A superordinate plan of the Giza Plateau

A superordinate plan of the Giza Plateau Stefan Bergdoll Abstract The Giza Plat eau near Cairo w it h t he t hree Egypt ian Great Pyramids has alw ays posed riddles since t he const ruct ion of t he pyram ids. To t his day, for example, it is st ill unclear how t he Pyramid of Khufu was built . But an analyt ical look at t he sit e plan of t he t hree great pyramids of Khufu, Khafre and M ykerinos reveals t hat t he Great Pyramids should not be viewed singularly, but as an overall ensem ble, since t he arrangem ent of t he pyramids and t he Sphinx in relat ion t o each ot her did not arise by chance, but are part of a superordinat e plan. A precise analysis of t he sit e plan dat a collect ed w it h great precision by Flinders Pet rie in t he 1880s shows t hat t he Khufu and Khafre pyramids and t he Sphinx m ust have been planned by t he same person wit h regard t o t heir posit ion in relat ion t o each ot her, but not t he M ykerinos pyramid. Since Khafre, as t he son of Khufu, w as cert ainly able t o w it ness his fat her's const ruct ion work, it can be assum ed t hat Hemiunu, as t he presum ed m ast er builder of t he Pyram id of Khufu, was also involved in t he planning of t he Pyramid of Khafre and t he Sphinx. Hemiunu's signat ure, a dist ance of 1000 royal cubits, w hich occurs no less than five times in the overall ensemble of the Pyramid of Khufu, t he Pyramid of Khafre, t he Sphinx and t he Tomb of Hem iunu, is a clear indicat ion of joint planning by him. The occurrence of a distance of 1788 royal cubits in relation to the Pyramid of M ykerinos, t he Sphinx and t he Pyramid of Khufu, which can be t raced in a t ot al of four places, clearly point s t o anot her planner/ builder who also want ed t o imm ort alise himself on t he Giza Plat eau in t he form of t his signat ure. A closer look at the Giza Plateau The plat eau near t he Egypt ian town of Giza, on which t he t wo great pyram ids and t he somewhat smaller pyramid stand, is commonly referred to as the Giza Plateau. The lowest pyramid there is the Pyramid of Khufu, 60 metres above sea level. This puts it about 50 metres above the low w ater level of t he Nile. As t he plat eau rises t ow ards t he sout h, t he Pyramid of Khafre and t he Pyramid of M enkaure are higher t han t he Pyramid of Khufu. In t he case of t he Pyramid of Khafre, t his is around 10 m et res, w hich makes it appear taller than the Pyramid of Khaf re w hen view ed from a distance. M any earlier t ravellers also not ed t his. The precision t hat has been scient ifically proven t oday, especially in t he orient at ion of t he Pyram id of Khufu due nort h, suggest s t hat t he builders had made precise ast ronom ical observat ions, including t he sun's course. For t hem, t he sun had always been t he giver of life, along wit h t he Nile. Therefore, t hey worshipped the sun in the f orm of their sun god Ra (also Re), called Atum, w hose hieroglyph is the sun disk w ith a dot in t he middle. A sun temple w as erected in honour of Atum or Ra from the earliest times. The Egypt ians believed t hat t he Primeval M ound was locat ed; a mound was t he only one t o emerge from t he all-encompassing prim ordial w at ers and where t he prim ordial god At um had creat ed himself. The ancient Egyptians called this m ythological place Iunu (Egypt ian: ), w hich means “ t he pillars” and refers to the many temples they erected there in honour of Atum ( Re/ Ra ). In pre-dynastic tim es, i.e. in t he 4t h m illennium BC, t he cit y w as a regional cent re. The t em ple dist rict becam e t he heart of t he cit y of Iunu. In the Old Testament, this city was called On, while the Greeks then called it Heliopolis (city of the sun). From the pyramid text utterance 477, according to the Osiris myth, the mythological trial t ook place in t he princely house of t his cit y. Set h w as accused of t he murder of Osiris and w as found guilt y by t he divine judges. As early as 1837, a precise topographical m ap w as produced by John Shae Perring, who w orked for a long t im e t oget her wit h Howard Vyse on t he Giza Plat eau. There is an apparent connect ion bet w een t his ancient solar sanct uary at Iunu and t he Giza Plat eau. Just as t he Giza pyram ids were aligned precisely due nort h and t he Sphinx, w hich is 72.55 m ( ≈ 138.5 cubit s) long, was aligned exact ly due east t o t he rising sun at t he equinox, t he posit ion of t he pyram ids on t he plat eau was also aligned t o t he sun t emple1 in Iunu . Suppose one connect s t he sout hwest corner of t he pyram id of M enkaure w it h t he sout heast corner of t he Pyramid of Khufu and ext ends t his line. In t hat case, it also runs direct ly t hrough t he cent re of t he first sat ellit e pyramid of Khufu, which belonged to his m other, Hetepheres. Then, at 46,800 cubits (≈ 24.5 km ), it m eets the solar sanctuary at Iunu (Heliopolis).2 It is pretty impressive how the tw o places are connected over such a great distance. 3 If one assumes t hat t he main t emple at Iunu w as at least 10 m high, it could certainly be seen from the Giza plateau. Nevertheless, the precise alignment is a masterpiece of ancient engineering. M ark Lehner and Zahi Hawass remark on t his in t heir lat est pyramid book: “ A certain degree of accuracy can also be achieved by simple eye measurement. The “ Giza diagonal“ touches the southw est corners of all pyramids (the southw est corner of the Khafre pyramid, how ever, is set back a few metres from this diagonal). If one walks along the southern ridge of the M aadi Formation in an easterly direction, looking tow ards the pyramids, t he three huge structures arranged in a line move closer and closer together the closer you get to them. At a certain point – in the lee of a small hill – the southeast corners of all t hree main pyramids overlap and t he Pyramid of Khufu disappears behind t hose of Khafre and M enkaure. If you go forw ard or back a step of less than a metre – little for a building line of many kilometres – you see the three pyramids separated again.” 4 1 2 3 4 GPS coordinat es: 30° 7ʹ 45.6ʺ N, 31° 18ʹ 27.1ʺ E. Today, t here is st ill an obelisk called t he al-M asalla obelisk, erected by Senusret I (12t h Dyn.). Today, the sit e is locat ed in t he M at aria district of Cairo. Carst en Niebuhr writ es about t his in his t ravelogues, which are based on his visit t o Heliopolis in December 1761: “ But there is nothing left of it [Heliopolis] but large dams and mounds full of small pieces of marble, granit e and shards, some remains of a sphinx, and an obelisk st ill standing upright, which may have been too heavy for the new er inhabitant s to carry away. The lat ter is of granit e, of one piece, and inscribed on all four sides with hieroglyphics. … The floor of the Temple of t he Sun was then perhaps no higher t han the land out side the dams. So it would be wort h the effort if someone could have digging done at this obelisk and invest igat e how high the floor is now covered w ith eart h.” (Niebuhr 1774, 99). Ow n translation from German. Using Google Eart h, anyone can easily underst and this for them selves. Take t he measuring inst rument and draw a line from t he sout heast corner of t he Pyramid of M enkaure t o t he al-M asalla obelisk. Lehner and Hawass 2017, 409. Fig. 1: Giza Plat eau 1837 aft