years ago, three books—Giza: The Truth (by Chris Ogilvie-Herald
and Ian Lawton), The Stargate Conspiracy (by Lynn Picknett and
Clive Prince) and Secret Chamber (by Robert Bauval)—provided
an overview of the controversy that was believed to surround
the Giza Plateau and the pyramids. The key question was whether
it held any undiscovered, or purposefully kept hidden, chambers,
whether inside the pyramids or under or near the Sphinx.
The previous decade had seen a renewed interest in the plateau,
partly due to the theories of Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock
and the discovery of a door in an inaccessible part of the Great
Pyramid. It was found on 22 March 1993 by German robotics engineer
Rudolf Gantenbrink during the installation of an air conditioning
system. The discovery resulted in several claims, allegations
and diatribes which, with the dawn of the new millennium, slowly
Today, interest in the mysteries of ancient Egypt seems to have
waned and peace seems to have been restored. But speak to people
in the field and on the ground, and a different picture emerges.
It is one of widespread condemnation of the Supreme Council
of Antiquities (SCA) and specifically of Dr Zahi Hawass, who
has been its Secretary General since 2002. Remarkably, many
Egyptian archaeologists argue that the organisation rules with
dictatorial control, and that this is but the tip of an iceberg
of coverups, slander, embezzlement and perhaps more. Ten years
on, no one seems to be writing about it but the situation is
at least as bad as back in 1999.
The Supreme Council of Antiquities is part of the Egyptian Ministry
of Culture and is responsible for the conservation, protection
and regulation of all antiquities and archaeological excavations
in Egypt. Over the past decade, a television viewer might be
forgiven for believing that there is only one Egyptologist,
and that man is Hawass. In truth, Hawass is more of an administrator
than an archaeologist; one might even argue that if the man
had enough time to lead excavations, he would not be fulfilling
his task as administrator. But a television camera has the same
attraction as light to a moth. Hawass is a controversial figure.
He was at the centre of contention in the 1990s, and remains
so today—now, more so in Egypt than abroad.
In the 1990s, Hugh Lynn Cayce reportedly said, according to
Edgar Cayce biographer A. Robert Smith: "I got him [Zahi
Hawass] a scholarship at the University of Pennsylvania in Egyptology,
to get his PhD. I got the scholarship through an ARE person
who happened to be on the Fulbright scholarship board."1
Hawass strongly denies this, though it is a fact that he was
admitted to the University of Pennsylvania through this scholarship.
(Note: ARE is the Association for Research and Enlightenment,
an organisation set up to promote the work of the American "sleeping
prophet" Edgar Cayce.)
The ARE is interested in the Giza Plateau because, in the 1920s,
Edgar Cayce proclaimed that a "Hall of Records", containing
information about the lost civilisation of Atlantis, was hidden
underneath the Giza Plateau near the Sphinx.
most have been looking at the ARE, it is another organisation,
the ARCE (American Research Center in Egypt), that has been
missed and which seems to be the veritable puppet master.
One source contacted for this article said: "I am a frequent
visitor to Egypt and when I speak to government officials, most
don't like Hawass. There are many archaeologists in Egypt that
do excellent work. Anyone who visits Egypt and follows Egyptology
sees this first-hand. The only problem is Hawass and the SCA.
Why? Because Hawass has been imposed upon Egypt by certain foreigners,
and this for a very long time. They have chosen an ignoramus,
have flattered him, given him a PhD through the ARCE. He's a
puppet." Pressed as to why that is, the source added: "So
that the secrets will not get out and that they have the best
archaeological concessions. If Hawass is still there, it's only
because he knows how to play with nationalism. I hear him say
every day how foreigners want to steal from the Egyptians and
that the antiquities are Egyptian. It's clever, because it makes
it appear as if he is fighting the Egyptian cause and he won't
be pushed aside." The source also noted: "The SCA
follows the orders of foreigners from whom it has received help
in guarding their interests." Indeed, though one might
think that the Egyptians are in control of their own country,
archaeologically speaking, that appearance can be deceptive.
