In short, the three pyramids on the Giza plateau are argued to have represented the neolithic Triple Goddess, not three tombs. The actual tombs are possibly shafts nearby.
The Book: Part travelogue, part detective story, this fascinating narrative takes the reader across four European countries, investigating the lost and unknown pyramids and enormous burial mounds to be found there. The conclusion is a radical re-apprisal of the function of the pyramids of the Giza plateau.
I decided to tackle the `pyramids problem' with an open mind. We have all heard of the huge controversy regarding pyramids. In 2005 a book was released by the late Philip Coppens, `The New Pyramid Age', in which he suggested that we are on the cusp of a new paradigm of awareness regarding pyramids as a clearly worldwide phenomenon. The most obvious ones just happen to be in Egypt.
While people regard the issue as `solved', (pyramids are surely the tombs of incredibly vain pharaohs!) others say pyramids are mysterious and enigmatic. They certainly don't have to be as big as they are to fulfil their `function.'
What function is that, incidentally? Nobody knows. I began to read and read and the more I read on the subject, the more the latter point of view seemed to me to be the correct one: pyramids are a mystery which we have not resolved. The pyramids are more than just large burial complexes of the king and all his advisors and family, on top of lonely plateaus. In fact, they are not that at all, rather a royal necropolis is associated with a pyramid. The religion of the necropolis has partly been confused with that of the pyramid, which is older, more obscure.
The pyramids were centers for worship and possible sacrifice in former times. As an exponent of the older mountain religion, they are often built upon plateaus so that they might be as close as possible to the stone-age conception of heaven, wherever they occured on Earth, but not in every case.
The presence of a worldwide distribution with clear differences in the third millennium can only point to one resolution. We are looking at a somewhat common religion which began to die out before pyramids were built, resulting in differnet types of pyramids in various places. The religion began to become less relevant as of the fourth millenium B.C. A little more on this later.
I have been long fascinated by ancient pyramid ruins and curious enough to read a lot of books regarding them. I have always been unable to shake the nagging feeling that something is not quite right about our interpretation of them. When I started discovering other pyramids and mounds around the world, certain little ideas and concepts began to click and rub against each other, and I began to see this as a widespread stone-age religion, spread by hunter-gatherers intiially, but also by people in proto-agriculture, finally settling down to build cities, but needing a sacred mountain nearby, to possibly protect their agriculture. This is something of a hint about where this theory is leading, for I will later suggest how the greatest pyramids and Khufu himself were `mentioned' in the Bible, though in a highly corrupted fashion which ignores historical reality.
Although we will never understand the mystery of the pyramids for certain, I believe there are some clues which have been overlooked, and which deserve attention. The pyramids were built at the very beginning of the agricultural period, the beginning of history. They are incredible monuements which I believe are based upon relics of an earlier stone-age religion which pre-dates the Egyptian religion by many thousands of years.
There is also a pattern in terms of the fact that the pyramids are independent of tombs. They are from the very beginning associated with tombs though they are not seemingly tombs themselves unless they are gods. I began to notice a recurring pattern in this in whichever country I visited in trying to investigate this mystery.
In writing this book, it began to dawn on me that we know so little about pyramids, and the Egyptian religion in former times, not just in the Old Kingdom, but before the onset of the Old Kingdom. This is the crucial period to investigate if we wish to crack the mysteries of the Giza plateau. Not being interested in believing any falsehood, or ideas formulated based upon the limited perspective of Egypt, considering pyramids or mounds upon a plateau as a worldwide anceint religion, and desiring to get to the heart of the mystery, I decided the pyramids would require a stone-age interpretation to understand them, which would predate many of our ideas regarding the Egyptian religion. It is this realisation which has been critical in helping myself to come to some fascinating and satisfying inferences and conclusions regarding the mystery...
Eventually I had enough information, but what to do with it? I decided to place it all in a travalogue, which I have tried to make as entertaining as possible and accessable for the general reader. The first half of the book is like a travel book, travelling around and collecting information. In the second half of the book we can start to put some of the information together, and come to some facinating and startling conclusions regarding the possible origins of certain Biblical myths as well.