er John Shae Perring. Fig. 2: Giza Plat eau: Position and distances according to Flinders Pet rie, Uvo Hölscher, George A. Reisner and M ark Lehner. Distances rounded to whole royal cubits (52.36 cm). In t he figure above you can see t he Giza diagonal5, w hich starts at the bot tom left at point G1(M enkaure sout h-east corner), t hen runs t hrough G2 (Khufu sout heast corner), and finally via G3 (centre of the Pyramid of Hetepheres) to G4 (solar sanct uary in Heliopolis). The dist ance from G1 (M enkaure corner) to G3 (m iddle of t he Het epheres pyram id) is precisely 2,000 royal cubit s. The t ot al diagonal from G1 to G4 (Sun Sanctuary in Heliopolis) is 46,800 cubits or approximately 24.5 km. 6 It s angle t o t he nort h-sout h orientation of the Pyramid of Khufu is 45.67° and thus com es close to a diagonal in a square at 0.67°. At a dist ance of 2,000 cubit s (≈ 1.05 km), t he deviat ion of t he Giza diagonal from a square diagonal with a 45° angle is just 23.4 cubits ( ≈ 12.25 m). Lehner st at es t he following concerning t he Giza Plat eau and t he significance of t he sun: “ Another dramatic effect is created at sunset during the summer solstice as view ed, again, from the eastern niche of the Sphinx Temple. At this time, and from this vantage, t he sun sets almost exactly midway betw een t he Khufu and Khafre Pyramids, t hus construing t he image of the akhet, “ horizon“ , hieroglyph on a scale of acres.” 7 In Howard Vyse's t ime, t he “ gunpowder-archaeologist ” , H. C. Agnew, in a book about t he Giza pyramids, expressed his view t hat all t hree significant pyramids belonged t o a planned overall ensemble.8 Hemiunu’s signature of 1 ,000 royal cubits The Sphinx 9 it self is orient ed exact ly due east and t hus t o t he rising sun at t he equinoxes. The dist ances given in t he above diagram show t hat cert ain dist ances were cert ainly det erm ined by planning, especially the cubit values divisible by 40. 10 The distance of t he Sphinx from t he rear rock gap of t he back (point L) ( cf. Fig. 7) to the enclosing w all of the Pyramid of Khafre or the centre of the Pyramid of Khafre is 1,000 cubit s (= 523.6 m). We can conclude t hat t he dist ance of 1,000 cubit s on t he Giza Plat eau is of part icular import ance. Not ewort hy in t his cont ext is t he choice of t he back rock gap of t he ridge (point L) as the star ting point for the 1,000-cubit distances. This choice only m akes sense if, at that time, the Sphinx had eit her sunk int o t he sand, as it had for most of it s hist ory, and only t he head wit h neck and t he t op layer of t he back w ere peeking out , or if t he body of t he Sphinx had not yet been dislodged 5 6 7 8 9 10 See here Lehner and Hawass 2017, 44, 409 u. 455. To st ill recognise an object at a dist ance of 24.5 km , t he object m ust be at least 47.1 m higher than t he observer because of t he eart h's curvat ure if t he observer and t he object to be observed are on t he same plane (height ). The ground on w hich t he Sun Sanct uary st ood w as about 14 m above sea level (normal zero), w hile t he Pyramid of Khufu w as 60 m above normal zero at it s base. The difference in height is t herefore 46 m. Thus, at t his dist ance from t he Giza Plat eau, an object t hat is at least 1.1 m high can be seen in clear t o very clear view ing conditions. At this dist ance, object s can just be dist inguished from each other if t hey are at least 1.13 m apart (see foot note 17). M . E. Lehner 1985, 141. Agnew 1838, 5: “ the t hree great pyramids of Gizeh w ere component part s of one immense syst em, members of a vast unit ed t riad, each in it self admirable, but all three so connected w ith the first principle of the syst em as to form but one perfect whole. If then, in the cont emplat ion of one of these sublime st ruct ures, we are lost in astonishment at the great ness of the undertaking, how must our wonder be increased when we find that all were planned at once! t hat before a stone of the great causeway was laid, the precise proport ions of the second and third pyramids, as w ell as of the first , w ere unalterably determined by the necessary effect of the rule w hich fixed the lengt h and breadt h of the causew ay it self! “ On t he specific positioning of t he Sphinx on t he Giza Plat eau, Edgar Cayce also made a st at ement about t his in one of his sessions (Reading 195/ 14) on 18 July 1925. He w as asked in a t rance, “ In what capacit y did this entity act regarding the building of t he sphinx?“ t o w hich he replied, “ As the monument s w ere being rebuilt in the plains of that now called the pyramid of Gizeh, this entit y builded, laid, the foundations; that is, superint ended same, figured out the geomet rical position of same in relation to t hose buildings as were put up of t hat connect ing the sphinx. And the dat a concerning same may be found in the vault s in the base of the sphinx.” See W. M . Petrie 1883, 183. from t he ground at all. M ark Lehner assumes t he lat t er since t he Sphinx t emple was built from t he st ones of t he rock layers surrounding t he Sphinx. 11 Fig. 3: The Sphinx in profile by Frederic Norden from the year 1737. The supposed mast er-builder of t he Pyram id of Khufu, t he first great pyramid on t he Giza plat eau, w as Hemiunu 12, which t ranslat ed m eans “ servant of Iunu” . Iunu (t oday Heliopolis), was t he side of t he Sun Sanctuary. Today there is an obelisk there. If w e look at t he distance from the east side of the Pyramid of Khufu through its centre (east-w est axis), after 1,000 cubits, we arrive strictly at the east side of the t omb of Hemiunu, in which t here is a nort h shaft (wit h a coffin cham ber) and a sout h shaft . 13 Thus, in 11 12 13 M . E. Lehner 2017 (Vol. 18 No. 1), 2-7. Hemiunu (Egypt ian: Ḥm Jwnw = servant of t he (God) of Iunu (= Heliopolis)) w as a prince of t he ancient Egypt ian 4t h Dynast y. During the reign of King Khufu, he held t he office of vizier and w as t hus t he highest official aft er t he king. Hemiunu also held t he t itle of “ overseer of all the king's building w orks” and w as, t herefore, most likely responsible for const ructing the Pyramid of Khufu. In t ot al, he held a remarkable number of 22 t itles, including “ Great of the Five of t he Temple of Thoth ” , “ Head of All Divine Offices” , and “ M ast er (Head) of the Royal Scribes” . Hemiunu's exact ancest ry is not ent irely clear. His fat her is Prince Nefermaat, buried in M eidum. His fat her, in turn, is not ident ified beyond doubt . We are dealing eit her w it h king Sneferu or his predecessor Huni. Hemiunu w ould t herefore be a nephew or cousin of Khufu. Hemiunu ow ns the mast aba G 4000 (also designat ed D 60 in earlier plans) on t he west ern burial ground of t he Pyramid of Khufu. The ent rance t o Hemiunu's t omb is on it s east side. The t omb had already been described by t he scient ist s of t he French Napoleon expedition in 1798/ 99. They report ed: “ One of these truncat ed pyramid-shaped t ombs is conspicuous for it s larger dimensions; it is 45.66 × 15.03 m wide and 6 m high; the external height w as 9.5 m; half of it is hidden under the sand. There are t wo doors leading t o some rooms on the east side: There is a band of hieroglyphs in the upper part . When w e climb onto the platform, w e discover a shaft opening that is 2.14 m w ide. When