(Most of this article uses materials published in the work Ecos de la Atlántida.)

A few months ago a friend loaned me a book called Recomposing the Past. Chronicles of Fantasy Archeology (see bibliography, below), written by French archaeologist Jean Pierre Adam. This man, born in 1937, is a relevant professional in the service of the French CNRS, with a solid knowledge of ancient architecture and prehistory. For this reason alone it is worth reading his book carefully (which I have done); although I think that his criticism of the arguments of heterodoxy could have been done with a little more style and respect (and a little less sarcasm, flamboyant in bad taste). His work, a true "hammer of heretics" in the subject of Ancient History, has given rise to this article, not with polemic spirit, but with the intention of giving a fair reply to assertions said by this author that seem somewhat unfounded to me.

Jean Pierre Adam is - I don't doubt it - an honest and well-informed person, as well as a great professional, but I think he is carried away by enthusiasm when he writes: “My pen runs, dear friends, for your greatest pleasure (pious desire) and to gnash the teeth of charlatans, with the ambitious aim of introducing a lantern into the dark den of ignorance, crouching in wait for that light ... Sensitive to this request, I have drafted ... this manuscript ”(page 16).

 I must be one of those "charlatans" who defend theories not "illuminated" by the "light" that Jean Pierre Adam tries to shed. Thus, he writes: “Archaeomaniacs, palmists, radio esthetists, parapsychologists, Seventh to Seventy-day Adventists, mediums, astrologers, spiritists, treasure hunters, shoddy homeopaths, initiates (great), initiates (small), telepaths, vampires, occultists, perceivers (extrasensory only), Bermuda Triangle fans, necromantics, neighborhood lamas, Atlantists, Luciferians, metal detector holders, hermeticists, whitewashed sepulchers, Odin's disciples, Uri Geller's thirsty, ufologists, co-psychophiles , ash thieves, nervous seekers of the Great Elders, prophets of ET, provincial bonzes, dowsing, convulsive pyramid fans, ectoplasms from three to a quarter ... to you and all those I forget, thank you, because I have written this book, and please don't forgive me if I decidedly prefer Albert Einstein to Nostradamus ”(page 223). 

I have highlighted the two categories to which I believe I belong, in relation to the long line of hidden or esoteric matters against which the author abhors, and to which he intends to bring his light and infallibility. I am referring, of course, to atlantology and pyramidomania. On these matters he writes the following: “Sometimes the Atlanteans and the 'tradition' of their teachings represent a decisive resource, but the most effective remain, in all cases, the extraterrestrials ... The creative imagination recedes in favor of supernormal powers or unknown machines; archeology no longer has anything to look for since the solution is beyond it ”(page 133).

Regarding the matter that brings us here, the antiquity of the Great Pyramid of Giza, Jean Pierre Adam assumes as a given  fact that it was built by Cheops: “King Cheops, according to a custom imposed by the considerable time that required the construction of his tomb, probably arranged for the work to begin shortly after his accession to the throne ” (page 158). My purpose is, using the own arguments of this author, renowned archaeologist and architect, to show that - at least in this aspect, I do not pronounce on the rest - he was wrong. And I will do it with sufficiently solid evidence to make it difficult to deny my position (the Great Pyramid was not built in the time of Cheops), with or without recourse to sarcasm or easy joke.

 So, let's get started ... 

The Great Pyramid. Arguments in favor of the official hypothesis

There are basically three reasons to attribute the building of the pyramid to Khufu. The first is based on the History of Herodotus, which in Book II, passage 124, describes its construction. He pays special attention to the road (which required ten years of work), but also to the underground chambers (unknown today), into which a channel from the Nile would flow. He affirms that the pyramid was built in twenty years . He also describes how the large stones, or ashlars, were lifted through the use of machines (cranes?), From tier to tier (more on that below). What credibility can be given to his testimony? Relative, taking into account that he turns Cheops into a pharaoh after Ramses, whom he calls Rampsinito, when the Ramsesids belong to the XIX dynasty (and Cheops to the IV dynasty). On the other hand, credibility is given to his account of the construction of the pyramids, but not to his millennial dating of the Egyptian High Priests, whom he calls pyromis. This is calculated from the number of statues at the Karnak temple in Thebes: 341 statues, which is 11,340 years (each of these pyromis would represent a human generation of 33.3 years). Why in one case (the Attribution to Cheops of the Great Pyramid) does conventional archaeological wisdom defend him, and in another (the 341 generations of High Priests) is he rejected?

The second reason for the attribution of the Great Pyramid to Cheops is the discovery by Colonel Howard Vyse, in 1837, of graffiti made with red ink in the highest parts of the discharge chambers, in one of the which (the fifth, called Campbell's) appears the cartouche of the pharaoh Khufu ("Khnum protects me"; better known as Cheops), although written backwards and with obvious singularities. (The cartridge with the name of Khufu found by Vyse does not match that of this pharaoh in the Old Kingdom. In this period he was depicted as a horned viper between two chickens facing left, while in the discharge chamber was seen a horned viper between what looks like two ibis looking to the right. Egyptologists justify this by saying that the cartridge in the discharge chamber is written in italics, and therefore is reversed. Hieratic used to be written from right to left In contrast to the hieroglyphs. In the discharge chambers, numerous pictograms - not only the cartouche of Cheops - are reversed. Although, all must be said, the cartouche of Cheops does not seem written in hieratic, but in a simplified, but figurative way.) Hence, according to not a few authors, the cartridge of the pharaoh Khufu, in the Great Pyramid, could be a forgery, and it would not be conclusive about the authorship of Cheops.

Third reason. André Pochan, in his book The Enigma of the Great Pyramid (page 61) exposes a theory that, according to him, would demonstrate the responsibility of Cheops in the construction of the pyramid. He speaks of the 28 notches, 0.52 meters long (one cubit), 0.16 meters wide, and 0.21 meters deep (they are separated by 1.74 meters), located on both sides of the Great Gallery: Such niches appear to have been hammered, so their contents are presumed to have been destroyed. According to Pochan, this number of carvings coincides with the number of pharaohs from Menes to Cheops. Thus, the Grand Gallery would actually be a "gallery of the ancestors." (This author attributes to Cheops an antiquity that exceeds the official one by more than 2,000 years. Taking account in Manetho -who would have called him Sufis, son of Soris-, he considers that he would have reigned between 4829 and 4766 BC.) Pochan's hypothesis would be corroborated in part by Maqrizi, who writes: “On this terrace [the Great Gallery] a corridor opened…; the vault is made of stone, and there you can find recumbent or standing paintings and statues, and many other things of which the meaning is not known… ” (André Pochan, page 61).

