The Giza Enigma: Riddles Under the Sand

By Miles Augustus Navarr

There are many mysteries about ancient Egypt. But perhaps the most enigmatic puzzle is the Great Pyramid. Established Egyptologists insist with fervor and uncommon zeal that it was built as a tomb by Khufu or Cheops, the fourth dynasty pharaoh who reigned about forty-five hundred years ago. No mummy has ever been found in any of the one hundred or so Egyptian pyramids so far discovered, particularly the Great Pyramid. There are no funerary hieroglyphics or paintings in the Great Pyramid. In-fact there is not a single hieroglyph or painting within or without the whole structure. The mathematical and geometrical skills as well as advance precision engineering attest to an erudite company with capabilities far beyond what was available to ancient Egyptians.
Giza Enigma is an attempt to highlight the discrepancies and inconsistencies inherent in the assertion by the mainline Egyptologists who have, for the past century, vehemently maintained the “Tomb Theory”.
Despite being a fictional tale, our protagonist, Dr. Sebastian Crane, an independent Egyptologist, dares to challenge a team of conformists Egyptologists in a public debate.
Furnishing well documented facts and detail evidence, he manages to deliver a credible and convincing argument against the “Tomb Theory”.
But this is just the beginning. Dr. Crane is enticed to investigate a recently discovered clay disc that may give him the physical proof he needs to validate his unconventional hypothesis. Eventually, his quest leads him to Egypt and the underground halls of Giza, where he encounters codes and cyphers, steering him to a discovery more sensational than he ever envisaged. A discovery with potential to change the course of human civilization, for better or worse.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: Oct 17, 2022
• ISBN: 9781664118188

Book preview

Commencement

I could not believe my eyes as I stepped out of the taxi in front of the Old City Hall in King’s Road. The scene in front of me resembled a labour unrest rather than the venue of an old-fashioned academic debate. Some other event must be taking place here, an exhibition, a fair, or maybe a Saturday bazaar, I thought as I got out of the taxi.

As I began to walk towards the building with my eyes fixed on the crowd and my mind muddled by the scene around me, the voice of the taxi driver brought me back to my senses. ‘Pardon me, sir. It’s £17.50.’

‘Oh yes, of course. I am sorry, sir.’ I turned back, took a £20 note from my wallet, and gave it to the driver.

‘What’s going on here? Some sort of protest?’ he asked as he fumbled around to give back my change.

‘I don’t rightly know. It was supposed to be an academic debate but doesn’t look like it, does it?’

‘Why not? Anything is possible these days,’ he said, giving me the £2.50 change.

‘Keep the change and thank you.’

I stood at the edge of the pavement, looking at the scene in front. There were at least 200 people standing outside the building, muttering, whispering, and complaining. I slung the heavy briefcase over my shoulder and ploughed my way through the crowd, apologising as I was forced to push some of the people to the side to reach the steps. As I climbed the first of half a dozen steps leading to the main gate, somewhere amongst the crowd, a voice shouted, ‘It’s him! Sebastian Crane!’

I froze between the first and the second steps upon hearing my name. I slowly turned around to see if I could recognise the owner of the voice, but to my amazement, I realised that I had become the hub of attention, the focus of hundreds of eyes all converging on me. The moment seemed surreal, as if time had slowed down, making the movements and gestures dreamlike.

Someone patted me on the shoulder, bringing time and space back to their proper dimension. ‘I have read your books and articles. All of us here are with you.’

‘Nooo, he is a sinner! He is preaching against the Word of God and the Good Book. Do not be fooled by his gentle manner or looks. The disciples of Antichrist use beautiful words and fine manners to lure their victims. Listen to the prophecies of Daniel: And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished.’

A roar of protest rose from the crowd. ‘Oh, shut up!’

‘Be quiet!’

‘Hush up, you idiot!’

I continued climbing the stairs, still somehow dazed from all the commotions around me. The huge wooden doors to the city hall building were shut, and I had to knock a couple of times before the great, massive doors were slightly opened, and a bald head popped out, bearing an expression somewhere between irritated and infuriated.

‘I am Sebastian Crane. I am a participant in the debate taking place at ten o’clock this morning,’ I said, not knowing what to expect.

‘Of course, Dr Crane. Please come in. I am Mr Hendricks, event organiser for the city hall,’ said the bald-headed man, glancing suspiciously at the crowd outside. He pulled open the door wide enough for a man to pass through.

Once inside with the door shut behind me, I was faced with a middle-aged man dressed in grey flannel suit wearing a striped tie and matching pocket kerchief, someone from a bygone age. ‘We almost had a riot on our hands. Quite unexpected, you know. Who could have guessed so many people would want to turn up to a debate about ancient Egypt?’ he asked as he walked ahead.

‘I certainly didn’t, but I am happy people are interested,’ I replied as I followed the man to the gallery specially prepared for the debate.

The debate was arranged a few months ago after a little known monthly specialising in paranormal and unsolved mysteries had published one of my articles in which I had re-examined unresolved questions about the Great Pyramid of Egypt and the age of Egyptian civilisation. This coincided with the exhibition of Egyptian artefacts at the British Museum. For reasons still unknown to me, a journalist from BBC, while reporting the exhibition, had also mentioned various unorthodox opinions and views about the origin and history of Egyptian civilisation, including segments of my article. A day later, two dozen people had gathered in front of the British Museum carrying placards declaring,

‘Tell the world the truth.’