the engineers arrived t here, they found it almost full of sand and stones; M essrs Le Père and Cout ellele had it cleared out . At a depth of 16 ½ met res, they found a room dug int o t he rock, about 7 × 3.7 m in size and 2.82 m high, wit h a sarcophagus of beaut iful black basalt, perfectly cut, wit h very fine grain, mat t polished, and crow ned by a thick lid with cover: it had been opened by the Arabs and st ripped of it s cont ent s. The form of the monument is simple, t he sides are smoot h and ornat e, but the w orkmanship is pure and impeccable; the only ornament , if any, consist s of four projecting and rounded appendages placed at the two ends of the lid; its length is 2.68 m; it s w idt h, 1.13 m; its height, 1.07 m. The int erior dimensions are 2.09 × 0.60 m and 0.67 m, i.e. sufficient space for a mummy in it s box.” (Source: Jomard 1809, Text band Ant iquit és, Vol. 2, 666-667). Ow n translat ion from French. See Jomard 1809, Tafelband Ant iquit és, Vol. 5, Pl. my opinion, Hemiunu has left a kind of signat ure regarding t he Giza plat eau's planning. Therefore, let us look at furt her dist ances of 1,000 cubit s on t he plat eau. From t he ent rance of t he mort uary t em ple of Khafre to the end of the causew ay in his valley tem ple, it is also 1,000 cubits. Furthermore, a circle w ith a diameter of 1,000 cubits, i.e. a radius of 500 cubits, w hose centre is located at the intersection of t he north-sout h axis of the Pyramid of Khufu w ith the east-west axis of the Pyramid of Khafre (point K), int ersect s t he Pyramid of Khufu just at t he sout h-east and sout h-w est corners (point P). This gives us five dist ances bet w een relevant objects on t he Giza Plat eau, m easuring precisely 1,000 royal cubit s. In addition, t here is a double dist ance of 2,000 cubit s connect ing G1 w ith G3. The lat t er, however, will have been chosen by t he builder of t he Pyramid of M enkaure and not by Hemiunu. The number 1,000 corresponds t o 25 × 40. Both num bers, 25 and 40, also play a remarkable role in construct ing t he Pyramid of Khufu.14 The number 1,000 is t he t hird power of t he number 10, which forms the basis of the decimal system used by the Egyptians. Here, w e also have a reference to a number special for the ancient Egyptians, the 3, w hich stands for a triad 15. The Egypt ian numeral sign for the number 1,000 w as the w ater lily or lotus flow er. Next to the scarab, the lotus w as the most import ant symbol for regenerat ion and resurrect ion. This meaning of t he lot us goes back t o the plant 's propert y of closing it s blossoms at sunset , submerging t hem underwat er and rising again from t he w ater at sunrise. Thus t he lotus, like the scarab, also sym bolises the sun. The blue lotus blossom was considered sacred in Ancient Egypt . Just as t he papyrus was t he plant of Lower Egypt , t he lot us was one of t he sym bols of Upper Egypt . The Giza pyram ids belonged t o Upper Egypt from t he beginning because Lower Egypt did not begin unt il t he Nile was divided a few kilom et res t o t he nort h, where t he Nile Delt a (Lower Egypt ) began. Anot her connect ion bet ween t he dist ance of 1,000 cubit s is t hat t his is 10 × 100 cubit s and an Egypt ian rope lengt h (m easuring cord) was 100 cubit s. The hieroglyphic sign for the number 100 is a coiled rope. If one forms a square from a measuring line of 100 cubits, the square's side lengt h is 25 cubit s. Thus, t he number 25 also appears here. A square of equal area to a circle connecting the two edges of the Pyramid of Khufu It is particularly astonishing that the square of equal area (A-B-C-D) to the circle around point K (cf. Fig. 2) with a side length of 886 cubits exactly touches the south side of the Pyramid of Khufu and t he east side of t he Pyramid of Khafre and has a point K as it s cent re! In addit ion, t he sout h side of t he pyramid of M eritites I. is also located on the line A-B. The east side of this square is exactly 220 cubits, i.e. exact ly half t he dist ance of t he Pyramid of Khufu's base, aw ay from t he east side of t he t riangle H-I-J. The formula obtains a square of equal area to a given circle √ -t im es t he circle's radius = t he side lengt h of t he square. The ot her w ay round can be calculat ed wit h t he formula: side lengt h of t he square divided by √ to find the radius of a circle w ith the same area as a given square.16 How ever, in both 14 15 16 14 figs. 5-10, Lage: Pl. 6 (d) for drawings on t his. Hermann Junker found a larger-t han-life limest one st at ue of Hemiunu on 28 M arch 1912 at t he nort hern end of t he t omb sit uat ed in a st at ue chamber (Serdab ). Today it is in t he Roemer- und Pelizaeus-M useum in Hildesheim. According t o Junker, bot h shaft s have a dept h of 20 m. Junker only found remains of a coffin made of limest one, smashed and discarded. For t he num ber 40, see Bergdoll 2022, Chap. 7 and on t he num ber 25, Bergdoll 2022, Chap. 19.5. During excavations on t he Giza plateau in t he 1930s, the Egypt ologist George A. Reisner discovered four excellent ly preserved t riads made of greyw acke depict ing king M enkaure and t he goddess Hat hor, referred t o as t he “ Lady of t he Sycamore” and a personified Egypt ian Gau. An int eresting connect ion betw een t he Egypt ian and Rom an measures of lengt h is bet w een t he Roman foot and t he Egyptian royal cubit at t he tim e of the Romans, w hich was 52.5 cm, while the Rom an foot w as 29.62 cm. If one divides t he Egyptian royal cubit by t he Roman foot , t he resulting value is 1.7724510…, w hich is almost precisely √π = 1.7724538… and 29.62 x √π = 52.500083…If one takes a square with sides of 100 royal cubit s (at 52.5 cm), w hich has t he area of an Egyptian aroura, t he radius of t he equal-area circle t o t his square is calculat ed as follow s: 100 cubit s / √π = 56.419 cubit s = 29.62 m = 100 Rom an feet. So you get a circle of equal area t o a given square if you t ake t he Egypt ian cubit as t he side of t he square and use t he same number as t he radius in Roman feet ! It is unknow n w het her t he Romans w ere aw are of this connect ion, but it is remarkable. cases, one needs t he circle number π (Pi). It is assum ed t hat t he ancient Egypt ians calculat ed t he number π utilizing the fraction (= 3.142857…). This fract ion is only 0.001264… larger t han t he number π itself. Therefore, the deviation from π is only 0.04 % or 8.7 angular minutes17. In relation to a circle w ith a diam eter of 1,000 cubits (= 523.6 m ), the deviation is just 0.4 cubits or 21 cm . The connection of the two great pyramids by a circle w ith a diam eter of 1,000 cubits and the square of the sam e area around t he cent re of t he circle t est ifies, in my opinion, t hat t he ancient Egypt ians knew t he geomet ric relat ionship bet ween circle and square, even t hough t hey probably did not know t he circular number π as such and mathematically used the fraction for it. A circle of 9,000 royal cubits in diameter w as used to connect the centres of the three Giza pyramids The cent res of t he t hree m ajor pyramids of Giza can be connect ed by a circle since t hree point s are sufficient to construct a circle through t hem explicitly. The astonishing result is a circle with a diamet er 18 of 9,000 cubits, i.e. 9 tim es 1,000 cubits.19 If w e calculate the circle