An Interview with Alan F. Alford
Probably from the late 1990s. Alan F. Alford is author of 'Gods of the New Millennium' and 'The Phoenix Solution'
Q.
"Alan. In 1996 you put forward a sensational theory that the Great Pyramid was some kind of functional machine - a power generator. But in your new book [July 1998] you have carefully sidestepped the functionality of the Pyramid, and taken the approach that 'we don't really know what it is'. Can you clarify for us exactly where you stand on this question."
A.
"Certainly. The theory I put forward in 'Gods of the New Millennium' was just that - a theory and nothing more. Without full and unfettered access to the Pyramid, I can't test that theory. And nor is there any new information coming out of Egypt which might support the theory or otherwise.
For example, take the shafts which lead up out of the King's and Queen's Chambers. I feel certain that these tiny shafts are the key to the function of the Pyramid, but for five years the so-called 'Gantenbrink door' in the Queen's Chamber southern shaft has remained unopened. We still don't know where it leads to.
In my new book 'The Phoenix Solution', I have hinted once again that the Pyramid did have some kind of functional purpose, but I've deliberately steered clear of regurgitating what I said before. For one thing, this new book has a very academic flavour, and I didn't want to mix that up with anything too speculative. And for another thing, I honestly don't know whether my power generator theory is correct or not. I'm still open to other possibilities."
Q.
"I see. It's good that you're open-minded. But how can you be so sure that the Pyramid is not what Egyptologists say it is? What makes you so sure that it's not a tomb?"
A.
"Well, that's a long story, which I touched on in my first book, but have expanded considerably in this sequel.
In a nutshell, the Great Pyramid is of an entirely different ilk to the other pyramids in Egypt. Its build quality is totally superior. Its design is radically different. And its dimensions - as a scaled down hemisphere of the Earth - bespeak a scientific rather than a religious purpose. All this suggests that the Great Pyramid was built by an entirely different culture - in my view an earlier, pre-dynastic culture."
Q.
"But you no longer go along with the idea that the Pyramid dates back to 10500 BC?"
A.
"Yes, I have changed my mind on that point. Initially, I was attracted to the argument that the Sphinx was a lion, signifying the era of Leo from the 11th millennium BC. But now - having carried out a really in-depth study of ancient Egypt - I've come to the conclusion that the Sphinx wasn't a lion at all, but was rather a carving of Anubis, the canine god of the Earth."
Q.
"A dog rather than a cat?"
A.
"Yes. Most people don't realise that lions were a dualistic concept in ancient Egypt. But there's no evidence whatsoever of a second Sphinx, which tends to undermine the idea that it's a lion. We've all been told that the Sphinx is a lion, and we tend to take this for granted, but in reality the carving is more dog-like than cat-like, and the Sphinx makes much more sense, in a cultural context, as Anubis."
Q.
"So, this has weakened the case, in your view, for a lost civilisation of the 11th millennium BC?"
A.
"Exactly. Where there was once a coincidence of evidence at this date, which I found very alluring, now I see only one piece of evidence, which is lacking any corroboration, namely the Orion alignment put forward by Bauval. But it's really difficult to imagine the Pyramid being built in 10500 BC, simply because there was no-one around in the Nile valley to build it at that time. What I mean is, short of supernatural means, you'd need a whole army of people with the spare time to do it. It's not impossible, but it seems unlikely."
Q.
"Though to be fair, Bauval and Hancock never claimed that the Pyramid was actually built in 10500 BC - only designed then. They said it was built later, circa 2500 BC."
A.
"Hmmm. Bauval and Hancock's approach seems to be inspired by the book 'Hamlet's Mill', which is obsessed with the idea that the precessional movement of the stars is the key to ancient mythology. But in my new book, 'The Phoenix Solution', I have effectively challenged 'Hamlet's Mill' with an entirely different approach to mythology. I think Michael Rice makes this point very eloquently in the foreword to my book. So perhaps it's time for a rethink. The stars were important, but perhaps not in the way most people imagine them to be."
Q.
"I see. But you do also criticise Bauval and Hancock at a much more practical level, concerning the alignments of the Pyramid's shafts."
A.
"Yes, well this is part of their obsession with precession. The point I'm making in my book is that down-to-earth practicalities speak firmly against the idea that the shafts were aligned to certain stars. These shafts are not straight, they're kinked. And one of them is blocked off by a stone door. There are other things too, which are a little sensitive... But in any event, Bauval and Hancock have missed evidence that points to the Great Pyramid being built much earlier than 2500 BC."
Q.
"You mean the radiocarbon datings of 3000 BC?"
A.
"Exactly. That's a clear example of them being selective with the evidence. But there are other things which they were unaware of. For example, one of the things I've discovered is that Sneferu's two pyramids at Dahshur were aligned upon the two [giant pyramids] at Giza. It's amazing that no-one has spotted this simple fact before. What it means is that the Great Pyramid must pre-date Sneferu, who was the father of Khufu... So Khufu could not possibly have built the Great Pyramid. The only logical conclusion is that Khufu must have 'adopted' an already-existing pyramid, and Khafre did the same with the second pyramid."
Q.
"In your book, you mention an amazing inscription that seems to back up this adoption theory."
A.
"Right. An inscription was found at Giza stating that Khufu was building a mastaba field for his high officials as early as the 5th year of his reign. No-one seems to have spotted the paradox here - which is that Khufu would surely have been concentrating all his resources on the Pyramid itself, its temples and causeway. It's bizarre to think that a godlike king would be building mastabas for a bunch of bureaucrats, when there was more pressing work to be done. Unless of course the Pyramid didn't need to be built 'cause it was already there..."
Q.
"You also make a strong case for the inscription of Khufu's name inside the Pyramid being a fraud."
A.
"Well most people think that's already been proven, but there have been some problems with these accusations up until now. My scenario is somewhat different from the others, and adds an entirely new dimension to the debate. But we mustn't forget that this debate isn't just about a fraud - it is, or rather should be, about the original ownership of the Pyramid. In other words, those who desperately want the inscription to be genuine have to explain how Khufu's name came to appear in a Pyramid which was built before he was born!"
Q.
"Yes that's a tricky one, unless you start to unravel the entire sequence of pyramids and kings."
A.
"Exactly. But there's nothing much wrong with the rest of the sequence."
Q.
"Hmm. Anyway, as far as Egyptologists are concerned, the big problem here, with your thesis, is the lack of archaeological evidence for a 'lost civilisation'."
A.
"Well that's a solved question as far as I'm concerned, for the reasons given in my book. People like Mark Lehner would have us searching at our feet for potsherds, so we don't look up and see the best evidence of all staring us in the face... When Egyptologists try to tell me there's not one shred of evidence for a 'lost race', I just laugh and say what about the two giant pyramids, the megalithic temples and the Sphinx? All of these structures are anomalous - out-of-place artifacts that don't belong in the standard chronology."
Q.
"Yes. What I like about your thesis is that you don't oversimplify, and you go where the evidence takes you. So you don't automatically assume that these structures were all built by the same culture."
A.
"Right. We can't hide the fact that the two pyramids at Giza are of a different style and build quality - and yet, intriguingly, the radiocarbon datings are virtually identical. This led me to conclude - logically - that the two pyramids were originally built some time apart, but were later renovated at the same time, circa 3000 BC. Funny thing is that, after I came to this conclusion, I read in the papers that the current Egyptian government is planning to carry out just such a refurbishment on the small pyramid of Menkaure!"
Q.
"Now, if I might change the subject... I'm very conscious of the fact that 'The Phoenix Solution' is not just about the pyramids, but encompasses the entire religion and mythology of ancient Egypt. And, although that's a whole interview in itself, I wonder if you might just briefly paint us a picture of how this all fits together with the Great Pyramid and the idea of a 'lost civilisation'."
A.
"Certainly. Well, the crux of my thesis is that Egyptian religion was based on a very profound knowledge of astronomy, relating to the origins of our solar system. Without going into all the details, I've been working closely with an American astronomer, Tom Van Flandern, who believes that the asteroid belt is the remains of two planets which exploded at 1.6 AU and 2.8 AU from the Sun. And remarkably, I found this same knowledge encoded into Egyptian religion and mythology, and even into the geographical positioning of the sacred towns along the Nile.
Now, my theory is that the ancient Egyptians received this knowledge as a legacy, probably from the same culture which built the Great Pyramid. But the big question is: 'where did this fantastic knowledge of astronomy come from?' Today, we've only rediscovered the exploded planet theory by using telescopes and space probes. So how was it discovered before?
The important thing at this stage is not necessarily to answer this question, but to summon up the courage to ASK it. And if that's all I achieve with 'The Phoenix Solution' - to persuade more and more people that there IS a mystery to be solved - then my efforts will not have been in vain."
