The Big Debate
Well as we all know, the official view point is the Pyramids were built as tombs for the pharaohs and their queens, from before the beginning of the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom.
I believe there is good reason to question this. . .
I am no expert, my only qualification is my Fine Art training and background, love for History, not to mention my fascination for Egypt and I must add, alternative History.
So yes a dilettante, but a serious one.
We will have to sift our way to all kinds of conspiracy theories ranging from the scientifically feasible to the utterly preposterous, and try to present a balanced result.
Of course the first question is why do the Egyptologists stubbornly cling to their tomb theory? Is there enough solid evidence for this theory? Am I so uniquely brilliant as to be among a select few that see through all the subterfuge? Egyptologists are hardly idiots and they have more or less 150 years of archeology to draw upon. But surely they know there are many problems with the Tomb hypothesis? Even if they believe it to be so surely there is room for other points of view that may be worthy of following up?
If there is room for doubt then why not do further research?
It is interesting to me that immediately I asked myself this question when the self same query pops up in my latest read, in the admittedly 'fringe' book
Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt by John Anthony West
West is well known for upsetting the Egyptologist's applecart and in the book he too wondered why the Egyptologists were so hung up on this theory especially in the light of the following issues. . .
"the numerous small pyramids of Middle and Late Kingdom Egypt were clearly and obviously designed as tombs, and have disclosed a wealth of mummies and coffins, the eight 'great' pyramids assigned to the Third and Fourth Dynasties of the Old Kingdom have revealed no sign of either coffin or mummy. The construction of these vast edifices differs in every way from the later tombs. The curious, slanting passageways could not possibly be less conducive to the elaborate funerary rituals for which Egypt was famed. The stark interiors of the 'tomb chambers' stand in vivid contrast to the lavishly inscribed and carved chambers of later Egypt.
(this is just for starters. . .)
 |
| This is the one and only entrance into the Kings Chamber - Just exactly How was the Funeral Cortege going to get the Kings Body with all the rituals and regalia through this little entrance? |
 |
| The so called "Sarcophagus" just a little bit on the small side for a Royal Mummified Body |
Of course any Egyptologist has studied many years, courses in archeology, Anthropology, History, particularly of Egypt according to available records. They are required to learn relevant languages such as Greek and Arabic.
As a specialist in the ancient Egyptian language, they have taken courses in Old, Middle and Late Egyptian. . . in both hieroglyphic and hieratic scripts, Demotic, and Coptic.
They will also have studied the art and architecture of ancient Egypt in all its different periods.
So these guys are well grounded and have been awarded with Doctorates as well as time in the field.
So now, what happens when a Raconteur like West challenges the existing paradigm? It doesn't matter how hard he works and how thorough is his research, he is outside the "family" and even if he rocks the boat with TV programs narrated by Charlton Heston and backed up with the research of Eminent Geologist Dr Robert Schoch. . . the fraternity can ignore his claims with the comforting repost that he is not a qualified Egyptologist and his studies are not peer-reviewed and therefore he does not need to be taken seriously.
If there is going to be a serious challenge to existing research then it has to come from within the field itself.
We need a face off
Well perhaps we can try. . .So in the one corner we have. . . a well known example of traditional Egyptology
Mark Lehner
Who tells us of his particular position on his LOST CITY website
"I went to Egypt to study at the American University in Cairo and to search for the Hall of Records that psychic Edgar Cayce had prophesied lay beneath the Sphinx."
Edgar Cayce was an American psychic who ignited many peoples curiosity when he predicted in the 1940's there was a secret subterranean chamber hidden under the paws of the Giza Sphinx that had information in it about Atlantis and could possibly answer all questions about the origins of the Pyramids.
Mark Lehner was one of many people who since the explosion of Egyptology in the 1800's found themselves drawn in to the fascinating study of Archeology and unwrapping these and other mysteries of Ancient Egypt.
He is known for his discovery of the "workers for the Pyramids" who were discovered not to be teams of slaves driven by whips by Stern overlords as previously understood, but rather a willing group of paid workers whose living quarters had now been discovered and unearthed.
Lehner states on his Website that his early ideas about Edgar Cayce were perhaps more romantic than factual and he does argue quite reasonably that
"we found that our initial notions about the ancient civilisation along the Nile could not stand up to the bedrock reality of the Giza Plateau."
and
"While my early experiences gave me a respect for many who seek a deeper meaning in the Egyptian antiquities, I came to believe that what we can know and understand about ancient Egypt must be learned through the application of the scientific method." ( This statement in itself makes the claim that all other avenues of enquiry unless under the protective oversight of the Council of Egyptian antiquities, are invalid). So placing himself under the wing of the "Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities and Director of the Giza Pyramids Excavation" Zawi Hawass he is firmly entrenched as 'one of them' the protectors of the Paradigm.
and in the other corner we present:
Stephen Mehler
 |
| Stephen Mehler with his long term associate Abd'El Hakim Awyan |
"Mehler also served as a Staff research scientist for the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, in San Jose, California from 1978-1980."https://stephenmehler.wordpress.com/about-2/
Oops that sounds rather esoteric - perhaps is a clue to what estranges such a well qualified veteran from the (other) "fraternity".