The purpose of Pyramids?
I began to see that our understanding of the purpose of pyramids was being skewed away from reality by our dependance upon limited information, gleaned from the days when all we knew about pyramids was that older ones existed in Egypt, and newer ones existed in the New World. We are now aware that the foundations of pyramid building in the New World occur just as early as they do in the Old.
It quite readily became apparent to me that the pyramids simply should at one time have been mentioned in the Bible. Why have they been expunged? If the earlier Samaritan-style Jews (mountain worshippers) were mountain worshippers, only turning to the newer religion of Moses with the `Exodus,' then why do these mountain worshippers not mention pyramids in the Bible? Why does Khufu not feature in the Bible, considering he was such an oppressor? To cut a long story short, I began to see that he probably was mentioned in some early incarnation of the Bible, being replaced by the name `Pharaoh' in later incarnations. `Pharaoh' obviously may refer to another man entirely and the myths have overlapped.
In the Bible, before the onset of `Pharaoh' and his oppressions, we had a good time in Egypt for the Jews. This was under a vizier called Joseph, a `Jewish' man, (incidentally what were Jews called before Moses? I do not think we can define them as we currently do so let us not terms constrain us to many visions based upon contemporary perspectives.)
Calling them `proto-Jews' then, we can imagine a time before `Pharaoh' when the Jews got along rather well with the Egyptians. We now encounter something in the Bible which seems like a vast national project. We encounter Joseph and there is his relation with Pharaoh. Many have suggested that Jospeph is Djozer, a pharaoh who ruled several generations before Khufu and who build a very different type of pyramid. I do not think we need to read myth as reality to this extent. I have suggested in my book that the name Joseph may simply have still referred to the vizier, but based upon the memory of a famous name (Djozer?), who dominated the landscape in this vizier's time. It is easy for myths to become incredible mixed up and we must not lose sight of this.
Various authors have pointed out that the Egyptian pyramids are larger and grander at the start, and ruinous and smaller later on. The quality declined over a millennia of building. Kurt Mendelssohn and Joyce Tyldesley pointed out in their pyramid books that the early pyramids helped to build the state by uniting the tribes and specialising industry under a powerful ruler in one place. (Aristotle and later Pliny came up with the idea that the pyramids provided employment) It is a Versailles-like interpretation of the concentration of power. Once the state was `built' newer pyramids were no longer required, Kurt pointed out. The problem with this notion is that Kurt's ideas about Egypt were possibly skewed by his physics background. Rather than bringing new information to the table, I feel that he neglected to include religious ideas into his analysis.
Kurt never saw the pyramids as religious structures, which is odd considering that religion has been the major motivation for building every sort of enormous structure known to man, in ancient times. Mendelssohn stated that the pyramids were simple in design so they could not `fail.'
We hear about a different building program in the Bible. We have `Joseph' who was supposedly a vizier and possibly lived in the time of Djoser, if the two are conflated. This would make sense considering Djoser was certainly a builder.
`Jews' in the age of the Old Kingdom, if they lived in Egypt, may have been of a very different set of worshippers to later Jews. They may have been more like the Samaritan Jews, or mountain worshippers. If Joseph is based upon someone historical, then a Jewish advisor may certainly have given orders to build mountain replicas. This is simply conjecture, but I find it facinating. If these mountain-worshipping Jews encouraged the building of an artificial mountain, then making it bigger with two succcessive enlargements, in the case of the Djoser pyramid, then we have a basis for the `grannaries' of the Bible.
Naturally we cannot store grain in pyramids in any significant quanity. But perhaps we don't need to. If pyramids are religious sites, they will encourage agriculture by worshipping various ancestors buried at these sites.
Hang on, just what is a pyramid?
