CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORIES, ALMANAC DEVICES AND TRADITIONS
section I.— general.

¶ I. ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE SOLAR YEAR.

It is evident that the civilised inhabitants of the Ancient East had precise knowledge of the duration of the Solar year. This is clear from every source of information, in archaeology, literary tradition, and mythology, that is open to modern research.

It was observed that the seasons were definitely fixed to the solar year, as defined by the astronomical phenomena accompanying the recurrence of the Solstices and Equinoxes.¹ From the knowledge of the recurrence of these, the four quarters of the agricultural year were observed to begin precisely mid-way between a Solstice and an Equinox.

The points of the Solar Astronomical Year and of the Solar Vegetation Year, as recognised in the earliest period of recorded ancient history are stated in terms of our modern (Gregorian) Calendar in. Table I.

¹Sir Norman Lockyer, “Dawn of Astronomy,” pp. 12, 57, 62-66, 78-85, 89-93, II7-H9> 244-245 (quotations from Ideler), 331 and 337.
Lockyer, “ Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments,” pp. 64-68, 96-106, 181-199, I 308-315, 335 and 336.The references
are selected as, in our opinion, being free from elements that can be justifiably criticised on archaeological grounds. Prof. G. Forbes, “ History of Astronomy,” pp. 8-10.
W.G. Old, “ The Chinese Shu-King,” Introduction, Book I, Sect. I, and notes, Do. Sect. V, Book II, Sect. I, notes.Encycl. Brit, (nth Edit.), Vol. I, pp. 224 and 317.VOL. I.
*¹The Chinese Shu-King.” W. G. Old, pp. 301-2, and note. Translation of Book I, Sect. I, pp. 1-2, and Translator’s notes to same. Encycl. Brit, (nth Edit.), Vol. VI, p. 317.
*²By “ Mid-Way “ is intended 45° of Right Ascension from an Equinox or Solstice ; not mid­way as denned by the interval in days.

¶ 2. STONEHENGE TEMPLE OBSERVATORY AND ALMANAC CIRCLE.

(Plates I and II).

In our own country there exist hundreds of ancient structural devices for indicating the principal points of the two recognised forms of the Solar year. The best-known monument of this nature is that of the Stonehenge circle. This consists of the arrangement of upright stones and lintels contained within the earthwork circle, as figured restored, on Plates I and II. The Avenue Approach to the Circle cuts the Earthwork circle as shown on the Plates. Thanks to the admirable surveys of Sir William M. Flinders Petrie and Mr. Edgar Barclay, and Sir Norman Lockyer’s¹ precise azimuth alignments, the purpose of the circle is now known with certainty.

As shown on Plate I, two separate alignments are directed to the horizon points of sunrise and sunset at the Summer Solstice and Winter Solstice respectively. Another alignment on Plate I gives the horizon point of Sunset at the beginning (May 6) and ending (August 8) of Summer, and of the horizon point of Sunrise at beginning (Nov. 8) and ending (February 4) of Winter.

Plate II shows the shadows thrown by the Stone Circle at Sunrise of Summer Solstice.
(Refer Section III Description of Plates ¶¶ 65 and 66).


¶3. OTHER BRITISH CIRCLES AND ALIGNMENTS.

Of equal astronomical importance to Stonehenge and its accessory align­ments discussed by Lockyer and Barclay, are the circles and accessory align­ments of Stenness, in Orkney. Mr. Magnus Spence was the first to show that these were connected with the Solar year and its principal datings. Investiga­tions conducted by Sir Norman Lockyer confirm that the alignments were variously directed towards sunrise or sunset at the Solstitial and May and November points of the year.² The data at Stenness in the Orkneys, then, agree with the data at Stonehenge. Both define the principal points of the Solar Astronomical Year and of the Solar Vegetation year.

In this part of his subject Lockyer has some interesting evidence concerning the sighting purpose of the well-known perforated stones, met with in Britain and North-Western Europe, wherever similar astronomical alignments occur.³

Leaving out of consideration—as doubtful on archaeological grounds— many of Lockyer’s star rising and setting alignments in Britain, Lockyer discusses and tabulates twenty-five May alignments, eleven November align­ments, and nineteen Summer, and twelve Winter Solstitial alignments in Great Britain and Ireland.⁴


¶4. ALIGNMENTS IN BRITTANY AND ELSEWHERE.

Passing from Britain into Brittany, Lockyer finds eleven May alignments, three November alignments, six Summer and eleven Winter Solstitial align­ments, and three Equinoctial alignments.⁵

As in parts of Britain, Lockyer⁶—quoting Baring-Gould—finds the May and August Festivals still celebrated in many parishes of Brittany. The same, however, is true of North-Western Europe, the reason being that, whereas Brittany lies on the Southern track of the megalithic builders from the East, the circles and alignments of North-Western Europe lie on the Northern track of the megalithic builders from Western Asia and Egypt.

“It must not be forgotten,” says Lockyer, “that structures more or less similar to Stonehenge are found along a line from the East on both sides of the Mediterranean.”<sup>7

1</sup>Petrie, “ Stonehenge,” Plates. Lockyer, “ Stonehenge and other British Stone Monuments,” pp. 46 (Hoare’s 1810 plan), 55-68 (Solstitial alignment), 88-95 (May-November alignment), 442-450 (The Welsh Gorsedd.— Solstitial and May-November alignments).
Barclay, “ Stonehenge and its Earthworks,” pp. 63-66 (Solstitial alignment), 66-67 (Equinoc­tial alignment and altitude), 70, 99-110 (November,
February, May, and August Festivals, and March, June, September, and December Festivals). Barclay’s Plates III and IV for alignments.
²Spence’s “ Standing Stones and Maeshowe of Stenness,” Scottish Review, Oct., 1893.
³Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments,” pp. 37, 128, 282, 285, 286, 316, and 318.
⁴Ibid., Appendices, pp. 481 and 482.
⁵Ibid., Appendices, pp. 485-486.
⁶Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments,” pp. 198-199
⁷ Dawn of Astronomy,” p. 90.




Professor T. Eric Peet says that these “occupy a very remarkable position along a vast sea-board which includes the Mediterranean coast of Africa and the Atlantic coast of Europe. In other words, they lie entirely along a natural sea route.”¹

This confirms another statement by Lockyer that “the Druid culture (of Ancient Britain) had not passed through Gaul, and had therefore been water-borne to Britain.”²

¶5. THE SEA ROUTE—WESTERN ASIA AND EGYPT TO BRITAIN.

As a matter of fact, the Libyo-Amorite route between Western Asia and the Atlantic coasts seems to have been almost entirely a sea route, rather than, as some have supposed, a North African Coast-Land route. The distribution of megalithic buildings along the coast of North-Western Africa and South­western Europe is denser than along the coast of North-Eastern Africa. This undoubtedly points to the fact that these monuments were erected near colonized ports of call along the sea route to the ancient Portuguese, Spanish, British, and Baltic metal, amber, and jet deposits.

The period for this earliest activity in maritime commerce between Britain and the East dates from before 2000 B.C. to 1200 B.C.³

XVIII^th Dynasty Egyptian glazed beads (not made elsewhere, or by any other Egyptian dynasty than the XVIII^th and XIX^th), were found at Stone­henge, together with beads of Baltic amber.⁴ Similar beads of Baltic amber were also found in Egypt in XVIII^th and XIX^th Dynasty remains.⁵

This identification of the period of Stonehenge confirms Lockyer’s astrono­mical dating, 1680 B.C. ± 200 years, for the erection of the Stone Circle. Ancient British jet (from Whitby in Yorkshire) and worked pieces of Baltic amber have been found, in the deposits of the megalithic builders in Spain and Portugal, together with Egyptian ivory figures, a shell from the Red Sea, Egyptian alabaster and marble objects, and statuettes of a Babylonian type.⁶

¶ 6. FOLKLORE AND TRADITION.

Long prior to the discovery of these evidences, “Lockyer conducted an exhaustive inquiry into local Folklore and tradition for evidences concerning Druidic origins.⁷ His conclusions are clearly and ably summed up in his comprehensive article, “ The Uses and Dates of Ancient Temples,” in Nature, May 20^th, 1909, as follows :—

“ At the first blush there appears to be no resemblance between the Egyptian and Greek temples and the British stone monuments, but a careful study of both shows that this view is an erroneous one . In my inquiry I have not confined myself to the astronomical side of the question. I have tried to dip into the folklore and tradition already garnered in relation, not only to the sacred stones, but to the sacred wells and sacred trees.”

“ From what I have learned I am convinced that much light will be thrown on both when an attempt shall have been made to picture what the lives of the first British astronomer-priests must necessarily have been.”

“It is interesting to note that, while the astronomical side of the inquiry suggests a close connection with Egyptian thought, the folklore and traditions, when studied in relation with the monuments, indicate a close connection between ancient BRITISH and the SEMITIC civilisations. The ‘Druids’ of Caesar’s time were undoubtedly the descendants of the astronomer-priests, some of whose daily work has now perhaps at last been revealed.”

In this connection a knowledge of the conclusions reached by the eminent Belgian Archaeologist, M. Siret, is of more than ordinary interest. Mackenzie states that as a result of M. Siret’s investigations concerning the Eastern origin of the megalithic builders and metal workers in Ancient Britain, Spain, and Portugal,

¹” Rough Stone Monuments,” (1912), pp. 147-8.
²’”Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments,” p. 323.
³”Mr. Donald A. Mackenzie’s “ Ancient Man in Britain,” pp. 91-108, 218-222.
⁴•Sayce, in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. I, Pt. I., p. 18. H. R. Hall, p. 19.
⁵H. R. Hall, p. 19.
⁶D. A. Mackenzie, “ Ancient Man in Britain,” pp. 96, 97.
⁷” Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments,” pp. 178-260.




