Of all th e monuments of Egypt, th e pyramids have always provoked
th e keenest interes t and wildest theories . Generation s of
Egyptologists hav e stolidl y declare d tha t th e pyramid s wer e
built fo r th e mos t trivia l an d misconceive d motives , tha t their
dimensions an d proportion s ar e accidents, an d tha t thei r bulk
is n o mor e tha n a n instanc e o f pharaoni c egomania . Ye t the
layman remains unconvinced, and anything smacking of mystery
continue s t o excit e attention .
Ancient source s reporte d tha t th e pyramids , an d th e Grea t
Pyramid of Cheops in particular , were buil t to embody in their
dimensions an d proportions a wealth of astronomical, mathe matical,
geographi c an d geodesi c data . (Geodesy : th e branch
of applie d mathematic s whic h determine s th e figure s an d
areas o f th e earth' s surface. )
One o f Napoleon' s scholars , EdmeFrançoi
s Jomard , wa s
particularly intrigue d b y thi s theory . Bu t while certain o f his
calculations seeme d t o bea r ou t th e idea , other s di d no t jibe.
Accurate measurin g of th e pyrami d overall wa s the n impossi ble
due to the sand and debris around the base, and — as is generally
th e cas e i n scienc e — thos e dat a tha t supporte d
prevailing orthodo x theor y wer e retained , whil e thos e tha t
were embarrassin g wer e ignored .
In England , however , Jomard' s idea s wer e take n u p b y an
amateur astronomer , mathematicia n an d religiou s zealot ,
John Taylor , wh o foun d man y astonishin g coincidence s
between th e measurement s an d proportion s o f th e pyramids
and th e then but recently verified modern measurement s of the
earth. He could not attribute this to chance. As a fundamentalist,
however , Taylo r believe d i n th e litera l trut h o f th e Bible,
and could not bring himself to attribute such knowledge to the
ancient Egyptians — a race much abused in the Old Testament
(though Mose s learne d hi s wisdom at the court of the pharaoh
by Biblica l account) . Give n hi s fundamentalism , Taylo r had
no choice bu t t o call in direct divine intervention, and the pseudoscience
o f 'pyramidology ' wa s born .
Though Taylor initiall y foun d few devotees , hi s idea s came
before th e AstronomerRoya
l o f Scotland , Charle s Piazz i
Smyth. Smyt h se t out for Egypt t o confirm Taylor's thesis . His
measurements on sit e wer e b y fa r th e mos t precise to date, and
again confirme d th e hypothesi s tha t th e ancien t Egyptian s
had precis e advance d astronomical , mathematica l an d geo desic
knowledge , whic h wa s embodie d i n a magnificen t sys tem
o f relate d weight s an d measures , whos e remnant s wer e
still i n wide us e th e world over in th e form of bushels, gallons,
acres an d othe r measures .
But, a s avid a fundamentalis t as Taylor, Piazz i Smyth could
not credi t th e Egyptian s wit h hig h learning ; he , too , ha d
recourse t o divinity . Shortl y thereafter , anothe r religiou s
enthusiast, Rober t Menzies , propose d tha t th e passag e system
of th e Grea t Pyrami d wa s intende d a s a syste m o f prophecy
from whic h th e dat e o f th e Secon d Coming might be deduced.
And a t tha t point , pyramidolog y becam e a zealot' s play ground.
Curiou s a s i t may now seem , th e AngloIsraelite
the ory
(tha t th e Britis h wer e descended from on e of the los t tribes
of Israel ) wa s on e upo n whic h man y educated Victorians , not otherwise beref t o f sense , spen t muc h tim e an d thought .
Pyramidology wa s a hotl y conteste d intellectua l issue .
But in Smyth' s ostensibly scientifi c context, th e theor y stood
or fel l upo n th e validit y o f th e 'pyrami d inch' , a measur e
invented b y Smyth and manifested in no other Egyptian monument
o r metri c device . Whe n thi s wa s disprove d b y th e stil l
more exacting measurements of W. M. Flinders Petrie, the theory
wa s undermined , thoug h enthusiast s continue d t o rea d
more an d mor e detaile d prophecie s int o th e king' s chamber .