This book was written with the initial intention to draw awareness towards the existence of pyramids in Europe and Asia. The word `pyramid' is evocative. Egypt springs to mind, but also the jungles of America. We do not even associate the word pyramid with the related Sumerian Ziggurat, and certainly not with the gentle mounds amidst rolling hills and gracing sheep fields or groves in Europe. Despite this, we find curiously similar structures here, built around the time of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, or indeed much earlier.
The very largest mounds or pyramid-type structures we call `cairns', `mounts' `mounds' `forts' or `hills', but certainly not `pyramids'. Despite this, I would argue that there are striking cultural similarities found between European pyramids and pyramids elsewhere in the world. In fact Europe appears to have among the very oldest pyramids in the world.
A plateau like any other
As I drew myself into researching this work, it occured to me that in relating these structures to Egypt, I was also relating them to the early Egyptian religion itself. Somehow the two didn't seem to line up very well! They are largely separate concepts, though the Egyptian religion certainly encompasses aspects of what the earlier pyramid religion would become, within Egypt.
This and other realisations left a door open to investigate the Giza pyramids from the perspecitve of the pre-Egyptian religion of the Stone Age nomads. I began to envisage a world in which the pyramids were built, at the end of the third millennium, across the globe. Why were all these pyramids and even huge mounds in Europe built in this millenium? This is when history finally began, at around 3100 BC, which is when Egypt `began' historically, but also when the Mayan and various other calanders begin.
Why did history begin in this time? Perhaps mankind had simply begun to settle down. He had finally acheived the freedom to cease the eternal hunt. Specialisation of labour allowed a surplus.
Yet the agriculture which would create the necessitiy for the pyramid, the artificial mountain, and the protection of crops, as I see it,
Function over form: Pyramids around the world
Pyramids and Mounds are a religion of Eurasia and America. They merely have an outpost in Egypt and elsewhere in North Africa. Everywhere they are different. They find their extreme in Africa, Egypt.
In Egypt, or elsewhere, pyramids were built out of stone or brick. Europe had little need for this. Silbury hill appears to be a covered circular `pyramid' or cone built with packed chalk held together with clay... a kind of pseudo- mud-brick style technology whose constituents did not need to be baked in the hot desert sun. In my book it may have all been a case of function, over form.
Here we see the civilization of Old Europe. It is wondered why a seeming developed culture suddenly `appeared' in Egypt, with highly evolved ideas about religion and a definitive purpose and ideology, as expressed at Giza. In fact the mystery becomes a little easier to look through if we look at what is happening around Egypt in even earlier times. Old Europeans worshipped the Triple Goddess, donning masks of animals and insects, a similar practice to later Egypt. The boundaries were probably greater than this, possibly encompassing Gobekli Tepe also. It can be seen that Old Europe was a martime civilization, and there is Egypt, a few days sail distant. When I found a very similar religious practice at Mount Knocknarrea, Ireland, to that seen at Giza, that is, building a monumental mound on a hill with associated smaller burials, I became aware that an old religion had had a once great extent, as well as great antiquity, explaining the spread of the pyramid religion around the world. (Page 16, Gimbutas)
A hallmark of what defines `pyramid' seems to be the presence of a burial, not for man, unlike in smaller tombs, but for a god.
In my book I seek to find just what this religion was. It appears to have been worshipped across Eurasia in the period of the Mesolithic. This religion is so old that it began to die out in the neolithic. I turned to a facinating work by the celebrated specialist
The Neolithic Triple Goddess had three female attributes, with male consorts.
This was a widespread neolithic deity.
Here we have a possible male consort for one of the three aspects of the Triple Goddess. This is the great mastermind of the central Earth Mound of creation, appearing here as a kind of pyramid. In Nordic mythology Loki was placed underneath the world mound, imprisoned. This is the benefactor God to humanity, a cheeky tricksters, possibly expressed later as a god who overcame all other deities, in the `Abrahamic' religion and its various modern aspects. This `altar' (or is it a house?) is far older than the Giza pyramids.(From Gimbutas).
