Author of the Month

Against an Egyptian Origin of the Giza Pyramids (cont.)
By Nick Kollerstrom, PhD

People complain there is a lack of evidence for an earlier culture that could have build the Giza pyramids. (34) Permit me to suggest that Graham Hancock's argument about the Piri Reis map remains relevant: that this world-map derives from an original which dates back to a time before Antarctica was covered in ice, i.e. at the latest c.4000 BC; and that the team of Charles Hapgood were able to analyse this map to ascertain the location on earth from where it was projected; which they found to be Aswan, in upper Egypt. (35) Quite a lot of discerning authors have viewed the Great Pyramid as somehow representing the Northern Hemisphere (scaled by the third power of sixty, to its circumference and polar radius (36)) and this could well be relevant to whoever was able to construct that world map, millennia ago, from a site not very far away.

Were the limestone blocks used at Giza made and not quarried? New research on their material texture suggests this. Pyramid casing stones have been found to be light in density and to contain numerous trapped air bubbles, unlike the quarry samples which are uniformly dense. Microscopic examination indicates that some of the silicon-containing granules were either 'amorphous or nanocrystalline, which is consistent with a relatively rapid precipitation reaction. The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology is simply astounding.' (37) But, did the Egyptians have such technology? If the stones were made and not mined, this eliminates much historical conjecture – most of it, in fact. It could be time for a fresh start.


  • 1. My article
  • 2. Petrie cites the mean ascending passage angle as 26°,2'30”: Flinders Petrie, Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883,2003, p.61; for a different view whereby only 3rd pyramid was Egyptian, see Alan Alford, The Phoenix Solution, 1998, p.86.
  • 3. John Legon does not accept this argument, viewing the Ascending passage slope as a 75:33 sekhed value, which seems unlikely.
  • 4. For a contrary view see:
  • 5. Legon's ground-plan His ground-plan used the same Royal Cubit as had Flinders Petrie in 1883, of 20.620” or 0.52375 metres.
  • 6. Robin Cook, The Horizon of Khufu 1997, p.30; his diagram is here used. Cook accepted Bauval's Orion-belt model of the three pyramids (but, Legon did not:, weaving the two stories together.
  • 7. Ralph Ellis, Thoth, Architect of the Universe, 1997, p.21-2.
  • 8. Cook, ref (6), pp.142,179.
  • 9. Zecharia Sitchin, The Earth Chronicles Expeditions, 2007 Ch. 14.
  • 10. Legon's ground-plan features in How Mathematics Happened by Prof Peter Rudman, 2007 NY, p183. For a brief comment by Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert of the Legon/Cook geometries, see The Orion Mystery 1994, pp.53-55.
  • 11. So too has Alford, ref.(2), pp.59-61, whereby the 2nd pyramid had to be present before the Sphinx was built.
  • 12. See (or: Ian Lawton & Chris Ogilvie-Herald, Giza the Truth 2000, p.109-10.). Fingerprints, 2nd edition 2001, Intro pp.xxxiv-xxxvii; Appendix (transcript of a 1999 Horizon TV program) p.627: 'I absolutely do accept that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu.'
  • 13. See one of the roughly-daubed cartouches at For the suspicious nature of inscriptions in the 'Arbuthnot' chamber, see Alford ref (2), p.124.
  • 14. Alan Alford, (but Hancock was alone in that upper chamber, West wasn't there). N.B., original builders' lines horizontal and vertical exist in these 'relieving chambers', as Petrie wrote: 'Some of the lines in this chamber, drawn in red on the South wall blocks of granite, are over some of the plastering, but under other parts of the plaster. These lines, therefore, were drawn during the building, and while the plaster was being laid down. A vertical line on a granite block was 'apparently to show the builders where to place it,' and another stone was marked by a '3 cubits' line. (p.92)
  • 15. Howard Vyse, Operations carried out at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, Vol. 1, 1840, opp. p.284.
  • 16. Comment by John Perring, one of Vyse's team: Alford, Phoenix Solution, p.120; Sitchin, The Stairway to Heaven, 1980 p.276.
  • 17. Sitchin, Journeys to the Mythical Past, 2007, 28-31.
  • 18. Sitchin, Journeys, p.21; Stairway, p.277.
  • 19. Mark Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, 1997, p.60
  • 20. For an update on this argument, see Alford, Phoenix Solution, pp.113-125. For the central issue, see For a mistaken view IMO, see
  • 21. Alford ref. 2, p.60.
  • 22. Sitchin ref. (14), p.8.
  • 23 Petrie, ref (2): 'The whole of the pyramid, inside and outside, is so far less accurate than the two larger…' p. 204; 'granite just covered one quarter of the height of the pyramid,' p.113.
  • 24 Petrie ref (2) p.119, para 87; base length, p.111 para 80.
  • 25 Petrie p.96, discussed in Ralph Ellis, K2, 2001, Appendix, p.105.
  • 26. Petrie, p.98: chamber length 27 RCs, Ralph Ellis estimated 270 RCs for height (limestone), plus 4 RCs for its granite-base height: K2, p.135.
  • 27. Alford, p71.
  • 28. See Petrie's diagram comparing these two pyramids:
  • 29. Petrie, pp.43, 80: 5776.0” height and 412.4” chamber length.
  • 30 Fingerprints, 2001 2nd Edition, Appendix with TV interview of 1999 text, p.627.
  • 31. A 'sekhed' ratio is the reciprocal of a tangent.
  • 32. Hancock, ref. (12).
  • 33 Hancock, Fingerprints 1995, p.430.
  • 34. For a different view, see Michael Baigent, Ancient Traces, 1998, pp.174-8.
  • 35. Fingerprints, p.463.
  • 36. Earth's polar radius scaled in proportion to GP height, to 99.8% (Fingerprints, p.460): base 60 maths was Sumerian-Babylonian, not Egyptian.
  • 37. 'Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt' Jnl of the American Ceramic Society, 2006, 89:
PreviousPage 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8

Site design by Amazing Internet Ltd, maintenance by Synchronicity. G+. Site privacy policy. Contact us.

Dedicated Servers and Cloud Servers by Gigenet. Invert Colour Scheme / Default