The "puppet master" organisation is the American Research
Center in Egypt. The ARCE's website states: "Among ARCE's
many great achievements is our relationship with the Supreme
Council of Antiquities (SCA) within the Egyptian Ministry of
Culture, without whom our work would not be possible. ARCE is
viewed as making important contributions that serve to help
Egypt directly in its pursuit of cultural heritage preservation."2
ARCE was founded in 1948 by "a consortium of educational
and cultural institutions", and the organisation underlines
that it is also there to "strengthen American–Egyptian
cultural ties" and especially to "establish an official
'presence' for North American scholars in Egypt".
Interestingly, ARCE's website adds: "Encouraged and aided
by the US Department of State, in 1962 ARCE entered into an
expanded and more structured consortium, and was charged with
managing and distributing over $500,000 yearly in Public Law
480 (Food for Peace) funds."3 This means that
ARCE fulfils both scientific and social functions. However,
seeing it works with the US Department of State, one could ask
whether at one point ARCE was used or abused for other political
purposes, seeing Egypt has had an intriguing political past
in the battle between East and West. Interestingly, during the
writing of this article, one source contacted me, claiming that
frequently the SCA receives from the US National Security Agency
(NSA) satellite imagery containing information as to whether
or not there may be subterranean structures at certain sites.
A few days later, on 11 May, the Egyptian government announced
via Culture Minister Farouk Hosni (Hawass's boss) that "the
researches conducted via satellites have confirmed the existence
of 132 archaeological sites in Egypt that witnessed no excavations
until now".4 While Egypt has some satellites
in orbit, Hosni did not specifically identify the source of
these images, though he said that the project to photograph
monuments via satellite was being implemented in collaboration
with the Egyptian National Authority for Remote Sensing and
Space Sciences (NARSS) and Mubarak City for Scientific Research
for the aerial photography and ground-based laser surveys.
the Sphinx's Paws Dry
back to Hawass and the Sphinx. The above operational framework
was in evidence in April 2009, when Hawass reported: "Under
my direction, the Supreme Council of Antiquities is working
to reduce the groundwater level around antiquities sites throughout
Egypt. We have completed a USAID-funded effort to de-water Karnak
and Luxor temples, and work is underway in many other places.
One of our greatest recent successes has been the development
of a system to prevent the Great Sphinx at Giza from getting
its paws wet!"5
Rather intriguingly, he added in his report titled "The
Story of the Sphinx": "Perhaps the most important
result of the groundwater project was that it enabled us to
put to rest speculation about mysterious underground tunnels
and chambers carved below the Sphinx by 'ancient civilizations'.
For years, I have debated people like John Anthony West, Robert
Bauval, and Graham Hancock, who say that survivors of a lost
civilization 10,000 years ago left secrets buried beneath the
Sphinx. These people also claim that the erosion of the Sphinx
was caused by water, and that this necessarily means that it
dates back to long before the Old Kingdom. None of their theories
has any basis in fact, but their supporters have insisted that
we should drill holes to try and find these hidden chambers.
I have always refused to permit such a project in the past,
because there was no scientific basis for it. Because such drilling
was a necessary part of our work to protect the Sphinx from
groundwater, however, we did finally drill in the vicinity of
the statue, and we found that there were no hidden passages
or chambers there."6
Despite all the usual hype that Hawass uses to underline his
most mundane accomplishments, this is an unfortunate—and
totally unscientific—conclusion. There are several studies,
such as seismic work from 1992 and the Schor radar survey from
1996, which clearly show geological anomalies (read cavities),
most of which are natural, but that is somewhat beside the point.