Take your pick. The presence of pyramids around the world, even in deeply early times, implies not a migration from Egypt, but repeated crossings of Egypt, and everywhere else, by pyramid builders, over many millennia. Egyptians would share a common ancestry with various nomadic tribes who carried the mound or pyramid religion with them, in the days of early and uncertain agricultural practice.
Conclusion: The origins of the pyramid religion cannot be studied in terms of diffusion of ideas from Egypt or in terms of what we know about the Egyptian religion. The idea of the pyramids if they are evolved from the mound/mountain religion seen elsewwhere, is clearly older than `Egypt' as we know it. Egyptian religion cannot fully, or even partly answer the many questions mankind has, regarding the enigma of the pyramids.
Presence of the triple god on the Giza Plateau.
One of the things I came across was the name of the Sphinx. So far as we can tell, was quite literally, a variant upon what seems to be `Hermes Trismegistus!'
Hermes Trismegistus is a strange philosopher of the past, much like the proto-Buddha, in that we do not know anything about him, and that all the writings purportedly written by him were actually written (or re-written from earlier sources) in the Christian era. In the writings it would seem that he was a great sage and also an Egyptian pharaoh, so there is some possiblity that the writings were derived from or contaminated by various `wisdom texts'. The Proverbs of the Bible are an example of one set of wisdom texts.
Trismegistus implies the `Triple Great'. This was a neolithic deity present all around Europe and elsewhere. The triple god/goddess seems to show up in Linear B (Mycenaean) texts as ` ti-ri-se-ro-e' or `Tri Heros'. Hera, an obscure ancient Greek goddess seems to have retained many of the features of the triple goddess.
Pyramids may have been built all across Europe, though not in the form we associate them. We are clouded by ideas of Egypt. The religion however, may have been rather similar, carried to many differnet parts of the globe by stone-age nomads.
Speculations and analysis towards a better understanding of the function of some of the pyramids of Egypt, including the triple monument of the Giza plateau.
What the sphinx may have originally been, and why it was placed there, carved out of the bedrock. There is also bedrock underneath the pyramids. The sphinx may have been modified during the Old Kingdom, but so were the monuments which existed before the pyramids were built. The Giza plateau was in use for many thousands of years before the pyramids were built.
Who or What was worshipped at Giza?
This is where things get quite interesting indeed!
What if THIS....
...is an attempt at creating a mountain home for this, the neolithic triple goddess?
Here we have the judgement of Paris, in which a triple Goddess appears to present herself to Paris... naked, because this is all about fertility
The sphinx, possibly nothing but a hound dog! Until about 2500 BC, the sacred animal of the Triple Goddess, ancestress of Diana was the dog. Thereafter it was possibly a lion.
Although there is no way to prove it absolutely, it would seem that there are several pieces of evidence in favour of at least revising what we think we know about pyramids
1) They seem to be cenotaphs, that is they contain no burial. Where they do contain unpillaged burials, with funerary offerings, bodies are often not found. What is going on? I don't think we have to work out every detail. The Egyptian reluctance to place bodies in the pyramid, supposedly because of fear of robbery as an afterthought to such majestic structures, seems out of place. It makes it seem the Egytpians were rash in their undertakings, not thinking through the consequences of what today seems like a folly of epic proportions: the building of pyramids which are apparently useless. (One Author, of `The Riddle of the Pyramids' went as far as to suggest that the pyramids were designed to themselves build the Egyptian state, and that their uselessless prevented their failure. Nothing could go wrong, so they were built for success. I think it may be a little more complicated than that, and we do need to take neolithic religion into consideration here)
2) If the pyramids were not primarily designed as tombs, what were they for? The answer is that they were mountains of creation, which feature considerably in both Egyptian mythology, as well as World or at least Eurasian mythology. This was a clue that what I and many others encountered in Europe and Asia were in fact local variants upon the pyramid model, likely built for fertility purposes. The king would have been associated with such burials as a sort of sacrificial king. Fertility thus has primary precedence, burial for a king being secondary.