not w ith the circle num ber π but wit h t he fract ion the result of the calculation is 9,009 cubits, a value that is 0.1 % too large. Graphically, t his value using a reasonable papyrus size can no longer be dist inguished from 9,000 cubit s (cf. Fig. 2). Let's look at the connecting line from the centre of the Pyramid of Khufu to the centre of t his gigant ic circle. It runs on t he Giza Plat eau t hrough t he sout hern edge of t he valley t emple of Khufu. It intersects the line H-I at the level of the left front paw of the Sphinx, exactly w here the point F is locat ed bet ween t he paw s and cont inues via t he point S t o t he cent re of t he circle. A square of the same circumference with the circle connecting the southern edges of the Pyramid of Khufu Anot her peculiarit y is t hat t he sphinx is connect ed t o t he prom inent sout hern point of t he t riangle 'Gebel Ghibli' (point H) – Djati-tomb (point I) – Tomb of the Birds (point J) by a square of the same circumference (E-F-G-H) to the circle around K w ith 1,000 cubits (cf. Fig. 2). A square wit h an equal circumference is obt ained by dividing t he circle's circumference by four and t hus get t ing t he square's side lengt h. Concerning t he circle and t he square of an equal area, t he follow ing relat ionship exist s: if “ a” is t he side lengt h of an equivalent area square, “ d” t he diamet er of t he corresponding circle, and “ b” is the side length of the equal-area square to the circle, then b = ² . Of course, one can also express “ b” only by the radius of the circle “ r” , because the follow ing applies: b = approxim at e value of 17 18 then w e get b = · r. It is striking that for the Pyramid of Khufu's slope, The maxim um angular resolut ion of t he average hum an eye w it h a visual acuity of 100 % (visual acuity = 1) is 1' (one angular minut e) or 1/ 60 degree or t he 21,600t h part of a full circle at great er dist ances (from several metres). The maximum visual range of an object on t he ground at a visible height of 1.65 m above t he horizon (corresponding t o an average-sized (approx. 1.75 m) person st anding upright) is about 5 km (= 3.9 · 1,65 km). The maximum ordinary human angular resolut ion at a dist ance of 5 km is around 23 cm. The full visibilit y in clear weat her is 20 km, in very clear weather, 50 km and in exceptionally clear weat her, 280 km. However, due t o t he curvat ure of t he Eart h, t hese object s must have a cert ain minimum height so t hat t hey can st ill be seen from t he ground. At a dist ance of 5 km, an object must rise at least 2 m above t he ground t o just be seen due to t he curvat ure of t he Eart h. As w e know from papyri from t he M iddle Kingdom, i.e. a few cent uries aft er constructing the Giza pyramids, t he ancient Egyptians alw ays used the diameter (d) and never t he radius w hen calculat ing circles since t he circumference could be easily calculated from π · d resp. 19 · r. If w e set for π t he · d. The fact t hat t he denominat or here is t he number “ 7” also fit s perfect ly w it h t he subdivision of t he royal cubit or building cubit into seven palms or 28 (7 × 4) fingers. The number “ 7” also st ands for the number of moving celest ial bodies observable w it h t he naked eye in t he sky and t hus has a divine reference. The basis for the calculation here w as t he exact dat a of Flinders Petrie (W. M . Petrie 1883, 35), w ho used an accuracy of 5/ 1000 inches (≈ ⅛ mm) for his data, w hich he used as his ow n unit of lengt h for his measurement s. According t o t his dat a, t he diamet er of t he circle is 8,997.6 cubit s. Compared t o 9,000 cubit s, t his is a calculat ed deviat ion of less than 0.03 %. a Seked 20 of = ∙ = · w as chosen. The constant ≈ is t hus contained in t he formula for calculat ing t he circumferent ial square of t he circle wit h radius r and in t he angle of inclinat ion of t he Pyramid of Khufu. One can also express it like this: If one multiplies the area of an equal-size square to a given circle by t he const ant , one yields the area of the square w ith the same area as this circle. Furthermore, the follow ing applies: tan -1( ) ≈ 51.85° and tan -1( The constant ) = cot -1( ) = cot -1( can also be called t he “ quadrat ure const ant ” ( cf. Fig. 2). ∙ ) ≈ 51,84°. Another signature of 1,788 royal cubits was used for M ykerinos Anot her int erest ing dist ance on t he Giza Plat eau is t he dist ance of 1,788 cubit s associat ed wit h M enkaure. Indeed, the centre of t he Pyramid of M enkaure is 1,788 cubits from the centre of t he Pyramid of Khufu.21 We find the same distance from the centre of the Pyramid of M enkaure to t he crevice in t he upper spine of t he Sphinx (point L). While t he Sphinx is locat ed 1,000 royal cubit s away from t he pyramids of Khufu and Khafre, M enkaure's pyram id has a dist ance of 1,788 royal cubit s from t he Sphinx. The dist ance of 1,788 cubit s appears four t imes on the Giza Plat eau. Therefore, it seems very likely t hat the planner of the Pyramid of M enkaure w as aw are of t he mat hemat ical peculiarit ies of Hemiunu and want ed t o do t he same wit h t he number 1,78822. If one compares the 1,000 cubits of Hemiunu wit h t he 1,788 cubit s of M enkaure, t he result is t he fract ion approxim at ion t o this fract ion is obt ained by ≈ 0.559284… A pretty good = 0.56, w ith a deviation of less than 0.1 %. With this fract ion, t he previously known numbers 14 and 25 reappear. Let us now look at t he ot her occurrences of t he dist ance of 1,788 cubit s on t he Giza Plat eau. The east w est distance from the centre of the Pyramid of M enkaure to point F – presumably, a sacrificial temple – bet ween t he front paws of t he Sphinx is also 1,788 cubit s. The line from H t o I also runs t hrough point F (cf. Fig. 2). The triangle G I (centre of the Pyramid of Khufu) – G III (centre of the Pyramid of M enkaure) – S is an isosceles triangle with a leg length of 1.788 cubits and a leg angle of 51°. This angle is alm ost as large as the angle of inclination of t he Pyramid of Khufu, w hich is 51.84°. The leg S t o G I also runs t hrough point F. 20 Seked is an ancient Egyptian t erm t hat expresses the gradient , just as we define t he slope of a road in per cent , for exam ple, or in the form of a gradient angle. A gradient angle of 45° corresponds t o a gradient of 100%, and t his is because t he height increases by 1 m for every 1 m of lengt h. Just as w e express t he slope using t he change in height in relat ion t o a change in lengt h, the ancient Egyptians also used t hese tw o quant ities for t heir slope ratio s, w hich t hey called Seked. Since t he basic length, a royal cubit of 7 palms or 28 fingers, t hey always referred to a change in height in term s of the cubit as a unit of length, just as we do with t he metre, except t hat our metre is divided int o 10 dm or 100 cm or 1000 mm and not int o 7 palm s. The Seked is also com monly referred t o as set back, i.e. if, for a change in t he height of 1 cubit , t he change in lengt h is 5 ½ palms, t hen t he Seked (set back) is 5 ½ palms. For t he slope of t he Pyramid of Khufu, t hey chose s = 5 ½ palm s t o 7 palm s or · = fingers. The value of also represent s t he approximat e value for t he circular number π used by t he Egypt ians. M at hem atically, it can also be expressed like t his: The Seked s is proportional t o t he reciprocal of our modern measure of slope or gradient and t he cot angent of t he elevation angle (φ). The follow ing t hen applies: s = 7·cot (φ). For φ = 45°, cot (45°) = 1 and t hus s = 7; and cot -1( ) = t an -1( ) ≈ 51.84° = angle of inclination of t he Pyramid of Khufu. 