There are other testimonies from the past that mention Cheops. For example, in the stela of Amenhotep II (1428-1397 BC), found in the temple that this monarch had on the north side of the Sphinx, line 25 contains the following reference: “He [Tuthmosis IV] would stop at the place resting place of Horus-on-the-Horizon [the Sphinx] and would spend the time leading them [their horses] around, observing the excellence of the resting place of the kings Khufu and Khafra [their pyramids?] ”.

Is the pyramid of Cheops the resting place of this pharaoh? And, especially, was he its builder? A stela, called "Of the inventory" (dated to the XXVI dynasty, known as the "saite" period), in which an inventory is made of the statues of the small temple of Isis in Giza (hence its name), was found by Auguste Mariette in the mid-1850s in the ruins of that temple, near the Great Pyramid (today it is in the Cairo Museum). This has raised some questions. It is said to have been erected by Pharaoh Cheops (figurative author). Literally, it is written: "Long live the Horus-Medyed, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, endowed with life! He found the temple of Isis, Lady of the Pyramids, next to the temple of Hurun [Sphinx], in the northwest of the temple of Osiris, lord of Rosetau [Giza necropolis]. He built his pyramid next to the temple of this goddess and built the pyramid of the royal daughter Henutsen, next to this temple. 

From my point of view, the question is to know what the "temple of Isis" actually represents. If it is the Great Pyramid, the official dating is certainly wrong. If it is not, and the pyramid that Khufu (Cheops) builds (next to the temple of Isis) is the Great Pyramid, the conventional interpretation is correct. To get an idea of the importance of this text, we have to look at a map of the Giza area. In the "inventory stele" it is said that the temple of Isis (lady of the pyramids) is in the "northwest of the temple of Osiris". The key is to know what the "temple of Osiris" is. Certainly, the pyramid of Cheops (temple of Isis?) Is located to the exact Northwest with respect to the true North, having the Sphinx as a reference point (whose head and arms point to the East). Thus, the "temple of Osiris" could be one of the two temples in front of the Sphinx: either the so-called “temple of the Sphinx”, or the “lower temple of Khafre”. Both are dated to the time of the Sphinx, and were built simultaneously (with the stones extracted from the ditches that surround it), following the same style (cyclopean, or megalithic, without inscriptions and with smooth ashlars). The pyramid of Cheops, as well as that of his daughter (his wife, according to others), could be one of the three located on the east face of the pyramid of Cheops, called "secondary pyramids". It is possible that the temple of Hurun ( of Horus) is the temple of the Sphinx, and that of Osiris (father of Horus) is the Lower of Khafre, both situated in front of the Sphinx. If so, everything would make sense, as long as the expression "temple of Isis (the Great Pyramid?), next to the temple of Hurun (the Sphinx, temple of the Sphinx?)" is not too strict, since obviously this he latter is located at a certain distance from the Great Pyramid (about 500 meters).

But this, perhaps, is too much speculation. The supposed evidence that the Great Pyramid (the temple of Isis?) already existed in the time of Cheops, which would have been limited to making a pyramid of small dimensions next to it (on the east face), is still a hypothesis subjected to conjecture. The authorship of Cheops continues to be a subject for debate.

What is left of Khufu, apart from the memory of him? Physically, only a 7.5 centimeter tall ivory statuette, found at Abydos (today in room 47 of the Cairo Museum). Also, according to Zahi Hawass (in Alberto Siliotti, page 88), clay seals of Cheops and Khafre have been found in the immediate vicinity. Graffiti was found in the quarries of Mokattam, with messages such as "boat crew", or "Vigorous crew" (Peter Tompkins, page 220). And little else (except for the graffiti on the discharge chambers mentioned above; apart from a few more in the Giza boat pits). That is all the archaeological evidence we have of Khufu: the mighty king who would have built the most impressive building in antiquity (and still today), and who has - paradoxically - the tiniest and most botched statue known.

Statuette of Keops

Cartridge alluding to Khufu in the fifth discharge chamber of the Great Pyramid

An interesting finding

Recently, a lost tobacco box has been found, which contained some fragments of cedar wood. It was accompanied by two more relics: a dolerite ball and a copper hook, which are currently in the British Museum. The cigar box, however, disappeared more than 70 years ago. These three objects, known as the “Dixon relics”, in reference to the British engineer Waynman Dixon, were found by him and a friend (the doctor James Grant) in one of the “ventilation channels” of the so-called Queen's Chamber. , in the year 1872. Supposedly, these pieces of wood would correspond to a “ruler”, the other fragments of which would still be kept in the ventilation channel, as revealed by an exploration with a remote-controlled robot, carried out in 1993.

The story is as follows. A few months ago, the Egyptian archaeologist Abeer Eladany, when taking an inventory of the Asian collection at the University of Aberdeen, in Scotland, found a cigar box with the old flag of her country, with some small pieces of cedar wood inside. The three objects (the dolerite ball, the hook and the cigar box) were transported by James Grant (Dixon's companion) to Great Britain, and after his death (in 1895) the stone hook and the ball would be deposited in the University of Aberdeen. As for the wooden pieces, they would be donated by her daughter to that same institution in 1946. However, these fragments were never classified, losing their trace. A few months ago, as we have seen, they were found again, hidden - in their little brass box - in the collection of Asian relics, not Egyptian. 

What is remarkable about the event is its modern radiocarbon dating. The definitive analysis of the piece places it in the period between 3341 and 3094 BC. More than half a millennium before the reign of Cheops (2580-2560 BC). What answer has “conventional wisdom” given to this disparity between the dating of the finding and the period of the reign of Cheops, supposed builder of the pyramid? Basically has put forward three reasons to justify it: 1) The cedar ruler had been made from a long-lived tree, between 500 and 800 years old; 2) As wood was scarce in Egypt, it was stored, recycled or cared for for years; and 3) This object, together with the hook and the dolerite ball, was precious, and was deliberately buried by the builders, as relics of the past.

It is quite true that a cedar can live more than 2,000 years, that wood in Egypt was scarce (despite having Lebanon, the place of origin of cedars, a short distance away), and that such an object could be a relic of the past . Not surprisingly, there - in the Queen's Chamber - the archaeologist Flinders Pétrie found black stones (of basalt), which perhaps were pieces of a statue (Pochan, page 53). But is it not easier to think that this ruler -if it really was-, as well as the hook and the dolerite ball, could have been "forgotten" at the time of the pyramid's construction, or during the reforms that Cheops could have performed on an existing monument (the Great Pyramid)? Subsequent disturbances would have caused the destruction of most of the legacy of Cheops, including the statues located in the Great Gallery (see above).