‘No more lies about the pyramids.’

‘Is it 4,500 or 45,000?’

‘Who did actually build the Great Pyramid?’

This rally or protest was also reported on the BBC’s ten o’clock news. It was after this event that I received a most bizarre, if not atypical, call from the public relation manager of the British Museum.

‘Is this Dr Sebastian Crane?’

‘This is he.’

‘I am Lizbeth Rankin of the British Museum. I am sure you are aware of the recent reports by the BBC about the Egyptian exhibition we are displaying at the museum and some minor demonstrations outside the museum.’

‘Yes, I do watch the television.’

‘The museum directors thought it would be beneficial both for the public as well as professionals to hold a public debate on the subject. Your name came up as a possible candidate representing those academics and researchers who believe in a far more ancient Egyptian civilisation than what is accepted by the established archaeologists and main line historians.’

‘Are you really prepared to hold a public debate on the subject? I didn’t think you would dare such a challenge.’

‘We know your opinion on the subject matter, and we do not consider it a challenge. On the contrary, with so much evidence and expert opinion substantiating the proven and accepted history of Egypt, the challenge, if there is any, is squarely on your shoulders.’

‘Will the debate be televised?’

‘We cannot confirm that. It will depend on the BBC and their programming schedule. However, it will be recorded on film.’

‘May I ask who will take part in the debate?’

‘Our own Dr Richardson, head of Egyptian department, will, of course, be there. In addition, we have asked several prominent Egyptologists to take part. Professors Jane Westin of Chicago University and Abdul Hamid Hatef from the Cairo Museum have already accepted our invitation. Dr Zahi Hawass of the Egyptian antiquity department will either attend in person or send a representative. We have dispatched a few more invitations to notable academic establishments, to which we have not yet received a reply.’

‘And who will be on the opposite panel?’

‘As your name was recently mentioned in the national media, we thought it would be a great opportunity for you to present your ideas against such an august panel.’

‘You mean I will be facing four or five Egyptologists all by myself? Don’t you think it will work against your status in the public eye?’

‘We do not believe so, not after the debate is over. You should not concern yourself about our status.’

‘You mean you are so confident of your total victory that such an unbalance in the number of participants will not matter at the end?’

It is not the first time vanity will cause the great to fall, I thought.

‘Of course, if you think that your evidence and skills are not adequate for the debate or the panel against you, we can always ask one of your colleagues to take your place. There are quite a few of you in the UK and United States who have been quite successful as authors of popular books.’

‘No, I am quite happy to take part. By the way, where is the venue?’

‘We thought it would be best for the venue to be neutral. Out of a number of places we enquired, the most appropriate, considering the expected number of attendance, is Kensington and Chelsea Old City Hall. It can seat up to 250 people with adequate multimedia facilities for films and slides.’

‘I hope your prominent Egyptologists don’t have any objection to such a humble venue. As far as I am concerned, you can tell your directors that I will be delighted to take this opportunity to present my case in public against such established and august people.’

‘If that is settled, I will be informing you about three weeks in advance of the date and time so you have adequate time to prepare. I will also be sending you the usual forms for your signature. Thank you for your time. If you change your mind or need to speak to me, you can contact me through my direct number or email.’

After the conversation, I sat and thought for a long time about why such an eminent bastion of orthodoxy as the British Museum was willing to take such a risk as having a public debate about a subject that can turn the whole established history upside down and why they chose me as their opponent. The obvious answer was that this particular topic had been the subject of a number of bestselling books and articles by independent historians and researchers in the past twenty years. The recent incident at the British Museum may have compelled the directors, with approval from other orthodox, established institutions such as Oxford University and the Church of England, to stage a bout where the opponent was so ineffective that the orthodox position would be reaffirmed for all the sceptics and nonbelievers, hoping the majority of them would abandon their doubts and rejoin the masses. The airing of an unusual number of documentaries on similar subject matters verified this hypothesis. This also reaffirmed choosing me as their only opponent. Obviously, there were a number of other researchers with much better credentials to sit opposite such a prominent panel, although most of them may not have the proper academic credentials. My selection must have been decided primarily by my lack of sufficient field inexperience in Egypt, as well as my name being mentioned by the BBC regarding the alternative theories about the age and origin of the Egyptian civilisation. This overconfidence on their part and lack of faith in my abilities not only was discouraging but can also be a made into a great weapon against them. ‘Never underestimate the power of human stupidity’ was my favourite quotation. It made me more determined to stand my ground against the most prominent and well-known Egyptologist in the world and hopefully to land a blow so unexpected that it may, just possibly may, crack the monolith of accepted Egyptian origin and history.

From that moment, I intensified my research, going back to my old notes to make sure I had all the facts and figures right. I then placed myself in the shoes of my opponents to seek and identify the weak spots and unsubstantiated points in my argument that could work to my disadvantage. I checked and rechecked all my data and references, writing down in my notes all the details found in papers, articles, and dissertations which supported my claims. I then went over my collection of slides and pictures taken during my last two trips to Egypt. I selected over 100 out of several thousand that I thought appropriate for advancing my thesis during the debate. As the last step, I tried to contact few of the well-known, independent researchers whom I knew had done some work in line with my thesis, in addition to a couple of authors who had published successful books on the subject. After several initial unsuccessful attempts and correspondences, I managed to secure a number of meetings, during which we discussed strategy on presentation and evidence and agreed on an orchestrated stratagem to engage against my adversaries, a move that was to prove enormously helpful during the upcoming debate.