21 22 According t o Flinders Pet rie, it is precisely 1787.93 cubit s, and according t o Glen Dash, it is 1788.19 cubit s. The mean value of bot h is 1788.06 cubit s. Propert ies of t he num ber 1,788: 1,788 = 2²·3·149. It has t he following 12 divisors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 149, 298, 447, 596, 894, 1788. The sum of it s divisors is 4,200. It lies bet w een t he prim e tw in 1,787 and 1,789; t his is t he 56t h prime t win. The number 1789 is t he 278t h prime number st art ing from t he number 2. Not e: I do not claim t hat t he ancient Egyptians knew one or more of t hese propert ies. The informat ion is only for est imat ing w hat kind of number it is. For t he number 1,000, of course, one does not need t o specify t his. The Giza diagonal connects the three pyramids and the sun sanctuary of Heliopolis There is a relevant reference to the Pyramid of M enkaure to its location on the Giza Plateau, w hich explains why t his pyram id does not lie exact ly on t he axis of Khufu and Khafre. One m ust consider a much larger axis, namely that of the solar sanctuary at Heliopolis (Ancient Egypt. Iunu (Old Test ament : On ) via t he cent re of t he Pyram id of Het epheres, t he sout heast corner of t he Pyram id of Khufu t o t he sout heast corner of t he Pyramid of M enkaure. The dist ance is 46,800 cubit s or about 24.5 km, and t he angle t o t he east -west cardinal direct ion is 45.67°. The 46,800 cubit s dist ance also includes t he 2,000 cubits distance of the Giza diagonal line from G1 to G3. This line passes t hrough bot h t he cent re of t he Great Hall of t he mort uary t emple of M enkaure and the centre of t he east side of Khafre's mort uary t emple. Since Heliopolis in ancient Egypt ian myt hology is t he sit e of t he Primeval M ound formed by t he creat or god At um, a relat ionship bet ween t he Giza pyram ids to Heliopolis is equivalent t o a relat ionship wit h t he Prim eval M ound, i.e. t he first t hing t hat w as creat ed. Because of t he emphasis on t his axis, and t hus t he connection of t he Pyramid of M enkaure w it h t he sun sanct uary, t his pyram id is not on the same axis that the Pyramid of Khufu is w ith the Pyramid of Khafre. Suppose w e add the distance from t he cent re of t he Pyram id of Khufu t o t he Pyram id of Khafre and from t here t o t he cent re of t he Pyramid of M enkaure. In t hat case, t he dist ance is 9 cubit s longer t han t he direct dist ance from t he cent re of t he Pyram id of Khufu t o t he cent re of t he Pyramid of M enkaure. This dist ance of 9 cubit s could be an allusion t o t he Egypt ian Ennead.23 The tomb of Djati as one edge of the triangle 'Gebel Ghibli' (point H) – Djati-tomb (point I) – Tomb of the Birds (point J). Line I-J leads from the mastaba of Djati via the centre of the mortuary temple of Khufu over the centre of t he pyram id of Khufu and t he sout h side of t he mast aba of Hemiunu t o t he Tomb of t he Birds (officially: NC2 = North Cliff #2). If w e look at the triangle H-I-J, the section J-H, w hich runs through t he southeastern corner of M enkaure's valley temple, is precisely 500 cubits larger than line I-J. This is already shown on t he m ap of Vyse or Perring ( cf. Fig. 1 top left). The mastaba of Djati, together w ith that of his w ife, is t he northernmost t omb in the Eastern Cemetery of Giza. The official designat ion of his t omb is G 7810 (t he alt ernative number of George Reisner for this is G 7580). Djati, who lived at the end of the 4th Dynasty, has the noteworthy title of “ Overseer of t he Expedit ion” , alt hough we do not know which expedit ion it was; perhaps an expedit ion t o t he ancient incense land of Punt (t oday Somalia). A distance of 443 (= 440 + 3) royal cubits Anot her int erest ing dist ance on t he Giza Plat eau is t he dist ance of 443 cubit s, t hree cubit s more t han t he base side of t he Pyramid of Khufu. The side of t he t riangle H-I-J t hat passes t hrough t he Sphinx and the edge of the Djati 24-tomb (line H-I) runs parallel to the east side of the Pyramid of Khufu at a distance 23 24 Under t he t erm Ennead of Heliopolis. (from Greek ennea “ nine” ), ancient Egypt ian pesdjet (psḏt ), t he nine creat or deit ies of t he Heliopolit an cosmological crat ogony (“ cosmological origin of w orldly rule” ), are subsumed. Nun, the cosm ological em bodiment of t he prim ordial w ater from w hich the w orld had arisen, does not belong t o t he “ w orldly creat or deit ies” according t o ancient Egypt ian myt hology. The principle of Nun w as embodied on a w orldly level by t he deit y At um, w ho, as t he god of creation, symbolised t he “ t rinit y” of t he “ eart hly not hingness” and bisexuality. In t he Pyramid Text s, At um is already mentioned as t he “ foremost of t he Ennead ” . Djat i w as a prince and grandson of Khufu, w ho ow ned t he mast aba G 7810. Djat i's parent s w ere t he Khufu daught er M eresankh II (mast aba G 7410) and presumably his son Horbaef (mast aba G 7420); bot h mast abas form a double mast aba and adjoin Djat i's mast aba via t he sout hw est corner. The w ife of Djat i w as called Neferkau and w as buried in mast aba G 7820, w hich lies parallel t o Djat i's mast aba to t he east. She w as probably a daught er of M eresankh II. About 20 m east of Djati's tomb is t he sout hern ent rance t o the 10.8 m long subw ay t unnel of t he causew ay of Khufu. Djat i's t omb, like many ot hers in t he east ern cemet ery of t he Giza Plat eau, has tw o underground shaft s. The sout hern shaft , locat ed near t he ent rance, is over 16.5 m deep – com parable t o t he shaft s at t he t omb of Hemiunu – and branches out about 1–2 metres above t he end of of 443 cubit s. The east -w est axis t hrough t he cent re of t he Pyram id of Khafre also runs parallel t o t he south side of t he Pyramid of Khafre at a distance of 443 cubits (line O-G2). This results in a square on t he Giza Plat eau wit h a side lengt h of 443 cubit s, which is defined by t he point s G2-N-M -O. This square, t he nort h side of w hich passes t hrough t he sout h side of t he pyramid of M erit it es I, has exact ly half t he square's side lengt h wit h t he same area as t he circle around point K wit h a radius of 500 cubit s. AB-C-D, which has a side lengt h of 886 cubit s. The squar e G I-K-M -I has a side lengt h of 663 cubit s, precisely 220 cubit s longer t han t he square G2-N-M -O (= half the base side of the Pyram id of Khufu). The distance from the centre of the circle around point K to the enclosing w all of the Pyramid of Khafre is 427 cubit s. This is also t he dist ance from point O, which lies on t he nort h-sout h axis t hrough t he east side of t he Pyram id of Khufu, t o t he cent re of t he ent rance of t he m ort uary t em ple of Khufu. A distance of 157 royal cubits Anot her dist ance t hat occurs t w ice is 157 cubit s. The east -w est axis t hrough t he Pyram id of Khafre runs 157 cubit s nort h of t he east -west axis t hrough t he cent re (nort h-sout h) of t he Sphinx (point L). We find t he same