Great was born the heyday of the Kingdom of David was long gone. Gadalla claims that Amenhotep III was the Biblical Solomon, which by the way makes him the father of Moses since Amenhotep IV was the original name for Akhenaton. Gadalla identifies the Biblical patriarch Joseph as the Egyptian vizier Yuya (grandfather of an Egyptian queen), the Egyptian prince Semenkhkare (brother of Tutankhamen) as the brother of Akhenaton, etcetera. By this system the Old Testament becomes a loop with Moses living after David and Solomon.
I was bemused that Gadalla based his reconstruction of the life and disappearance of Akhenaton on the details and some supposition about Moses, then used the reconstruction to show the parallels between the two men. This is not the method of a legitimate scholar. There is very little of use in this book, and I don't recommend that anyone buy it, but it could be of interest to those who find it available in local libraries. The hypothesis about great antiquity based on the ancient water erosion of the Sphinx that originated with West and Schoch is nicely summarized in the book, but without any attribution. [pp 121-128]
For a more entertaining overview of the Amarna period try The Murder of Tutankhamen by Bob Brier (1998). For a better look at the Amarna period of Egypt, read Ages in Chaos or Oedipus and Akhenaton by Immanuel Velikovsky (1960). For one thing, both contain a better explanation for the physical appearance of Akhenaton as portrayed in Egyptian art than Gadalla's -- "[t]here is nothing realistic about his famous exaggerated colossi... [t]his is not realism as much as a form of high caricature." [p 336]
return to homepage
Copyright 1998-2002 all rights reserved. Last updated Tuesday, January 22, 2002.