I adjusted the straps of my heavy shoulder bag containing papers, photographs, and slides as I reached the doors leading to the gallery. About half a dozen people were standing outside, giving me an odd look which, at the time, I did not grasp. As we approached the door, the crowd opened a narrow path for us to pass through. Despite my earlier self-confidence and poise, at that moment, I felt a spark of anxiety creeping up through my body. As the doors opened and I had a chance to see the scene inside, my anxiety turned to apprehension.

As if feeling my apprehension, Mr Hendricks said, ‘We were told to expect a maximum of around 150 to 200 people, so we arranged seating for around 250 people. But as you see, there are more than 400 people in the room and around 200 outside. That’s why we had to close the doors and leave those people outside.’

The attendance was so dense that there was not even room enough for me to walk to the podium. Some people were standing, others seating cross-legged on the floor, and some even squatting on any space they could find. I looked at my watch; it showed 9.35 a.m. The debate was scheduled for ten o’clock. To calm my anxiety, I looked around for a familiar face. After a quick glance and to my delight, I saw Graham Hanecutt, one of the authors I had consulted and eventually met several times. He was sitting somewhere in the front rows near the podium and was frantically waving his hand to attract my attention. I waved back and was about to plough my way forwards to where he was sitting when a woman in her thirties with her hair tied in a ponytail and wearing a superbly tailored black suit suddenly appeared in front of me.

‘Dr Crane?’

‘Yeeees.’

‘I am Lizbeth Rankin of the British Museum. It is nice to meet you in person and put a face to your voice.’

‘Nice to meet you too, Mrs Rankin.’

‘It’s actually Miss Rankin, but my colleagues call me Dr Rankin. However, after so many telephone conversations, you can call me Lizbeth if you like.’

‘I think I prefer Dr Rankin. It’s somehow more suited to your character. By the way, how did you recognise me?’

‘My boss showed me a picture of you this morning. As the host and organiser of this event, it would not be very polite not to recognise one of your main guests.’

‘So you did actually have a face to my voice before meeting me.’

‘Strictly speaking yes, but it wasn’t a very good picture, and besides, meeting someone face to face is quite different from seeing someone’s picture.’

‘Can’t argue with that. I wish I had picture of you before this meeting, it would have changed my image of you. Now I just saw a friend of mine. If you don’t mind, I would like to go and say hello to him before taking my place on the podium and face my executioners.’

‘I came to escort you to the podium. If you don’t mind, I shall accompany you to your place of execution first, and then you can say hello to Mr Hanecutt.’

‘Ladies first,’ I said, pointing the way forwards.

We had to twist and meander our way through masses of sitting and standing spectators.

‘Didn’t expect so many people interested in the history of ancient Egypt, did you?’ I asked as we stepped between a couple sitting on the floor.

‘No, we did not, but in fact, we are delighted. The more ears to hear the truth, the faster and wider it will spread.’

‘My thoughts exactly. Despite having various talents, you are not a very good liar Dr Rankin,. I think you and your bosses are not very pleased with so much publicity or popularity generated by the recent independent investigations into such matters. For the past hundred years, the exploration, research, and writing of history have been monopolised by people like you who were financed and employed by archaic stalwarts with antiquated codes, such as the British Museum. The archaeologists had to conform to a given set of parameters dictated by the Establishment. Otherwise, they would be ridiculed and mocked by their colleagues and superiors before becoming unemployed. Now all that is changed. The Establishment is scared.’

‘Don’t you think you better save your opinion and arguments for the debate? I don’t care one way or another.’

By then, we had reached the second row of chairs where Graham Hanecutt was sitting, squeezed between two couples who each used a single chair to seat two people.

‘It was good of you to come, Graham. Comforting to see a friendly face.’

‘I wouldn’t have missed it for the world. Zac was supposed to be here as well, but I couldn’t find him.’

‘I am not surprised. You couldn’t find a camel with two humps here. By the way, this is Dr Rankin, public relation department of the British Museum, organiser of this popular event,’ I said, turning around to introduce Dr Rankin, but to my surprise, she had disappeared.

‘Oh, sorry, she seems to have vanished.’

‘You don’t mean that gorgeous lady who just left your side and walked up to the podium?’

I looked up at the podium that was on a platform some three feet above where I was standing.

‘That is she.’

‘It seems today is your day. Fortune is smiling upon you, my man. More audience than anybody could have imagined, beautiful host, and with a bit of luck a debate that will make you as famous as J. K. Rowling.’

‘I wouldn’t mind her money but not her fame.’

At that moment, Dr Rankin waved and motioned me to go up the podium. ‘Well, it seems I have been summoned. Wish me good luck, and thanks again for coming,’ I said and then after a pause asked, ‘By the way, did you manage to get your cameraman friend from Associated Press?’

Graham turned around and pointed to two men with large video cameras who were sitting on two chairs well above the rest of the crowd and at the far corner of the room. ‘We came in early and, with their press passes, managed to get a table large enough to support two chairs. As expected, the BM had not invited any press nor provided any facilities for them except for their own crew, of course,’ Graham said as he pointed to a crew of about six people with cameras, amplifiers, and other sophisticated equipment close to the podium.

‘You are a guardian angel. You don’t know how much this means to me.’