dist ance from t he nort hern t angent of t he circle, 1,000 cubit s in diamet er around point K, to the centre of the Pyramid of Khufu (G I). This particular distance also fits into the mathemat ically planned pict ure of t he Giza Plat eau. It has already been m ent ioned t hat t he ancient Egypt ians calculat ed t he circular number Pi by t he fract ion and calculated w ith it. Half of this value m ulti- plied by 100 cubit s – t he lengt h of t he rope measure of t he ancient Egypt ians – gives 157.14…or about 157 cubits. The mortuary temple of Khafre and an axis-extending path The 1,000-cubit long path from the valley temple of Khafre to his mortuary temple intersects the eastwest cent ral axis of t he Sphinx just at point R, where t he ext ended nort h-sout h axis t hrough t he cent re of the sat ellit e pyramids of Khafre (G I-a t o G I-c) int ersects t he east -w est central axis of t he Sphinx. A section of this 1,000-cubit Khafre causew ay – point R to Q – is 600 cubits. Point R is 600 cubits south of t he east -west axis t hrough t he sout h side of t he Pyram id of Khufu, just like point s F and L. Fig. 4: The mortuary t emple (U) in front of the Pyramid of Khafre with causeway (z) and an axis-extending pat h (79). Detail from a map of the Giza Plat eau by Henry Salt from 1818. The pat h drawn by Henry Salt (79) runs exact ly t hrough t he cent ral axis of t he t emple and t hus coincides wit h t he horizont al line t hrough point K in Fig. 2. This pat h ends at t he circle around K at a dist ance of 500 cubit s east of point K. There m ay st ill be somet hing t o discover here. t he shaft, at a depth of 30 royal cubit s, lat erally int o a cham ber m easuring about 4 × 4 m in size, at the southeast ern corner of w hich t here is a square opening some 50 cm (one royal cubit ) deep. The point I coincides wit h t he east ern entrance of t he mast aba of Djat i. The nort hern shaft is only about 11 met res deep and branches off at a dept h of about 20 cubit s int o a not quit e rect angular room w hich, at about 1.5 × 2.5 m, is somew hat smaller t han t he room in t he sout hern shaft . This shaft does not have a furt her recess like t he more sout herly subterranean shaft room. In Djat i's t omb, Reisner found in 1936 in t he subt erranean cham ber of the sout hern shaft , among ot her t hings, a faïence amulet of t he god Thot h w it h blue glaze and an Udjat eye (eye of t he god Horus). In the irregular chamber, w hich can be reached via t he nort hern shaft , an eart henw are vessel w as found so t hat t his room can presumably be regarded as a st orage place for food t o supply the dead person in t he afterlife. Therefore, Djat i w as surely buried in the more subt erranean sout hern chamber, t hrough w hich t he I-J line runs. Some remarks about the great Sphinx of Giza Fig. 5: Old aerial photograph of the Sphinx from the 19t h century, in which t he hole in t he head is undoubt edly visible. This old aerial phot ograph, t aken from a hot air balloon, clearly shows w hat t he Sphinx 25 looked like w hen it w as still largely covered by sand. How ever, there w ere also times w hen only the head, neck and t op layer of t he back prot ruded from t he sand. 25 The dimensions of t he Sphinx are: Tot al lengt h 72.55 m, of w hich at ground level 71.90 m, height 20.22 m, head lengt h 5.88 m, hole in head approx. 1.55 m diamet er and approx. 1.75 m deep, neck length 1.96 m, neck circum ference approx. 25.5 m , back lengt h 28.85 m, back height 12.38 m above ground, t he large gap on back 17.5 m behind head 11.5 m deep and 2 m w ide at t he t op, lengt h on t he ground from t he end of hindquart ers t o maximum shoulder height 14.50 m, full w idth at hindquart ers 19.10 m, w idt h from elbow t o elbow 18.50 m , w idt h at ribcage 12.70 m, widt h at belly below 10 m , w idt h at the back above 3.60 m , head w idt h w it h headscarf 10.30 m, depth 9.78 m, face w idt h 4.45 m, mout h lengt h 1.90 m, mout h w idt h 0.68 m, eyes lengt h 1.56 m, eyes widt h 0.60 m, ears lengt h 2 m , ears w idth 0.85 m, nose lengt h 2.20 m , nose widt h 1.20 m, front feet lengt h up t o 18 m, height up t o 3.5 m, widt h up t o 5.76 m. (Source: M . E. Lehner 1991, Chap. 5). Fig. 6: A worker standing in the head hole of t he Sphinx. Photo taken on 15 December 1925 during restorat ion work by Émile Baraize. This hole in t he head of t he Sphinx was closed in 1926 by t he French Egypt ologist Émile Baraize26 and covered w ith an iron lid. Guillaum e-Antoine Olivier 27 st at es t he dept h of t he hole on t he head of t he Sphinx to be around 3 m. The diameter of the hole is said to be approximately 40 cm. According to Olivier, it is not a perpendicular hole but rat her a slant ing hole in t he ground, m ore like a t unnel, w hich is also cropped wit h st ones t hrown int o it . From t his, one can conclude t hat t his t unnel probably leads even furt her int o t he int erior of t he Sphinx. In pict ures from 1925/ 26, w hen Baraize had t he Sphinx restored and in the course of this w ork, a metal plate w as placed on the head to close the hole. One can see an Arab st anding in t his hole wit h only his head st icking out ( cf. Fig. 6). In the 130 years betw een Olivier and Baraize, probably so many m ore st ones w ere t hrown int o t he hole in t he head t hat it only reached dow n t o a dept h of about 1.5 m et res. 26 27 Émile Baraize (* 28/ 08/ 1874 in Cossé-le-Vivien, France; † 15/ 04/ 1952 in Cairo, Egypt) w as a French Egypt ologist . He succeeded Alexandre Barsant i as head of t he Egypt ian Ant iquit ies Depart ment in 1912; t hroughout his life, he w orked on t he rest oration and reconstruction of many buildings. In Giza, he w as involved in t he de-sanding and repair of t he Sphinx for eleven years, bet ween 1925 and 1936. Guillaume-Antoine Olivier (* 19/ 01/ 1756 in Les Arcs near Toulon, France; † 01/ 10/ 1814 in Lyon, France) was a French physician and zoologist . Olivier t ravelled wit h Jean-Guillaume Bruguière t hrough eastern Nort h Africa and t he Near East from 1792 t o 1798 and collect ed m any plant s and animals t here. He first arrived on 22 M ay 1793 and lived t here unt il 26 Oct ober. On 3 December 1794, he arrived in Alexandria in Egypt. He travelled through Egypt as far as Cairo, from where he also undertook an excursion to the Giza pyramids and Saqqara. On 28 M ay 1795, he left Alexandria by ship for Const ant inople. His second visit t here last ed from 14 July t o 30 August 1795, and t he t hird visit last ed from 17 October 1797 t o 30 M ay 1798. He also t ravelled t hrough t he Levant and Egypt and w rot e a book about it : Voyage dans l'empire Ot toman, l'Égypt e et la Perse, 1801-1807 . The w ell-known American Egypt ologist M ark Lehner w rot e in his dissert at ion on t he Sphinx regarding t he hole in t he head: “ There is a hole cut int o the top of the head betw een t he uraeus and t he protrusion, but I have not been able to measure these features on the spot. I measured the protrusion by triangulat ion. From Arch. Lacau photo Ci 33 (Pl. 5.39), the hole appears to be as deep as the height of the man standing in it . This w ould make the hole approximately 1.75 m deep. The photograph suggests that the hole is betw een 1.50 m and 1.60 m w ide north-south, and slightly longer east-w est.” 28 So you can see t hat Lehner did not consider