In this regard, Pochan (page 308) considers that the Great Pyramid suffered a sabotage, after the death of Cheops, by his attack on the priestly caste. The latter would have looted and destroyed the interior of the tomb (including the serdab, located in the Queen's Chamber, where his black basalt statue would be), trying to make disappear the legacy of what would have been a heretical king, according to Manetho, Herodotus and Diodorus. The aforementioned author raises another date: the revolution at the end of the VI Dynasty, during which the Isiac rites would have begun (page 225). Later, the pyramid would have been restored by Ramses II.

The subsequent modifications after Cheops, according to Pochan (pages 206 and 207), would be the following: disappearance of the handrail of the ascending staircase; disappearance of the serdab; disappearance of the Ka statue; disappearance of the sarcophagus lid; disappearance of the three rakes in the antechamber; disappearance of the statues of the Great Gallery, etc. The Leyden papyrus says in this regard: "What the pyramid hid is now empty" (Pochan, page 226). (According to Peter Tompkins, Cheops could have finished the pyramid from the last discharge chamber. The lower part would be an astronomical observatory. Hence - presumably - the markings on the discharge chamber.)

Be that as it may, I think it is more probable and logical to think that the cedar ruler found in the Queen's Chamber of the Great Pyramid is contemporary with the time the pyramid was built, restored, or visited (one of the the multiple visits and / or reforms that it has undergone over time). Next I will present several arguments that show - in my opinion - that the Great Pyramid is much earlier than Khufu. And for this, as I said above, I will use the arguments presented by Jean Pierre Adam in his work Recomposing the past.

An iron out of place

Jean Pierre Adam writes: “Iron was equally well known in Egypt since the third millennium [before Christ]; it was essentially meteoric iron, which is found in very small amounts in the rare celestial bursts that reach the surface of the globe, but easier to discover on desert soil than in the vegetation of humid countries. However, this rare metal was only used for jewelry and small ornaments. The Egyptians called it 'copper fallen from the sky' ... The first iron objects of important dimensions found in Egypt are of Hittite import [in the time of the 18th dynasty, 1,200 years after the generation of Cheops], and their price was such that its use was reserved solely for the pharaoh. Thus a dagger with an iron blade and a gilt bronze handle was found in the funerary treasure of Tutankhamun (died around 1350 BC); and it is known from the Tell-el-Amarna letters that such objects were sent as gifts to the king of Egypt by the sovereigns of Asia Minor [the Hittites] ” (page 126).

In short, the first iron objects found in Egypt were made from meteorites (among them the Tutamkamon dagger). So how is it possible that a cast iron plate was found under the cladding of the Great Pyramid? This is actually the case, which would give the first (non-meteoric) cast iron of Egyptian origin an age of at least 5,000 years, slightly less than 2,000 years older than is assumed today (according to the dating of the pieces of cedar wood to which I alluded above). 

In my book (and of Diego Méndez) Ecos de la Atlántida I write the following: “When he was exploring the Great Pyramid in 1837, Howard Vyse ordained one of his assistants, J.R. Hill, to blow up the outer end of the southern 'air shaft' of the King's Chamber. After removing some rubble, he found an iron plate. It was about a foot long by about ten wide, and about three millimeters thick. It didn't look like meteoric iron, but melted iron in the usual way. Upon examination in 1881, Flinders Pétrie found fossilized protozoa in the oxide, indicating that it had been buried for a long time (therefore it was not a forgery) in a limestone block containing fossils. New ones analysis were made in 1989 (conducted by Dr MP Jones, from the Department of Mineral Resources at Imperial College London, and by Sayed El Gayer, Lecturer from the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining at the University of Suez, Egypt), which found that it was not meteoric iron, as its nickel content was too low. Apparently, this plate had been melted at a temperature above 1,000 degrees Celsius; and from what it seems, there were traces of gold on its surface, which suggests that it had been plated with gold, either by electrolysis, or by hot-dip galvanizing. Everything seems to indicate that this object was incorporated into the pyramid at the time of its construction ” (page 426).

In this regard, Flinders Pétrie wrote: “Although doubts have been expressed about the authenticity of the piece, merely because of its rarity, there are concrete data that support it: it is observed in the oxide that covers it the trace of a Nummulites that shows that it has remained buried for centuries next to a block of nummulitic limestone, making it certainly very old. Therefore, there can be no reasonable doubt that it is an authentic piece ”. The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh. First edition. Field and Tuer, 1883, pages 212 and 213. Cited by Miquel Pérez-Sánchez Pla.

Max Toth, in Las profecías de la pirámide, explains the rigourous certification of this finding (Las profecías de la pirámide, página 164; José Luis Espejo: Ecos de la Atlántida, página 499): “Colonel Howard Vyse, who was investigating the Great Pyramid at the time, sent the following certificate to the British Museum: 'I hereby certify that the piece of iron which I found near the (outer) mouth of the air channel of the southern part of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, on May 26, 1837, I took it out of an inner joint, after having exploded the two outer rows of the present surface of the pyramid, and that there was no joint or opening connected with the aforementioned joint, through which it would have been possible to place this piece of iron after the original construction of the pyramid. I also showed the exact location to Mr. Perring on June 24th. Signed, J. R. Hill '. It continues: 'To Mr. Hill's previous certificate, I can add that since I observed the place at the beginning of the explosions, two rows of stones were dismantled, and that if the piece of iron was found in the joint that Mr. Hill showed me, the same one that was covered by a larger stone, preserved in part, it is impossible that it had been placed in that place after the construction of the pyramid. Signed: J. S. Perring, C. E. '. As we saw in Chapter 7, Professor Flinders Petrie verified that the iron tablet contained a formation of numulite in its oxidized part, which corresponds to the numulite limestone that covered it ”.

Thus, the finding of said cast iron plate (not meteoric) in the Great Pyramid denies that it could have been built in the time of Cheops, whose time was still 1,200 years away from the invention of non-meteoric iron. Only a civilization prior to that of the ancient Egyptians in history could have manufactured such an object. And this does not seem to have been deposited there in modern times, as indicated by the presence of numulite residues on its surface.

Pi, Fi, the meter, and the squaring of the cercle

Jean Pierre Adam writes: “It is necessary to know that, of all the civilizations of Antiquity, from China to Rome, Egypt has certainly been the most indifferent to research in general, and especially to mathematics ... Egypt, in all its history, has transmitted only seven documents dealing with the subject, of which only one, the Rhind papyrus, is of some importance. This is how we know that Egypt was satisfied with a number Pi = 3, like many other peoples, and that it never managed to overcome the multiplication table by two. A single exception appears in the form of calculating the surface of the circle, using the elevation to the square of the 8/9 of the diameter, which would give a value of Pi = 3.16, but nothing proves that the author of the exercise has thought never to get a value of Pi, which also would have been unable to write ”(page 168).

 In my book Ecos de la Atlántida we find the following reasoning: “The number Pi (Π) [3,14159] is the door of Knowledge (hence it is represented with its Greek sign, which has the shape of a door). It is the fundamental key of Geometry, and at the same time of Gnosis. What relationship does it have with the Great Pyramid? Next I am about to show that this enormous construction represents another method of preserving memory. This 'stone book' is not only a 'memorial' of a past event (which it is), but also the receptacle of Sacred Knowledge (Gnosis) ... We have the proof in the basic measure of the entire set of the Great Pyramid: the royal cubit of the pyramid of Cheops. This, which measures 0.5236 meters (later we will check how we can obtain this figure from the study of the geometry of the monument), is the result of dividing Π by 6 (the result is 0.523598). Later on we will verify that Pi is used by the builders of the pyramid to obtain, from a given inclination of its faces (51 degrees 51 minutes), the 'squaring of the circle', having the perimeter of its four faces as the base of the square , and the height as the radius of the circle. But from the royal cubit (0.5236) we also obtain the so-called 'golden number': Fi (Φ). This is evident if we perform the following operation: Φ2 / 5 (the result is 0.5236). This sacred number (Φ) is also found in the geometry of the pyramid, as we will see in due course ”(page 382).

The Fi number, also called the "golden ratio," or "golden number," is expressed by the number 1.618033. In geometric terms it constitutes "the existing relationship in the equation 'AB is to AC as AC is to BC.', Being C an interior point of the segment that joins A and B". This proportion, which during the 16th century was known in Italy as Divine Proportion, is also related to another irrational number well known to geometers and builders: the number Pi (see above). Although the Fi number was discovered by the mathematician Leonardo de Pisa, better known as Fibonacci (1175-1250), it was presumably used since ancient times (in this case, it is implicit in the proportions of the Great Pyramid).

Not only that. Those who built the Great Pyramid knew the measurement today called the standard meter: the ten millionth part of the distance that separates the Pole from the terrestrial Equator, according to the definition of the French Academy of Sciences (from the late 18th century). This is easy to demonstrate.: If we draw a line one meter long, which makes the diameter of a circle, its circumference will measure 3.14159 meters. Well, an arc equivalent to 1/6 of said circumference (marked by a hexagon inscribed in it) measures exactly 0.5236 meters; again, the royal cubit of the Great Pyramid. What does that mean, besides the obvious fact that the builders of this monument knew the exact dimensions of the Earth (the geodetic meter), and also such complex numbers (and at the same elementary) such as the number Pi and the number Fi?

Obtaining the royal cubit from the meter as a standard measure

André Pochan (page 148) accepts the value given by Flinders Pétrie of the royal cubit of the pyramid of Cheops: “From the twelve measurements made on the walls of the chamber, Pétrie obtains the value of the cubit, that is 0.52367 meters, value which must be considered as the best and closest to the cubit that was used during the IV Dynasty ”. And what values in cubits do we find in the Great Pyramid? They are numerous: the width of the Great Gallery (including the side benches) is 4 cr (royal cubits); the length of the King's Chamber is 20 cr; the width of the King's Chamber is 10 cr; the height of the sarcophagus of the King's Chamber is 2 cr; the dimensions of the Queen's Chamber are: length (11 cr), width (10 cr), height (9 cr), top (12 cr); plinth of the pyramid (1 cr). And let us especially note the base of a face (440 cr) and the height of the pyramid (280 cr, to which we must add a real elbow of the socket). It so happens that if we add the length of the base (440 cr) and the diameter of the circle that has the height as a radius (280 cr x 2 = 560 cr) we obtain a length of 1,000 royal cubits. This is no accident, of course. And it gives us an idea that the builders of the Great Pyramid knew the decimal number base.

Now we have to ask ourselves. Is there evidence that the builders of the Great Pyramid knew the meter? The answer is yes. To give an example, the King's Chamber of the pyramid of Cheops is exactly 43 meters high above the base; the diagonal of its main wall measures 12 meters, and its volume is 321 m. However, the King's Chamber is calculated in royal cubits, which comply with the so-called "isiac triangle" (or Pythagoras, with the proportions 3/4/5): the diagonal of its smaller wall (15 cr), the length (20 cr) and the interior diagonal (25 cr) form a triangle of proportions 15/20/25 that, when dividing its lengths by 5, turns out to be the triangle 3/4/5 (Miquel Pérez-Sánchez Pla).

Miquel Pérez-Sánchez Pla writes: “Among the particularities that the monument already presented at the beginning there are four especially important: an approximation to the squaring of the circle; the presence of the number Fi - or golden number -, equal to 1.6180 and considered the number of beauty; its orientation with the four cardinal points; and the proportion between the height of the monument and the distance to the sun ”. Next we will deal with the first three.

Pi and Fi are clearly recognizable in the pyramid of Cheops. To obtain these numbers we will use the measurements made by Flinders Pétrie, which are usually employed as reference data: 440 royal cubits as the side of the base of the pyramid, and 280 royal cubits as its height. As regards to Pi, it is enough to calculate the perimeter of its base (1,760 royal cubits) and compare it with the result of multiplying the height (280 royal cubits, equivalent to the radius) by 2Π (2 x 3.14159 = 6, 28318). This gives us 1,759.3 royal cubits. Ultimately, we obtain the number Pi by dividing the perimeter of the base of the pyramid of Cheops by twice its height. 

 

Obtaining the number Pi from the measurements of the Great Pyramid. Here the approximation to the "squaring of the circle" is fulfilled in a geometric way (source: Peter Tompkins)

Obtaining arithmecally the number Pi

Here we find two "coincidences". First, the result of Pi (3.14286) coincides with the product of the division between 22 and 7 (which is at the base of all pyramid calculations, as Flinders Pétrie indicates). Second, the base of the pyramid is a square whose perimeter is equal to the circumference of a circle whose radius is the height of the pyramid. In short, in the Great Pyramid, the so-called “squaring of the circle” is fulfilled - to a great extent. In order for this result to be obtained, the constructors had to know the number Pi with fairly considerable precision, which contradicts our view of Egyptian mathematics (expressed above by Jean Pierre Adam).

(Flinders Pétrie makes it quite clear. Considered that the Egyptians calculated the number Pi as the result of dividing 22 by 7. Doing the corresponding calculation [3.142857 x 2 x 280], the result is 1,759.99, which coincides with the area of the base of the pyramid [1760 royal cubits]. André Pochan, page 148.)