‘You are wrong there, my man. I know how much this means not only to you but for all of us as well. I would have brought my own video camera if I couldn’t get them to come. Go now and reveal the truth for everyone to see.’

I walked slowly up the stairs leading to the top of the platform, where a long table and seven chairs were placed. A microphone, a bottle of mineral water with a glass, a notebook, a pen, and a name tag were placed in front of every chair. ‘Dr Sebastian Crane’ was in front of the first chair. ‘I guess this is where I sit?’ I asked.

‘Yes, and I will be sitting next to you, a partition, if you like, between you and your adversaries,’ Lizbeth Rankin replied.

I took a walk along the length of the table to make sure of the identity of my adversaries. Their names were given to me a few days earlier by Dr Rankin: Prof. Abdul Hamid Hatef, Cairo University; Prof. Jane Westin, Institute of Oriental Studies, Chicago University; Dr Sharif Al Ghassem, Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA); Prof. Edmond de Havilland, Oxford University, representing Egypt Exploration Society (EES); Dr Patrick Richardson, head of Egyptology department, British Museum; and finally Dr Lizbeth Abigail Rankin, British Museum.

‘May I sit down, or shall I wait for the others to arrive?’ I asked.

‘They have just arrived and should be here in a few seconds.’ She had hardly finished her sentence when the door opened, and about half a dozen people walked in. They, too, became bewildered with the number and density of the spectators inside the room. After a short pause to assess the situation, they decided to take the long route and circumvent the crowd by walking next to the walls to reach the podium.

As they climbed up the stairs to reach the platform, a sudden hush descended over the room. Five of them stood behind their chairs while a couple spoke briefly to Lizbeth Rankin and walked back down to disappear amongst the crowd. Lizbeth Rankin slowly walked to her designated chair, gestured the participants to seat themselves, and looked briefly at the audience and camera crew before picking up the microphone.

‘Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dr Lizbeth Rankin, and I work for the British Museum, the sponsor and organiser of this event. Today’s dialogue is not about two opposing ideologies but about different interpretations of the same set of evidence, facts, and data. On my right, we have five distinguished Egyptologists and archaeologists, who have truly honoured us by being here and to have accepted our invitation to take part in this debate. On my left, we have a very bright and insightful Egyptologist/historian whose recent articles and publications have roused the interest and curiosity of many people, including, I am sure, a few of you sitting here. Combining this cast of august academicians, together with a most interesting subject matter such as we have here tonight, namely, history and origin of ancient Egypt, I am positive that we will have a very exciting, informative, and maybe entertaining few hours to look forward to. Before I introduce our panel, I Must ask the audience not to interrupt our guests during their discussions. We have allocated thirty minutes at the end of the session for your questions or comments. I now ask our guests to introduce themselves and to be very brief about it so as to leave more time for our debate. Let us begin with the gentleman to my left.’

I waited for Dr Rankin to take her seat before pulling the microphone forwards to speak.

‘My name is Dr Sebastian Crane.’

To my surprise and probably shock for the rest of the panel, as soon as I introduced myself, there was a loud roar and applause from the audience. I paused and looked up to see at least 70 per cent of the people standing up, giving me a much unexpected standing ovation. I felt euphoric and an uncontrolled elation at the sight and sound confronting me. I waited for the applause to finish, but before that, Dr Rankin interrupted and asked the audience to keep their applause for after the debate. Gradually, the applause died down, and people took their seats again.

I thanked the audience before continuing, ‘I worked as the research director and head of Egyptian study group at the Centre for Research into Ancient Religions and Creeds for five years. I resigned my post two years ago after realising that all my work were being classified as unacceptable and deemed not suitable for publication by my superiors. Since then, I have continued my research independently on the critical investigation into the possible origin of the Great Pyramid of Giza.’ I stopped and looked at Dr Rankin to signal the end of my introduction.

Next to introduce himself was Dr Patrick Richardson. After introducing himself, he began by listing his achievements during twenty-five years as a field archaeologist in the Middle East and Egypt and then moved on to his numerous credentials, ending with his appointment as the head of Egyptian department at the British Museum being the summit of his success.

Next in line was Prof. Edmond de Havilland of Oxford University. His introduction of himself was somehow more concise than that of Dr Richardson, but then he compensated by describing the glorious history and accomplishments of Egypt Exploration Society during the past 150 years.

Dr Sharif Al Ghassem, representing Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, was next. He was truly brief as he first apologised on behalf of his boss, the governor of the Council of Egyptian Antiquities, who was unable to attend, and then simply stated his name, position, and the organisation where he worked.

The most illustrious and probably best known member of the panel was Prof. Jane Westin of Chicago University, who introduced herself next. She was also brief, but by the tone of her voice and manner, it was obvious that she expected everyone who had the slightest interest in ancient Egypt to know all there was about her and her accomplishments.

The final member to introduce himself was Prof. Abdul Hamid Hatef of Cairo University. He began by describing an endless record of excavation projects he had either headed or been involved with before citing his academic credentials and honours.

After Professor Hatef completed his introduction, Dr Rankin thanked all the participants and then turned to me. ‘Dr Crane, I believe it is appropriate for you to begin the debate by stating your interpretation of the facts and where you believe the evidence has led you.’

I nodded in approval before I began.

TWO

The Debate

‘If you don’t mind, l shall begin with some elementary questions that are noticeably missing in all the official records, documentaries, and interviews and have noticeably been avoided by our esteemed archaeologists before we turn to the real fundamental issues. To begin with, for the past 150 years or so, the public has been indoctrinated through repeated labelling and advertising by experts, such as our learned panel here, to believe that the Great Pyramid was constructed as the tomb for the pharaoh Khufu. As our panel knows quite well, according to ancient Egyptian religion, after the mummification, the soul of the deceased travels to the underworld, where it has to go through various trials, culminating in what is known as the weighing of the heart. We don’t want to go into the details of underworld trials and journey. However, every actual tomb discovered so far, and I mean every single one without exception, has hieroglyphics describing the owner of the tomb and his achievements, as well as the journey through the underworld. In the Great Pyramid, where thousands of workers laboured for twenty years to prepare the greatest mausoleum ever built by man, not even a single hieroglyphics or painting pertaining to the underworld or the supposed builder had been found. Neither is there any trace of such artwork having ever been there in the past. It goes without saying that only an egomaniac would undertake such a colossal project as the Great Pyramid to be his last testament. We are all aware of a number of egomaniacs amongst the Egyptian pharaohs, Ramses II, Snefru, Djoser, Akhenaten, or even Hatshepsut. Each built numerous statues, edifices, and even cities to proclaim their greatness. If so, then the name and cartouche of Khufu should have been stamped not only all over the pyramid but also all over Egypt in numerous papyrus, stela, and engravings. Not a single record from Khufu’s era exists that mentions his name as having any connection to the greatest monument in Egypt. How would my esteemed colleagues, if they allow me to call them colleagues, can explain these abnormalities?’

I looked across the table at my adversaries. They glanced at one another with hesitation and an uneasy expression, a sign that gave me relative satisfaction and comfort. After what seemed like a very long interval, it was Dr Sharif Al Ghassem who spoke.

‘I will answer that question if I may. I shall begin by explaining the absence of hieroglyphics. The lack of any hieroglyphics in the Great Pyramid is quite normal. As a matter of fact, it would have been rather odd if we had found any hieroglyphics in Khufu’s pyramid. If one had studied the origin and history of hieroglyphics, it would be clear that during the fourth dynasty, when the Great Pyramid was built, the use of hieroglyphics had not yet become common in Egypt. In fact, almost all the pyramids built before and after Khufu, before the end of the Old Kingdom or more specifically until the reign of Pharaoh Unas in the fifth dynasty, are without any inscriptions. The same is true with regard to tombs’ wall paintings.’

He stopped and leaned back on his chair, signalling the end of his explanation.

‘With regard to tomb painting, it is true that no wall paintings have ever been found in the mastabas so far discovered, but what about painted wood carvings discovered by the legendary Mariette in the mastaba of Hesire in Saqqara dated to the third dynasty, or during the same epoch, do we not find fascinating tile ornamentations in the lower chambers of the Djoser Step Pyramid? Doesn’t this show that tomb ornamentation and beautification was customary and practised during the third dynasty well before the fourth or fifth dynasties?

‘Now as far as the pyramids are concerned, there may be another explanation, which I shall propose when we discuss the fundamental discrepancies in your propagated history about the origin of the Great Pyramids. Having said this, have we not found many painted and inlaid items in the tomb of Hetepheres at Giza that has been dated to the reign of Pharaoh Snefru, father of Khufu. Isn’t the third dynasty pharaoh Djoser not depicted in the lower east passage of the Step Pyramid performing part of the Heb-Sed ritual? Dr Ghassem, the hieroglyphs were in common use during the reign of Khufu and were found in tombs well before the fourth dynasty.’

I paused for few moment before continuing,

‘Your statement is somehow contradictory. In fact, the oldest hieroglyphs discovered were painted on bones and ivory at Abydos at the tomb labelled U-J, a predynastic ruler that dates back to the Naqada III, a period on or around 3400–3200 BC, the era when the legendary Scorpion King reigned some eight hundred years before Khufu. Of course, that was before the latest discovery which took place only a couple of days ago.’

I stopped, and after rummaging through my papers, I find the latest news I had just received from a colleague. I had jotted the main points on a piece of paper the size of a cigarette box. ‘Ah, here it is. Only yesterday, Yale News, describing the latest discovery by a team from Yale University headed by Professor Darnell, had this to say about a new discovery in the desert region of Elkab. I better read the whole text as it is quite recent and some of our colleagues may not yet be aware of it.

What do you call a team of Yale Egyptologists who just discovered the oldest known monumental Egyptian hieroglyphs? Absolutely flabbergasted, according to Professor John Coleman Darnell, codirector of the Elkab Desert Survey Project.

As reported by Yale News, Darnell and his team came across the hieroglyphs during their study of road networks around the ancient Egyptian city of Nekheb (modern Elkab) on the east bank of the Nile. At the site of El-Khawy, about four miles north of Elkab, they discovered two sets of ancient carvings: a section of rock art portraying a herd of elephants (dated c. 4000–3500 BCE) and a large hieroglyphic panel containing four signs (c. 3250 BCE).

Each symbol is roughly 20 inches tall. This is massive in comparison to the other early Egyptian inscriptions known to us, which are usually only 1 to 2 centimetres high.

This monumental inscription is located in the desert region of Elkab, just across the Nile River from Hierakonpolis, another important city of pre- and early dynastic Egypt.

From right to left, the rock panel depicts a bull’s head on a short pole, a saddlebill stork facing right, a bald ibis and a saddlebill stork facing left.

The signs of the inscription appear to equate royal authority (the bull’s head on a pole) with solar power (the back-to-back storks), explained Darnell in an email to Bible History Daily.

This newly discovered rock art site of El-Khawy preserves some of the earliest—and largest—signs from the formative stages of the hieroglyphic script and provides evidence for how the ancient Egyptians invented their unique writing system, Darnell told Yale News.

‘So as you see, even if we consider this new discovery as the beginning of hieroglyph writing, it is at least 750 years before Khufu. Logic tell us that by the time of fourth dynasty, hieroglyphs Must have been in common use, particularly for royal and funerary occasions.

‘Now to continue and give you further evidence, isn’t there a hieroglyphic description on the walls of the pyramid of Sekhemkhet, the second pharaoh of the third dynasty, that names Imhotep to be the designer of the pyramid? The same great architecture had his name inscribed on the base of a statue of Pharaoh Djoser as a sign of his appreciation, the highest tribute a pharaoh can bestow on one of his subjects. Talking of the Step Pyramid, isn’t the Horus name of Djoser, namely Netjerikhet, recorded on the Step Pyramid?

‘And don’t we have inscriptions belonging to the reign of Snefru, father of Khufu, on the Red and Maydum pyramid relating to twenty-fourth cattle count by the pharaoh. How do we know that the ancient Egyptians used the name Snefru as Shining in the South or the Southern Shining Pyramid for what we now called the Bent Pyramid?

‘Isn’t there substantial hieroglyphics on the walls of the room housing the boat found at the base of the Great Pyramid which gives the name of Redjedef, son of Khufu, as the one who built and offered the boat to his father for his underworld journey? Ladies and gentlemen, there Must be other explanations on why no record is found about who built the Great Pyramid. More specifically, the absence of any cartouche on such monument, whether of Khufu or any other pharaoh, is not only peculiar but it’s also downright absurd,’ I said and leaned back to signal the end of my argument.

Dr Richardson spoke as soon as I completed my sentence. ‘Yes, but since we are discussing the Great Pyramid, we must remember that, in archaeology, one cannot take isolated instances and arrive at a general hypothesis or speculation. Absence of any hieroglyph by itself does not amount to any proof. All the facts and evidence must be put together to arrive at a logical conclusion. For instance, in the Giza plateau, we have discovered texts that deal with other edifices such as the valley temple, mortuary temple, and the boat that all belong to the fourth dynasty.’

‘My very point, Doctor. Since these other structures were probably built by one or some of the fourth dynasty pharaohs, there are texts and records available that do mention the names of builders, but again, nothing in the Great Pyramid or about the Great Pyramid with Khufu’s name has ever been found. In fact, his name should have been written all over the Great Pyramid. His statues and drawing should have been carved and painted in the passageways, walls, and chambers. His sarcophagus and burial chamber should have been decorated with beautiful ornamental tiles if it was his tomb. But we find none of these in the Great Pyramid, and there is no evidence that there ever was any decoration. Why? Because it wasn’t his tomb. In fact, it wasn’t Khufu’s at all. I will elaborate on this fact later, but what is more intriguing is that nothing has ever been written about the Great Pyramid in Egyptian records. Not a single word about who built it, when it was built, or why it was built. Nothing. For a civilisation that kept detailed and meticulous records for even mundane events, this is absurd.’ I replied.

At this point, Dr Rankin interrupted the discussion. ‘Well, since our time is extremely limited and both sides have made their points, I believe we should end our discussion of this particular topic at this point and move to the next subject. Dr Crane, please.’

‘Yes, of course.’ I took a sip of water as a breather before continuing, ‘My next elementary question is, If as you claim the pyramids were built as tombs, how is it that not even a single mummy has ever been found in any of the 100 or so pyramids so far discovered?’

‘This is simply not true,’ replied Professor de Havilland. ‘In fact, many of the pyramids contained remains of mummified kings and even queens, as well as funerary artefacts. In fact, in two of the pyramids you just mentioned, remains of entombed people as well as their funerary objects were found. In Djoser’s pyramid, the remains of a gilded sandal as well as human skull were found, and later excavations discovered pieces of skin and bone from a human left foot and an upper arm.

‘In the Sekhemkhet pyramid complex, in an area known as the south tomb, a wooden coffin with the remains of a male child about two years of age was discovered.

‘In the Red Pyramid, which was constructed by Snefru, the founder of the fourth dynasty, some badly damaged and burnt mummified human remains were found.

‘In the burial chamber of the Neferefre pyramid, archaeologists found the remains of alabaster canopic jars, containers for funerary offerings, and most importantly significant portions of the king’s mummified remains.’

‘Thank you, Professor,’ I interrupted somehow uncouthly before continuing, ‘We all know about the pieces of cloths, sandals, shreds of bones, pieces of human flesh, and burnt linens and so forth discovered in various pyramids. You could have mentioned pyramids of Djedkare, Lepsius, Unas, et al. But as you are well aware, none of these are proofs that any mummified pharaoh was ever buried in any of the pyramids. It has never been proved that any of these pieces belonged to a pharaoh. They could have been left there at a much later date. We all know that cult of pharaohs survived them for many decades or even centuries after the death of a particular pharaoh. These pieces could have easily belonged to priests belonging to the cult of a particular pharaoh or soldiers who died while taking cover or refuge in a pyramid. My statement remains valid. Mummified remains of any pharaoh has never been discovered in any of the pyramids.’

‘Dear doctor, it is an established fact that most royal tombs were robbed soon after the burial or at a later date. The absence of a complete mummified body in a pyramid is not an acceptable proof that the pyramids were not royal tombs,’ De Havilland said matter-of-factly.

‘That may be true, but the same logic dictates that finding bits and pieces is not an acceptable proof that the pyramids were indeed tombs. Having said this, if the robbery theory is the most solid argument you have, then you Must accept that if a coffin or sarcophagus was discovered intact and sealed, then it must be admitted that the tomb was not robbed and must contain a mummified body. Unfortunately for the tomb theorists, it turns out that even when a tomb with sealed sarcophagus was discovered, it turned out to be empty,’ I replied and then leafed through my notes to a list I had prepared before continuing, ‘If you bear with me, I will read a short list I have here.

•Flinders Petrie, who excavated the first second dynasty structures at Abydos and believed them to be tombs, recorded that no human burial was ever found.

•The alleged coffer of Queen Hetepheres discovered by American George Reisner at Giza was perfectly sealed at the time of its discovery and had to be winched open – but it was empty.

•The internal chamber of a third dynasty pyramid at Saqqara was opened by Chief Inspector of Antiquities Dr Zakaria Goneim in 1954, and found to be absolutely empty.

•As discovered and researched by Professor Edwards, the seven pyramids attributed to third dynasty pharaoh Huni were found empty with nothing to suggest they were built to serve as tombs.

•According to Mark Lehner of Harvard University, the third dynasty Layer Pyramid at Zawiyet el-Aryan was explored, and it was found that the galleries were clean and empty with no trace of a burial.

•In the same area, the fourth dynasty unfinished pyramid was found containing a granite coffer with the lid mortar-sealed and undisturbed, but it was empty.

•The pyramid of Pharaoh Unas, last king of the fifth dynasty, contained an undamaged coffer opened by Maspero in 1881, and guess what, it was found to be empty.’

I put my notes away and continued, ‘As you are all well aware, during the 1950s, four pyramids were discovered with their funerary chambers and sarcophagus still sealed, yet they were all found to be empty. No mummies of pharaohs or anybody else was found in the sealed sarcophagus. I believe, faced with lack of evidence, even some of your prominent colleagues have been forced to somewhat prevaricate their ideas about the tomb theory. Kurt Mendelssohn, professor of physics at Oxford University, has criticised the Egyptian scholars for inadequate and poor scientific methods and has suggested funerary monuments as a more appropriate and accurate label for the pyramids. Closer at home, the doyen of Egyptologists, Prof. I. E. S. Edwards went even further by suggesting the term funerary cenotaphs as a more accurate function for the pyramids than tombs.

‘But let us get back to the Great Pyramid. I have a short story to tell for the sake of our audience here, of course, as you esteemed colleague Must be quite familiar with it, which may answer many questions and clarify few claims regarding the tomb theory of the Great Pyramid.

‘In the ninth century AD, Caliph al-Ma’mun decided to find a way into the Great Pyramid, hoping to find treasure as well as untold secret and knowledge left by the ancients. Drilling on the north face, the workers, through sheer luck or otherwise, managed to connect with a descending corridor. By some further luck, the vibration caused by the constant battering and drilling dislodged a block of limestone from the ceiling of descending passage. The socket from which the block had fallen proved to conceal another opening to a passage. However, as the opening was blocked by a series of enormous plugs of solid granite placed at the time of construction of the pyramid, the workers drilled around the softer limestone to make an opening slightly higher up onto the ascending passage. What this means, and this is very important, is that the obstacle of granite plugs placed there by the builders had never been breached before.

‘The implications for Ma’mun and his team of workers was obvious. This was virgin ground with untouched treasure awaiting them at the end of the corridors. But imagine their disappointment when they entered the queen’s chamber first and then the king’s chamber, nothing, not a piece of torn cloth, broken pottery, small statue, or figurine, nothing except an empty sarcophagi. It looked as if someone had swept the floors with a broom and then vacuum-cleaned both chambers. How could this be possible if they were the first to enter the chambers?’

‘But you have forgotten about another way into the chambers.’

‘No, I haven’t, Professor de Havilland, the so-called well shaft. Our prominent Egyptologists claim that the thieves built a well shaft from the bottom of the descending passage to the horizontal corridor leading into the queen’s chamber and took all the treasure through this little passageway. The well shaft is only about three feet in diameter. It is almost vertical with many tiny twists and bends along its 160-foot passage. Even if the thieves could have used this passage, they were only able to carry a small portion of the treasure. Large items such as gold coffins, chariots, statues, and even the mummy could not be carried through this passage. Besides, the opening to this shaft from the descending corridor was sealed and hidden. Are we to believe that the thieves, after removing the treasure, took their time to seal the opening and then conceal it? Why? The fact of the matter is that the secret doorway to the well shaft remained sealed and undiscovered until 1830, when Captain Caviglia managed to discover it by excavating from above. To put an end to this theory, recent investigation has proved that the well shaft could not have been dug at a later date and must have been made at the time of building the pyramid. It is almost impossible to drill through 160 feet of solid masonry and connect the two passageways by chance.

‘Even the overall design of the Great Pyramid, such as the small size of the passageways, is unsuited for human movements, let alone for carrying a heavy sarcophagus and funerary procession. When one considers the sheer size of the edifice, why build the passageways so small? Why build only two tiny rooms? The pyramid could have housed 1,700 rooms the size of the king’s chamber. All these details attest to the fact that the Great Pyramid’s function was something other than a tomb.