t he hole wort hy of furt her explorat ion. Presumably, he did not know Olivier's report . Jean de Thévenot , w ho visit ed t he Giza Plat eau on 19 February 1657, w as probably t he first t o report a hole in t he head of t he Sphinx. He writ es about t his: “ A Venetian assured me that he and some others had climbed up wit h the help of small hooks and a pole they had brought w ith them. There they noticed a hole on top of the head, into which t hey climbed. They have seen that this hole alw ays goes dow nwards and narrows to the chest of the sphinx, where it ends.” 29 Richard Pococke also describes a hole on t he back of t he Sphinx during his visit in 1738: “ I found by the quadrant that it [sphinx] is about tw enty-seven feet [ ≈ 8,2 m] high, the neck and head only being above ground; the low er part of the neck, or the beginning of the breast is thirty-three feet [ ≈ 10 m] wide, and it is tw enty feet [ ≈ 6,1 m] from the fore part of the neck to the back, and thence to the hole in the back it is seventy-five feet [ ≈ 22,9 m],30 t he hole being five feet [ ≈ 1,5 m] long, from w hich to the tail, if I mistake not, it is thirty feet [9,1 m]; w hich something exceeds Pliny's account, w ho says that it is a hundred and thirteen feet [ ≈ 34,4 m] long. The sand is risen up in such a manner that the top of the back only is seen; some persons have lately got to the t op of the head, w here they found a hole, w hich probably served for the arts of the priests in uttering oracles; as that in t he back might be to descend to the flats beneath.” 31 This deep fissure is clearly visible in t he old aerial photograph (Fig. 5) from above and on t he follow ing profile view of the Sphinx. According to Pococke, the Sphinx w as only 130 feet (39.6 m) long, as he could only measure from t he beginning of t he chest t o t he rear upper back. According t o Lehner 32, t he upper back is 28.85 m long from t he back of t he head, and t he sphinx head is 9.78 m long in an east west direct ion, which adds up t o 38.63 m. According t o Pococke's dat a, t he upper back st ill prot ruded about half a metre from the sand. The total length is of course somew hat greater than the 38.63 m, and thus the value of Pococke of 39.6 m corresponds t o reality very closely. For furt her report s on t he Sphinx, see Bergdoll 2022, Chap. 12.7. 28 29 30 31 32 M . E. Lehner 1991, 187. J. d. Thévenot 1664, 256. Ow n translation from French. The com plet e t ext regarding the Pyramid of Khufu and t he Sphinx can be found in Bergdoll, Zeit reise durch die Pyramiden-Lit erat ur 2022, Vol. 2 (of 3), Chap. 7.61. The t hree volumes cont ain t he text s and analysis of over 240 report s from ant iquit y to modern times. According t o Lehner, the hole or deep fissure is 17.5 m behind t he head and up t o 2 m w ide at t he surface (M . E. Lehner 1991, Vol. 1, 202). Pococke 1743, 46. M . E. Lehner 1991, Chap. 5. Fig. 7: The Sphinx before t he excavat ion by Émile Baraize. Photograph taken on 25 Sept ember 1925. Fig. 8: The Sphinx seen from t he east with t he Pyramid of Khafre in t he background, drawn by the engineers of Napoleon's expedit ion t o Egypt in 1798-99. The insight s gained can perhaps be summ arised as follow s: On the Giza plat eau, t hree generat ions of pyramid builders, nam ely fat her, son and grandson, are mat hemat ically closely relat ed t o each ot her in t erm s of t he locat ion of t heir erect ed monument s, and t his expresses t he social cohesion w it hin a well-funct ioning family. Added t o t his is t he relat ionship wit h Khufu’s mot her, Het epheres, t hrough w hose centre of the satellite pyramid the Giza diagonal runs. All in all, four generations are architect urally and m at hemat ically connect ed t o each ot her on t he Giza Plat eau. Howard Vyse was also int erest ed in t he subsoil of t he Giza Plat eau when he explored it in 1837. during his explorat ions in 1837. He writ es about t his: “ The general direction of the souterrain, near the Second Pyramid, w as east 1 ½ point north, and w est 1 ½ point south. It appeared to have contained a communication, made out of a natural fissure, and was roofed over w ith slabs to form a level surface; indeed, a passage may even now exist, for w e did not thoroughly examine it, but only removed a sufficient quantity of sand, t o ascertain its direction and length. We entered it by a pit, made either by former explorers, or by t he accidental failure of the roofing-stones, w hich have here fallen in for the space of tw enty-tw o feet. This pit was about fifty feet from the south-western angle of the temple, and about tw o hundred from the pyramid. The channel w as covered over with slabs for thirteen feet to the w estw ard, beyond which it became a narrow fissure. It extended to the eastward sixty-five feet, it w as about four feet w ide, and was completely full of sand. One or two trifling fissures branched off from it, but the sides w ere very regular, and the working of a chisel might in many places be observed; the eastern end, indeed, t o the length of six feet is entirely artificial, and ends abruptly in t he rock. It may possibly communicate w ith sepulchral shafts, or be connected with the w ater, and deserves a stricter investigation than I had time to bestow upon it. I have mentioned, t hat the ground in many places sounds as if it w ere hollow ; and I have no doubt, t hat it contains a number of curious excavat ions; but the vast body of sand which has accumulat ed from various causes, makes it impossible, w ithout much time and labour, to ascertain t he different levels and foundations, much more to form a general idea of the w hole. It is probable, how ever, t hat advantage was taken of the quarries from w hich the stones were cut for the Pyramids; and as that operation w ould naturally be guided by the qualit y of the material, t hat no regular plan was follow ed as to t he posit ion or size of the tombs.” 33 Regarding t he Sphinx and t unnels, Zahi Haw ass said t he following in an int erview w it h t he Egyptian Gazette on 14 April 1996: “ There are many hidden t unnels and corridors around the Pyramids and t he Sphinx. I will reveal the secrets of the three tunnels inside the Sphinx … I w ill announce how many tunnels there are around t he Khufu Great Pyramid.” Regarding t he t hree t unnels inside t he Sphinx, he says in a 1997 int erview wit h t he Egypt ological journal KM T: “ About the passages: It seems everyone is now talking about so-called secret passages and chambers under the Sphinx w hich contain hidden mysteries and t he knowledge of a “ Lost Civilization“ . There is nothing like that! There are, indeed, t hree known passageways located in and around the Sphinx. The first is behind the head and was found in the 1830s by [How ard] Vyse [an early explorer of the Giza Plateau, along w it h John Perring], who unfortunately used dynamit e to see w hat was there. He found t his space empty. Anyone 33 Vyse 1840-42, Vol. 2, 76-77. Ent ry of 31 July 1837. w ho reads his publication can know about it, t he Sphinx-head passage. The second passageway is under the haunches, lying near t he base of the t ail. An old man34 w ho worked for the Antiquit ies Service knew of it from his grandfather. Vyse also knew about it, mentioning it in one line in his book.35 This hole opens onto a shaft that goes inside the Sphinx body for about nine metres [approximately. thirty feet], turning to the right and to the left and ending. The only t hing there was a pair of old shoes, probably of Nineteenth Century date. This shaft had likely been used in t he Tw enty-sixth Dynasty for burials, based on some evidence found. Even in t he Late Period the Sphinx had a reputation for being amazing and magical. The third passage w as found in 1926 by [Emile] Baraize36. It is located in the middle of the north side of the Sphinx. Baraize discovered it when he was making repairs to the monument, and there is a photograph of his workmen clearing out the tunnel. Again, it w as empty! All t hose persons w ho are saying t hat there are secret tunnels and rooms under the Sphinx should read Baraize's reports: if he had found something, w ouldn't he have published it ? I try t o keep an open mind w hen investigating, but evidence is evidence.” 37 Unfort unat ely, t here is no publicat ion by Baraize on his w ork on t he Sphinx. In t his respect , it is not possible to read about it, as Haw ass claims to have done. In 1994, Haw ass and Lehner w rote in the article The Passage under the Sphinx: “ Like so much of Baraize's work, t he passage w ent entirely undocumented and, since it was covered w ith masonry, it was nearly forgotten.” Haw ass38 made t his statem ent three years before the interview . In this article, it is w ritten as a statement about the purpose of t he t unnel: “ The purpose of the passage in the rear of the Sphinx remains uncertain. … it could be a search for chambers and treasures rumoured to be buried within or under the statue. The w ay that the passage w inds dow n through the rear of the statue, turning as it descends below the floor level of the Sphinx does suggest it is an exploratory tunnel.” 39 Haw ass and Lehner w rit e about ot her passages in t he Sphinx: “ It is possible that the passage in the north side of the Sphinx, like that at the rump, is ancient. ” 40 Stéphane Pasquali writes in an article from 2009: “ Excavat ions carried out by E. Baraize at Giza betw een 1925 and 1936 in t he area of the Sphinx did not give rise to any publication nor – apparently – any personal note. This w ork is known through the photographic archives of P. Lacau, supplemented by a few handw rit ten notes. These unpublished archives are kept in t he W. Golenischeff Center (EPHE Vth section. Paris).” 41 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 M ohammed Abd al-M aw gud Fayed. Here is the extract from Howard Vyse's book: “ The boring-rods w ere broken owing to the carelessness of t he Arabs, at the depth of tw enty-seven feet (≈ 8.23 m) in t he back of t he Sphinx. Various attempt s were made t o get them out, and on the 21st of July gunpowder w as used for that purpose; but being unw illing to disfigure t his venerable monument , t he excavation was given up, and several feet of boring-rods w ere left in it. During t he operat ion a very beaut iful fossil of a reed was discovered, which is now in the Brit ish M useum.” (Source: Vyse 1840-42, Vol. 1, 274). See foot not e 26. KM T, Vol. 8, No. 2, 16. Hawass and Lehner 1994, 201. Hawass and Lehner 1994, 216. Hawass and Lehner 1994, 215. Pasquali 2009, 49. In his m em oirs, Henry Salt wrot e in t he year 1820 t hat t he French expedit ion under Napoleon found a door in front of t he Sphinx during t heir excavat ions and t hat t he w orkers who were present at t he t im e during t he excavat ions of t he Napoleon expedit ion confirmed t hat t here was an underground passage from t he Sphinx leading t o t he Pyram id of Khafre, or at least t o t he int erior of t he Sphinx. “ From various reports in circulation in Egypt , I w as given to understand t hat the French Engineers, during {78} their stay here, had made a considerable excavation in front of the Sphinx, and t hat they had just discovered a door, at the time they w ere compelled [by untoward circumstances] to suspend their operation. This account w as confirmed by the repeated assertions of the Arabs, several of w hom declared they had been present at the discovery and said [it] that the door led into the body of the Sphinx, w hile others affirmed that it conducted up to the second Pyramid.” 42 M cCarty43 also speculat es about a connect ing passage from t he Sphinx t o t he Pyram id of Khufu. He cannot im agine t hat t he original hidden ent rance could have been an appropriat e ent rance for such an imposing building. This has led early t reasure hunt ers t o search for underground chambers, such as t he “ Hall of Records” believed t o be t here. This search cont inues, especially aft er t he prophecies of Edgar Cayce 44, unt il our t ime. For furt her inform at ion about t he Pyramid of Khufu and t he Sphinx, see my book: “ Secrets of t he Pyramids of Khufu” . 42 43 44 Usick and M anley 2007, 65. M cCart y 1907, 402-403. Tow ards t he end of t he 20t h cent ury, t he American Egypt ologist M ark Lehner and t he Egypt ian Zahi Haw ass, w ho w as in charge of t he Giza Plat eau in t hose days, set out t o find t he “ Hall of Records” . According t o a prophecy by Edgar Cayce, t his w as t o be found under t he Sphinx bet w een 1996 and 1998. It w as supposed t o cont ain, among ot her t hings, records of Atlant is. Bibliography Agnew, Henry Creight on. A letter from Alexandria, on the evidence of the practical application of the quadrature of the circle, in t he configuration of the great pyramids of Gizeh. London: Longm an Orm e Brown Green and Longmans, 1838. Bergdoll, St efan. Secrets of the Pyramid of Khufu. Ahrensburg: t redit ion, 2022. —. Zeit reise durch die Pyramiden-Lit eratur. Ahrensburg: t redit ion, 2022. Hawass, Zahi, and M ark Lehner. “ The Passage under t he Sphinx.” In Hommages à Jean Leclant , edited by Catherine Berger, 201-216. Cairo: Inst. Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1994. Jomard, Edme François. Description de l'Égypte. Paris: Im primerie Im périale, 1809. Lehner, M ark E., and Zahi A. Haw ass. Die Pyramiden von Gizeh. Darm st adt : Philipp von Zabern, 2017. Lehner, M ark Edward. Archaeology of an image - The great Sphinx of Giza (Ph.D. dissertation). New Haven (Connecticut): Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University, 1991. —. “ Giza - A Cont ext ual Approach t o t he Pyramids.” Archiv für Orient forschung, 1985: 136-158. M cCarty, Louis Philippe. The Great Pyramid Jeezeh. San Francisco: Louis Philippe M cCarty, 1907. Niebuhr, Carst en. Carsten Niebuhrs Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und andern umliegenden Ländern. Kopenhagen: Nicolaus M öller, 1774. Pasquali, Stéphane. “ Baraize Excavations 1933–1934 at Giza: What is New with the Chapel of Am enhot ep II.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Vol. 45 , 2009: 49-55. Petrie, William M atthew Flinders. The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh. London: Field & Tuer, 1883. Pococke, Richard. A Description Of The East, And Some other Countries. London: Bow yer, 1743. Thévenot , Jean de. Relation d'un voyage fait au Levant. Paris: Lovis Bilaine, 1664. Usick, Patricia, and Deborah M anley. The sphinx revealed - A forgotten record of pioneering excavat ions. London: Brit ish M useum, 2007. Vyse, How ard Richard William. Operations carried on at the pyramids of Gizeh in 1837. London: Fraser, 1840-42.