With th e adven t o f th e spac e age, spiritua l descendant s of the
pyramidologists (Eric h Vo n Daniki n i s th e leas t credible ,
hence mos t successfu l o f these ) continu e t o propos e ne w and
fantastic use s fo r th e pyramids: the y served as landing pads for
space ship s o r were protective baffle s fo r ancient scientist s tap ping
th e energ y o f th e Va n Alle n belt .
Needless t o say, thes e theorie s are backed by no concrete evidence.
Bu t if lack of evidence constitutes th e criterion fo r judging
the crankiness of any given theory , then ther e is one theory
crankier tha n al l th e fantasisin g o f th e pyramidologist s and
the UFO freaks . This is th e theory tha t the great pyramids were
built a s tombs , an d a s tomb s only.
In suppor t o f thi s theor y ther e i s n o direc t o r indirec t evi dence
whatsoever. Whil e the numerous small pyramids of Middle
an d Lat e Kingdo m Egyp t wer e clearl y an d obviousl y
designed a s tombs , an d hav e disclose d a wealt h o f mummies
and coffins , th e eigh t 'great ' pyramid s assigne d t o th e Third
and Fourt h Dynastie s o f th e Ol d Kingdo m hav e reveale d no
sign of either coffin o r mummy. Th e construction of these vast
edifices differ s i n ever y way from th e later tombs. The curious,
slanting passageway s coul d no t possibl y b e les s conduciv e to
the elaborat e funerar y ritual s fo r which Egypt was famed . The
stark interiors of the 'tom b chambers' stan d in vivid contrast to
the lavishl y inscribe d an d carve d chamber s o f late r Egypt . In
addition, th e eigh t grea t pyramid s ar e believe d t o hav e been
built over the reigns of three pharaohs (though thi s is disputed
due t o th e lac k of direct evidence attributing these pyramids to
specific pharaohs). I n an y case , i t work s out at mor e tha n one
great pyrami d pe r pharaoh , invitin g speculatio n o f multiple
burials fo r a king .
Egyptologists, an d followin g the m historians , refus e t o
entertain th e possibl e validit y o f alternative s t o th e 'tomb s
only' theory , no matter how well supported . What, then , i s the
appeal o f thi s undocumented , unlikel y and indefensible hypothesis?
I believ e i t i s tha t i t i s prosaic and trivial . I n Egyptology, as
in s o man y moder n disciplines , al l question s ar e believe d to
have 'rational ' answers . I f no evidence is available to provide a
rational answer, th e customary solution i s to trivialise the mystery.
I n man y academi c circle s trivialit y i s a synonym fo r rea son.
Given thi s passio n fo r trivialisation , th e unsubstantiate d
claims o f th e pyramidologist s ha d seriou s repercussions .
Throughout th e developmen t o f Egyptology , fro m Jomard
on, qualified , seriou s an d san e scholar s hav e challenge d th e
prevailing preconception s an d th e widesprea d determination
to regar d th e Egyptian s a s primitives. Biot , Lockye r and Proctor,
professiona l astronomers , pu t forward solid theories attesting
t o a hig h orde r o f Egyptia n astronomica l knowledge .
Lockyer — wh o wa s deride d fo r proposin g tha t Stoneheng e
was buil t a s a n astronomica l instrumen t — showe d how th e
pyramids might have served practically t o gather precise astronomical
data .
In man y othe r fields , specialist s also attested t o high Egyp tian
knowledge. Bu t the sensational claims of Smyth, Menzies,
and thei r successor s stol e th e spotlight , an d allowe d orthodox
Egyptologists t o ta r an y an d al l dissentin g theorie s wit h th e
brush o f pyramidology. Th e provocative speculations of Lockyer
an d other s wer e ignored .
Meanwhile, Darwin' s theor y o f evolutio n ha d bee n
published.
When Egyptolog y began , mos t scholars , a s dutifu l son s of
the Enlightenment , wer e atheists , materialist s o r onl y nomi nally
religious . Mos t were convinced the y represente d an apogee
o f civilisation . Bu t th e proces s wa s no t ye t regarde d a s
inevitable an d automatic ; th e mos t renowned intellect s o f the
time did not yet regard themselve s as advanced apes. I t was not
yet heretica l t o sugges t tha t ancien t peopl e ha d actuall y
known something .