In fact, one might argue—and some have—that Hawass
specifically tested for groundwater in those particular locations
where he was sure that no such cavities, natural or "hidden
passages or chambers", would be found. It would make sense
to test for groundwater, but Hawass's glib statement, "that
there were no hidden passages or chambers", cannot be reached
from the limited research this test carried out. Without doubt,
there are cavities. Full stop. In fact, Hawass himself announced
to the Egyptian press on 14 April 1996 that there are secret
tunnels under the Sphinx and around the pyramids. He stated
his belief that these tunnels would prove to "carry many
secrets of the building of the Pyramids".7 Although
people are allowed to change their minds, they should perhaps,
13 years to the month, highlight their new position. Not Dr
However, Hawass's "Story of the Sphinx" report is
also contrary to findings from scans carried out by Dr Abbas
and team, published by NRIAG (National Research Institute of
Astronomy and Geophysics) in 2007. But rather than comment on
a fellow academic who has had his results published in a scientific
publication, Hawass—for reasons that have nothing to do
with science, but are likely to do with grandstanding if not
more sinister motives—has a go at the likes of West, Bauval
and Hancock. And why the age of the Sphinx determined through
water erosion has anything to do with the presence of chambers
beneath the monument it is not altogether clear, either. But
considering the other unscientific jumps Hawass makes, nothing
should come as a surprise.
When one looks at Hawass's reports rather than at his statements
to the press, an even more interesting picture emerges. We learn
that in early 2008, the Supreme Council of Antiquities co-operated
with Cairo University's Engineering Center for Archaeology and
Environment to drill four boreholes, each four inches in diameter
and about 20 metres deep, into the bedrock at the base of the
Sphinx. A camera was lowered into each borehole to allow examination
of the plateau's geology.8
The "Story of the Sphinx" report contains several
gems, some of which Hawass should address, but instead he creates
a smoke-and-mirrors show. One might almost wonder whether he
does not want this material to be noted; and judging from what
happened upon publication, the few who reported on the announcement
indeed focused on the "West–Bauval–Hancock
sidebar" and not on the main show.
A separate scientific update states that 260 cubic metres of
water are being pumped out every hour through drainage tubes.
That's 6,240 cubic metres or 6,240,000 litres of water per day.
An Olympic swimming pool has 2,500,000 litres. In short, water
of a quantity equal to almost three Olympic swimming pools is
pumped away on a daily basis from underneath the Sphinx! Indeed,
the Sphinx itself could roughly fit inside an Olympic swimming
pool. The report continues that, as such, the water in front
of the Sphinx has been reduced to 70 per cent of its original
volume. But wait: no fewer than 33 monitoring points were established
to inspect the movement of the body of the Sphinx and the surrounding
bedrock, this over a period of a month, and this monitoring
proved that they are steady.9
Now, unless I am seriously mistaken, for such serious amounts
of water to be moved hourly there would need to be at least
one cavity, roughly the size of a small swimming pool, which
could fill up continuously with water. In short, an underground
lake. So the report strongly suggests the fallacy of Hawass's
Which brings us to the next question: why are they emptying
an underground lake? For stability, or for something else? One
might argue that removing the water will reduce the stability
of the Sphinx, which was an obvious concern since this is why
the stability of the Sphinx area was being monitored. But apparently,
based on a month-long observation, emptying this underground
cavity does not endanger the stability of the surface structures.
But why empty it in the first place? To keep the Sphinx's paws
One source, when confronted with Hawass's reports and my observation,
has gone so far as to argue that Hawass—accompanied by
Egyptologist Mark Lehner— had actually found this lake
several years ago. The lake is under the entire plateau, the
area contained within the concrete wall (construction of which
began in 2002). He added that, in his opinion, these projects
were preparation for an exploration of the Giza underworld.
at the Supreme Council
should we interpret Hawass's actions? It is clear that he likes
the limelight and that he often makes contradictory statements.
But is there more going on? Some observers have commented that
Hawass's tight grip on all archaeological works in Egypt is
the logical result of a developing nation that has sought desperately
to put a stop to the shameful looting of its historical heritage.
The fact of the matter, however, is that recent developments
within the SCA have brought to light wide-scale corruption,
with leading government officials imprisoned for embezzlement.
