The Giza Oracle: A New Theory Concerning the Design of the Pyramids of Giza (cont.)
By © (2006) Scott Creighton
The fact that the structures of the Giza plateau are  when compared to other temples and burial chambers in Egypt  quite devoid of inscriptions, seems almost as though they have been purposefully left in this state perhaps in order that they can `communicate' to us in a much more basic and universal language  the language of mathematics. There are no inscriptions of any great number or significance inside or outside any pyramid here; nothing that could distract from or blur the `message'. One possibility for this glaring lack of inscriptions at Giza is perhaps because it had been ordained in the ancient design that the site should not carry any such `distractions'. When one views the Giza plateau from any distance, what one immediately recognises is the geometry and symmetry of its structures  in other words, the language of mathematics. By considering the plateau in this way it seems natural that the primary context of the Giza monuments is mathematical.
And, of course, there are clear benefits for the Designers of the plan to have chosen the language of mathematics to communicate any `message' since only in this language could they ensure the essence of what they are trying to say would be preserved  no matter how long the passage of time. Mathematics is not ethnocentric and transcends all times and cultures  past, present and future. Certainly the level of mathematical understanding will differ across the ages and within different cultures, for example, the understanding of abstract numbers such as Pi and Phi. Quite simply, however, to any society reasonably advanced in mathematics and astronomy, this discipline would be the `language' of choice to preserve and `transmit' important information far into the future where meaning  if written as text or in some form of hieroglyph  might otherwise be misinterpreted or corrupted. In short, the meaning in any text can become lost in translation  mathematics remains pure.
This is not to say, of course, that the ancient Designers would have used complex or convoluted mathematical formula to encode their information since this would be totally counterproductive. If the key requirement is  first and foremost  to transmit information in such a way that it can be easily understood, then it stands to reason that it should not require a mathematical genius to detect and decode it.
And so, in this regard, the use of such obvious numbers would be critical to signalling a `message'. Unlike purely arbitrary or random numbers, significant mathematical numbers would stand out like a beacon and stimulate the curiosity of other advanced cultures that happened to recognise them to investigate further. Such a mathematical beacon would be akin to our own civilisation receiving a radio signal containing a long, repetitive sequence of Prime Numbers from deep space as in the popular Hollywood movie, Contact. The first clue (or mathematical beacon) indicating that there is a possible mathematical significance to the Giza monuments seems straightforward enough and comes from the most fundamental and obvious mathematical function of all, Pi (3.14...).
Figure 1  The Great Giza Circle  The `Secondary Pyramids' Hint at Pi (3.14) Map Source, Lehner  `The Complete Pyramids'
As can be seen in figure 1, the eight socalled `secondary pyramids' (which includes the recently discovered remains of the Cult pyramid of Khufu) hint at the mathematical function, Pi (3.14). In turn, Pi indicates a circle. It seems reasonable and logical to assume that this `Great Giza Circle' should be drawn outwards from the centre of the middle pyramid (KhafRa) until all pyramids on the plateau are enclosed within it. Notice, however, that by enclosing all the pyramids precisely within the Great Giza Circle, the Great Sphinx remains fractionally outside it. There is a very specific reason for this arrangement, which we will return to later.
Placing Pi so clearly within the design acts almost like a beacon from the Designers that the context of their `blueprint' is fundamentally mathematical in nature. However, this raises an important question  does this then show that the Ancient Egyptians themselves understood the mathematical concept of Pi? Opinions vary on this question with some scholars believing they did and others claiming otherwise. Of those who believe the Ancient Egyptians did indeed understand Pi, they have no evidence that tells us how the Ancient Egyptians might have noted it e.g. 22/7, 3 and 1/7 or 3.14. With no supporting evidence, the fact that we can so easily observe 314 in the design is, in all likelihood, a matter of simple coincidence.
Or  is it perhaps possible that the observance of a simple 314 in the Giza structures is indeed a beacon from a civilisation that perhaps existed long before dynastic Ancient Egypt  a `lost civilisation' that did indeed understand Pi in the form 314? A civilisation that perhaps created the ancient codex received at Saqqara in the mythical `First Time'? Speculation, of course, and we will never know this for sure. What can be said for certain, however, is that over the ages knowledge can be gained and lost again and it is likely that this has occurred many times in the development of civilisation. The fact remains, however, 314 is easily observed in the secondary pyramids of Giza and may  or may not  be the result of simple coincidence.
The first part of The Giza Oracle attempts to demonstrate a simple mathematical solution to the ageold puzzle of the socalled `misaligned' Pyramid of MenkauRa, the smallest of the 3 main pyramids at Giza. Bauval and Gilbert speculate that this correlates with the `misaligned' star of Orion's Belt with the Nile mirroring the Milky Way. The hypothesis presented by Bauval and Gilbert does not, however, impinge on the hypothesis being presented in The Giza Oracle, which places the Giza `masterplan' as having been conceived in the predynastic era before any such religions were practiced.
