...or Innocent Misdirection?
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900)
- Unwarranted Influences
- Buried by a Clique Mentality
- Recent re-emergence
- Controlled Destiny
- An Unacceptable Conclusion
- Associated Developments
- A Margin of Error
With Imperial encouragement throughout the Victorian era, a predominantly Christian and strongly conservative influence was allowed to dominate research in archaeology within the UK, producing deleterious effects that in some ways continue to this day.
By what now appears to have been quite obvious interference, some major discoveries of enormous significance were hidden away, ignored or somehow suppressed. Then and now, proponents of "unacceptable" ideas are often being ridiculed or refused access to funding. Although possibly more overt in archaeology in Egypt in the mid- to late 1800's, it is still very evident today. To top
There is absolutely no way that the achievements of the distant past could possibly have been the product of a simple technology but despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, revealed by the simplest of honest appraisals, no one has dared challenged the prevailing dogma.
Conservative, christian influences in England in the mid-19th century allowed the findings made by Sir Flinders Petrie in Egypt to be largely suppressed, to the point that I for one, found no refrence to the extraordinary contents of Petrie's discoveries in my earlier research during the 1960's. Instead, whilst his general contribution and reputation is widely acknowledged, Petrie has essentially been damned with faint praise and arguably his most significant discoveries were somehow buried for over 120 years. To top
Personally, I have found very few people in other branches of science even prepared to discuss the basic issues on the basis that "if Archaeology doesn't recognise an obvious mystery, then there cannot be one"
In my view, the early recovery of these extraordinary technologies might well have allowed us to avoid the excesses brought on by our use fossil fuels and moved us a century ago toward an entirely sustainable energy economy, based on solar energy. Indeed, had this long-suppressed knowledge not been passed over 120 years ago we might by now have been well on our way to the stars. To top
The full impact of this quite overt discrimination and domination has only recently become fully apparent and the full details will probably never be fully proven but the evidence is explicit. The earliest discoveries of Sir Flinders Petrie(1853-1942) should have opened the way for science to redevelop many of the most extraordinary technologies used by the Ancients. Instead, his findings barely saw the light of day despite the fact that Petrie himself was (and still is) lauded as (sic) "the Father of Egyptology".
Unfortunately, when he published his results in 1883, Petrie was very junior to a rather arrogant but ebullient family friend, Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900), considered the most eminent authority of his day on the subject of the Great Pyramid. Like myself 100 years later, young Petrie had serious concerns about the published record and conclusions in Smyth's work, "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid", published in 1865. Smyth's book was an instant best seller and remains available to this day as the most widely referenced source on the metrology (physical measurement) of the Great Pyramid. To top
However, what I didn't learn until recently was that Petrie declared his concerns about Smyth's book at the tender age of 13 and determined to prove him wrong. Having been trained by his father to become an acknowledged, world-class surveyor, at the age of 27, Petrie went to Egypt and conducted his own survey in 1881/83.. Petrie’s results, published in 1883, seriously discredited many of Smyth’s findings and 5 years later Smyth 'retired' from his sinecure, lifetime appointment as Astronomer Royal of Scotland, presumably in disgrace. However, despite Petrie's work proving the Great Pyramid as 12x more accurate than Smyth had claimed, it is Smyth's definitions that are the ones still commonly referenced, ie that the Great Pyramid is accurate "to within eight inches" (200mm). To top
As a consequence, there appears to be considerable confusion, even among archaeologists, as to the precise details of this amazing structure. This is unfortunate in the extreme because whilst many would consider Smyth’s figures as almost achievable, the true figures, proven by Petrie (and later reconfirmed) are more amazing by more than an order of magnitude and to this day (at an error ration of ~1:600,000 or 18mm in 1000m) is still around 5 times better than anything yet achieved in any major, massive structure in the modern era. To top
The historical evidence will be viewed in due course but the main villain of the piece was undoubtedly Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900), Astronomer Royal of Scotland for over 40 years (1845-88). A passionate royalist, a bigot and something of a religious zealot, Smyth was a major society figure in the London of the mid-1800's. To top
Smyth was undoubtedly responsible for the first basic revelations (published in 1864) about the extraordinary precision of the Great Pyramid. However, his findings and motivations were overtly tied to strong religious convictions relating to his belief of Britain's Imperial supremacy.
When, in 1883, Petrie revealed his even more extraordinary findings that also happened to seriously challenge Smyth's religion-based convictions, Smyth went on the attack and fiercely defended his biased conclusions. The debate that ensued saw Smyth eventually discredited and retiring from his (largely honorary), sinecure Royal appointment and from public life. However, for Petrie it was a pyrrhic victory. It was achieved at the cost of a much wider public appreciation of his findings. In spite of this, Petrie went on to be recognised as responsible for the introduction of science into archaeology but this early work at Giza remained in virtual limbo. To top
The truth of Petrie's findings, based on precise measurements, were later fully confirmed by (a further) survey, by J. H. Cole in 1925 but, despite this, Smyth's general definitions of pyramid accuracy have largely been allowed to prevail. Without doubt, this has seriously compromised all subsequent research. That such inaccuracies have been allowed to totally dominate an area of science supposedly based on truth, strongly implies that Smyth was not the only historical figure influencing what was being publicly promoted throughout academia for well over a century. To top
It is entirely accepted that Piazzi Smyth was a very close friend of Petrie's parents and undoubtedly had a strong influence (both good and bad) on the younger Petrie. It Is also on record that Flinders read Smyth's book "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid", (the 1st edition) when he was only 12 years old. Like myself 80 years later, Petrie found much to dispute in Smyth's findings and despite his youth the young Petrie set about gaining the skills he needed to prove Smyth wrong. (The 3rd edition, now widely available, is a vastly edited rewrite that contains almost nothing of Smyth's original work and is almost entirely a defence (or a counter-attack?) against Petrie's no doubt seminal discoveries).
