The Great Pyramid, Part 35

The Great Pyramid, Part 35

THE KINGS CHAMBER Continued

“We (The Edgar brother’s) photographed the mouth of the south air-channel of the King’s Chamber as it appears on the south wall—Plate CXLII. The surface of the wall immediately above and to the east side of the mouth is much broken away, and the opening is therefore much larger than it was originally.

 

The second color photo above shows just how extensive the damage has been done to the south wall around the southern air-channel; most of this damage was the direct results of so-called archeologist i.e. looters and treasure hunters not all of which were seeking treasure, but rather fame and notoriety. This mentality has contributed more to the destruction of Egyptian antiquities than any other source including that of vandals.

This air-channel runs horizontally southward for a few feet, and then takes a bend upward, and after a second short length still another upward bend, from which point it progresses in a straight line, and at a constant angle, to the southern face of the Pyramid. The floor of the horizontal portion is level, but the roof is arched, both in its breadth from east to west, and in its length from north to south, — a most peculiar feature, and evidently, from every appearance, the original design of the builders. The side walls, where they join the floor, though straight in their length, do not rise at right-angles, but incline outward and upward for about two feet, after which they curve inward in the shape of a dome as already indicated. The result is that, although the floor of the channel is only a few inches wide, there is sufficient space between the walls higher up, and enough height between the floor and the arched roof, to allow one to creep in on hands and knees. I crept in (holding a lighted candle in front of me, which several times was nearly blown-out by the strong current of air which is constantly passing through), and examined the second short, inclined length of the channel. This portion is also of a strange shape. Instead of being oblong in section like the air- channel on the opposite wall of the chamber, or the two channels leading from the Queen’s Chamber, it is oval, and is lined with smooth plaster. Beyond the second bend the channel takes on the usual oblong section. It is puzzling to know why the builders should have made two such departures.

 

We secured a picture of the Coffer, with six of us sitting in it to give an idea of its size Plate CXLI (a). On the right-hand side of this photograph, it will be noticed that a portion of the floor of the chamber is missing. Some of the floor-stones were raised from this, the north-west, corner of the chamber by early looters, who then excavated a large hollow in the soft limestone below the hard granite floor, in the hope of discovering hidden treasure somewhere under the Coffer. This excavation enables one to see that the granite walls of the chamber rest on limestone about five inches below the upper surface of the floor.

 

In some of the pictures of the Kings Chamber you will note a rather large block of stone sitting to the right of the granite coffer; this stone subsequently disappears in later photos (see below). Some have questioned the source of this stone and its original purpose. I believe it is part of the stone work excavated from the floor to the right of the granite coffer; however it’s hard to tell from the photos available whether it is a piece of the granite flooring or a piece of the limestone found below it. It appears to be a part of the lower section comprised of yellow Tura limestone, but I can’t be for sure from the photos. In the old black and white photo below you can see it is still sitting in the hole in the floor from which it was excavated. As far as where it has gone since this time, the odds are as it was not of great importance it was removed as it obstructed the clean look of the chamber, as for the hole in the floor as you can see it has been covered by a grating. The more important question is where did the granite slabs from the floor go? Perhaps these are some of the pieces of granite stones which were found in the lower passages (i.e., the well and the descending passage) and chambers (the grotto and subterranean chamber). It appears from the more recent color photo below that the grating has been removed and the floor repaired with new granite stones.

 

We photographed the door-way of the small passage by which we had entered the King’s Chamber (below). The opening of the north air-channel can be seen on the left-hand side; it will be noticed that its upper edge is in line with the top edge of the doorway.

On the walls behind the Coffer, and also above the door- way, a great many disfiguring names are visible (as can readily be seen in one of the black and white photos above). Names are scrawled everywhere in the Pyramid. Generally they are carved in the stone; but in the King’s Chamber the granite is too hard to make this easily possible, and consequently most of the names are painted on its walls. The King’s Chamber is rightly regarded as the most important apartment in the Great Pyramid. Its dimensions were first published by Professor John Greaves with wonderful accuracy. Professor C. Piazzi Smyth measured this chamber still more fully; and Professor Flinders Petrie’s later operations confirm the previous measures. From these practical measuring’s we are enabled to state with confidence that the theoretically correct dimensions of the King’s Chamber are sustained, and prove absolute and intentional design on the part of the inspired architect. The precise size of this chamber, also, governs directly and indirectly all the dimensions of the remainder of the building, as we hope to show later.