¹” Siret has found evidence to show that the Tree Cult of the Easterners was connected with the early megalithic monuments. The testimony of tradition associates the stone circles, etc., with the Druids. ‘ We are now obliged,’ he writes,² ‘ to go back to the theory of the archaeologists of a hundred years ago who attributed the megalithic monuments to the Druids. The instinct of our predecessors has been more penetrating than the scientific analysis which has taken its place.’ In Gaelic, as will be shown, the words for a sacred grove, and the shrine within a grove are derived from the same root nem.”


¶ 7. CONCLUSIONS FROM RECENT DISCOVERIES.

Mackenzie,³ from the more recent evidences similarly sums up his inquiry, as follows :—
“ The Celts appear to have embraced the Druidic system of the earlier Iberians in Western Europe, whose culture had been derived from that of the Oriental colonists.”

“ At an early period in the Early Agricultural Age and before bronze working was introduced, England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, were influenced more directly than had hitherto been the case by the high civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia, and especially by their colonies in South-Western Europe.”

¶ 8. THE ORIGINAL IDEA ADOPTED BY THE MEGALITHIC BUILDERS.

Our inquiry is concerned chiefly with the origin of astronomical observa­tories and almanac devices employed to fix and portray the principal points of the solar astronomical and solar vegetation years. The astronomical evidences, and the evidences from folklore and tradition, and from archaeological sources, have shown us that the origin is carried back to the valleys of the Euphrates and the Nile.

Lockyer has shown us that the Pyramid builders of the IV^th and V^th Egyptian Dynasties, must, from their astronomical cult, have come from the region of the Euphrates. He shows also, that nearly all the ancient year cults of the Nile Delta are connected with the Euphratean equinoctial year.⁴ Petrie, too, finds an Euphratean origin for the V^th Dynasty of Egypt.⁵

Confirming our deductions from the data, we find at once that the idea of the IV^th Dynasty Great Pyramid builders in Egypt was the original of the idea followed by all the megalithic builders from Egypt to Spain and Britain. The Great Pyramid was built, not alone as a Sundial of the day, but primarily, in its external features, as a Sundial of the Seasons.


¶ 9. THE ANCIENT SUNDIAL OF THE SEASONS.

One of the primary objects of early Pyramid building in ancient Egypt was undoubtedly to record and indicate automatically throughout the country the annual recurrence of the principal points of the two forms of solar year—the astronomical and the agricultural. No form of building, unless accurately and symmetrically built with proper reference to the North, South, East, and West, could be employed to effect this purpose. That the requisite Sundial of the Seasons should be a monument of public utility necessitated vast bulk, large external surfaces, the finest selected material, and extreme accuracy of work­manship.

All the necessary requirements are fulfilled by the gigantic proportions of the Pyramids of Gizeh, by their accurate orientation, and by their precision of workmanship. Then the site selected, on the elevated plateau of Gizeh, westward of the adjacent agricultural land, — the inhabited and cultivated strip of the Nile — and centrally south of the cultivated Delta, was .the only possible site for the effective utilisation of the structural features. The admirable nature of the selected site, for the purpose indicated, is seen by reference to Plate III — Map of the Nile Delta — and Plate IV — Map of the Pyramids and Tombs on the Plateau of Gizeh — and by reference to the upper view of the frontispiece.

¹D. A. Mackenzie, “ Ancient Man in Britain,” pp. 155-6.
²L’A nthropologie (1921), pp. 268 et seq.
³” Ancient Man in Britain,” pp. 218 and 220.
⁴” Dawn of Astronomy,” pp. 84, 85, 367-370.
⁵” History of Egypt,” Vol. I, p. 85 (gth Ed.), p. 96 (loth Ed.).




¶ 10. THE REFLECTING SURFACES OF THE GREAT PYRAMID OF GIZEH.

Conceived and built the first of all the Pyramids of Gizeh, the. Great Pyramid embodied in its external casing all the knowledge of the Ancients concerning the properties of the Sundial. Planned to effect its purpose primarily by means of reflected sunlight, and secondarily only by means of shadows, the casing of the Great Pyramid was selected from the whitest and best limestone from the quarries of Turra and Masara, on the opposite or Eastern side of the Nile.

To ensure accuracy and continuity of unbroken plane, free from visible joints and beds, in the casing surface of each face slope of the Great Pyramid, the beds and joints, and the visible surfaces of all casing stones were worked as accurately as modern optician’s work, but with this degree of accuracy extend­ing to considerably larger surfaces. All joints and beds were so accurately fitted that even at this date a sheet of note-paper cannot be inserted between the stones still remaining unbroken and undisturbed in situ. Yet all these joints and beds were run with a fine film of cement.

Another remarkable feature of constructional detail confirms the high degree of accuracy and smoothness of surface that was considered necessary. Flaws in the visible surfaces of the casing stones were cut out and refilled with accurately fitting pieces of limestone, invisibly cemented in. This indicates that the intention was to obtain the whole external visible surface so uniformly smooth and plane as to present a polished unbroken reflecting surface on all four casing sides of the Great Pyramid. It is obvious that it was from the brilliant reflexions from its casing slopes that the Great Pyramid is named, in the inscriptions of the Pyramid period, and in inscriptions of later times, Khuti, “ the Lights.”¹


¶ 11. THE REFLECTED RAYS TRANSFORMED INTO VISIBLE EFFECT.

That the Pyramid’s reflexions were transformed into visible effect, or were themselves rendered visible—at least around the hour of noon-day—is certain both from the Pyramid’s ancient name, “The Lights,” and its structural evidences. Bearing in mind all the evidences pointing to special preparation and intention, it is clear that the site selected, and certain special details of construction referred to later, had some connection with this matter. It is in this connection that many of the Pyramid’s structural features—and certain outstanding features of its environment—seem to suggest advanced problems for the physicist. These all tend to indicate that the Pyramid was designed and located upon the conception that the mid-day reflexions would be rendered visible.

That the atmospheric conditions within and bordering on the desert regions around Egypt furnish the essential conditions for the formulation of the conception noted is clear from the authentic observation quoted in ¶ 76b. (Section III of this Chapter.) In this case heliograph messages were read, not from the mirror disc—which was invisible to the accidental observer—but from the rise and fall of the actual beam of light reflected from the disc. The accidental observer was remotely placed with reference both to the point and line of projection. The atmospheric phenomenon can only be accounted for by the presence of myriads of minute particles in suspension in the air, such as are deemed to produce the phenomenal deep blue in the sky of dry desert atmospheres, and in atmospheres in proximity to such desert zones. (Refer ¶¶76, a and b, Sect. III.)

The question of the Pyramid’s reflected rays becoming visible is, then, a question, primarily, of atmospheric conditions around the Pyramid. Here the reader must remember that the Pyramid Designer was contemplating the “mass production” of reflexions on a scale beyond anything within ordinary human experience. Devices were accordingly perfected to prevent diffusion of the reflected light and to stabilise the reflected rays under the influence of variable surface refractions due to heat radiations. (Refer ¶¶ 18 and 19.)

It is important, however, that the reader should bear in mind the alterna­tive questions as to whether the reflexions were transformed into visible effect or were themselves rendered clearly visible around noon-day. At the same time it simplifies matters for the general reader to adopt the view that the reflexions were visible. Description of the various phases of the Pyramid’s phenomena will be made on this understanding.

¹Brugsch, “Egypt under the Pharaohs,” Vol. I, p.73 Revised English Edit. (3rd), 1902, p. 35.








¶12. THE GREAT PYRAMID’S NOON REFLEXIONS. Plates V, VI, VII, VIII, and X.¹


Exactly as a modern chronometer gives the hours, say of midnight, 6 a.m., noon, and 6 p.m., so the reflexions from the Great Pyramid gave accurately the days upon which the Winter Solstice, the Spring Equinox, the Summer Solstice, and the Autumnal Equinox occurred. This precisely defined the Solar Astrono­mical Year. The principal points of the Solar Vegetation Year, however, were equally well defined. It is this definition of the Vegetation Year that forms one of the most striking series of phenomena connected with the Pyramid’s exterior. For whilst the noon reflexion of the Pyramid’s South face always pointed due South at the instant of noon—during Winter, Spring, Summer, and Autumn— it displayed the striking property of being elevated above the horizontal each day of Autumn, Winter, and Spring, and depressed below the horizontal during the entire extent of Summer.

¶ 13. THE PYRAMID’S PRECISE DEFINITION OF SUMMER LIMITS.

This is as shown on Plate V, Figs. B and b. Fig. B represents the Pyramid and its noon reflexions as shown in plan. Fig. b represents the elevation of the Pyramid and its reflexions as seen from the East. The noon reflexions shown are for the day beginning Summer, and for the day ending Summer, respectively 6th May and 8th August—of modern Calendar—as stated in Table I.

The diagrams show that exactly mid-way between the Vernal Equinox and the Summer Solstice, and, again, exactly mid-way between the Summer Solstice and the Autumnal Equinox, the beam reflected at noon from the Pyramid’s South face, was truly horizontal. This horizontal reflection defined the first noon of Summer and the last noon of Summer. Between these two dates, 6th May and 8th August, the noon reflexion from the Pyramid’s South face cast a triangular reflexion on the ground, and at no other period of the year. The triangular south noon reflexions, therefore, define the days of Summer. These south reflected images obviously shorten approaching the Summer Solstice, the shortest length of triangular image being attained at noon of the Summer Solstice, after which, again, the images lengthen until noon of the last day of Summer, when the noon reflexion becomes horizontal again.

Ten days after the commencement of Summer and ten days before the termination of Summer, at noon, the line RBCQ, formed by the East and West noon reflexions (Plate V, Fig. b), became a straight line running directly from East to West.

