The Nature of a Good Pyramid Shafts Theory

  By Anthony Sakovich

In my presentations to groups on the subject of the small shafts inside Khufu's pyramid at Giza, one thing that seems to get universal approval is my set of methodological  benchmarks I created for my own theories on the subject.  I felt it was necessary to set out a series of guidelines and boundaries within which I had to stay in order to maintain the integrity of my own theoretical work.

Diagram showing the 4 shafts of Khufu's pyramid

As such, I developed four general rules so that I would avoid the pitfalls to which other shaft-theorists have fallen victim.  If I could keep my theory alive while working within these parameters, then I felt I had a theory that was worthy of presentation to Egyptologists, both professional and amateur.

I created four rules.  The first one is applicable to any logical argument, but I wanted to state it up front as a mandatory part of my work.   

1. The theory must be logical and internally consistent.

I know this sounds pretty easy, but in fact it is what rips apart most of the speculations that have been tossed around for years on this subject.  Bauval’s Orion Correlation Theory has been shown to be internally inconsistent, since part of the theory requires the plateau to be “locked” to the cardinal points, while another part requires it to be flip-flopped 180 degrees around so that the other structures line up with their corresponding stars.  These kinds of mistakes simply cannot be tolerated if we’re trying to really understand the motivations of ancient peoples.

2. The theory must be grounded in known Egyptian religious concepts that are contemporaneous with the pyramid, or preferably, predate the pyramid in question

It does no good to use modern concepts, Sumerian beliefs, Celtic rituals or Mayan religion  to understand a Dynasty IV Egyptian structure.  In fact, it doesn’t necessarily help us to use concepts from centuries later in Egypt, either, since their cosmology and religion were dynamic, changing entities.  No, in order to understand Khufu and his pyramid, it is necessary that we try to pull our evidence from a time period as close to the building of the pyramid as possible, or before it, preferably.  Only in this way can we be sure that the information we are using was available to Khufu at the time he and his priests designed his pyramid.

3. The theory must explain all four shafts equally well.

There are four shafts in Khufu’s pyramid, and coming up with an idea for one or two simply cannot fill the bill.  If a theory is to be held as tenable, then it is mandatory that we understand all four of the structures in question, along with an explanation for all the evidence we have that involves the structures.  We need to know why the second chamber’s shafts were sealed at both ends.  We need to know why both pairs of shafts exit at approximately the same heights.  Directionality of the shafts must also be explained.  They may be small shafts, but this is no small task.

4. There must be supporting evidence (either textual, historical, physical; or any combination of the three) for the theory.  This evidence should not be solely contextual or circumstantial. 

This is the place at which most theories, until now, have stopped cold.  It has been considered the biggest stumbling block because, as many people have said, there is no evidence for why they built the shafts.  I suggest that this idea tells us something else entirely.  The simple fact that there is no evidence for the other theories, in and of itself, indicates that the current speculations are probably directing us to the wrong places for the answers.  When one finally discovers the right theory, the evidence can literally jump out at you and bury you faster than a Saharan sandstorm. 

You just have to look in the right place for the answer.  That’s all.