The leading theory requires that the width of the King’s Chamber should be 206.0658 + Pyramid inches., for this number of inches when multiplied by the square-root of the mathematical ratio “pie” (that is √ pie—See Par. 18), yields a number equal to the days in the solar tropical year, namely, 365.2422 nearly See also Par. 21. The square-root of pie, the number which, when multiplied by itself equals 3.1415926535 + (which is the value of pie), is:  1.7724538509 + the length of the King’s Chamber is exactly double its width. The length of the floor-diagonal is, therefore, 460.7772 + Pyramid inches; and exactly half of this is equal to the height of the chamber from floor to ceiling. As the granite walls of the chamber dip down below the level of the floor, there is, in a sense, a second height, of the granite walls alone, namely, 235.2432 + Pyramid inches (See further in NOTE I, page 313.)

The Coffer has been much chipped and otherwise roughly handled, and yet it is wonderful how well preserved it is after so many centuries of ill-usage. It has always commanded the attention of the thoughtful; for while it has the appearance of a sarcophagus; it is acknowledged by all competent authorities, even by those who adhere to the *tombic theory of the Pyramid, that there is no record of a mummy having been found in it. But if it is not a sarcophagus, what, then, was it made for? Mr. John Taylor came forward with the bold theory that the Coffer was intended by the Pyramid’s designer to serve as a standard of capacity measure for all nations. Following John Taylor, Professor C. Piazzi Smyth’s theory was that the Coffer, as a world-wide, or universal, standard of measure, had an inside cubical capacity of a round 71,250 cubic Pyramid inches.  His own careful measures of this stone chest, and the subsequent measures of Professor Flinders Petrie, practically confirms this theory of a capacity-measure of 71,250 cubic Pyramid inches ; and recent discoveries of a mathematical nature still further establish the claim.

Professor Smyth’s belief was that the Coffer had been made in the form of a sarcophagus partly as a blind as to its true purpose, and partly for a symbolical reason. Certain it is that the dimensions of its various parts are all proportioned to one another in a very symmetrical way; and these dimensions, also, bear proportional relationship with other sections of the Pyramid, showing that it was designed as part of the wonderful system which is found to bind together all the dimensions of the entire building. And because of this symmetry we agree with Professor Smyth when he says that the Coffer is not only “a symbolical sarcophagus,” but also “one adapted likewise to something further and more expressly connected with capacity measure.” (NOTE I on page 313 explains a little more about the Coffer.)

*“Reason alone would guide us not to think of the King’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid as a tomb, even if we did not know of its symbolic and scientific purpose; for this noble apartment is provided with well-constructed air-channels,—and a dead king does not require air ! The Queen’s Chamber is also provided with ventilating conduits; but, as explained in Par. 142, these were hidden for a symbolical purpose. The Subterranean Chamber is not so provided; yet even this chamber could not have been used as a sepulcher, partly because of the smallness in bore of the passage which leads to it, but principally because of its extremely chaotic floor. The subterranean chambers in all the other pyramids, on the contrary, were expressly made for the reception of the dead; and not one of them has air-channels, as may well be supposed.” (Great Pyramid Passages, Page 218, par.342)

On striking the smooth sides of the Coffer with the hand, it gives out a clear bell-like sound. This is due to the fact that it is hollowed out of one large block of granite, which, as Professor Flinders Petrie points out, shows unmistakable signs of having been sawn into its rectangular shape. The method, by which this granite block was hollowed out, according to Professor Petrie, was by means of large jeweled tubular drills.

Evidences of the extensive use of saws and drills on all kinds of stones, some of which are harder even than granite, are everywhere apparent in Egypt. How the ancient Egyptians were able to use them has puzzled the minds of Egyptologists for many years. Their knowledge of mechanics teaches them that immense power must have been employed; yet they fail to find any trace of an adequate appliance by which this power could have been generated. Professor Petrie says: “The great pressure needed to force the drills and saws so rapidly through the hard stones is very surprising; probably a load of at least a ton or two was placed on the four-inch drills cutting in granite [He elsewhere speaks of drills of no less than eighteen inches in diameter!] … These rapid spiral grooves [to be clearly seen on the inside of drilled holes] cannot be ascribed to anything but the descent of the drill into the granite under enormous pressure.”