Just to illustrate how Polarised are the two camps lets have a quick look at a ostensibly innocent example of how the two opposing mindsets differ over the seemingly innocuous issue of the meaning of the word Pyramid.
The word. . . Pyramid
(The following is taken from Mehler's website http://www.gizapyramid.com/mehler-originword.htm )The word pyramid is derived from the Greek words PYRAMIS and PYRAMIDOS. The meaning of the word Pryamis is obscure and may relate to the shape of a pyramid. The word Pyramidos has been translated as "Fire In The Middle". This meaning is very interesting and I will return to it later.
(Me: Not being a Greek Scholar I pick up on the Greek 'Pyro'. . . Greek word πυρ (pyr) meaning fire) as in Pyrotechnic for example)
Well known American Egyptologist Mark Lehner has stated that the ancient Khemitian term for pyramid was something he calls MR.Pyramid. Lehner bases this on his translation of MR as "Place of Ascension" following his belief that pyramids were tombs for kings and where the dead king’s souls "ascended".
But MR, usually written as Mer, is commonly translated as beloved, as in Meriamen (Beloved of Amen, The Hidden) or Meritaten (Beloved of Aten, The Wiser). Our indigenous sources tell us Mer meant "beloved" and had nothing to do with pyramid.
My Indigenous Wisdom Keeper teacher, Abd'El Hakim Awyan, states unequivocally that the ancient Khemitians used the term PR.NTR, Per-Neter, for pyramid. Per means "house" and Neter we have discussed in the previous article. Neter has been translated by Egyptologists as "God" or "Goddess" but we reject this mistranslation.
In alignment with the indigenous tradition, we use the interpretation "House of Nature, House of Energy" for Per-Neter. The temple was Per-Ba (House of the Soul) and the tomb was Per-Ka (House of the Physical Projection) according to the indigenous tradition.
With this understanding of Per-Neter as House of Nature, I state categorically that no one was ever intended to be buried in a pyramid in its original intent! Even Mark Lehner has admitted that no evidence of an original burial in any of the major Khemitian pyramids has ever been found. Also no inscriptions or reliefs either depicting or stating that any king was ever buried in a pyramid have ever been found.
One of the main purposes of the Great Per-Neter was to generate, transform, and transmit energy. The Indigenous Wisdom Keepers of Egypt have provided us a concrete paradigm to support the power plant theory of Christopher Dunn.
Although Egyptologists base their pyramid-as-tomb theories on the writings of Greek historians such as Herodotus, the Greek word Pyramidos is closer to the true meaning. Indeed, if we support Dunn’s ideas that the energy reactions in the Great Pyramid took place in the so-called Queen’s and King’s Chambers, then certainly it was Fire In The Middle.
 |
| Glyph of Per-Neter, House of Nature, Energy. Taken by author at Abusir,1997. |
Well now, what do we know of ancient Egyptian? Here is an argument about the translations from two qualified Scholars with differing world-views.
Lehner uses 'Mer' to designate 'ascension', which ties in with his tomb theory, Mehler uses 'Per' which ties in with the 'ancient power-plant' theory.
Here is a prime example of how two Scholars with similar knowledge, training and experience, studying exactly the same evidence, can come to two completely separate conclusions.
Who do we believe?
Just follow your heart just isn't going to work here. Is it not so that people in general, including highly qualified Scholars, decide on a particular point of view and then look for the evidence to support it, Instead of the evidence leading to a point of view?
I would suggest this is the norm and not the exception. . .
One really big preconception is the theory of Evolution. Without delving into the prehistoric aspect (for now), this is a world-view that is foisted onto Egyptology (as it is with all fields of Scholarly study) today. The issues we find ourselves dealing with are mainly concerned with the neat progressive chart from hunter-gather to ancient civilisations and eventually to modern technological man.
Without attempting to get into the debate, any idea that civilisations could have existed in the dim distant and unrecorded past that do not 'fit' into the paradigm, are simply rejected. This really is the key to the whole problem, since any Egyptologist will be happy to debate various issues as long as they are placed neatly within the time scale. The ideas of Stephen Mehler and Christopher Dunn are an interesting debate, but they would necessitate a revision of the time scale, and we know Egyptology will simply refuse to do so.
So the stand-off remains.