But as th e theory of evolution became dogma, it became (and
remains) impossibl e t o attribut e exac t knowledg e t o ancien t
cultures withou t underminin g th e fait h i n progress . Thus ,
lumped i n wit h th e pyramidologists, incapabl e o f supporting
sound insigh t wit h ironcla d proof , th e man y earl y Egyptologists
wh o wer e me n o f breadt h an d visio n graduall y los t
ground. I n retrospect , thi s ca n b e see n a s inevitable .
Without exception , thes e me n wer e workin g i n th e dark .
The mystica l and metaphysical verities that nourish a true civilisation
were , i n Europe , obscured , ossifie d o r forgotte n
(although Fenelon , Goethe , Fechne r and a few alchemists had
kept thei r traditio n alive) . Th e crud e scienc e o f th e da y sup ported
th e depressin g billiardbal
l univers e postulate d b y
Laplace.
It was possible then, as it is now, to walk into Chartres Cathedral
an d t o b e struc k with th e unconquerabl e conviction that,
in some way, thi s i s what human lif e on eart h i s about. Bu t to
explain that conviction , t o pu t i t int o communicabl e terms ,
was impossibl e on e hundre d year s ago . T o 'prove ' i t i s stil l
impossible.
Though corrupt and decadent, th e 19t h century civilisations
of th e Orien t wer e flourishin g compare d t o Europe . Bu t they
were accessible t o Westerners only through the garbled prolixities
o f Blavatsky , o r i n book s b y Wester n scholar s imbue d
with progressiv e notion s o f th e Enlightenmen t an d therefor e
blind to the inner meaning of the words they pretended to communicate.
What i s no w readil y availabl e t o ever y studen t wa s the n
unavailable to the most erudite. I t was impossible to study first
hand th e authenti c works of Zen masters , Sufis , yogis , t o read
the Bard o Thodol , th e Ta o T e Ching , th e Philokalia , th e
Christian mystics, alchemists, Cabbalists and Gnostics; to compare
thes e t o th e myth s o f Egypt ; an d t o recognise above and
beyond thei r difference s th e bon d tha t unite s al l thes e tradi tions.
At th e same time , i t was impossibl e fo r th e majorit y o f men
to recognis e th e tru e natur e o f 'progress' . Artists , wh o i n the
West especially function a s th e sensitiv e nerve ends of society,
were les s ofte n fooled . Goethe , Blake , Kierkegaard , Nietzsche ,
Melville, Schopenhauer , Novalis , Dostoyevsk y and a few oth ers
saw progress for what it was; bu t these represented a powerless
minority . Today , t o believ e i n 'progress ' a ma n mus t be
insane. A hundre d year s ag o insensitivit y sufficed .
Seen i n historica l perspective , Egyptolog y i s a n inevitable
product o f it s time . Lookin g back, i t become s obvious tha t no
single schola r o r grou p o f scholar s coul d hav e discerne d th e
true Egyp t on e hundre d year s ago . Fo r that , th e advances of
modern science were first necessary — as well as the simultaneous
availabilit y o f th e mystica l doctrine s o f th e Eas t an d the
mind capable of applying both thes e kinds of knowledge to the
ruins o f Egypt .
Looking back, i t i s impossibl e no t t o admire th e Herculean
labours o f the Egyptologist s — thei r painstaking excavations,
the reconstruction of ruins, th e collection, collation and classification
o f data , th e giganti c labou r of deciphering th e hiero glyphs
and th e scrupulous attention t o detail i n every field and on every level. At the same time, i t is difficult to understand the
manner i n whic h thes e scholar s came t o many of their conclusions,
given the nature of the material at their disposal. A statement
made b y Ludwi g Borchardt , on e of the most industrious
and prolific of Egyptologists, captures th e situation in a single
sentence. I n 1922 , havin g proved tha t th e pyramid s o f Egypt
were oriented to th e cardinal point s and sited and levelled with
a precisio n tha t coul d no t b e surpasse d today , Borchard t concluded
tha t Egyptia n scienc e at th e tim e of the building of the
pyramids wa s stil l i n it s infancy .