After describing the method by which the builders of the Second Pyramid introduced and placed in position the large granite portcullis which closes that pyramid’s lower entrance passage (See Plate XLIII), Professor Petrie adds the following comment: “The skill required to turn over and lift such a block, in such a confined space, is far more striking than the moving of much larger masses in the open air, where any number of men could work on them. By measuring the bulk, it appears that this portcullis was nearly two tons in weight, and would require 40 to 60 men to lift it; the space, however, would not allow of more than a tenth of that number working at it; and this proves that some very efficient method was used for wielding such masses, quite apart from mere abundance of manual force.”

We suggest that it is probably their almost universal belief in the theory of Evolution, which makes the learned Egyptologists wonder at the undoubted evidences of mechanical knowledge and skill possessed by ancient nations. But to those who, like ourselves, have faith in the Scriptural account of the fall of man from original perfection (Par. 147), the many examples of the skill of 4000 years ago are only confirmatory of our belief. The present great accession of scientific knowledge on all subjects which is held as proof of the theory of Evolution, is to us rather a sign that we are now in the beginning of the times of restitution, concerning which the Scriptures speak so much (Acts 3:21), the times when all things will be restored to original perfection.

Although we do not say that the ancients knew all that modern research has brought to light, yet many things which they knew were lost in the subsequent degeneration of the race, and have not yet been restored to us of this day. The Great Pyramid itself is convincing proof, for instance, of the lost art of building accurately with great masses of stone. The opinion is frequently expressed and generally agreed to by those who can speak with authority that no modern builder could undertake to build the Great Pyramid as it was constructed over 4000 years ago. They would not know how to make such fine joints between the large blocks of stone, or how to fill them with cement.

Speaking about the joints and the use of cement by the Egyptians, Professor Flinders Petrie says: “The use of cement by the Egyptians is remarkable; and their skill in cementing joints is hard to understand. How, in the casing of the Great Pyramid, they could fill with cement a vertical joint about 5 feet by 7 feet in area, and only averaging one-fiftieth part of an inch thick is a mystery [See Par. 86]; more especially as the joint could not be thinned by rubbing, owing to its being a vertical joint, and the block weighing about 16 tons. Yet this was the usual work over 13 acres of surface, with tens of thousands of casing-stones, none less than a ton in weight.”

“To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides would be careful work, but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost impossible.” Colonel Howard Vyse, in drawing attention to this wonderful cement, writes: “Such is the tenacity of the cement with which they (the casing-stones) are held together, that a fragment of one that has been destroyed remained firmly fixed in its original alignment, notwithstanding the lapse of time, and the violence to which it had been exposed.” Even today with all man’s knowledge he has yet to have been able to copy nor to duplicate this particular ancient cement compound.

It is confirmatory to find so noted an Egyptologist and Evolutionist (Professor Flinders Petrie) adding the weight of his testimony not only to the opinion that the Great Pyramid was at one time entirely encased with beautiful, smooth, and exquisitely jointed limestone, but also to the fact that in its excellency of workmanship, it far surpasses all the pyramids and temples throughout Egypt. As the Great Pyramid is the oldest of the Egyptian monuments, this is against the evolution hypothesis, and in favor of the Scriptural teaching of the Fall.—Morton Edgar. (Great Pyramid Passages, Pages 304-312, par 497-504)

One further point: It is believed by many that at one time the granite coffer may have had a lid as there are three small holes bored into one of its sides (one of these is shown in the first photo above), the second diagram shows how this lid may have been situated upon the coffer. Note the similarity in the sarcophagus pictured below as found in the second pyramid, Khafre’s Pyramid.

As to what happened to the lid in the Kings Chamber, the leading theory is that Al Mamoun finding no treasure in the Pyramid was not about to leave the Pyramid empty handed without some token for all his work and efforts, and so seeing as he could not remove the entire granite coffer itself as its great weight and size would have prevented it from traversing the Ascending Passage he settled simply for the lid itself, conspicuously missing from the coffer. Of course this is but a theory, perhaps there never was a lid, only time will tell.

In our next post we will take a look at the Queens Chamber saving the symbolic significance of the two chambers until last.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *