|
EVIDENCE OF PYRAMID RESTORATION
by Michael Arbuthnot As published in For Seekers Only Volume 1.2, June, 1997: Since the emergence of modern academic Egyptology nearly 200 years ago, many have questioned the orthodox claim that the Sphinx and 75% of the pyramids were built during the 4th Dynasty (2575 BC - 2465 BC). This debate was recently rekindled when John Anthony West and Dr. Robert Schoch of Boston University published their research on the erosive patterns found on the Sphinx and its enclosure (the cavity in which the Sphinx sits). Their geological analysis unveiled strong evidence that the Sphinx was not built during the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, but in fact, much earlier. The undulating patterns, they say, are indicative of precipitation-based erosion. This contradicts the orthodox view which holds that the erosion on the Sphinx is due to wind-weathering. West and Schoch maintain that the last time Egypt hosted such rainfall was near the end of the last ice age. If the theory stands, it may place the Sphinx's original construction date as much or more than 12,500 years ago. West's and Schoch's theory is supported by a number of other interesting facts. Orthodox Egyptologists believe there was a minimum of 3 restorations done to the Sphinx; all post-4th Dynasty. These restorations, they say, account for the exterior blocks that wrap the rump and encase the paws. According to these Egyptologists, there have been no attempts to restore the Sphinx's back, neck, or head. They also believe that three-hundred years lapsed between the Sphinx's original construction (circa 2500 BC) and the first attempt at restoration (circa 2200 BC). This 300 year period comprises roughly three feet of erosion which is apparent across on the Sphinx's back and body. However, this dogma is problematic. At an estimated erosion rate of one foot per one-hundred years, the Sphinx would have eroded away nearly five-hundred years ago. There is an obvious incongruity present. The Sphinx's disproportionately small head to body ratio also suggests a restoration. West believes the Sphinx's enclosure filled with sand, leaving the original head exposed. Then, possibly millennia later, the bust was carved as a face and headdress; all but destroying the heavily eroded, perhaps lion's head and mane. Only later would the body have been excavated to reveal what we know as the Sphinx. Consequently, the Sphinx has a small and defined human head atop a heavily eroded lion's body. One must ask, is it possible that the all-encompassing 4th Dynasty was just a period of massive restoration? Similarly, if the Sphinx was restored several times, is it possible that some of the many pyramids supposedly built during the 4th Dynasty are restorations as well? On December 5th, 1996, Team Atlantis and three members of our support team approached the remains at Zawyat Al Aryan. The Zawyat Al Aryan pyramid was once a glorious step-pyramid. A step-pyramid is a pyramidal structure that plateaus for several feet mid-ascent before continuing its slope. The edifice present at Zawyat Al Aryan is known by Egyptologists as the "layer pyramid" and is believed to have been built during the 3rd Dynasty by Pharaoh Kha`ba; thus pre-dating the Giza pyramids. A vessel inscribed with the name Kha`ba found nearby is the sole basis for this dynastic assignment. (Atlas of Ancient Egypt, by John Baines & Jaromir Malek, 1993) We located the Zawyat Al Aryan pyramid via the astro-archaeological technique (described in the Orion Pyramid Theory). This pyramid is the topographical representation of the star Betelgeuse. Its mere location implies that it was part of the masterplan to replicate the Orion constellation in and around Giza (see FOR SEEKERS ONLY, Vol. 1.1). As one of the Orion pyramids, one must necessarily assume its original construction date is in the vicinity of its other celestial representatives. Yet, the pyramid at Zawyat Al Aryan is constructed in a step fashion and is composed of very manageable, brick-like building stones. This construction technique and average block size is quite different from the other Orion pyramids, which consist of megalithic blocks in the standard pyramidal form. Since a coincidental celestial-terrestrial correlation is highly unlikely, why then is a step-pyramid located upon one of the Orion sites? Could this pyramid be a reconstruction of an earlier ruin? Surrounding the Zawyat Al Aryan remains are rolling sand dunes. Within these dunes, as well as beneath the present structure, one finds heavily-weathered, megalithic building stones. Although almost indistinguishable from the natural landscape and severely deteriorated, the block divisions and dimensions are still apparent. Unlike the dark brown blocks of the Zawyat Al Aryan step-pyramid, these gigantic blocks are a white limestone. They bare an uncanny resemblance to the core stones used at Giza and at Abu Ruwash; the Orion pyramids to the north. The heavily-eroded state of these megalithic blocks is an indication of their ancient placement. In contrasts to the less-eroded stones of the step-pyramid, it is clear the blocks have far greater antiquity. In addition to their relative erosion, the block dimensions and composition also make it apparent their constructive industry is different from that of the present pyramid. A different constructive industry is a telltale sign of different constructive periods. The industry they do resemble, however, is that of the other Orion pyramids. In this light, the megalithic blocks appear to mark the vestiges of a much larger, and much more ancient compound. This compound being contemporaneous with the other Orion pyramids. This conclusion, however, is problematic if one believes the Orion pyramids (including those at Giza and Abu Ruwash) were built during the 4th Dynasty. In other words, how can a pyramid exhibiting the 3rd Dynasty's (earlier) constructive industry lie atop remains which resemble the 4th Dynasty's (later) constructive industry? Relative dating deems this impossible. Either the step-pyramid at Zawyat Al Aryan was built after the 4th Dynasty, or the ancient blocks of the Orion pyramids are far older than anyone imagined. Why is the step-pyramid built upon the Orion site? Perhaps the builders of the step-pyramid used the ancient ruins for a utilitarian purpose. The remains may have provided a strong building foundation or a strategic vantage point. Or perhaps they used the remains for symbolic reasons. The ruins may have been significant to their belief system and/or history. Neither of these hypotheses are mutually exclusive. Regardless of intent, the step-pyramid present at Zawyat Al Aryan is an example of pyramidal restoration and/or reconstruction. In the same vein as the Sphinx, the date for the original structure at Zawyat Al Aryan is ambiguous and open to debate. I was blasted by the desert winds as we crested the red rock-strewn mesa. This was the place called Abu Ruwash and the site of the pyramidal representation of the star Rigel. It was December 4th, 1996, and we were approaching the ruins of an ancient structure, lonely and desolate on a wind-swept hill. The pyramid at Abu Ruwash is believed to be a 4th Dynasty construction built by the Pharaoh Ra`djedef. Although Ra`djedef was the son and successor of the famed Pharaoh Khufu, his reign lasted but 8 short years (2528 BC - 2520 BC). It was Khafre, Khufu's other son who became the prominent Pharaoh that is recognized as the builder of the second largest pyramid at Giza. Ra`djedef was given credit for the partial construction of Abu Ruwash based on two pieces of relatively weak evidence. First, a large but damaged granite bust of the pharaoh was found just north of the pyramid. Second, the megalithic limestone blocks used in the pyramid are generally associated with those used during the 4th Dynasty. Since Ra`djedef was a 4th Dynasty pharaoh, and a broken sculpture in his image was found near the pyramid site, the case was closed. It is this kind of fragile, circumstantial evidence that has been used by orthodox Egyptologists to assign dynastic responsibility. The historical lack of excavation at Abu Ruwash however, deems any dynastic designation presumptuous and premature. According to orthodox Egyptology, the pyramid at Abu Ruwash was never completed. This explains why Ra`djedef's pyramid lies in ruin, while his brother's pyramid at Giza stands hardly scathed. This does not explain, however, why the powerful Pharaoh Khafre, at the height of Egyptian civilization, would allow his brother's pyramid to remain unfinished. The completion of this relatively small pyramid would have been easy in comparison to the construction of the grandiose structure on the Giza plateau. It is also interesting to note that in the early 1900's, several 1st Dynasty artifacts were uncovered at Abu Ruwash. Several of these objects were inscribed with the names Aha and Den; both of whom were 1st Dynasty Pharaohs. As a result of this and other finds, orthodox Egyptologists believe that the Abu Ruwash site had been an administration center from pre-dynastic times forward. (Atlas of Ancient Egypt, by John Baines & Jaromir Malek, 1993) Once again, we are faced with the amazing celestial-terrestrial corollary coincidence. Could the construction of an administration center atop an isolated hill just coincidentally fall on the topographical location for the star Rigel? It is highly unlikely. (see FOR SEEKERS ONLY, Vol. 1.1) The coincidence would be statistically inconceivable. Therefore, it is our belief the form must follow the function. Whoever first constructed on the Abu Ruwash site knew of its celestial counterpart. Could the ancient pyramid have already been at Abu Ruwash during the 1st Dynasty? We established that the original builders at this location likely knew of its celestial connection. Additionally, a reoccurring theme at all the visible Orion sites are structures or remains built of the unique megalithic limestone blocks. It would make sense that the original builders, knowing well of the Orion connection, built at Abu Ruwash with these distinctive blocks. This might explain why the pre-dynastic Egyptians selected this particular location for their administration center. There was already a structure in place. Remember, blocks of an identical industry at Zawyat Al Aryan pre-date the 3rd Dynasty. This fact, and the weak evidence used to credit Ra`djedef with the pyramid's construction, make the possibility tantalizingly real; perhaps even statistically more likely than a theory relying on pure coincidence. Upon arrival, we discovered the descending corridor of the pyramid had recently been excavated. Clearing the corridor had exposed the floor stones after thousands of years of erosive protection. This serendipitous preservation revealed an unpolluted view of the original masonry. Running in various angles along the corridor's floor were what appeared to be aged seams filled with a translucent glue or sealant. Tiny in size and difficult to see, these seams ran in perfectly straight lines intersecting one another at various points along the corridor. A plethora of these precise, lazer-like divisions lined the ancient hall. Although the lines did resemble quartz veins, it was unlikely they were. They were unnaturally straight, abundant, and reeking of order. Rarely, if ever, do minerals crystallize in such precise and exact divisions. There was mineral crystallization present at the site, but nothing akin to what was found within the seams. As it was extremely unlikely the lines were mineral veins, we concluded they must have been the original block divisions. We speculated that perhaps all the blocks had once been sealed with this amber-like substance, but had since dilapidated; leaving only the protected blocks with the original adhesive intact. This would explain why the strange lines were found only within the protected confines of the collapsed passage. The exposed core blocks at Abu Ruwash, as opposed to the corridor stones, were fixed with a different adhesive substance. They were secured with gypsum mortar. Gypsum mortar is the standard adhesive present in Giza and elsewhere. Could the gypsum mortar work on the external blocks be the result of an attempt to rebuild an ancient structure using the antiquated, megalithic blocks still present? There was evidence to indicate so. Atop the ruins of Abu Ruwash were isolated core blocks. These blocks were strikingly similar to the blocks buried at Zawyat Al Aryan. No longer within the pyramidal structure, these limestone soldiers allowed one to examine them 360 degrees around. One of these core blocks was comprised of four components stones grossly mortared together with the gypsum cement. Upon two opposing sides of the block we found what we believed to be authentic glyphic art. The artwork was primarily intact. The stone surface upon which the petroglyphs were painted was in much the same condition as when it had originally been stained. Otherwise, erosion would have destroyed the art. The surface condition was irregular and weathered, unlike the well-hewn stones seen in the pyramid's corridor and in the interior core blocks at Giza. This indicated that the glyphs had been painted significantly after the stones had originally been cut and weathered. Also lending to this belief was the fact that the petroglyphs were on opposing sides of the slab. This would denote that they were painted after the blocks were no longer within the core structure, but had become exposed to the elements. Even more intriguing was that the gypsum mortar securing the four blocks had overlapped the art in certain places, indicating the mortar was an even later addition. If the pyramid at Abu Ruwash was never completed, however, one might assert that the blocks had always been atop the incomplete foundation. Therefore, no collapse nor great lapse of time would need to have occurred between the pyramid's construction and the painting of the petroglyphs. This does not explain, however, the apparent erosion prior to the painting of the glyphs. Nor does it explain why typical 4th Dynasty gypsum mortar overlaps the petroglyphs. One might argue that the blocks have been quarried in their present, rough-hewn state. This would alleviate the necessity for heavy erosion prior to the painting of the petroglyphs. Yet, the main slab was comprised of four smaller blocks that had been affixed. The weathering was continuous across all four component stones. It was unlikely their weathering preceded their initial adhesion. As the wind whipped our jackets, we pondered if the petroglyphs were merely quarry marks added