On 8 October 2008, the former Head of Restoration in Islamic
Cairo and two other Egyptian Culture Ministry officials were
jailed for 10 years for receiving bribes from contractors. The
Cairo court ordered Ayman Abdel Monem, Hussein Ahmed Hussein
and Abdel Hamid Qutb to pay fines of between LE 200,000 and
Abdel Hamid Qutb was actually the head of the technical department
at the SCA and reported to Hawass. The contracts under suspicion
were worth millions of dollars and involved the restoration
of some of Egypt's most famous monuments. Hawass was quick to
defend Qutb at the time of his arrest in September 2007, claiming
that the accused was not in a position to give out contracts.
Hawass told the BBC's Arabic Service that contracts are only
handed out after a "rigorous procedure", and Qutb
had no decision-making power.11,12 The court obviously
ruled differently; and if Hawass made a comment at this point,
I at least could not find a reference to it.
In the interview at the time of Qutb's arrest, Hawass also told
the BBC that he takes "immediate action against any employee
with the slightest shadow of suspicion hanging over them, even
if the person turns out to be innocent".13 Guilty
until proven innocent, it seems, is the modus operandi within
the SCA. No wonder there are reports that Hawass is unpopular
is not the first time that Hawass has found himself in murky
waters. In fact, at the same time that Gantenbrink's robot uncovered
the hidden door inside the Great Pyramid on 22 March 1993, Hawass
was suspended from his then position as Chief Inspector of the
Giza Pyramid Plateau. Synchronicity, or did Gantenbrink make
use of the power vacuum to announce his finding in April 1993,
knowing that otherwise it might be suppressed?
What happened next is also interesting, and revealing. Upon
the announcement, Gantenbrink was banned from resuming his work.
The Egyptian Antiquities Organization (EAO), the predecessor
of the SCA, claimed that Gantenbrink had broken a "rule"
of archaeology by speaking for himself rather than through the
"proper channels"—which are obviously there,
by its own admission, to control what gets out and what doesn't.
What happened next is also interesting, and revealing. Graham
Hancock writes: "The [then] Director of the German Archaeological
Institute in Cairo, Dr Rainer Stadelmann, sided with the Egyptians
and condemned Gantenbrink for his press action. Dr Stadelmann
was adamant about the nonimportance of the find. 'This is not
a door; there is nothing behind it.'"14 The
President of the EAO, Dr Muhamad Bakr, went so far as to claim
the announcement a "hoax". He stated: "The orifice
of the shaft is too small for the robot to go through."15
History has shown Bakr to be wrong on both counts.
It was Bakr who removed Hawass from his position, claiming that
a valuable ancient statue had been stolen from Giza under Hawass's
To quote again from Hancock: "Three months later, in June
1993, Dr Bakr himself was fired and replaced by Dr Nur El Din.
Amid accusations of malpractice and fraud, Dr Bakr spoke of
a 'mafia' which had been involved with the Pyramids for 'the
last twenty years'. Refusing to give names, Dr Bakr said, 'I
wanted the whole matter investigated by the prosecution authorities,
but my request was refused.'"16
In early 1994, Hawass was reinstated to his position. Though
Bakr is clearly not the most credible source, there are nevertheless
clear echoes of the ARCE. Hawass's reinstatement was "said
to have been brought about by American intervention", according
to Chris Ogilvie-Herald, writing in the British magazine Quest
for Knowledge.17 At the very least, Hawass seems
to be quite fortunate in that no matter what, whether it involve
stolen statues or his technical department head being fined
and imprisoned, he remains immune to it all.
Gantenbrink never returned to work inside the Great Pyramid.
He even offered the Egyptian authorities the use of his robot—because
only a robot can penetrate the air shaft—and volunteered
to train an Egyptian technician to operate it, but his suggestions
were not taken up.
However, Hawass eventually argued that the discovery of the
door was extremely interesting and would be further explored.
In March 1996, he stated that the door would be opened in September
that year. The month was right, but it was on 17 September 2002
that the door was finally opened. The event was broadcast "live"
on Fox TV in America and transmitted to 140 countries via the
National Geographic Channel. The end result was the discovery
of... another door, which Hawass claimed would be opened soon.
Seven years later, the world still waits...
During the 2002 live broadcast, Hawass made some intriguing
throw-away remarks. For instance, he argued that "'it was
not 'slaves' who built the pyramids, but 'great Egyptians'".
Afterwards, he told the Arabic newspaper Al Gomhoreya that "[t]he
results of the robot's exploration refute the allegations reiterated
by Jews and some western countries that the Jews built the pyramids".18
Of course, the exploration of an air shaft does no such thing.
But an equally serious scientific faux pas is that no one actually
claims that the Jews, as slaves, ever built the pyramids. Roughly
speaking, if this were an historical event, it would have occurred
c. 1,000 years after the building of the pyramids. Practically
anyone of some education in the western world is aware of this.
But one of the leading archaeologists and the protector of Egypt's
heritage is not, it seems.
The claim of one journalist contacted for this article, that
Hawass frequently abuses nationalism, is therefore quite pointedly
illustrated by the above example. Other journalists and observers
have gone further, though, positing that in their opinion Hawass
is anti-Semitic. In my opinion, Hawass suffers from a severe
case of verbal diarrhoea whenever a camera or a microphone is
placed in front of him, leading him to make various "interesting"
a more serious note, the SCA—read Hawass—has a stranglehold
on most of the research occurring in Egypt and whether and how
it gets reported. This is in evidence in the case of Gantenbrink,
who broke the "rule", and also in the case of Dr Abbas,
whose official Giza report has been stopped from publication
for a very long time. Sources contacted for this article say
that they, too, have several reports waiting to be published,
but there is always one delay or another. This kind of treatment,
of course, is not science but control, if not a gag order. Some
might argue that there is a serious backlog, while others might
Indeed, why does the SCA place such stringent penalties on the
publication of scientific reports without its consent, the penalty
often being the denial of access to Egyptian archaeological
sites? These are the measures of a dictatorship at best, and
are far removed from any scientific approach.
No one will argue that Egypt alone is in charge of deciding
who digs when, where and to what extent, even though it is clear,
in light of the SCA's connection with ARCE, that this is not
truly the case. But once permission has been given, the participating
scientists and organisers surely should have the power to decide
when and where to publish the results, rather than being literally
gagged by the SCA until it—if ever—deems it appropriate
to release the results, and even then sometimes demanding editorial
changes. And all of this occurring without any external overview.
One source went so far as to argue that Hawass's approach is
one of disinformation: that Hawass carefully twists scientific
results that do not conform to the standard history of ancient
Egypt; and that as he exercises sole control and makes himself
the medium, he can almost singlehandedly maintain the status
quo of Egyptian history. This "Hawass touch" is clearly
in evidence in the spin in his 2009 Sphinx groundwater report.
But then the important question is: why?
The answer has already been given: Hawass tries to maintain
the consensus view of ancient Egyptian history. This is why
he often singles out Hancock, Bauval and West. Hawass realises
that these are the most vociferous and dangerous parties that
can go against him, but they are not alone in feeling his wrath.
Hawass denies findings when they don't fit with his agenda,
and defames any individual for daring to have a different idea
and not releasing it through his office.
In 2008, Professor Barry Kemp reported on his research at the
city of Amarna, created by the rebel pharaoh Akhenaten. The
pharaoh was obviously despised and, in the decades following
his death, the ancient Egyptians tried to remove any mention
of his existence. It was reported that Kemp and his team found
skeletal remains at Amarna that show "signs of malnutrition,
extreme labour, and the lowest age of mortality witnessed at
excavations of Pharaonic sites".19 This evidence
goes a long way to confirm that Akhenaten created a brutal regime,
one of which few were proud.
However, the findings were immediately subjected to criticism
from Hawass, who used the Egyptian state news service to accuse
the excavators of "distorting history". He claimed
that their findings were "not based on any admissible scientific
proofs" and added that "[b]uilding Akhenaten city
was an obsession for ancient Egyptians like the Giza Pyramids
and workers wanted to realise a national achievement to be proud
of". Hawass, by his comments, was later described as "indulging
in empty chauvinism".20
Hawass is also proud that he "worked to strengthen Egypt's
antiquities law" and that in 2002 he "worked to have
a new law enacted forbidding excavation in Upper Egypt...to
encourage documentation and preservation rather than excavation".21
Indeed, Hawass is proud of the fact that he has stopped all
excavations in Upper Egypt! One can only wonder why. No one
will argue that documentation and preservation are important,
but to the exclusion of everything else—and to make it
a law, rather than just an internal guideline?
Finally, when interviewed about geologist Robert Schoch's theory
that the Sphinx is much older than the the pyramids, Hawass
stated: "If geologists prove what Schoch is saying, still
in my opinion, as an Egyptologist, the date of the Sphinx is
clear to us."22 In short, no matter what the
evidence, Hawass claims it is all "clear" to him.
It is clear that for Hawass, Egyptology is a religion, not a
science. Many would agree that this is indeed the case for "Egyptology
under Hawass", and they desperately want change.
Hawass can and should be blamed for many things, it is equally
a matter of record that Egyptology as a science is seriously
in need of spring-cleaning. It might perhaps come as a surprise
to learn that since c. 1840 the paradigm of Egyptian history
has remained firmly in place. Serious scientific evidence has
often been put aside to maintain a dogma, and Hawass and many
other "scientists" are religiously sticking to it.
In 1984, 85 samples were taken from the Giza Plateau, including
five from the Sphinx, which were submitted for carbon-dating.
The results showed dates from 3809 to 2869 BC. It meant that
the accepted Egyptian chronology for the building of the Giza
pyramids was out by 200 to 1,200 years. Bauval quotes Mark Lehner:
"The Giza pyramid is 400 years earlier than Egyptologists
Equally, in the 1950s, Zakaria Goneim, then Chief Inspector
of Egyptian Antiquities, found the inviolate sarcophagus of
Third Dynasty pharaoh Sekhemkhet inside his pyramid. When the
sarcophagus was opened, there was no mummy inside. It was an
empty sarcophagus. In this case, "grave robbers" could
definitely not be blamed. In fact, in many instances, including
with the Great Pyramid, Egyptologists have identified grave
robbery as the reason for an empty sarcophagus. If it were a
crime scene investigation, few detectives would reach a similar
conclusion based upon the available evidence.
Egyptology, in fact, looks with disdain upon ancient records
such as those of the first century BC historian Diodorus Siculus,
who wrote that not a single pharaoh was buried in a pyramid
which he had constructed for himself, but that the pharaohs
were buried instead in a secret place. Egyptologists prefer
to argue—despite evidence that proves otherwise—that
the pyramids are but tombs.
Dutch author Willem Zitman ponders why today's scientists do
not want to admit that the ancient Greeks were all schooled
in ancient Egypt, as they themselves claimed. Instead, he says,
they prefer to pretend as if the Greeks discovered everything
by themselves and thus they can make claims that the Egyptians
did nothing whatsoever to further science or knew nothing of
astronomy. Zitman adds that although archaeoastronomy has been
taught as a scientific discipline since 1983, Egypt has hardly
been discussed—a notable exception. And it is precisely
when such a vacuum is created that it will be filled by theories
of the likes of Robert Bauval. If Egyptologists do not like
that fact, they should not blame Bauval...
Zitman, a qualified building engineer, also notes that the pyramids
themselves are the greatest victim of the current state of Egyptology.