As regards the number Fi, its calculation is very simple, given the proportions of the Great Pyramid: we have to draw the apothem of one of its faces, which divides its base in half (440: 2 = 220 royal cubits). If the value of the base of a half-face is 1 (220 royal cubits), the apothem is given by Fi (220 x 1.618033 = 355.97 royal cubits), and the height takes on the root value of Fi (220 x 1.27 = 279.84 royal cubits). In short, we obtain a good approximation of Fi (1.61818) dividing the apothem (356 royal cubits) by the half face of the base (220 royal cubits).

Obtaining the Fi number from the measurements of the Great Pyramid (source: Peter Tompkins)

Obtaining arithmecally the number Fi

How can we obtain these results? (The number Pi, the number Fi, and the squaring of the circle). For this, it is necessary that the inclination of the pyramid is exactly 51 degrees and 51 minutes. Only in this way can the “square of the circle” be achieved (in which the ratio of its height to the perimeter of its base is equal to the ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference). But also the royal cubit must have a very precise length: exactly 0.5236 cm. And how did the builders of the Great Pyramid achieve this measure? They did so by applying a simple rule, which presupposes knowledge of the geodetic meter: if we draw a line one meter long, which makes the diameter of a circle, the circumference will measure 3.14159 meters (equal to the number Pi). Well, an arc equivalent to 1/6 of said circumference (marked by a hexagon inscribed in it) measures exactly 0.5236 meters: it is the real cubit of the Great Pyramid. In this way, the real cubit of the pyramid of Cheops is the result of the knowledge: 1) of the meter and 2) of the number Pi (again).

 All this suggests that the builders of the Great Pyramid were familiar with the shape and size of the Earth, since the meter (which is the basis for the measurement of the Egyptian royal cubit) is the ten-millionth part of a meridian arc between the pole and the equator (see above). An indication of this "sublime science" is in the perfect orientation with respect to true North, and its incredible precision: the base is uniform, with a deviation of only 2.1 cm; the mean deviation of the sides from the cardinal points is an arc of 3 minutes 6 seconds; and the largest difference in length of the sides (for an average of 230.41 m) is 4.4 cm. Peter Tompkins writes: "The Great Pyramid was so precisely aligned with the cardinal points of the compass that it surpassed in precision any human construction made to date [in the time of Flinders Pétrie]".

Note that Jean Pierre Adam attributes to the poor precision of the number Pi of the ancient Egyptians (which he figures as 3) the reason “why the inclination of the sides of the pyramid of Cheops gives a value of 51º50 '” (page 168 ), when in fact the opposite happens. It is precisely this inclination that ensures that the fundamental measurements of Pi, Fi, the royal cubit and the square of the circle (and even the geodetic meter) are fulfilled, implicit in a very clear and evident way in the proportions of the Great Pyramid. This is not a minor error in the work of Jean Pierre Adam, as we have seen.

An argument that falls under its own weight 

The book Egypt. Gods, temples and pharaohs (John Baines and Jaromir Málek) says the following: "[In the Egypt that built the pyramid of Cheops] mechanisms as simple as pulleys or carts of wheels were yet to be invented, so the problems related to the moving and lifting of heavy stone blocks must have been enormous” (page 161). And likewise: “The mathematical knowledge of the Egyptians was not enough to arrive at these results by means of calculation [the exact application of Pi, the number Fi, the squaring of the circle]; they could have come to them by chance ”(page 139).

In his book Recomposing the Past Jean Pierre Adam writes: “[In the Great Pyramid] it is easy to put in place a succession of rafters that guide the blocks from step to step [as Herodotus proposed; see above], down to the level of its placement. But such a machine, which would use pulleys, is totally excluded in Egypt, especially at that high time. It is enough to know that wheeled vehicles, light chariots destined for combat, will appear in that country at the beginning of the 18th dynasty, that is, a thousand years after Khufu. Furthermore, the pulley, an invention of sailors, was, as we know, unknown to the Egyptians; the proof is given not only by the great ship of Gizeh, but also by numerous models and faithful representations, in which only the ropes appear lifting the yards without the aid of pulleys, but rather short cross members perpendicular to the mast ”(page 162) . 

That is, conventional wisdom states that the Egyptians were ignorant, not only in the development of mathematics, but also of the most elementary mechanics. But if so, how could they solve the great challenges that the construction of the Great Pyramid posed? Diego Méndez, in Ecos de la Atlántida, writes the following: “Even though there is no historical or archaeological evidence, most of the theories defend that the enormous blocks that make up these megalithic constructions were carved using primitive tools (dolerite spheres [7] or copper chisels [3]). It is difficult to understand how they carved rocks as hard as granite (6), basalt (6) or diorite (6-7) with these very rudimentary tools. There is also no consensus to define the means of transport to move the large number of blocks from the quarry to the construction site, since in some cases the distances are kilometers, although various hypotheses have been postulated to specify the mode of loading and transfer. Of the copious and enormous material of the works (boats, sleds, levers, ropes, rollers, animals, ramps, pulleys ...), few of them seem technologically viable. These theories do not completely clarify the technique that the ancient architects deployed when raising the marvelous works that still remain standing. The Great Pyramid, the temple of Abydos, the walls of Sacsayhuaman, the trilitons of the temple of Jupiter in Baalbek, are only few examples of works of great constructive complexity. The pyramid of Cheops is made up of more than two million blocks whose average weight is about two and a half tons (Lauer, 1948), some of them reaching up to eighty tons. On the other hand, the system for placing the impressive blocks of more than a thousand tons on the wall of the Baalbek temple is very difficult to understand. The movement and arrangement of these blocks is truly unfeasible even with modern technological advances ”(page 433).

Two details are sufficient to demonstrate the “anomaly” of the Egyptian case: when the pyramid of Cheops was built, in Gizeh, in Egypt the wheel or the pulley was not yet known; and of course, neither the Pi or Fi numbers. It is evident that we cannot understand the construction of such a massive and complex monument without the use of these technological and scientific advances. This finding, plus the fact that the Egyptians could make hard stone vessels with an unknown method - and hardly repeatable - today, suggests that they had a technological level much higher than that granted to them, predictably imported from abroad. For it is clear that the precedents of the Fayum or Badari culture (not even Naqada) cannot explain such "historical anomalies".