shortly before the gypsum mortar? It was not likely. One of the glyphs crossed a block division. In other words, the art encompassed more than one of the blocks. Quarry marks were placed on individual stones at the quarries themselves. It is unlikely these blocks were mortared together at the quarry. Nor does it seem likely that the quarry marks would have been placed on the already secured blocks at the pyramid site. To date, we have yet to encounter a quarry signature of the petroglyphs' likeness. To explain this sequential enigma, we propose the following possibility: The limestone blocks of an ancient pyramid had originally been quarried and secured with the amber-like sealant, similar to the preserved stones in the pyramid's corridor. After thousands of years of erosion, the pyramid partially collapsed. Many of the unprotected blocks separated and/or exhibited heavy weathering within the block divisions. Some point thereafter, nomadic hunter/gatherers encountered the blocks and painted petroglyphs on them. Sometime after that, the ancient Egyptians established an administration center on the aged compound. Then, during the 4th Dynasty, Ra`djedef attempted to reconstruct the pyramid using gypsum mortar to fill weathered seams and/or secure separated blocks. Subsequently, the gypsum mortar records Ra`djedef's incomplete restoration attempt. Although an extraordinary explanation, we are not alone in hypothesizing pyramidal restoration. Two respected independent Egyptologists, Graham Hancock and John Anthony West, have proposed that the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre (the two largest pyramids at Giza) might have been built in several epochal stages. West points out that the engineering technique on the first few levels of the Khafre pyramid is significantly different from the technique used on the upper levels. The two distinct building methods indicate different constructive industries, thus different constructive periods. Hancock has hypothesized that the Great Pyramid of Khufu was built atop an earlier, existing foundation. This foundation, he argues, is still evident via remote sensing equipment deep in the bowels of the Great Pyramid. He speculates that Khufu built atop this foundation, or simply restored the structure already in place. The Restoration Theory is further supported by research being done by Steven Maler of the Kinnaman Foundation. Conducting research in Colorado, Maler claims the Inventory Stele (an ancient stone tablet engraved with hieroglyphs) in the Cairo Museum implies that Khufu, the supposed builder of the Great Pyramid, merely did restorative work. 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 today's top egyptological authority. 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 226 years after Menes unified upper and lower Egypt. This would have been an extraordinary accomplishment for such a young civilization. There is indisputable evidence that the step-pyramid at Zawyat Al Aryan, believed to have been built during the 3rd Dynasty, is a restoration of an earlier ruin. Additionally, the chance celestial-terrestrial correlations at Zawyat Al Aryan and Abu Ruwash are statistically near impossible. Due to both pyramids' topographical locations and constructive industries, it makes much sense to conclude there was a specific intention in mind. That being a terrestrial representation of the Orion constellation. This conclusion raises many problematic issues for orthodox Egyptologists concerning dynastic assignments. There is also strong evidence that the Orion pyramids at Giza are restorations of earlier structures. Some restorations could have been done during 4th Dynasty, and/or earlier. One must remember that according to the only absolute dating yet conducted, the gypsum mortar present in several Orion pyramids likely pre-dates the 4th Dynasty. Could the 4th Dynasty be a retreat for pressured but indecisive Egyptologists? It is not unfeasible. The sequential ambiguities present at both Zawyat Al Aryan and Abu Ruwash also merit further research. This includes evidence that the gypsum mortar at Abu Ruwash (and possibly elsewhere) post-dates the original construction of the pyramid. Additionally, the remains at Zawyat Al Aryan seem to exhibit incorrect relative stratification of constructive industries. Yet, even this compelling evidence is fractional to the many, many sequential ambiguities strewn about the Egyptian desert and throughout orthodox Egyptology. Strangely enough, these oddities have been grossly overlooked and/or ignored for decades, if not centuries, by scholars and academics. Now that the Orion connection is confirmed, these uncertainties can be ignored no longer. To ultimately validate the Restoration Theory, forensic evidence of block antiquity is necessary. We will attempt to present this evidence in forthcoming articles. Michael A. Arbuthnot |