He argues that when Egyptologists are confronted with problems
to do with building techniques, their shortcomings are easily
exposed. This is evident in the treatment of French materials
scientist Professor Joseph Davidovits, one of the most respected
scientists in his field in the world but who has been labelled
an idiot and the like by Egyptologists—and by Hawass in
particular. Hawass and others among his colleagues clearly fail
to understand anything of what Davidovits is trying to explain
to them. As a consequence of this absence of knowledge and unwillingness
on the part of Hawass and colleagues to invite experts to help
them in this regard, there is little work done on the pyramid
era, which has become known as a "lost era". I. E.
S. Edwards, a former Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British
Museum, once noted that Egyptologists do not like pyramids.
In the end, Hawass does stand for, and sums up, the current
state of Egyptology. He blames the likes of West, Bauval and
Hancock for making ridiculous statements, but in August 1996—unsurprisingly,
while in front of a camera—Hawass was scrambling through
a tunnel leading under the Sphinx, stating: "No one really
knows what's inside this tunnel. But we are going to open it
for the first time."24 This is further evidence
that his 2009 statement is a complete and utter distortion—if
not of the truth, then at least of what he said before.
So, in 1996, there were tunnels. But in April 1999, Hawass appeared
on Fox TV—which, as we know from its coverage of President
Bush's antics, is not renowned for its neutral or scientific
approach—and denied the existence of tunnels going out
from the Tomb of Osiris, an underground structure near the Sphinx.
In April 2009, he repeated this story, as if he needed to do
so once per decade. But, as mentioned, in August 1996 he was
actually filmed walking inside a tunnel under the Sphinx!
As Bauval points out in Secret Chamber, the controversy involving
Hawass and the Giza Plateau dates back many decades: "Meanwhile
something unusual happened involving Zahi Hawass. For reasons
that are not clear he started a dig in front of the Sphinx temple,
apparently in connection with the Institute of Underground Water
of the Egyptian Ministry of Irrigation. A drilling through some
fifty feet [15 metres] of debris struck red granite instead
of the natural limestone of the area."25
Red granite is not native to the Giza Plateau; the only source
is Aswan, hundreds of miles to the south. The very presence
of red granite, discovered in 1980 in the vicinity of the Sphinx,
proves that there is something underneath the Giza Plateau.
And if Hawass says anything different, it should first be seen
as a case of "methinketh he protesteth too much".
Robert, Secret Chamber: The Quest for the Hall of Records, Century,
London, 1999, p. 195; also see http://www.robertbauval.co.uk/
2. http://www.arce.org/main/about/ historyandmission
5. http://www.drhawass.com/blog/ keeping-great-sphinx’s-paws-dry
6. http://www.drhawass.com/blog/ story-sphinx
7. http://www.dreamscape.com/ morgana/hancock.htm
8. http://www.drhawass.com/blog/ keeping-great-sphinx’s-paws-dry
9. http://www.drhawass.com/blog/ sphinx-scientific-update-report
10. http://www.menas.co.uk/ pubsamples/Egypt%20Politics%20 and%20Security%20-%2009.10.08.pdf
11. http://www.egypttoday.com/ article.aspx?ArticleID=7706
12. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ middle_east/6999298.stm
14. http://www.dreamscape.com/ morgana/hancock.htm
17. Picknett, Lynn and Clive Prince, The Stargate Conspiracy,
Little, Brown & Co., 1999, p. 77
18. http://www.robertbauval.co.uk/ articles/articles/hawass1.html
19. http://politicalarchaeology. wordpress.com/page/3/
21. http://www.redrocknews.com/ news/egyptian-flare-sedonaconnection.
22. Milson, Peter (ed.), "Age of the Sphinx" (transcript
of program transmitted on 27 November 1994), Broadcasting Support
Services, London, 1994, p. 20
23. Bauval, op. cit., p. 198
24. http://www.dreamscape.com/ morgana/hancock.htm
25. Bauval, op. cit., p. 194
article appeared in Nexus Magazine 16.5 (August-September 2009).