How do pyramids relate to the idea in the Bible of the grannaries of Pharaoh, or Joseph, his visier? They seem intrinsically related. Since at least medieval times, European travellers in Egypt have pointed out that the pyramids are grannaries.
3) Considering we are dealing with ideas of pyramids as the mound of creation, we need to look at which gods and goddesses were worshipped at the mounds of creation and what is going on here. We need to look deeply into the hidden past of mankind.
The main god worshipped at the mound of creation seems to have been the buried god. This is the banished god or benefactor of mankind, a fire god and provider of fire to mankind. This would have been a wise god as well, a kind of Lucifer-type deity of enlightenment. If the pharaoh is buried under or near the pyramid, he too becomes a sort of buried god, able to protect Egypt in future. There is no deviation in that last statement from conventional Egyptology, which states that the king while living is Horus, but Osiris, (something like a fertility god) after death.
Let us review some facts about Giza.
The Giza pyramid site is designed for worship and veneration, and also as a necropolis
In reviewing the structure of the Old Kingdom pyramids, we see elements of both burial and religion. For instance, in the pyramid design we see pyramids attached to temples. In later times we see chapels built alongside the Sphinx and elsewhere at Giza.
In other mound complexes built around the world, such as at Knocknarea, a remote part of Ireland, also built on top of a platuea, we see the mounds of various possible kings and queens of the stone age. Nearby are obvious large flat stones which would have probably been used as altars for offerings to the ancestors, who have become gods in the heavens.
In visiting many such complexes, often mounds built upon plateaus, across Europe, some things became clear. The pyramid burial religion of Egypt was a mound or mountain religion.
Giza cannot be studied in isolation. Later Egyptian pyramids were in the Egyptian style of conservatism. Pyramids or mounds in other places around the world may follow a similar principle, based upon a similar stone-age religion. With that in hand, now let us look to the Giza plateau itself. Can it be that worship here, of some heavenly god, only began with the building of the pyramids? Why dedicate such a monumental effort towards a place with no significance?
As a worship or religious site, Giza is thousands of years older than the pyramids built upon it.
It has been pointed out by Robert Schoch and others that the Khufu pyramid is built upon a bedrock foundation which is raised relative to the rest of the plateau. He considers it would have been easier to level the area before building the pyramid. It was possibly therefore incorporated due to some religious use. The pyramid was the renovated or newer version. There are various other pieces of evidence, including carbon datings, which suggest the pyramids themselves incorporate various bits and pieces possibly from earlier structures, which date from centuries earlier.
The Giza plateau is made up of carved limestone bedrock, carved in terms of the Sphinx, but also with aspects underneath both the two larger pyramids of Khufu and Khafre. This points to the pyramids having been built to encompass older monuments. Their positions are also not randomly chosen, but were chosen for astronomical considerations.
With this point in mind it is only logical that we take the next step in our argument.
The Pyramids are part of a renovated religious plateau
Anyone who has seriously began to research Giza must invariably come to this conclusion. Imagine a modern skysraper replacing an earlier, much smaller skyscraper, which in turn replaced an earlier building. You do not expend this effort on a place which is not already a religious center!
It is as if the Old Kingdomers had a particular vision for an abstract form of mound encompassing pure geometric shapes. Imagine modern architecture... just back... four thousand years ago.. er.. more or less like an enormous cathedral is/was built in modern times.
An idea I push in the book is that the pyramids at Giza were one unified project. Robert Temple mentioned in his Egyptian Dawn that, based upon mathematical analysis, a grid can be drawn around the pyramids with various points of intersect relating to the Eye of Horus/Wadjet/Ra, etc. In my book I discuss various pieces of evidence suggesting why the pyramids may have been all planned from the outside, presumable to replace an earlier worship center/necropolis which had become obsolete due to a rapidly expanding population.
I eventually came to the conclusion that the Giza building program was a modernisation program for the existing worship at the plateau, possibly seen as of vital importance for the continued fertility of Egypt. There are several independent pieces of evidence which point to this conclusion.