A child prodigy, Petrie was a meticulous worker and was personally responsible for significant improvements in the surveying equipment and techniques of his time. At 19, he conducted the first detailed survey of Stonehenge and conducted surveys of a number of other ancient sites in England. He had gained a reputation for meticulous science long before he departed for Egypt where his discoveries at Giza revealed the extraordinary technical sophistication of the Great Pyramid. To top
An expert surveyor, Petrie records he considered the whole structure as of "optical precision" and considered it an impossible achievement without a level of technical ability at least equal too his own and arguably far better. As arguable the best surveyor of his time, his findings should have inspired further rresearch but asside from Cole's 1925 survey that essentially confirmed Petrie's findings, nothing further has been done.
There is an inevitable margin-of-error in any construction. With an allowance for such an error, it is not unreasonable to suggest that only lasers would have enabled the accuracy in construction implied by Petrie's meticulous findings. Although of course lasers were not available in his time, Petrie's total amazement at his own discoveries shines strongly through in his writing, showing his appreciation of the difficulties faced in even considering a rational explanation. However, he errs on the side of extreme caution in declaring any conclusions. He records his findings but was unable or simply not prepared to offer an opinion as to how the extraordinary precision was achieved. To top
Petrie was up against a dogma of British supremacy, epitomised by Piazzi Smyth. In a time when common dogma insisted the pyramids must have taken 600 years or more to build, Petrie had found all but conclusive evidence showing the Great Pyramid had taken just 26 years to build. Hardly surprising then, that whilst recording evidence that obviously has only one possible interpretation he refrains from publicly drawing that final conclusion.
A hundred years later, it is now generally accepted the 2nd Great Pyramid (obviously the more recent) took 20 years to complete and, by direct extrapolation, the larger Great Pyramid took 26* years. Thus, 120 years after the event, experts are somewhat belatedly coming to accept Petrie's findings, published in 1883. However, it is notable that in modern times archaeologists are still carefully avoiding debate or discussion about how the precision of the structure and shortened timeframe might have been achieved.
*(The Great Pyramid is around 21% greater in volume and significantly more accurate than the Second Pyramid) To top
The precision and speed defined by Petrie were far beyond (ie 12x more accurate) what had been reported by Smyth in 1864, but for some reason it is Smyth's figures that are still most widely quoted. However, even Smyth's figures would be all but impossible in the timeframe now commonly accepted unless every possible modern aid was used, including lasers and/or microwaves.
With every halving of the 'margin of error', the difficulty (and time) in construction will approximately double. Arguably, even now, the precision as described by Petrie, would be impossible to achieve in the timeframe (now accepted) without significant improvements in our present technology. To suggest the builders did it all without these advanced technologies is therefore clearly ludicrous. Why then, have these anomalies not been seized upon in open debate?
Even within Smyth's figures, the popular perception that the pyramids were built using simple 'string and ruler' technology, is clearly and ridiculously impossible. Extraordinary as it might seem, there is good evidence that these apparently innocuous omissions and deceits may have seriously hindered the development of our whole civilisation over the last 150 years. To top
Because of the dominance of Smyth's "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid" (1864), my initial research was also based upon his major work . However, just like Petrie 70 years earlier, I studied Smyth's findings closely enough to spot a significant number of quite obvious but very disturbing errors that (in my mind) effectively barred his work from being used in any final proof. Being limited in my resources, I was thereby effectively barred from taking my arguments to any conclusion.
I only discovered Petrie's far more accurate and meticulous findings in very recent times, published in full on the Internet* . I have also recently discovered that later editions of Smyth's book had been heavily revised, removing some of the more blatant errors. In the past, these various inclusions and omissions had seen me in debate about exactly what Smyth's claims had been.
*Courtesy of Graham Oaten of Melbourne To top
Modern archaeology is still largely built on the misconceptions introduced by Smyth early in the Victorian era (c1865). The chain of events described caused the suppression of significant data and has, until now, prevented obvious conclusions from being drawn from the findings published later by Sir Flinders Petrie in his 1883 book "The Pyramids & Temples at Gizeh". Petrie's book is undoubtedly a seminal work and (fortunately) is now available in full, online.
The long-held false assumption, that the Ancients had no access to advanced technologies, has so far prevented other areas of science from even considering the possibilities being presented here. Hopefully, now that many of these ancient technologies have been re-discovered, there is a reasonable chance that this situation may be rectified and the obvious connections might at last be recognised.
My research has revealed many connections between the ancient evidence and some recently proven, highly advanced technologies that offer the most exciting potential for our future. The details are revealed briefly here and in my book, "Solar Power & Pyramids".