Peter Tompkins asserts that whoever built the Great Pyramid knew the dimensions of the planet with a precision that would not be achieved until the end of the 18th century in Europe (page 285); He also had in mind the phenomenon of precession, as well as the way to obtain terrestrial longitude and latitude; and he had an efficient system of measurements (see above). Flinders Pétrie, one of the greatest scholars of the monument, considers that the accumulated knowledge in the pyramid of Cheops is the work of “a few men far above their colleagues [builders]”; indeed, he points out that so much perfection “was limited to the competence of a single man” (Tompkins, page 219). But we must insist that the pulley, the potter's wheel or the wheel carts had not yet been invented in the 4th Dynasty (in Egypt). In addition, the metal they had was soft copper, with which they worked -as it is said- granite and diorite….

Let's look at the image below.

Egyptian ashlars (signaled in red) with spikes (or nipples) that appear two by two (source: Diego Méndez)

Diego Méndez, in Conexión Intercultural en Nasca, presents some Egyptian ashlars, located in the pyramid of Menkaure and in the temple of Osiris in Abydos, that appear often (when they are not eliminated) two by two. These strange bumps have a very specific function, which Jean Pierre Adam explains in his book: “Four other procedures, at least, deserve to be mentioned. The first is reminiscent of the 'transport spikes by handrails', left protruding on two or four sides of the stone at the time of carving; slings are passed around them and then attached to the erection hook of the machine by the traction cable. As for the levers and all other procedures, the bumps are multiplied according to the importance of the block to be lifted. Once the stones were placed in their place, these spikes were initially disassembled, but it happens that due to lack of completion of the building, or simply because of aesthetic roughness, they remained in place, thus providing a precious testimony to today's observer "( page 199).

The problem is, how were these heavy blocks lifted, supported by slings, if the pulley (from the 4th century BC) and the winch (from the 5th century BC) had not yet been invented? Jean Pierre Adam proposes the existence of machines that he calls “counterweight freight elevators”, which he describes as a platform, on which the weight is placed, raised by the load of the counterweight with a lever-type principle. Would this be the mechanism used by the Egyptians, according to Herodotus, to raise the stones, level by level? Jean Pierre Adam doubts it, since the narrowness of the levels would be an impediment to implement this solution (pages 163-165).

In this way, the civilization that built the Great Pyramid had to have access to some technology that would allow lifting the blocks with slings, which surrounded the spikes (or nipples) left in the stone for their elevation. And this supposes some machine in the style of the pulley, which - according to the same author - had not yet been invented. So if it wasn't them, who did it?  

Lifting systems. Top left, elevation through "transport spikes" (source: Fernando Mora Rodríguez and M. Zarzalejos)

Counterweight freight elevator. Hypothetical image (source: Jean Pierre Adam)

To finish, a civilization prior to that of the ancient Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, in light of the following unsolved "historical anomalies": 1) The presence in it of non-meteoric iron (cast iron); 2) The precise knowledge of the numbers Pi and Fi, as well as the geodetic meter, and the geometric resolution (in the Great Pyramid) of the "squaring of the circle"; and 3) The use (demonstrated by the spikes, or "teats", of the ashlars of the pyramid of Menkaure, as well as of the Osireion of Abydos) of much later mechanical elements, such as the pulley (invented two thousand years later from the time of Cheops).

In the syringa of the Great Pyramid, inside the so-called "sign of the horizon", this tetragramma has been found. Was it engraved by its real builders?

To this we must add the troublesome dating of Dixon's ruler, found in the Queen's Chamber of the Great Pyramid. This indicates a date between 500 and 800 years before the time of Cheops. Do we have to force a “reasonable” explanation to make feasible the presumption of truth upheld today by official Archeology?

La Gran Pirámide, ¡vaya timo! (In Spanish)

Con posterioridad a la publicación de este artículo, un amigo me ha prestado un libro, publicado recientemente, con el título que encabeza este apartado (La gran pirámide, ¡Vaya timo!; véase la bibliografía, abajo), de José Miguel Parra. Antes de empezar a profundizar sobre su contenido, quisiera hacer varias consideraciones. En primer lugar, me parece una obra bien escrita, bien documentada, de lectura imprescindible sobre este particular. En segundo lugar, considero que el autor ha pasado una “línea roja” por lo que se refiere a las reglas de cortesía más elemental, en relación al intercambio de ideas (especialmente cuando éstas se expresan en escritos, en un debate público y abierto). Una norma no escrita establece que se puede (y se debe) descalificar las ideas de las que se discrepa, pero sin insultar peregrinamente a su emisor (“Lo cortés no quita lo valiente”). En definitiva, se puede decir “esta idea es estúpida”, no “este autor es estúpido por decir tal o cual cosa”. El ataque ad hominem descalifica a quien lo efectúa. Es bien cierto que la Historia Crítica, o alternativa (los difusores de “paparruchas”, en palabras de José Miguel Parra), califica a menudo a la “ortodoxia” en su conjunto como parcial, simplista, mendaz, etc. Pero no conozco ningún libro de “Historia alternativa” que llegue a usar términos tan ofensivos y gratuitos como los empleados por el citado autor. Su obra podría haber sido mucho mejor si se hubiesen respetado estas normas mínimas de cortesía. Es una pena.  

Por poner un ejemplo, José Miguel Parra llama piramidiota (es el más recurrente en su abanico de insultos) a una persona tan prestigiosa, en su sector, como el autor de la teoría de los “geopolímeros”: Joseph Davidovits (página 235). Y califica de pseudohistoriador al geólogo Robert Schoch (página 87) por exponer con argumentos científicos que la Esfinge de Giza debió ser construida entre 9.000 y 12.000 años atrás, de acuerdo con las pautas de desgaste del monumento, que sólo explicaría una pluviometría acorde con el Óptimo Holocénico, miles de años antes del actual régimen climático de la zona. Yo me pregunto: si José Miguel Parra es tan tajante en que los piramidiotas y los pseudohistoriadores (entre los que yo, sin duda, me cuento; no en vano soy autor no de uno, sino de dos libros sobre la Atlántida) debemos dejar la egiptología y la piramidología en manos de los egiptólogos y arqueólogos, del mismo modo, ¿no habría de respetar la opinión de los geólogos, cuando hacen teorías en ejercicio de sus facultades y conocimientos, como es el caso de dos expertos en piedras y rocas, del nivel intelectual y científico de Davidovits y Schoch?   

Por lo que se refiere a la datación de la Gran Pirámide, y del faraón que supuestamente la ordenó construir, José Miguel Parra aporta unos interesantes datos que la vinculan a Keops (o Khufu). Concretamente, la sitúa entre el 2509 y el 2483 a.C.; más concretamente, alude al “papiro de Merer”, entre los años 26 y 27 del reinado de este faraón (páginas 240-243; véase más abajo). Concretamente, aporta varias evidencias suplementarias que apoyan esta hipótesis (de acuerdo con el autor, más que esto: “Después de ver estas evidencias, no creo que haya nadie en su sano juicio que pueda continuar negando que la Gran Pirámide fue construida por los egipcios en la IV dinastía”; página 243).   