Naturally, the idea of the pyramids being built possible for argiculture, renewal, veneration of Osiris, etc, brings us to a point of biblical myth. Travellers to Egypt in the Middle Ages pointed out that the pyramids were the grannaries of Joseph. The point of problem is trying to decide if they were guessing or actually asking the remnant Egyptians before committing such ideas to writing.
For more information...
For more information, much of it groundbreaking and facinating, I urge you to consult a copy of my book...
In Search of the Origin of Pyramids and the Lost Gods of Giza
...Available on Amazon and via various distributers.
As a consequence of combining mesolithic myth with what we see at Giza, it became apparent that the idea of centering the world at a central point in Egypt necessitated placing astronomical information there, the way astronomical information is also encoded for instance in the Mayan El Castillo.
In terms of the theories of Dr Livio Catullo Stecchini who saw the Great Pyramid as an abstracted and mathematical model of the Earth. Stecchini wrote some incredible (and incredibly difficult to conceptualise and understand for the non technical person), works on Egypt. He complained that his works were ignored, and it is easy to see why. No-one had the knowledge to really debate or critique him.
It is here that we get a little `woowoo', some might say. I would argue otherwise. In taking some of Dr Stecchini's work to its natural conclusion, and no further, regarding certain celebrated ratios of the great pyramid, and applying them to the other pyramids at Giza, (not hitherto done to my knowledge) we see something rather interesting. I will not say just what it is, (you will have to buy the book) but it would seem that the complex encodes the diameters or attempted diameters of the inner planets, (possibly Mercury and Venus in particular).
I cannot prove this for certain, or even tentatively, but the results are rather `interesting' and I feel deserve just a little attention. There is much we cannot ever prove beyond a doubt regarding the pyramids. The vast majority of what is said regarding them cannot, like evolution, be fully verified, as no-one was there at the time.
Naturally this particular inference or conclusion has consequences for what we think the Egyptians knew of astronomy. Did the Egyptians possess lens technology? What did the Egyptians know about their place in the universe? Were they heliocentric or geocentric? And also, `Why?' Why why why? Why would the Egyptians possibly do such a thing. The answer is simple. In the Great Pyramid we see various ratios of planet Earth encoded (going by the work of Stecchini, and not the earlier `pyramidologists' who had/utilised a flawed understanding/measurements).
An earlier idea for a title which I really wanted this book to have was `Centering Creation'. That titular statement encompasses the entire mystery of what pyramids are trying to be. They are, it would seem to me, an artificial center of the unvierse, home of the creator god and benefactor of mankind, at least to the eyes of the very Early Egyptians and nomadic tribes before that, finally settling down to an agricultural existence. They would have originally lived in a nice sheltered valley, perhaps between mountains. Where they no longer possesed one, they would build it.
For who this particular benefactor god is and what his name was in various cultures, Britain to Germany to Egypt to Asia, please consult my book. It was a focus of my little quest.
Khufu is absent from Biblical myth. It is very interesting that neither the great pyramids nor Sphinx feature in the Bible, despite an Egyptian setting. The Jews, or proto-Jews or men who would become or influence the later conception of who Jews actually were, lived in Egypt for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. The Jews of the so-called Exodus `were' real Egyptians. There were however different types of Judaism. There were the Samaritans who themselves claimed to have been the original Jews, and these were mountain worshippers.
I feel that ideas of Khufu as an oppressor king may have gotten mixed in with ideas of `Pharaoh' of the Exodus. The stories may have later combined with choice elements from each. According to Herodotus, the primary oppressors were Khufu and his dynasty. They did not tell him of the Exodus or the Jews. Rather than this being an embarrasing coverup, I believe it is really a case of another component of what would become the Exodus legend, or be mixed up in it. Khufu would not be pharaoh of the Bible, rather stories about him may have influenced later tales. Due to the mixing up of information, which created the Exodus story, the pharaoh of the Exodus cannot really be identified.
For more information, consult my book, or see my upcoming documentary on Youtube!
Want more? Here is the official website to this ground-breaking discovery!