‘But before we finish with this topic, I would like to make a statement. According to my hypothesis, which will become clear later, I would accept that some of the pyramids in Egypt may have been constructed as funerary or even possibly burial sites but not the three pyramids at Giza and definitely not the Great Pyramid.’

‘Thank you both for your comments.’ Dr Rankin thought the moment opportune to jump in and then turned to me and asked, ‘Dr Crane, do you have any more elementary questions to ask our panel, or shall we move to more fundamental topics?’

‘In fact, I do have two more elementary questions, if I may,’ I replied, feeling quite happy with my performance about the tomb theory. ‘The first question, which is directly related to our previous discussion, namely tomb theory, is this. Is it not true that according to the ancient Egyptian theogony or religion, the world of the dead or the Duat is known as the underworld, where the souls of the dead abide and go through various trials and tests to be reborn and become immortal, and this abode, as suggested by its name, is located deep under the ground, a subterranean region? And it is because of this belief that all Egyptian tombs, whether of pharaohs or commoners, were placed beneath the ground. If you accept this fundamental religious custom and still believe that the Great Pyramid was built as the tomb of Khufu, then why is it that the so-called king’s chamber and the queen’s chamber were placed above the ground within the Great Pyramid? Is this not contradictory to the traditional Egyptian funerary values and burial rites?’

This time, it was the turn of Prof. Jane Westin to answer the question. ‘What you state is quite true. The Egyptians did bury their dead underground. However, as we see in various burial sites such as the Valley of the Kings and Saqqara, some of the tombs where built inside the mountains and caves, at elevations that are above the ground but still considered underground. The Great Pyramid was built to represent a mountain, a primordial mound so to speak, or a divine mountain. Therefore, both the king’s and queen’s chambers do, in fact, represent the underworld.’

I was prepared for this answer. ‘If that is the case, then why in all other pyramids where any trace of a burial chamber has been discovered – such as the so-called pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure in Giza, the two pyramids at Saqqara, and two in Dahshur – all the burial chambers were built under the ground? In two other pyramids where some traces of tunnelling within the pyramid have been found, namely, the two pyramids at Abu Sir, where the tunnelling are above the ground, there are again no traces of what could be identified as burial chambers.’

‘If one considers the pyramids as primordial or primeval mounds, which they certainly were to the ancient Egyptians, then it really doesn’t make any difference whether the burial chamber is above or below the actual ground level. In the Abu Sir pyramids, the level of deterioration is such that any burial chamber may simply have been destroyed rather than their absence being the proof that no burial chambers were there in the first place. In a collapsed pyramid, the absence of burial chamber is not the proof that the original structure was not built as a tomb,’ Professor Westin replied with an arrogant expression.

‘Dear professor, I may be mistaken, and if so, please correct me. As far as I know, in none of the ancient texts are the pyramids referred to as the primeval mounds. The only instance where such a term is identified is in the Idfu text, where it states that it was the Seven Sages who initiated the construction work at this Great Primeval Mound, and Prof. I. E. S. Edwards identifies the Great Primeval Mound to be the natural mound or outcropping of rock which lies underneath and upon which the Great Pyramid was built. The actual pyramid itself was never referred to or called the Primeval Mound.’

‘Well, thank you, Professor Westin and Dr Crane. Since Dr Crane has another elementary question to ask the panel, I think we should move on so that we may have sufficient time for more fundamental questions and issues,’ Dr Rankin said. ‘And now, Dr Crane, please let’s have your last elementary question before we break for lunch.’ She gave me a funny look.

‘Very well, Dr Rankin. My last question is also a continuation of my first question and has already been referred to very briefly. We know ancient Egyptians to have been extremely studious and accurate recorders of times and events. There are numerous documentations showing how they accurately recorded the seasonal inundation of Nile, harvesting of crops, wages of officials, administrative and bookkeeping, and judicial cases all the way to details of individual battles throughout their history. That is why the scribes were held in such great esteem. How is it then that not a single word is written about the building of the greatest monument ever built by the Egyptians? Isn’t it at least unusual or even bizarre that not a single sentence was ever recorded by the scribes regarding the most expensive, the most labour-intensive, and until the late nineteenth century the greatest edifice ever built by man? As I said before, all great builders, such as Snefru and Ramses II, were by definition egomaniacs and not only left their cartouche and sign on buildings and temples built during their reign but some also even carved their names on edifices that were built by their predecessors. Even if we presume the absurd hypothesis that Khufu was a modest man who did not want his name to be carved anywhere on or inside his great creation, how is it possible that none of the scribes in the length and breadth of his empire never wrote anything about the building of such a superstructure? Khufu must have levied high taxes to finance his project. He must have provided great incentives to his people to come and work on his great project. In short, the whole resources of the empire must have been employed to complete this enormous task. Isn’t it strange that not even a single word has been written about this greatest of all projects? I would certainly like to know your explanation about the lack of official records regarding the building of the Great Pyramid.’

I sat back and waited for a reply I knew would not be easy.

Professor Hatef cleared his throat, thus declaring his turn and readiness to tackle the question. ‘It is certainly true that Egyptians kept detailed and accurate records. However, almost all the records discovered started from the middle towards the end of the fifth dynasty. Previous to this date, namely, during the first, second, third, and