Concretamente, José Miguel Parra aporta los siguientes argumentos (que se suman a los que expuse más arriba): 1) La mención en el arquitrabe del muro sur del patio C de la mastaba de Qar (G 7101, VI dinastía), donde se pueden leer los nombres de las tres pirámides de Giza y de sus dueños: Khufu, Khaefre y Menkaure (página 103); 2) Se sabe que el arquitecto de la tumba de Khufu se llamaba Hemiunu, sobrino de Keops, el cual fue enterrado en la mastaba G4000 (página 175); 3) Se han encontrado sellos de barro impresos con el nombre de Khufu en la calzada que se dirige al sureste de la Gran Pirámide, algo más allá de las más meridional de las tres pirámides de las reinas (página 191); 4) Se ha encontrado la “ciudad de los constructores”, de tiempos de Kefrén y Micerinos (página 208); 5) El llamado “diario de Merer”, hallado entre los papiros de Wadi al-Jarf, nos informa del transporte de piedras desde la cantera de Tura hasta la Gran Pirámide (página 240).  

Ciertamente impresionante. La evidencia parece irrefutable. Ello no obstante, resulta chocante que en todo el interior de la pirámide de Keops no exista ni una sola mención de Keops, mención aparte de los graffiti de las cámaras de descarga superiores, de los que hablé más arriba; los cuales están en un lugar tan remoto e inaccesible, que sin el uso de explosivos nunca hubiesen sido encontrados. Parece extraño que quien empleó tan grandes recursos, y tanto tiempo, para construir el edificio más masivo del mundo, no dejara constancia de su gran hazaña; no en vano el mítico Imhotep sí lo hizo, al parecer, en la pirámide escalonada de Zóser (cien años más antigua). (Véase a este respecto: Parra, página 185.)  

Dos autores citados más arriba proponen las siguientes soluciones: André Pochan supone que la Gran Pirámide fue construida por Keops en el V milenio a.C., mucho antes de la datación oficial de mediados del III milenio a.C. Peter Tompkins, por su parte, expone la siguiente teoría: Keops podría haber acabado la pirámide desde la última cámara de descarga. La parte inferior se trataría de un observatorio astronómico. De ahí -supuestamente- las marcas en la cámara de descarga (véase más arriba). En la página 411 de Ecos de la Atlántida explico lo siguiente: “Ya hemos visto (más arriba) cómo diversos autores la han considerado [la Gran Pirámide] un 'observatorio astronómico', al menos hasta el tiempo de Keops, en que se completaría la obra para acabarla en punta. Antes de ello los astrónomos usarían la plataforma situada a la altura de la fila 50 de masonería para mirar el tránsito de las estrellas desde la parte superior de la gran galería. De acuerdo con esta teoría, la gran galería habría sido diseñada para observar los astros. Para ello se habría inundado la parte interior (inferior) de la pirámide, lo que permitiría observar el tránsito de una estrella en el momento preciso en que se refleja en el agua (Peter Tompkins, páginas 147- 155)”.   

Sea como sea, tal vez Keops, como asimismo Kefrén y Micerinos, se apropiaron de unos edificios construidos, y anexaron templos funerarios, realizando reformas en el interior (cámaras de descarga) y en el exterior (cobertura de piedra de Tura). ¿Acaso las podían haber reparado? Pero ello no deja de ser una especulación no probada; tan legítima (o no) como otras que realiza Juan Miguel Parra, y que paso a exponer seguidamente.  

Ya he aludido (más arriba) a las piezas de madera halladas recientemente en el interior de la cámara de la reina (la supuesta “regla de Dixon”), fechadas por carbono 14 hacia el 3341 y el 3094 a.C. Es bien cierto que esta madera podía pertenecer a un árbol con más de 500 años de antigüedad, o podría ser una reliquia del pasado, o podría haber sido reutilizada. Estos son razonamientos que no podemos desdeñar. Sin embargo, el mismo José Miguel Parra alude (de refilón) a dos hallazgos datados por esas mismas fechas, aproximadamente, pertenecientes al entorno arqueológico de las III y IV dinastías. En primer lugar, se dató el material orgánico presente en la argamasa que une algunos sillares de la Gran Pirámide, con el resultado (American Research Center in Egypt, 1984; Pyramids Radiocarbon Dating Project, 1995), en la hilada 198 de la esquina suroeste, de la siguiente fecha: 3089 a.C. (más o menos 160 años). Otra muestra tomada al lado dio la fecha 3101 a.C. (más o menos 414 años). (Parra, páginas 86 y 354). Más adelante señala (sin concretar demasiado) que la cronología por luminiscencia pone las cosas en su lugar. También alude, el autor, al hallazgo de un cráneo, en la pirámide de Zóser, datado hacia el 3205 a.C. (más o menos 327 años), del cual dice que se podría tratar de un “reenterramiento” de una princesa tinita, la cual sería acompañada por los 30.000 vasos de piedra dura tallados por dentro y por fuera (de una factura perfecta, prácticamente industrial), de los que poco se sabe a día de hoy.  

En definitiva, dichas dataciones parecen indicar que las pirámides de la III y IV dinastía (datación oficial) podrían haber sufrido intervenciones al menos 500 años antes de su tiempo. Siempre se puede alegar que dichas dataciones no son correctas, por uno u otro motivo. Pero ello no deja de ser una especulación, tan (o tan poco) válida como la que he formulado más arriba: que dichas intervenciones sean producto de la apropiación y/o reparación por parte de los faraones de la IV dinastía de unas estructuras más antiguas.  

¿En qué baso dicha “especulación”? En una serie de “anomalías” que la “ortodoxia” a duras penas puede explicar. Para aludir a ellas, haré uso de los propios razonamientos del autor. Como es bien sabido, fue Howard Vyse quien halló, en 1837, los graffiti que supuestamente certifican la responsabilidad de Khufu en la construcción de la Gran Pirámide. Pues bien, ese mismo año Howard Vyse, junto con su ayudante J.R. Hill, encontró una plancha de hierro fundido (con restos de un baño de oro) en el extremo exterior del pozo de ventilación del sur de la Cámara del Rey. De este hallazgo, tan importante como el de los graffiti citados más arriba, validado por el egiptólogo Flinders Pétrie y por análisis posteriores (véase más arriba), Juan Miguel Parra no dice nada. Éste pontifica lo siguiente: “[Los pseudohistoriadores] sólo mencionan los datos que les convienen, e ignoran cualquier documento que no encaje con sus teorías” (página 290). Dicho autor parece incurrir en este mismo defecto. ¿O es que se le olvidó mencionar este hecho; o acaso lo ignoraba? Lo dudo, porque Juan Miguel Parra cita la fuente (Max Toth: Pyramid prophecies; página 362) en la que me basé para investigar la presencia de dicha placa de hierro fundido en la Gran Pirámide. Dudo mucho que pasara por alto esta evidencia, puesto que Max Toth le dedica una gran atención en su libro.  