Plate VI shows the Pyramid reflexions for noon of the Summer Solstice. These are respectively the shortest noon reflexions of the year from the South, East, and West faces of the Pyramid, and the longest noon reflexion of the year from the North face of the Pyramid.

During the Summer half of the year no shadow was thrown by the Pyramid at the instant of noon, nor for an appreciable interval before and after noon.

¶14. THE PYRAMID’S EQUINOCTIAL NOON REFLEXIONS.

The noon reflexions from the East and West faces of the Pyramid projected triangular images (Plates V to VIII) on the ground on each day of the year. Almost East and West respectively at the Summer Solstice (Plate VI), the Apex of each triangular image was North-East and North-West respectively from the East and West corners of the South Base side of the Pyramid at the instant of Vernal Equinoctial and Autumnal Equinoctial noon (Plate V, Fig. A).

This may be otherwise stated as follows :—(Plate V, Fig. A).

The East noon reflexion from the Pyramid projected a triangular image ARB, on the ground. This triangle consisted of a base, AB, lying on the Pyramid’s East Base Side, AB, and of two other sides, which we may define, in terms of the plan, the South side, AR, and the North side, BR, of the triangular image. Thus defined, the line of the South side, AR, of the triangular image, pointed due North-East at Vernal Equinoctial and Autumnal Equinoctial noon. This was precisely the case during the period in history when the Pyramid was thus operating as a Sundial of the Seasons. In modern times the phenomenon noted would occur a day or so before the Vernal Equinox, and a day or so after the Autumnal Equinox.

¹Technical details as Tabulated in Tables VI and VII at end of Section I

Similarly defined (and with reference to Plate V, Fig. A), the line of the South side, DQ, of the triangular image, DQC, projected from the West face slope of the Pyramid, pointed due North-West at Vernal Equinoctial and Autumnal Equinoctial noon.

¶ 15. THE PYRAMID’S DEFINITION OF WINTER.

The solid beams of reflected light proceeding from the East and West face slopes of the Pyramid at noon had a further remarkable property defining s Winter as distinct from Spring, Summer, and Autumn. Reference to Plates V to VIII shows that in all cases the East and West Solid noon reflexions had a sharply defined ridge line running from the Pyramid apex to the apex of each s of the images projected on the ground.

The East and West noon reflected beams had, therefore, each a surface seen from the North side of the Pyramid, and a surface seen from the South side of the Pyramid. The side of the East or West noon reflected beam, as viewed from the South, always, throughout the year, appeared inclining away from the observer. The side of the East or West noon reflected beam, how­ever, as viewed from the North side of the Pyramid, appeared inclining away from the observer during Spring, Summer, and Autumn, but appeared over­hanging towards the observer during Winter, as shown on Plate VIII, Figs. F and G.

At the beginning and ending of Winter this surface of either reflected beam as seen from the North was a truly vertical surface lying, in the case of the East reflection, truly North-East, and in the case of the West reflection, truly North-West, in continuation of the Pyramid’s base diagonals. This is as shown on Plate VII, Fig. E. In terms of the modern Calendar, the dates are respectively November 1st and February nth. Referring to Table I, the reader will observe that the former date anticipates the beginning of winter by seven days, and that the latter date succeeds the termination of Winter by the like interval of seven days.

It is obvious that the difference was not due to any error in fixing the precise beginning and ending of Winter. Had this been the case, there would have been a similar error in fixing the beginning and ending of Summer. But the phenomenon of the horizontal South noon reflexion fixes the beginning and ending of Summer with definitive precision. The difference of seven days, then, in anticipating the beginning of Winter can only have been an intentional anticipation, as the reader will see.

¶ 16. THE PYRAMID’S WINTER SHADOWS (Plates VII and VIII).

A noon shadow was projected by the Pyramid during Winter and for sixteen or seventeen days before and after Winter. Between February 27-28 and October 14-15, no noon shadow appeared. During this period of the year a noon reflexion was projected by the North face slope of the Pyramid. On October 14-15, however, the noon reflexion disappeared and the first noon shadow made its appearance. (Plate VII, Figs. D and d.) Successive noons toward the Winter Solstice (Plate VII, Figs. E and e, Plate VIII, Figs. F and f), found the length of the noon shadow, projected on to the pavement base of the Pyramid, gradually lengthening towards the North, until at noon of the Winter Solstice it attained its greatest length due North (Plate VIII, Figs. G and g).

After the Winter Solstice the length of the noon shadow, projected on the pavement base, gradually shortened (Plate VII, Figs. E and e, Plate VIII, Figs. F and f), until at February 27-28 (Plate VII, Figs. D and d) it was “ swallowed “ by the Pyramid masonry, and the North noon reflexion made its first appear­ance, heralding the approach of the Vernal Equinox and the Summer half of the year.

The initial and terminal datings of the noon shadow phenomenon defined respectively the beginning of early sowing, and the beginning of the barley and flax harvests in the ancient Delta. (The reader is referred to Plates III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, and XII, and to Section III, ¶¶ 67-72, 74 and 76, for the detailed descriptions of the various phenomena discussed.)


¶ 17. THE TEMPLE OF RAMESSU II AT ABU SIMBEL.

The influence of these initial and terminal datings of the Pyramid’s noon shadow phenomenon in formulating later devices for automatically heralding the seasons is evidenced by the Temple of Ramessu II at Abu-Simbel. This temple was built with its central axis aligned towards the point of Sunrise of the day upon which the Pyramid’s noon shadow first appeared, and of the day upon which it disappeared.

Now the sun’s noon altitude for a certain point of the year when compared with the azimuth of its rising at the same point of the year over a long interval of years does not bear the precisely fixed relationship the Abu-Simbel alignment would lead one to suppose. For this reason, sunrise on the Abu-Simbel align­ment cannot always occur on the same day as the Pyramid’s noon shadow first appears or first disappears, respectively. Nevertheless the difference at the present time is not more than two days. The Sun rises on the Abu-Simbel alignment, at the present time, on October 16 and February 26, ¹ whereas the Great Pyramid’s limiting dates, for the present time, are October 14 and February 28 generally.

¶ 18. THE PYRAMID’S STRUCTURAL CORRECTION FOR REFLEXIONS.

To define more clearly the ridges and edges of the reflexions and to counteract the local dispersing effect of the variable surface refractions due to heat radiations from the Pyramid’s surfaces, these surfaces were very slightly hollowed inwards towards the centre line of each face slope of the Pyramid. This slight hollowing, while tending towards stabilizing and more clearly defining the reflected beams, was not sufficient to focus the reflected rays forming a beam of reflexion. The hollowing was not in the form of a concavely curved surface, but in the general form of two plane surfaces meeting along the centre line of leach face slope. This feature, however, will be dealt with later.

That the hollowing feature noted was not merely the result of an after-I thought is evidenced by the core masonry of the Pyramid. The stepped surface of each face slope of the core masonry was likewise hollowed in to the same extent, 2 preparatory to the external casing stones being added to form the smooth reflecting surfaces. This hollowing is so small in proportion to the Pyramid’s mass, and extent of external surface, that it is not visible to the eye unaided. It can be observed, however, and its extent measured by careful sightings across and obliquely up each face escarpment. The reader must not confuse the evidence of hollowing in with the separate question of dilapidation. The two can be quite separately surveyed.

¶19. THE EXTENT OF THE STRUCTURAL CORRECTION.

The structural effect of the hollowing inwards of each face slope of the Great Pyramid was that the Pyramid base sides were hollowed inwards between the corners of the Pyramid base. These corners were the four corners of a square of about 760 feet length of side. The central hollowing in of each base side is almost exactly three feet, as determined from Petrie’s survey.² The ratio of hollowing in of base to length of base side is therefore about 1 in 250.

This receding camber was sufficient to make correction for the well-known optical illusion whereby a large plane escarpment appears to bulge outwards. Correction for this optical illusion was made by the ancient Egyptians in the case of their monolithic beams and lintels, and by the ancient Greeks in the case of their columns. A truly level beam appears to sag in the middle ; a slight camber upwards eliminates the illusion. A large vertical column appears to overhang towards the observer on the ground ; a slight tilt away from the observer removes the illusion.


¶ 20. NOON SHADOW AND STRUCTURAL CORRECTION.

In the centuries following the Pyramid’s construction, the limit of the 14th October and 28th February noon shadow, once in about every hundred years would lie precisely on the line forming the North side of the Pyramid base square (although the coincidence nearly occurred once in each modern leap year period). Let us, for the purpose of illustration, suppose the period exactly one hundred years and that the shadow limit lay on the North side of the base square exactly at the middle date of the period. Then fifty years before, or fifty years after the middle date, the shadow limit lay 31½ inches within the North side of the Pyramid base square, or 31½ inches without the square respectively. These dimensioned limits are true whether the period is greater than or less than the hundred years assumed. For other years within the period, the limit of the noon shadow lay somewhere between the two limits, 31½ inches internal to or external to the North side of the Pyramid base square.


¹Hon. E. M. Plunket. P.S.B.A., March, 1893.
²Petrie, “ Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh,” pp. 43 and 44.VOL. I

The noon shadow limits for 14th October and 28th February, when internal to the North side of the Pyramid base square, were, owing to the hollowing-in feature, always defined and measurable. The extent of hollowing at the centre of the base side gave a margin of about 4½- inches between the casing edge and the maximum internal limit of the noon shadow under consideration. This marginal space was just sufficient to permit of the noon shadow being clearly defined at its maximum internal limit. The marginal amount, therefore, confirms the hollowing effect as intentionally of the extent observed by Petrie’s sightings.

