What Egyptology says
A fair presentation of conventional explanations for the pyramids and why mainstream archaeology defends the tomb theory.
In the halls of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo stands a man who has defended classical Egyptology more than anyone else alive. His name is Zahi Hawass. With his characteristic hat and loud personality, he has spent decades defending the pyramids against what he calls "pseudoscience."
And before we go further, we must acknowledge something important: Hawass is often right.
Conventional Egyptology is based on solid evidence:
Pyramid Texts: In the pyramids of the 5th and 6th dynasties (2375-2160 BCE), archaeologists found the oldest religious texts of humanity. These clearly describe funeral rituals and the afterlife of the pharaoh. Hundreds of spells, carved in stone.
Mummies and Burial Goods: Remains were found in other pyramids. Queen Hetepheres, mother of Cheops, had an intact tomb with furniture, jewelry, and canopic jars. The pyramid of Neferefre contained mummified remains.
Architectural Evolution: We can trace the development - from simple mastabas to Djoser's step pyramid, to the failed attempts at Meidum, to the bent pyramid at Dahshur, to the perfected form at Giza. This is not the sudden appearance of alien technology, but trial and error.
Worker's Village at Giza: Archaeologists found the settlement of the pyramid builders with bakeries, breweries, sleeping quarters, and even medical facilities. Not slaves, but organized workers. Bones show healed fractures - they were cared for.
Here it gets interesting. The Great Pyramid of Giza is unique in that:
The mainstream explanation? Tomb robbers. And that's plausible. The pyramids were plundered over millennia. Even in antiquity, ancient authors reported empty chambers.
Modern science has scanned the pyramids with muon tomography. The results were fascinating:
In 2017, the team discovered a large hollow space ("Big Void") above the Grand Gallery - approximately 30 meters long. In 2023, a previously unknown corridor behind the north entrance was found.
But - and this is crucial - ScanPyramids found no 600-meter-deep shafts. No gigantic underground chambers. The technology they used cannot detect such structures at such depths, but they also found no evidence of their existence in the upper areas.
When Filippo Biondi presented his SAR tomography results, the establishment's reaction was unmistakable:
Are these reactions biased? Possibly. Hawass has a reputation to defend and a career built on the classical narrative. But that doesn't automatically mean he's wrong.
Mainstream archaeology raises important questions:
Where are the artifacts? If the pyramids were chemical factories, where are the pipes, containers, tools? Chemical production leaves traces - corroded metal, glass remnants, slag.
Why this shape? A pyramidal shape is inefficient for industrial processes. Modern chemical plants are designed differently.
The Timeline: Geoffrey Drumm dates the pyramids to 8500-5300 BCE. But we have papyri from the time of Cheops that document the construction. Merer's diary describes the transport of stones.
The strongest position of mainstream archaeology is not that it can explain everything. It is that it tells a coherent, documented story that aligns with other sources.
This doesn't mean no questions remain open. Mainstream science admits that we don't know exactly how the pyramids were built. The precision is remarkable. The logistics were a masterpiece.
But "We don't know how" is not the same as "It must have been a lost high civilization."
Alternative theories must not only explain what mainstream science cannot. They must also explain why all the evidence for the tomb theory exists.
Why did the Egyptians write pyramid texts about the afterlife if they were chemical factories? Why did they build workers' villages for an industrial project? Why the evolutionary development from mastaba to pyramid?
A good alternative theory must integrate both datasets - not ignore one.
Zahi Hawass may be controversial. He may place his career above new discoveries. But his core arguments are not wrong because of that.
The pyramids were probably tombs. That is the best explanation for the bulk of the evidence.
The question is not: "Were they tombs or something else?"
The question is: "Were they only tombs? Or could they have had other functions we don't yet understand?"
The mainstream position has solid foundations. But physics is unforgiving. It doesn't care about reputation or careers. In the next subchapter, we ask the hard questions - to both sides.
But even the strongest arguments cannot answer all questions. What happens when we turn to the physical details?
But even the strongest arguments cannot answer all questions. What happens when we turn to the physical details?