(Vuelvo a insistir, dicha “anomalía” no “encaja” con la datación oficial de la pirámide. El hierro fundido no era empleado en tiempos de Keops.)  

Por lo que se refiere a las constantes matemáticas a las que aludo más arriba, Juan Manuel Parra, tras reconocer que los estudios y mediciones realizados por Flinders Pétrie en 1880 son correctos (página 247), rechaza las consecuencias que se derivan de estas mismas mediciones: el hallazgo de Pi, Fi, el metro y la cuadratura del círculo enmascarados en las medidas de la Gran Pirámide, con un codo real de 0,5236 centímetros (equivalente a una sexta parte de la circunferencia de un círculo con un diámetro de un metro). (A este respecto, véase el apartado Pi, Fi, el metro y la cuadratura del círculo.)   

A todo ello Juan Miguel Parra argumenta que estas proporciones se encuentran en cualquier parte y se pueden descubrir en cualquier cosa (página 251). Más en concreto, dice que los egipcios no utilizaban el metro, sino el codo como unidad de medida (página 254; es cierto, pero el codo está implícito en el metro, como hemos visto con anterioridad). Añade que ciertamente si dividimos el perímetro de la Gran Pirámide por el doble de su altura se obtiene un valor muy aproximado a Pi, si bien “[Pi aparece en la Gran Pirámide] de forma completamente fortuita, debido al sistema empleado en su construcción” (páginas 258 y 259). También reconoce (página 264) que podemos hallar Fi como la relación entre la altura de su cara triangular (el apotema) y la mitad de la base (lo que da un resultado de 1,618). Pero todos estos datos “circunstanciales” (Pi, Fi, el codo como resultado del metro) resultan de la elección de un ángulo determinado (51º51') de inclinación de las caras de la Gran Pirámide, “quizá porque es el que parecen formar los rayos de Sol cuando se cuelan entre una capa de nubes” (página 260).   

En definitiva, Juan Miguel Parra reconoce que sí, los números cuadran (por lo que se refiere a las constantes matemáticas y geodésicas mencionadas anteriormente), pero ello es producto de la casualidad, y especialmente (quizás) de la inclinación de los rayos de Sol filtrados entre las nubes... ¡Si esto no es una especulación, por no decir una “frivolidad”, que venga Dios y lo vea! (Añade [página 260] que dicha inclinación es producto del seqed [unidad de medida de la inclinación de las caras de una pirámide recta] expresado con la relación 7/5,5, que se corresponde con la relación entre la altura [280 cr] y la mitad de su base [220 cr], lo cual nos lleva de nuevo a las constantes Pi [expresada como 22/7], Fi, etc.) Así pues, me pregunto: si no hemos de creer en las casualidades (yo más bien creo en las causalidades), o en la ciencia infusa, o en las revelaciones esotéricas recibidas por los escribas y sacerdotes que realizaron los planos de la Gran Pirámide, ¿quién proporcionó esta información matemática, altamente sofisticada (para sus días), a sus constructores? Una nueva anomalía a consignar, que socava la visión tradicional por lo que respecta a la autoría de la Gran Pirámide.  

Por último, por lo que se refiere a la forma de elevar, o alzar (no transportar) los grandes sillares de piedra que conforman la Gran Pirámide, Juan Miguel Parra se limita a decir: “El sistema para realizarlo [el izado o elevación de las piedras] nos es desconocido, aunque palancas o pequeñas rampas paralelas [la polea o la cabría no se habían inventado aún] a todo lo largo de cada cara parecen métodos viables” (página 240). Ello aparte, “para nuestra desgracia, por el momento no se ha encontrado ningún plano de una pirámide del Reino Antiguo” (página 176).   

Alberto Siliotti, en la Introducción a su obra Guía de las pirámides de Egipto (página 8) dice lo siguiente: “Un velo de misterio envuelve realmente las pirámides porque, pese a todas las investigaciones y todos los estudios efectuados, aún hoy no sabemos con certeza con qué técnicas fueron construidas: es extraño, pero los antiguos egipcios no os han dejado ninguna documentación al respecto, y por el momento tan sólo podemos avanzar hipótesis que, aunque plausibles, no son certidumbres científicas”. Y añade (página 40): “En el gran número de bajorrelieves que ilustran momentos y aspectos de la vida cotidiana del Imperio Antiguo no hay nunca ninguna referencia a la construcción de una pirámide, que probablemente era considerado un acontecimiento único que no podía ser reproducido”.  

Llámense especulaciones, llámense hipótesis, éstas son perfectamente legítimas, sean realizadas por “egiptólogos de carrera” o por simples interesados (piromidiotas, o pseudohistoriadores, en palabras de José Miguel Parra). Puesto que las evidencias expuestas más arriba muestran una serie de lagunas, que yo llamo “anomalías”, que socavan el paradigma actual por lo que se refiere a esta materia.   

En Ecos de la Atlántida (página 501) escribo lo siguiente: “Es durante las épocas de 'cambio de paradigma' (es decir, cuando se renuevan las generaciones) cuando aparecen nuevos puntos de vista. Entonces tiene lugar una 'revolución científica' (en terminología de T. S. Kuhn), que trata de corregir los fallos del modelo anterior, el cual ya no resuelve determinados problemas planteados por la comunidad científica (las llamadas 'anomalías')”. Aquí lo dejo. 

Bibliografía

Adam, Jean Pierre. Recomponiendo el pasado. Losada, 1990. 

Baines, John; Málek, Jaromir. Egipto. Dioses, templos y faraones. Folio, 1988. 

Espejo, José Luis; Méndez, Diego. Ecos de la Atlántida. Base, 2018

Parra, José Miguel. La gran pirámide, ¡vaya timo!. Laetoli, 2019.

Pérez-Sánchez Pla, Miguel. La Gran Pirámide, clave secreta del pasa­do. Ediciones Antiguo Egipto, 2015. 

Pochan, André. El enigma de la Gran Pirámide. Plaza Janés, 1974. 

Siliotti, Alberto. Guía de las pirámides de Egipto. Folio, 1998. 

Tompkins, Peter. Secrets of the Great Pyramid. Penguin, 1973. 

Toth, Max. Las profecías de la pirámide. Martínez Roca, 1981. 

 

Return