The reader will see for himself that owing to the hollowing-in feature, the particular year of the modern Leap-year cycle—generally four years—was defined by the extent of the North face slope that was covered by shadow down the centre at noon on 14th October or 28th February. In other words, the variations of the noon shadow limit automatically affected the intercalation of the Solar year.


¶ 21. THE GREAT PYRAMID’S ANNUAL MESSAGE TO THE DELTA.

Within two periods, then, of sixteen or seventeen days, we find that the Great Pyramid provided two outstanding phenomena defining fixed points of the Solar year. These were the North-East and North-West directed vertical surfaces of reflection at noon of 1st November and nth February, and the North noon shadow limits on 14-15 October and 27-28 February. Both sets of phenomena were devised to be seen from the North.

Reference to Plate III—studied in relation to Plate VII—will show that the Pyramid site was selected with all this as part of the design.

The Great Pyramid is so situated that it is the centre of the quadrant of a circle that defines and includes the Delta (Plate III). The two Limiting Radii of the Quadrant lie North-East and North-West respectively, forming the angle of 90° subtending the quarter circle arc of the Delta coastline, from near the modern site of Port Said to near the modern site of Alexandria.

The Pyramid’s situation and its accompanying coincidence with the centre of the Delta Quadrant might be deemed to be accidental were it not for the fact that the directions of the limiting radii of the quadrant were annually defined by the Vertical Surfaces of the Pyramid’s East and West noon reflexions on 1st November.


¶ 22. THE GREAT PYRAMID’S PART IN ORGANISING CULTIVATION IN THE DELTA.

The significance of the Pyramid’s phenomena and their datings is seen at once when we remember that the early sowing period in the Delta occurred between the 14th October and the beginning of the general sowing season on 1st November ; that the early harvesting period occurred between i ith Feb­ruary and the beginning of the general harvest season at 27-28 February, when barley was reaped and flax plucked.¹

The appearance of noon shadow on the North Face of the Pyramid—seen only from the Delta—heralded early sowing on 14-15 October. The verticality of the surfaces of the East and West noon reflexions—seen only from the North—, and running truly North-East and North-West respectively, heralded the general beginning of the sowing season on 1st November.

The recurrence of the latter phenomenon again, at noon of 11^th February gave warning to the Delta of the earliest date for an early harvest; and the disappearance of noon shadow from the North Face of the Pyramid on 27-28 February heralded to the Delta the beginning of the barley and flax harvests.

These facts immediately raise the question as to whether the ancient Egyptians at the time of the Pyramid Dynasties had not a fixed Calendar year, adjusted by intercalation to conform with the Solar year.

¶ 23. THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CALENDAR.

The Ancient Egyptians, we know, had two forms of Calendar Year. They had a Calendar Year of 360 days and a Calendar year of 365 days. The last five days of the latter Calendar Year were known from the earliest times as the “ five days over the year.” This expression clearly indicates that the earliest calendar year was that of 360 days.

¹For Wilkinson’s Agricultural Datings refer Plate IX, cols. 7, 8, and 9.

Both forms of Calendar year consisted of the same seasonal divisions (Plate IX, col. 2). There were three Calendar seasons, each of four months, and each month consisting of 30 days. The seasonal divisions were respectively :—

(1) SHAT, the Calendar Season of Sowing.
(2) PERT, the Calendar Season of “ coming forth,” i.e., growing and harvest.
(3) SHEMUT, the Calendar Season of Inundation.

The Calendar year began with the Calendar Season of Sowing. This fact clearly indicates that the Egyptian Calendar was instituted when a November agricultural year was observed.


¶ 24. THE FIXED CALENDAR YEAR OF EARLY EGYPT. Plates IX, X, and XI.

The latter fact seems to be very obvious. But that is not all. The earliest form of Egyptian Calendar was the Calendar year of 360 days. This began with the Calendar season of Sowing. Such a definite designation implies a definite synchronism with the actual season of sowing at the time the designa­tion was first given.

It is obvious, therefore, that the earliest Calendar year of 360 days was a fixed Calendar year identified with the November Agricultural year. A Calendar year of 360 days could only be a fixed Calendar year by intercala­tions of an additional month of 30 days at variable intervals of five or six years. That this was the form of Calendar employed—coincident with an intercalated Calendar year of 365 days—during the period of Dynasties I to XVI inclusive, is confirmed by the evidence discussed in Section II of this Chapter, and descrip­tions of Plates IX, X, and XI.

Apart altogether from this evidence, however, we know that the noon phenomena of the Great Pyramid automatically fixed the November Agri­cultural year. Now the Calendar years of 360 and 365 days were in use in Pyramid times, and the November year, beginning the sowing season, had previously been fixed—the fixing being monumentalised in the names of the Calendar seasons. It is clear then that the Pyramid’s noon phenomena gave a high degree of accuracy to an adjustment of the Calendar year in relation to the Solar year that had already been long previously effected.

The fixed November year, again, is confirmed by the dated Calendar records” of the activities of the agricultural (or Solar) year during the period of Dynasties VI, XI, and XII. These are as graphically represented in Plate IX, Column 1, stated with reference to the Time Basis of Column 2, and as compared with actual conditions of Columns 7, 8 and 9, stated with reference to the Time Basis of Column 3.¹


¶ 25. THE FESTIVAL OF THE DEAD.

Attention has been directed (in ¶15) to the fact that the 1^st November dating was intentionally observed instead of the beginning of Winter, seven days later. The 1st November Pyramid phenomena defined the first day of the fixed agricultural year of the Ancient Egyptians. It is with respect to this fixed 1st November year that the early Egyptian Calendar year was intercalated at the end of every five or six years. Hence the festival of the true beginning of the New Year was observed in Egypt at intervals of this duration as early as the time of Dynasties I and II.²

At the time of Dynasty XII, the celebration of the New Year festival took the form of lighting lamps for the dead on the last day of the old year and the first day of the New Year.³ As Dr. Frazer has pointed out, this proves that the New Year’s Festival at this time was the ancient Festival of the Dead—the modern All Souls’, or All Saints’ (1^st - 2^nd November).⁴

“The custom,” he remarks,⁵ “was observed throughout the whole of Egypt,” and is referred to by Herodotus (II, 62), as prevailing in the 5th Century B.C.”

“On All Saints’ Day, the 1st of November,” Frazer continues, “ the shops and streets in the Abruzzi are filled with candles, which people buy in order to kindle them in the evening on the graves of their relations : For all the dead come to visit their homes on that night, the Eve of All Souls’, and they need lights to show them the way.”

¹Detailed explanations are given in descriptions of Plates IX, X, and XI.
²For the data concerning this refer Section II, ^ 56.
³Breasted, “ Ancient Records,” I, pp. 260-271. Frazer, “Adonis, Osiris, Attis,” pp. 241-242.
⁴” Adonis, Osiris, Attis,” pp. 241-2.
⁵Ibid., pp. 241-2.

Plate IX








_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________


Annotations to plate X.

THE ALLEGORY OF THE BUILDER’S ERROR.
(Refer ¶¶ 427-431-)

Subsequent investigations show that the Great Pyramid was designed to express an allegory, and that the allegory is of vastly greater importance in the design than any merely ephemeral purpose that the Structure could serve in the few centuries following its construction. The allegory is independently established from Marsham Adams’ demonstration of the Pyramid allegory in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, from the Pyramid Allegory running through the Old and New Testaments, and from the scientifically demonstrated Allegory of the Great Pyramid. In the allegory, physical light, in relation to the Great Pyramid, signifies Spiritual Light; physical reflexions symbolise witnessing, by reflexion, to the Source of Spiritual Light; and physical refraction symbolises the operation of evil spiritual influences in distorting the image of Spiritual Light presented by Spiritual reflexion (witnessing). The existing evidences of the Great Pyramid show that the Design was drawn up to counteract the effects of refraction. Throughout the text of this work these reliable evidences of Design have been taken as equally reliable indices for the structure as it left the hands of the builders. It is also shown, however, that the Allegory of the Design deals with the theme of a mistake of ignorance upon the part of “ the builders “ concerning the factor introduced to counteract the effects of refraction ; and that for this reason “ the builders “ were not able to place the Apex stone to conform to the Design, until the Designer had shown them their mistake, and corrected the mistake in the Structure itself.

All the existing structural evidences show that the stepped core masonry was set out and built to the lines of the Design, that the lines for the base of the Pyramid were set out for the casing masonry to conform to the lines of the Design, that the casing stones for the centre of each base side were laid and built to conform to the Design ; and that the whole of the internal system of Passages and Chambers was built to the requirements of the Design. Every existing detail of the Great Pyramid’s exterior and interior indicates that the Design required the four base corner-stones of the Pyramid and its Apex stone to occupy certain specified positions. As these five points of masonic perfection do not now exist, we cannot say with certainty that the builders built them in the positions intended by the Designer. We can prove, however, that the points defining these positions were given to the builders, that these points were marked off by the builders, and that, if any subsequent mistake was made by the builders, it was made when the final casing stones were set and built to complete the Pyramid’s exterior.

Now, since the Structural Allegory deals with the theme of “ the builders’ “ error, and since all the other features of the Great Pyramid are known but the five points of masonic perfection, and contain no departure from the Design, it seems obvious that the error must relate to the fixing of these five points by “ the builders.” This, however, still leaves us in the dark as to whether the error, if such were struct­urally made, was corrected immediately after the Pyramid was built or awaited correction at a remotely future date. The two alternatives are shown on Plate XVII, Figs. A and B respectively. If the Pyramid was left to monumentalise the builders’ error, as a necessary factor in the Structural allegory, then the building was left as shown on Plate XVII, Figs. B and b, but with the Apex stone left off to agree with the Allegory. If, on the other hand, a structural correction was made to the Pyramid, built to these lines, the correction would be made to define the base corner-stones at Q, R, S, and T of Fig. A, Plate XVII. We must remember, however, that the error is allegorically expressed and that it relates not so much to the Pyramid itself, as to what “ the builders “ and the Pyramid signify in the allegory. The Great Pyramid may, therefore, have been built truly to the detailed Design in every respect. It may be that light will be thrown on this question by the clearance of the Great Pyramid’s base sides now being carried out by the Egyptian Government.

(This theme is continued in Annotations A and B to Plate XVI.)

A UNIQUE AIR-PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PYRAMIDS OF GIZEH.


SETTLING A CONTROVERSY OF LONG STANDING, AND REVEALING A STRUCTURAL FEATURE OF THE GREAT PYRAMID, THAT IS THE KEY TO THE UNRAVELLING OF ALL ITS MYSTERIES AND THAT HAS REMAINED UNOBSERVED FOR NEARLY 5000 YEARS.

The reproduction is from an air-photograph by Brigadier-General P. R. C. Groves, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., by whose kind permission the reproduction appears. The photograph was taken before sunset from an elevation of 4006 feet. Only two of the four slopes of each of the three greater pyramids of Gizeh appear. The west slope of each pyramid is shown reflecting the light from the setting sun, and the south slope of each pyramid in shadow. The Third Pyramid is partly shown in the bottom left-hand corner of the photograph, the Second Pyramid lies behind, and the Great Pyramid is farthest removed.
The casing stones of the original smooth sloping surfaces of the Great Pyramid were removed eleven centuries ago. The “slopes” shown are therefore the stepped escarpments that were exposed when the casing stones were removed. The south stepped “slope” of the Great Pyramid reveals, on the photograph, a structural feature that does not appear on the other two pyramids. This is a shallow V-shaped depression of the surface of the stepped “slope.” This depression, or hollowing-in, occurs on all four stepped “slopes” of the Great Pyramid, but, so far as is known, does not occur on any other pyramid. The V-shaped depression is shown very clearly by the difference in tone of the shadows on the two halves of the south stepped “slope.” There is a clear line of demarcation on the original photograph between the two tones of shade, down the centre of the escarpment. The darker tone is seen on the left half of the triangle forming the south stepped “slope.”






THE GREAT ARCHITECT’S ALLEGORY OF THE BUILDERS’ ERROR.

The interpretation, in 1924, disclosed that every allegorical element of Displacement, throughout the Pyramid’s structure, was indicated by a constant measure of 286.1022 Pyr. inches, termed the Great Pyramid’s Displacement Factor. The designed square base circuit for the Perfect Structure (Figs. A and B above) was inferred as measuring 36,524.2 Pyramid inches (symbolizing the value of the solar year to the scale of 100 Pyramid inches to a day). The Egyptian Government Survey (1925) later showed that the square base circuit of the Pyramid as actually built (Figs. C and D above) was 286.1022 Pyr. inches (the Displacement Factor) short of the perfect base square circuit of 36,524.2 Pyr. inches. The designed intention for the form of the finished casing slopes is proved by’ the built form of the stepped core escarpments hollowed in as shown on the air-photograph on the preceding page. To indicate the imperfect nature of the built structure the apex-stone was not placed on the Pyramid. Confirming this fact Diodorus states that in his day (60 B.C.) the casing of the Great Pyramid was “entire and without the least decay” and yet lacked its apex stone. This omission of the apex stone is an essential part of the structural allegory delineated in the present work.


_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Similarly, he states, “The Miztecs of Mexico believed that the souls of the dead came back in the twelfth month of every year, which corresponded with our November. On this day of All Souls the houses were decked out to welcome the Spirits.¹

Frazer suggests that “The nominally Christian feast of All Souls’ on November 2nd, appears to be an old Celtic festival of the Dead, adopted by the Church in 998 A.D.”

“The Celts and the Teutons appear to have dated the beginning of their year from the beginning of Winter, the Celts reckoning it from the 1st of November and the Teutons from the 1st of October.

“ The feast of All Saints’ on November 1st, seems also to have displaced a heathen festival of the dead.”²


¶ 26. OSIRIS AND THE FESTIVAL OF THE DEAD: ISIS AND THE GREAT PYRAMID

In the dual aspect of Osiris as corn or vegetation-god and god of the dead, the rites of Osiris embodied in one celebration, at the commencement of the November Vegetation Year, the rites of the agricultural deity and the rites of primitive ancestor-worship. In the sowing of the grain in November was seen the symbolic burial of the god ; in its growth, his renewal of life ; his resurrec­tion ; and, in harvest, the death and sacrifice of the god.³ Thus Dr. Frazer states :⁴

“ Under the names of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, and Attis, the peoples of Egypt and Western Asia represented the yearly decay and revival of life, especially of vegetable life, which they personified as a god who annually died and rose again from the dead.”

The rites of Osiris in ancient Egypt were annually celebrated on the day of the Festival of the Dead, November 1^st. Owing to the fact that the noon reflections of the Great Pyramid defined the day of the celebrations, Osiris, in later Egyptian times, was associated with the Pyramid. Hence the fact that Isis, the female counterpart of Osiris, was designated in later times, “ the queen of the Pyramid,” and the “ mistress of the commencement of the year.” When the November year was discarded for the Sothic or Sirius Year, Isis followed the alteration of the year’s beginning, and was identified with the star Sothis or Sirius. The original November year beginning aspect of the goddess was Hathor, later absorbed by Isis.


¶ 27. THE GREAT PYRAMID NOT AN INSTITUTION OF EGYPTIAN RELIGION.

The accounts of Herodotus that Cheops (or Khuphu), the builder of the Great Pyramid, closed the Egyptian temples of the gods, and forbade sacrifice to the gods, and of the Egyptian priest, Manetho, that the same king “was arrogant towards the gods,” have been confirmed by Professor Petrie’s excava­tions at Abydos.⁵ Furthermore, the simplicity of the Great Pyramid, and of other works belonging to the same reign, the utter lack of internal or external ornament and inscription, removes the Pyramid entirely from the particular kind of religious atmosphere associated generally with every form of Egyptian architecture.

It seems clearly obvious, then, that the First of November phenomena of the Great Pyramid had not been devised to ensure the celebration of the rites of ancestor-worship, or the rites of Osiris, on this particular day. The tradi­tions concerning the festival, however, indicate that it was considered to be the anniversary of an historical event, rather than of an event belonging to the astronomical or vegetational phenomena of the year. This again, is confirmed by the Pyramid indicating this date rather than the true beginning of winter.

¶ 28. THE TRADITIONAL ORIGIN OF THE FESTIVAL OF THE DEAD.

As to the origin of the traditions concerning the festival of the dead, Haliburton⁶ states as follows :—
In Mexico “ the festival of the dead was held on the 17^th of November, and was regulated by the Pleiade. They had a tradition that, at that time, the world had been previously destroyed, and they dreaded that a similar catastrophe at the end of a cycle would annihilate the race.”

¹Ibid.,-pp. 244-8.
²Ibid., pp. 254-5.
³ A. Moret, “ Kings and Gods of Egypt,” pp. 69-108, 148-198.
⁴” Adonis, Osiris, Attis,” p. 5.
Both are standard works on this subject.
⁵Abydos II, pp. to, 30, 48.
⁶In Prof. C. P. Smyth’s “ Life and Work at the Great Pyramid,” Vol. II, p. 390.

The 17^th of November¹ occurs also as an alternative dating of certain cults in Egypt during Dynasties XII and XIX, in Ptolemaic Egypt, and at the time of Plutarch. It occurs in Ancient Rome as an alternative date to 1^st November. According to Plutarch, the alternative dating, on the fixed Alexandrian (Julian) Calendar of his time, fell on the 17^th day of the Egyptian month Athyr (Hathor).² In the XII^th Dynasty, the same alternative dating would be the 17^th day of Month I, Season of Sowing,—the 1^st month of the fixed 1^st Novem­ber year.

Reference to the Egyptian form of the traditional destruction of the world appears in the early X^th Dynasty Papyrus, Petersburg III6A,³ as “The Destruction of Mankind.” The X^th Dynasty Papyrus states:

“ God made heaven and earth (refer Gen. I, i) at their desire. He checked the greed of the waters (refer Gen. I, 6-10) and made the air to give life to their nostrils (i.e., by the removal of super-saturation from the atmosphere effected by process of Gen. I, 6 and 7. For previous conditions refer Gen. II, 5 and 6). They are His own images (refer Gen. I, 26, 27) proceeding from His flesh He slew His enemies and destroyed His own children because of their plots in making rebellion.” (Refer Gen. VI, 5-7, 11-13, for causes.)

The later form of the narrative, appearing in the tomb of Seti I of Dynasty XIX,⁴ associates Hathor with the “Destruction of Mankind,” which would account for the 17^th day of the Egyptian month Hathor (the Athyr of Plutarch’s account) being identified, in later times, with the Festival of the Dead.

¶ 29. HATHOR AND “THE DESTRUCTION OF MANKIND.”

Outstanding features of the XIXth Dynasty story of the “Destruction of Mankind “ fix that narrative as the Egyptian rendering of the narrative of the Noachian flood in Genesis, and of the ancient Mexican tradition of the destruc­tion of the world, referred to by Haliburton. Commemoration of the latter, as quoted, “ was regulated by the Pleiades.”

