Taking diversions on time line

The Pyramids of Giza have always been shrouded in mystery. Although their purpose —the final resting place of certain Pharaohs is now common knowledge, many questions remain.

How were the Pyramids built? Why were they built the way they were? Was there a pattern to their construction? These questions have puzzled experts and the public and inspired many theories and novels.

Among the many theorists is Robert Bauval, who was ostracised by fellow Egyptologists for claiming that the Pyramids may also have been used as a map of the stars.
Bauval was born in 1948 to Belgian parents in Alexandria and was drawn to Egypt's history from his childhood days.

He worked as a construction engineer before embracing Egyptology and is credited as the founder of the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT).

Bauval proposed OCT in his first Egyptology book, The Orion Mystery, published in 1993. There he claims the alignment of the Pyramids of Giza mirrors that of some stars in the constellation Orion and that the alignment dates to 11,500BC and not 2500BC, which is believed to be the time the Pyramids were built.

The Egyptologist spoke to Weekend Review before attending the International Conference on Ancient Studies in Dubai.

A cabal exists within academia, he says, adding that the academics have adopted a “closed minded'' attitude because “new findings and theories contradict'' those established by them.

“Academics are often not willing to put their reputations in jeopardy and prefer not to rock the boat.

Their peers have written the books of history that are taught in schools and universities and which are relied upon in this field. And so they are reluctant to concede that they may be wrong about the chronology and origins of ancient cultures.''
“This is where we need change,'' Bauval says. “We could be wrong, but we need to at least get things going instead of sticking to modules that do not fit with the new facts presented. We are outsiders who seek the truth using the tools of science such as astronomy and geology without fearing retaliation from peers or superiors,'' he says.

On whether experts had dismissed OCT because it lacked tangible proof, Bauval says: “There is a serious problem in the study of history. Archaeologists insist only on tangible evidence. To them if something cannot be touched, weighed and measured, it never existed. But if we apply this logic, we might as well dismiss two thirds of what we call history.''

This attitude is perhaps what led some experts to ignore Bauval's theory as having no scientific basis — it is rather based on circumstantial evidence. “Clearly we must use other forms of evidence, which we call non-tangible, such as ideas, beliefs and astronomical alignments in monuments.''

Bauval's recent book, The Egypt Code, goes further to link the alignment of many other ancient Egyptian monuments to the position of some stars. “You cannot dismiss all these alignments as chance when we know that the ancient Egyptians based many aspects of their lives on astronomical observations,'' Bauval says.

According to the OCT, astronomical calculations show the Pyramids in Giza are aligned to mirror Orion's belt as it was in 11,500BC.

This date, Bauval says, must have been significant to the ancient Egyptians.

After studying the direction of the shafts leading to the king's chamber in the Great Pyramid, Bauval concludes that these shafts pointed to the position of the three stars in Orion's belt when the Great Pyramid [was built] in 2500BC, which is a date that [matches] Egyptologists' [claims]. “So there is no disagreement there.'' Bauval says. “But we have established another date, 11,500BC, based on the layout plan of the three Pyramids and the pattern of Orion's belt.

This date might be what the ancient Egyptians called Zep Tepi, which means ‘first time'. As far as the ancients were concerned, this was the time when [the Egyptian deity] Osiris is believed to have founded their civilisation.

The Pyramids of Giza are perhaps meant to immortalise this event.

Bauval says this older date has provoked a debate around the world. “But rather than dismiss it, academics should look at the evidence. The civilisation is, I believe, much older than they think and of more sophisticated origins.''

In the light of recent findings, Bauval disagrees with historians who claim civilisation in Egypt began around 4000BC, the date of the earliest artefact found in the Nile valley.

“Why not be open to the idea that the ancient Egyptian civilisation did not start in 4000BC but was rather the product of a much older civilisation that existed in the area of southwestern Egypt?'' Bauval asks.

He also claims there is evidence in the Sahara that supports this theory. “Recently, a megalithic structure was found about 100 kilometres west of Abu Simbel on the border between Egypt and Sudan, in a place known as Nabta Playa. The structure dates back to 6700BC, supporting the theory of older origins for the Egyptian civilisation.''

Bauval says the structure was a kind of astronomical calendar, which hints at the fact that a civilisation with astronomical knowledge similar to what was later used by the pyramid builders had existed long before the Pharaohs.
“These prehistoric people, due to drastic climate change that turned the Sahara into a desert, migrated east into the Nile valley and developed what we know now as the ancient Egyptian civilisation.

This is remarkable, especially because the rise of the pharaonic civilisation coincides with the disappearance of the prehistoric people. All the evidence fits.''

Bauval's next book The Black Genesis will dwell on this view.
“We tend to underestimate ancient cultures such as Egypt's.

It would be difficult for us, even with all our advanced technology, to achieve [especially architecturally] what they were able to,'' Bauval says. “Being open to changing our preconceptions about the past will help us in the future.''

The International Conference on Ancient Studies: The Mysteries of Ancient Civilisations will be held at Raffles Dubai on November 29 and 30.