Team Atlantis
The Orion Pyramid Theory

by Michael Arbuthnot

XI. THE CONTROVERSY

The most controversial issue concerning The Orion Pyramid Theory is the severe and tragic implications it has to dynastic assignments and canonized dating. Along with the sequential ambiguities, the Orion connection also presents a number of questions concerning construction motivations and Egyptian technologies. Under the premises of The Orion Pyramid Theory, the ancient Egyptians had far greater astronomical and geodetic knowledge than we give them credit.

Despite such controversial claims, dogmatic dating cannot refute The Orion Pyramid Theory. When the theory is eventually verified by academic Egyptology, it will be the element of precedence. Dating will have to conform to its repercussions.

Skeptics might find it interesting that the only absolute dating analysis that has been applied to the Giza pyramids was done by Dr. Mark Lehner. Lehner is a professor at Chicago University's Oriental Institute and one of today's top Egyptological authorities. Working under the auspices of the Edgar Cayce Foundation at the time, Lehner found traces of burnt wood and ash within the gypsum mortar mixture used to seal the core stones of the Great Pyramid. It was Lehner's belief that this was material residue from campfires built by the pyramid's masons.

In 1986 Lehner conducted a series of carbon-tests on this organic material. Surprisingly enough, the tests revealed dates that ran from 3809 BC to 2869 BC; averaging 400 to 450 years older than orthodox Egyptologists expected. In the PBS Nova special (1997), Lehner admitted the testing averaged 374 years earlier than the 4th Dynasty (www.pbs.org). Even this conservative estimate places the construction of the Giza necropolis roughly 225 years after Menes unified upper and lower Egypt (which would have been an extraordinary accomplishment for such a young civilization). Point being, a definite 4th Dynasty assignment for the Giza pyramids seems presumptuous in this context.

The dates Lehner arrived at, however, do not contradict any of the assertions made in this explication. In fact, the Orion Pyramid Theory is assisted by these absolute dates. If the Giza pyramids can be shown to have been built prior to the 3rd Dynasty, the sequential ambiguities at Zawyat Al Aryan are solved. If the Giza pyramids can be shown to have been built during, or prior to, the 1st Dynasty, the sequential ambiguities at both Zawyat Al Aryan and Abu Ruwash are solved.

One must ask, why do Lehner's absolute dates continue to be ignored in favor of less-substantial and circumstantial evidence? It seems the flaws of competitive Egyptology are lurking once again. The scientific process is being stifled.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13