Confirming the connection between the various forms of the narrative, Haliburton observes that the celebration of the festival of the dead by the Australian aborigines was held in November, when the constellation of the Pleiades is most distinct, and was specifically worshipped as “ the giver of rain.”⁵ He says again that “ The month of November was formerly called in Persia ‘ The Month of the angel of death.’ “⁶

In the Egyptian XIX^th Dynasty form of the tradition this “ angel of death “ appears as Hathor. Hat-hor, as Sir Ernest Budge shows,⁷ was origin­ally ‘ Het-Heru,’ “ The House of Horus,” “ one special part of the great watery mass of heaven,” and was therefore a special part of “ the waters above the firmament,” of Genesis I, 9, and probably, therefore, the Deluge “ floodgates of heaven “ of Genesis VII, II. The latter should more clearly be rendered “ a finely spread restraining influence or natural law (attenuated lattice-work is the restricted application) upholding the waters above the firmament,” This suffi­ciently accounts for the 17^th of the month Athyr (Hathor) being celebrated as the day of the festival of the dead in the Alexandrian Calendar period. For in the narrative of Genesis the Noachian deluge is given as beginning on the 17^th day of the second month of the Calendar year of Genesis.

As to the association between Hathor and the ancient November constel­lation of Pleiades, the modern popular name—”the seven sisters”—of the latter constellation had its counterpart in Ancient Egypt as “ the Seven Hathors.”

The XlXth Dynasty narrative of the Destruction of Mankind states that “Ra ordered in the midst of the night⁸ to pour out the water of the vessels, and the fields were entirely covered with water and there came the goddess (Hathor) at the morning, and she found the fields covered with water, and she was pleased with it and she drank to her satisfaction, and she went away satisfied, and she saw no men.....”

Then Ra ordered “ that libations be made to her at every festival of the New Year.” The narrative defines this as the “ festival of Hathor.” Obviously it was originally New Year’s Day, which in early Egypt fell on 1^st November.

_¹“Refer Section II, H 55.
²“Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, Vol. FI, p. 336.
³Translation by Dr. Alen H. Gardiner, “ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology,1’ Vol. I, p. 34.
⁴Translation by Dr. Ed. Naville, “Records of the Past,” 1st series. Vol. VI, pp. 105-112
⁵Haliburton in Smyth’s “ Life and Work at the Great Pyramid,” Vol. II, pp. 384-386.
⁶lbid., p. 390.
⁷”Gods of the Egyptians,” Vol. I, pp. 428-429.
⁸All Hallow’s Eve or Hallowe’en ?

¶ 30. THE EARLIEST KNOWN EXAMPLE OF THE ALMANAC TRADITION.

Now we saw that in the celebration of the festival of the dead, the 17^th day of the Egyptian fixed Agricultural (November) year appeared as an alter­native dating to the 1^st day of the fixed agricultural year which began on 1^st November. From this it would appear that, originally, the 17^th day of the second month of the Calendar year of Genesis was commemorated as the 1^st day of the first month of the early Egyptian Calendar year, and that, at a later date, the persistence of the tradition, connecting the festival with the 17^th day of the month, led to the adoption of the alternative Egyptian dating.

This would identify early Egyptian Day I Month I on November 1^st, with Day 17 Month II of the Calendar year of Genesis.¹ Day I Month II of the then current Calendar year of Genesis would therefore fall on October 16^th (Gre­gorian), and, in consequence, Day I Month I of Genesis on September 16th (Gregorian). This would mean that the Calendar year of Genesis was an intercalated year of 360 days intercalated with respect to the Autumnal Equinox, which agrees with the data concerning the basis of the Biblical year prior to the Vernal Equinoctial basis of the luni-solar year adopted at the Exodus of Israel from Egypt.

If this hypothesis is correct—and it is little more than a hypothesis until it is confirmed by reliable data—then the Great Pyramid’s 1^st November phenomena form the earliest known example of what is understood in modern times as “The Almanac Tradition.”


¶31. THE CYCLES OF THE INTERCALATED CALENDAR YEAR.

In Section II of this Chapter—¶56—it is shown that both the Calendar year of 360 days and the Calendar year of 365 days in early Egyptian times received intercalations at the end of every five or six years. A series of such intercalary periods naturally fall into a cycle of 103 years of 365.24272 days, giving the mean value of the solar year over the entire period of astronomical time covered by historical records. (Section II, ¶56). Table II shows the construction of the cycle. The progressive durations of the years tabulated are for progressive intercalary years of cycle only. The Calendar of 360 days began on the same day as the Calendar of 365 days at the end of each inter­calary period of Table II. The intercalary periods of Table II, as will be seen, are all in exact numbers of months of 30 days. Table IIIa & b gives the comparative details for each year of the Cycle of 103 years. It will be shown later that this cycle and its intercalary periods were observed by the early Egyptians, had been derived from an earlier civilisation, and were still referred to in the early centuries of our Era.

¶ 32. THE CYCLIC SERIES OF THE 721 YEARS’ PERIOD.

An important auxiliary series of cycles dependent upon the intercalary periods of Table II, was a series of six cycles terminally coinciding with seven cycles of Table II, after the duration of 721 years. The auxiliary series con­sisted of four initial periods of 120 years each terminating at an intercalation of Table II, followed by a period of 121 years ending at an intercalation of Table II,—the 120 years not fulfilling this requirement—the terminal period, making up the six repetitions of the auxiliary cycle, ending at the last intercalation of Table II. Table IV indicates how the auxiliary series was automatically obtained.

In following the years’ duration of the 360 days’ Calendar in Table IIIa & b, and its successive repetitions, each period of 120 years included four periods of 30 years of the following total duration :—

30 years	=	365 months of 30 days
60 "		730 "
90 "		1095 "
129 "		1461 "

The necessary exception was the last 31 years’ period of the 121 years of No. (5) of series in Table IV, which automatically followed the rule requiring the interval of the series to end at an intercalation.

¹This hypothesis, it will be found, requires a slight revision later.



The identities employed by the Egyptians in translating the numerical values of time measures into linear measures will shortly be seen. When this fact of the mythological basis of Egyptian civil and religious life is appreciated it will be understood why certain domains of the Egyptian Underworld are expressed as 309 atru in length, and 120 atru in breadth,¹—numerically three cycles of 103 years and one cycle of 120 years respectively, indicating the connection understood as holding between the two cycles.


¶ 33. OTHER AUXILIARY CYCLES.

Other important cycles, dependent upon the 103 years’ cycle of Tables II and III are :—

1. Commencing from zero year of Table IIIa &b and following its successive repetitions :
   (a) An important cycle of 658 years of 365.2431611 days on the 360 days’ Calendar basis and on the 365 days Calendar basis.
   (b) An important cycle of 329 years (half of above cycle) of 365.2431611 days on the 365 days’ Calendar basis.
   These two are the most important cycles in Egyptian chronology, and will be found frequently referred to in the Egyptian records.
   
   
2. Commencing from year 5 of the initial 103 years cycle (on 360 days’ Calendar basis):—
   (a) A series of 200 Julian years.
   (b) A series of 120 Julian years.
   (c) A series of 97 years of 365.2577 days each closely approximating to the mean sidereal year of 365.25637 (modern value).
   (d) A cycle of 2920 Julian years, equal to two cycles of 1460 years, beginning at year 5 of the initial cycle of 103 years, and terminating at a year 2925 of the 103 years’ cycle in continued repetition.
   
   The most important cycle of these is that of 97 years as it is the one of the above four most often met with in Egyptian cyclic chronology.
   
   
   

¶ 34. THE SED FESTIVAL AND THE SEP TEP SED FESTIVAL.

The series of ¶32 confirms Petrie’s identification that the Egyptian period of the Sep tep sed Festival was an astronomical period of 120 years, and that the period of the Sed Festival was an astronomical period of 30 years. Four repetitions of the Sed Festival period were celebrated by the Sep tep sed Festival. Sed means the tail or end, and therefore refers to a Festival celebrated in the last or tail year of the period of 30 years. Sep tep means the chief repetition or occurrence. The Sep tep sed Festival was therefore, the chief occurrence of the tail or end Festival, in the last or tail year of the 120 years’ period,² or, as ¶32 shows, of the 121 years’ period once in every seven repetitions of the 103 years’ cycle.

In early times it was -the custom, as will be seen, for the king, at the Sed Festival, to appoint his co-regent. The co-regent, then, began the reckoning of his reign from his first year of co-regency, thus dating from the Sed Festival. Successive kings, thus appointed in unbroken succession, would always celebrate their second Sed Festival in their 30^th year of rule from co-regency. So far—for very early times—Breasted’s opinion³ is applicable that a king’s Sed Festival was celebrated 30 years from his appoint­ment as co-regent. But when Breasted infers from this that the Sed period was not an astronomical period and, further, that the Sed Festival was always celebrated 30 years from appointment as co-regent, his opinion fails to accord with the facts.

Petrie has shown repeatedly that the co-regency theory does not hold daring the greater period of Egyptian history. He has repeatedly claimed that the Egyptian evidence fixes the periods of 30 and 120 years as astronomical periods. The data of ¶32 now confirm this, in that Petrie’s astronomical period is now seen to be an important period of a highly scientific series of Calendar cycles, based on an accurate determination of the value of the solar year for ancient times.


¹Budge, “ Gods of the Egyptians,” vol. I, p. 208.
²Petrie, “ Researches in Sinai,” p. 180.
³ History of Egypt” (1919), p. 39.VOL. I.



¶35. THE RITES OF THE SED FESTIVAL.

The Sed Festival and its rites were institutions that the early Dynastic Egyptians derived from an earlier civilization. The significance of the Sed period we know to be primarily calendric. But as to what was the original nature of the Sed Festival rites is a matter that can only be surmised from what we know concerning the ceremonies followed at the Festival during the times of the earliest Dynasties in Egypt.

The purpose of the ceremonies at the time of the first two Egyptian Dynasties centered chiefly round the idea of ensuring the continuity of the Dynasty in both a spiritual sense and a physical sense. The king was the representative on earth of the god of his Dynasty. He was supposed to partake of the spiritual strength of his god, and to derive his physical strength from the god. What was believed to be the process of effecting this accession of Divine Power took place at the Sed Festival, when the king and his selected co-regent presented themselves before the Shrine of the “ presence-form “ of the Dynastic god.


¶36. THE RENEWAL OF THE KING.

The reigning king was believed to renew his strength in the presence of the god. Hence the Sed Festival was also known as the Festival of Renewal, The selected co-regent, as was believed, received, jointly with the reigning monarch, the power from the god’s presence. If the reigning king died before the following Sed Festival or Festival of Renewal the power of the god continued in his successor. Such seems to have been the idea that formulated this early stage of the kingly doctrine of Divine Right, and of the constitutional formulae¹ persisting in our own times and kingdom, “ The king is dead, long live the king,” and “ The king never dies, he only demises the throne.”

The divine right was supposed to pass from one Dynasty to another when the god failed to renew the king, or to accept or provide a successor belonging to the family. The king and his co-regent signified their renewal and accession of power by running or dancing before the shrine of the “ presence-form “ of the god. Similarly David, in the year in which he received the promise of his Everlasting Kingdom, danced before the Ark of the Covenant, in the presence of the Shekinah, when the Ark returned from the Philistines. St. Paul (Acts XIII, 17-23) refers to this Establishing of the Kingdom in connection with the termination of a period of 450 years²—obviously a period dating from an Epoch in Israel’s history. The period is an interval of fifteen Sed periods of 30 years. Can it be that the Biblical evidence here points to the continuance of certain ancient sacred rites and customs as these were understood amongst the Hebrews, precisely as the Egyptians followed the rites and customs handed on to them by a former civilisation, that had reduced the central idea to the form presented by the rites of the Sed Festival in early Egypt ? That this is not improbable is evidenced by the common origin of the Deluge narrative of Genesis and the Egyptian narrative of the Destruction of Mankind, and all the associated Calendar data connecting the month date of the Festival of the Dead with the month date of the Noachian Deluge.

¶37. THE EPOCHS AND CYCLES OF GENESIS.

The truth concerning the connection inferred between the ancient Egyptian cycles and the customs and institutions belonging to the period of the early chapters of Genesis is seen at once by tabulating the chronology of the gene­alogies of Genesis, Chapter V. This is as stated in Table V,—”The Ante­diluvian Dynasties of Genesis V.”

It is significant that whereas the initial dates (in Column 2, Table V), of the ten genealogical items, Adam to birth of Noah, do not bear any relation to the Calendar Cycles, the ten terminal dates, in Column 3, all fall at the beginning or ending of the last year of one or other of the Calendar Cycles dependent upon the cycle of 103 years. For this reason the years of the chronology are stated in Table V as A.K. or Anno Kalendarii.³

Two of the terminal dates end at the date of the Deluge ending. Of the remaining eight terminal dates, six coincide with the beginning or ending of the last year of a Sed period. Five of these belong to a Sed series beginning from 0 A.K:, and one to a Sed series beginning from 622 A.K., the date of the birth of Enoch or Hanok. That this latter date was reckoned as a separate Epoch is proved by the 365 years of Enoch being dated from 622 A.K., and by the 365 years’ period ending at 987 A.K., the termination of three cycles of 329 years from 0 A.K.

¹Refer Ferrar Fenton’s long note at the end of his translation of the 1st Book of Genesis, “ Bible in Modern English “ We do not agree
entirely with Fenton’s theory, but what he says has an important bearing upon this subject of the Sed Festival, as well as upon the question
of the Antediluvian genealogies with which Fenton’s theory deals.
²Refer Founding of Solomon’s Temple, 48oth year from Exodus. Another Sed Festival (I Kings, VI, i). This throws light on the 450
years’of Acts XIII, 17-23.
³The initial “ K “ for “ C “ is intentional, to avoid using A.C.

The latter identity accounts for one of the remaining two terminal datings of column 3. The one terminal dating remaining coincides with the commencement of the last year of the twelfth cycle of 103 years from 0 A.K.

We saw that the Sed Festival in Egypt was celebrated in the last year of each period. The chronology of the terminal dates of the dynasties of Genesis confirms that the terminal festivals were celebrated in any convenient month of the last year of a cyclic period.

¶38. THE CYCLE OF THE HOUSE OF ENOCH.

From Genesis V, 24, in conjunction with the dates in Table V, we discover that the translation of Hanok (Enoch) is dated at the termination of a cycle of 329 years. Later evidence from Egyptian sources will show this cycle to be the hitherto lost Phoenix cycle of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman tradition.
Now the legend of the Phoenix is the story of its translation at the end of the Phoenix period or cycle. The legend of the Phoenix is thus the Egyptian or Greek mythological form of the translation of Hanok (Enoch). In Egyptian, Pa as a prefix to a proper name signified “ the house of,” or the “ father of the house of “ the individual designated by the proper name. Hence the Egyptian name Grecianised as “ Phoenix “ was apparently derived down from “ Pa-Hanok “ or “ Pa-Enoch,” the name of the father of the House of Enoch. The Phoenix cycle, therefore, is the cycle of Pa-Hanok, the Cycle of the House of Enoch.

The date for the translation of Enoch, 987 A.K.,—the termination of three Phoenix cycles—is 360,495 days from the cyclic beginning at 0 A.K. Now the summation of 900 years of 360 days and 100 years of 365 days—numerically 1000 “ years “—is 360,500 days. From this almost exact coincidence (within five days), obviously originated the tradition identifying the Phoenix Cycle with a period of 1000 years (as Martial, Claudian, Lactantius, and Nonno). Beginning with Herodotus, however, the majority of the Greek and Latin writers reckoned the period at half this duration, or 500 “ years.” Apparently, then, both traditions originated from the fact that the translation of Enoch is dated in Genesis at 987 A.K., the completion of [900 years of 360 days]+[100 years of 365 days] numerical] totaling 1000 “ years.”


¶39. THE EPOCH OF ENOCH AND THE EPOCH OF ABRAM.

Tacitus, and other writers, however, mention an alternative duration of 1460 or 1461 “ years “ for the Phoenix cycle. This obviously originated from the 365 years of the life of Enoch. 4x365=1460, and 4x365.25 = 1461 years. The initial 365 (or 365.25) years spanning the life of Enoch, begin from 622 A.K. as in Table V. Observe the significance, then, of the following summation.

Birth of Enoch .. .. ........................... .. = 622 A.K.
Interval of .. .. .. .. .. .......................... .. 1461 years
Hebrew date for Call of Abram .. .. . . =2083 A.K.

The initial period again—the life of Enoch (Pa-Hanok)—is a “ great year “ or a year of years, 365 or 365.25 years. The Greeks gave the name “ Phoenix “ to the palm-tree branch, which as a hieroglyphic in Egyptian, denoted the “ year “—365 or 365.25 - days. Thus Horapollo (I, iii) refers to the “ Phoenix, the palm branch” as signifying the “ year “ in Egyptian; (I,xxxiv)to “the phoenix, the bird “as signifying in Egyptian, “a soul continuing a long time here”; or (I, xxxv) “ a man returning home after a long time from a foreign land.”


¶40. THE CALENDAR YEAR OF GENESIS.

The Calendar Cycles, then, of the ancient Egyptians and of the early civilisation briefly pictured in the first eleven chapters of Genesis were identical. This confirms the hypothesis of ¶30 as to the intercalated Calendar year of Genesis being based on the Autumnal Equinox. Day I, Month I of Genesis therefore began at the Autumnal Equinox in the zero year, 0 A.K., of Genesis. For several thousand years prior to 2000 B.C., the Autumnal Equinox could fall upon one or otherof the days 21^st, 22^nd, or 23^rd September (Gregorian)¹

From Genesis VII, 11, Day 17, Month II, fell in the 600^th year from the Epoch of Noah. Being early in the then current year, as indicated by the month numeral, 599 years from the Epoch of Noah terminated at the beginning of Day 1, Month I of the 600th year. The Epoch of Noah is 1056 A.K. (Table V. from genealogies of Genesis Chapter V.) Hence Genesis VII, ii, refers to Day 17, Month II of 1655 A.K.

Now the Calendar year of Genesis is the Intercalated Calendar Year of 360 days, and the cycles of Genesis V are the cycles dependent upon the state­ment of Table IIIa &b. The rules of Table III, therefore, apply as commencing Day 1 Month I on one or other of the days 21, 22, 23 September (Gregorian) 0 A.K. If we knew the year B.C. in which 0 A.K. began we could reduce the range to one particular day of the three. The range of three days is, however, sufficient for purposes of identification.
Following the rules suggested, we find that Day 17, Month II in 1655 A.K. fell on one or other of the days 30th or 3 1st October or 1st November (Gre­gorian). As the narrative of Genesis places the Noachian Deluge as beginning on Day 17 Month II, 1655 A.K., it therefore gives the commencement of the Deluge on 30^th or 31^st October or 1st November (Gregorian). This explains the intention of the Pyramid’s 1^st November Phenomena, and why the Festival of the Dead is universally associated with a date generally ranging from 31^st October (All Hallow’s Eve or Hallowe’en) to 2^nd November, the modern All Souls.

SECTION I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

¶41. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING ORIGINS.

In what is generally and vaguely referred to as prehistoric times, there existed a highly developed state of civilisation. Much is to be in/erred con­cerning the various phases and branches of life and knowledge of this former civilisation. One thing, however, appears to be certain. It came to an end in such a manner that none of its works—except in the form of tradition—remained as a heritage to the civilisation that followed.²

The men who founded the origins of modern civilisation built on the oral traditions brought over from the former civilisation. In conception, co-relation of ideas, and what we may term mental idiom, we find these origins to be already highly developed. In forms of literary and artistic presentation they are, at first, archaic or amateurish in execution. Development, however, was rapid. Thus, of the first three Egyptian Dynasties, Professor Petrie remarks “ The rapid rise of art is the most surprising activity of this age ‘ So soon as the dynastic race come in, there begins the enormous step in art, rapidly developing to perfection within its natural limits.”³

¶42. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE TRADITIONAL CATASTROPHE AND ITS ANNIVERSARY.

According to the traditions from various sources, the former civilisation met with a catastrophic ending. In ancient Egypt, the tradition exists as” “ The Destruction of Mankind,” in ancient Mexico and Peru .as “ The Destruc­tion of the World,” and in ancient Babylonia and Assyria, and in China, as “ The Deluge.” These traditional accounts, when compared, indicate they are various versions of the Noachian Deluge narrative in the Hebrew Book of Genesis.

¹In all precise Gregorian datings for ancient times, in this work, the datings have been calcu­lated and are not, therefore, merely approximate datings. For such precise datings, the modern (Gregorian) rule of intercalation has been carried back into ancient times, together with the modern months. This was done for purpose of comparison with the solar year. When comparison with the siderial year or with the Sothic (or Sirius) year is required, the same process is adopted by carrying back the Julian year from 1582 A.D.—when it was discarded for the modern Gregorian year. The latter process is that adopted generally in astronomical calculations for ancient times. The single difference in the month datings, of Julian as compared with Gregorian, is that prior to 1582 A.D. the Julian Leap Year occurs every four years without exception, whereas the Gregorian rule omits three Leap years in every 400 years, otherwise following the Julian rule. This reduces to the following for A.D. years :—

Julian Rule :—All years A.D. divisible by 4 are Leap Years.
Gregorian Rule :—All years A.D.—except zero years of centuries—divisible by 4 are Leap Years. All zero years of centuries divisible by 400 are Leap Years. Thus, 1,600 A.D. was a Leap Year, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 A.D. were not Leap Years.

By following the astronomical reckoning of B.C. years whereby
Astronomical A.D. 1 = Historical A.D. 1.
B.C. 0 = “ B.C. 1
B.C. 1 = “ B.C. 2
and so on,

the same rules can be applied to B.C. reckoning. Unless, however, in the present work, a B.C. year is specifically defined as B.C. year of astronomical reckoning, it refers to B.C. year of historical reckoning.

²The statues of Easter Island, and some of the titanic rock temples of Asia have been referred to this period. But they tell us nothing, nor is their identification with the period certain.

³It must always be remembered, however, that in all stages and periods of civilisation the highest forms exist alongside the primitive and barbarous. Even the best authorities frequently permit themselves to forget this.

The day generally celebrated throughout the world, in ancient and modern times, as the Anniversary of the Catastrophe, is 1^st November, with variation generally from 31^st October to 2^nd November. These represent in modern times, All Hallows’ Eve, All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day.

The Autumnal Equinoctial year beginning of Genesis, the 103 years’ Calendar Cycle of Genesis, the Genesis Deluge year and month date combine to give the Genesis date for the Deluge as one or other of the three days, 30^th October, 31^st October, or 1^st November (Gregorian).

¶43. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE FIXED CALENDAR YEAR OF EARLY DYNASTIC EGYPT.

At the commencement of Egyptian Dynastic history, the Egyptian calendar year was instituted to begin from the anniversary of what the Egyptians designated the “Destruction of Mankind “—1st November. This coincided with the beginning of the agricultural year. The agricultural year commenced with the sowing season at the beginning of November. In consequence, the first Egyptian Calendar Season was the Calendar Season of Sowing. The outstanding phenomena of the noon reflexions of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh (Dynasty IV) defined the beginning of the agricultural year and the sowing season to all the inhabitants of the Nile Delta, annually on 1st November. The same phenomena on this date defined the Nile Delta as a truly Oriented Quadrant of a circle centered on the Great Pyramid. The Egyptian Calendar year, thus fixed, remained fixed from Dynasty I to Dynasty XVI.


¶44. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE CALENDAR CYCLES AND THEIR ORIGIN.

The Egyptian Calendar year of 360 days, at this time, received, every five or six years, the addition of a month of 30 days. A series of such intercalary periods automatically formed a Calendar Cycle of 103 solar years. This cycle was also the basis of the Egyptian Sed Festival period of 30 years, and of the Sep tep sed Festival period of 120 years. It was also the basis of the ancient Phoenix Cycle of 329 years. These and other connected cycles were derived by the Egyptians from the previous civilisation, from which they also derived the original form of their Sed festival ceremonies.

In effect, the original conception followed made it impossible for a Dynasty to be declared officially ended other than at a Sed festival. That this was the conception held by the former civilisation is evident from the chronology of the genealogies of Genesis V. In every case the genealogical item ends in the last year of a Sed festival period, or in one exception at the end of a cycle of 103 years, and in another, at the end of a Phoenix cycle of 329 years.

From the last identity, the Phoenix cycle was seen to be the cycle of Pa-Hanok, the cycle of the House of Enoch ; and the translation of the Phoenix to be the mythological aspect of the Biblical translation of Enoch.


¶45. PYRAMID REFLEXIONS AND SHADOWS ; TEMPLE ALIGNMENTS; AND
ALIGNMENTS OF MEGALITHIC MONUMENTS.

The noon reflexions and shadows of the Great Pyramid automatically and accurately defined the principal points of the solar astronomical and the solar vegetation year. This idea of defining a required point of the solar year was borrowed by the Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek temple builders, as Lockyer and Penrose have shown. Instead of reflexions and shadows, they adopted temple alignments directed to the point of sunrise of the required day of the year. The same idea was borrowed by the Oriental maritime traders and mining specialists who established mining and other industrial colonies in Spain, Portugal, and Britain. Not having time nor the opportunity to adopt the elaborate temple architecture of the contemporary East, and—as the Belgian archaeologist, Siret, has shown,¹—not permitting the aboriginal in­habitants to understand the use of metals and metal tools, they devised the simple yet accurate constructions of the rough stone circle and of the rough stone alignment. As Lockyer has shown, the stone circle was an advance on the stone alignment, as the latter was an advance—by reason of its greater length generally—on the Oriental Temple Axis alignment.


¶46. IS THE PYRAMID A GRAPHICAL EXPRESSION OF NATURAL LAW?

In light of the foregoing conclusions—and having regard to the extreme accuracy of workmanship in the Great Pyramid and the extreme accuracy of its definition of the points of the solar year—it would seem that the Great Pyramid was not built for the latter purpose only. All our conclusions take us back to -the origins in the former civilisation. Can it be that the Great Pyramid has something to tell us concerning these origins, and concerning the basis of the lost sciences and arts of the past?

¹D. A. Mackenzie, “ Early Man in Britain,” pp. 97 and98.

The mathematical or astronomical reader may possibly have seen the clues that have suggested these questions. In the Great Pyramid we have four sloping surfaces at the same angle of slope, accurately oriented, and built at a selected latitude. These comprise four constants.

We could understand the two structural constants having been purposely brought to a selected latitude and there oriented to enable the noon phenomena to define the 1^st of November. But the chances against the same four constants defining the beginning and ending of Summer by a horizontal South reflexion, and the Equinoxes by North-East and North-West directions, are so overwhelming as to be deemed impossible. Yet the Equinoctial pheno­menon and the phenomenon of the beginning and ending of summer, both resulting from the same simple combination of constants, prove the phenomena to have been intentional. Three precise series of independent coincidences of such a nature cannot happen by chance.

Now there is only one class of phenomena that can supply several such striking coincidences and identities from a simple combination, and that is the class of phenomena governed by Natural Law. Of a like simplicity to the case considered are the phenomena whose laws are expressed by the simple natural laws of Newton, Kepler, and Einstein.¹

¶47. THE PYRAMID DESIGNER’S KNOWLEDGE OF ORBITAL MOTIONS.

Tentatively, therefore, we may accept as possible that the Great Pyramid is the solid geometrical expression of a natural law, or of certain natural laws known to a former civilisation, and that this expression refers to solar astrono­mical time, and hence, possibly, to orbital motions and elements. The possi­bility more nearly approaches certainty when the mathematician realizes, as he must, that the outstanding noon phenomena of the Pyramid cannot be other than functions that are remote derivatives of other functions. These other functions can only be primary functions of the elements of the Earth’s orbit and its motions.

Obviously it was known, before the Pyramid design was put into being, - that certain properties of the solar year could be reduced to the simple Pyramid expression of them. The knowledge of the simplicity of expression necessarily presupposes knowledge of the properties thus simply expressed. The possession of such knowledge by the Pyramid designer implies the possession of a know­ledge of astronomy at least equal to that of modern times.

It may seem rash to suggest such an hypothesis thus early in our argument, but we are content to let the Pyramid’s own evidence, and the evidence from archaeological and literary sources, speak for themselves. The evidence from these sources has not hitherto been co-ordinated in this connection, but this will be accomplished in subsequent chapters, and the results of this co-ordination fully discussed.



¹The statement of Einstein’s Law of Relativity is simple. What is difficult is the explanation of its application in the various branches of science. The same difficulty will be experienced in regard to the Pyramid’s application. The simplicity is obvious. Why it should be so is not obvious.

Tweet

The Great Pyramid: It's Divine Message
Table of Contents
Plate Index
Table Index
Paragraph Index
Chapter I	Section I
	Section II
	Section III
Chapter II	Section I
	Section II
	Section III
Chapter III	Section I
	Section II
	Section III
Chapter IV	Section I
	Section II
	Section III
Chapter V	Section IA
	Section IB
	Section IC
	Summary
	(A)
	(B)
	(C)
	Section IIA
	Section IIB
	Section IIIC
	Section III
Appendix I
Appendix II