The examination of Egyptian pyramids caused massive speculation in the 19th century. Reflecting the religious beliefs of the Egyptians, with their concept of the afterlife, mixed in with astrology and the shape of the sun’s rays, the structures soon inspired theories as to their construction and purpose. In particular this applied to the Great Pyramid of Giza.
The
founding father of what came to be commonly known as pyramidology was John
Taylor who published The Great
Pyramid: Why was it Built? And Who Built it? in 1859. He greatly influenced Charles Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer
Royal of Scotland, who followed with Our
Inheritance in the Great Pyramid in 1864. Smyth visited Egypt – something
Taylor never did – and as a respected astronomer gained considerable attention.
Moved by his beliefs, when he died in 1900, his monument in the graveyard of
St. John’s Church, Sharow, near Ripon, was a pyramid.
Smyth’s pyramid – photo credit
Julia & Keld
After Smyth’s book, the baton was taken up by an American Lutheran minister, Joseph Augustus Seiss, in 1877, with the publication of The Great Pyramid of Egypt, Miracle in Stone. As a result, in the last few decades of the 19th century many religious groups believed that the Giza pyramid was not a tomb, but had been constructed to reveal God’s plan for mankind to future generations. The measurements of certain features would equate to time periods, and would tie in with scripture.
The concept was widely accepted, although the interpretations of the “evidence” varied from writer to writer. It also changed as different surveyors re-measured the edifice and came up with revised figures from those accepted by Seiss and early writers. Today it is often associated with Anglo-Israelites, those who believe that the ten lost tribes of Israel can be traced down to the British nation.
Charles
Taze Russell would be one of many who mentioned the pyramid. In his 1916
forward to Volume 3 of Studies, he
wrote: “We
have never attempted to place the Great Pyramid, sometimes called the Bible in
Stone, on a parallel or equality with the Word of God as represented by the Old
and New Testament Scriptures
– the latter stand pre-eminent always as the authority.”
However,
he did view the Great Pyramid to be a corroborative witness.
Certain other
Bible Students focused on the pyramid far more extensively. William Wright
corresponded with Piazzi Smyth (the correspondence is in Studies volume 3) and two brothers, John and Morton Edgar of
Glasgow, wrote several books on the subject, including Great Pyramid Passages volumes 1 and 2.
When the
Watch Tower Society arranged for its own burial plot at United Cemeteries, Ross
Township, a central memorial for the plot was designed by John Adam Bohnet in
the shape of a pyramid. However, this was not a special sign or even a grave
marker for any individual, but rather a communal monument designed to record
the names of those buried on site in four quadrants around it, linked to the
four pyramid sides. As it happened, only nine names were ever recorded before
the idea was abandoned. The structure was eventually removed for safety
reasons.
Pyramid (L) and CTR’s grave marker (R) c. 1921
As time
passed, general interest in pyramid theories waned in the mainstream. Finally,
in 1928, after little comment for several years, the Watch Tower magazine produced two articles on the subject in the
November 15 and December 1, 1928, issues. The gist of their arguments, which
were against the Giza pyramid being of God, were reproduced in more recent
times, in The Watchtower for May 15,
1956.
The correspondence
columns of the Watch Tower had
various responses after the 1928 articles, best summed up by a future president
of the Watch Tower Society (issue of July 1, 1929):
The
Golden Age magazine (January 23, 1929) had some fun naming certain
individuals who no longer associated with the I.B.S.A. and who had made new
predictions based on the pyramid. One was Morton Edgar.
Of course, those who did not agree with the Watch
Tower’s new position continued to believe in pyramidology, and in at least one
case, tried to emulate Smyth. From a Yeovil (Somerset, UK) cemetery is this
example.
The last inscription on its sides was for Clara
Hallett, who died in 1938.
Her husband, Bible Student William Henry Hallett, had died in 1921.
Perhaps surprisingly, the family who had done so
much to promote the concept, the Edgars, did not go for a pyramid monument
themselves. Most of the Edgars, including writers John and Morton, are buried
in a family plot in the Eastwood (Old) Cemetery, Glasgow, and chose to have no
monuments or headstones at all.
With thanks to the Glasgow and West of Scotland
Family History Society volunteer who checked the printed records and then took
the photograph. There are sixteen Edgar graves (four plots, four deep) on
either side of the tree in the middle of the picture. One wonders what size the
tree was when the plots were sold originally,
Perhaps to end on a really bizarre note: London could today have had the largest
pyramid in the world if the plans of architect Thomas Willson (1781-1866) had
been realised. Detailed plans were drawn up and investors invited for what
would be called The Metropolitan Sepulchre.
It was designed to work a bit like a modern
multi-storey car park and was to be built on top of Primrose Hill. Had it been
approved it would have been four times the height of St Paul’s Cathedral, and
would hold an estimated five million dead Londoners.
What a landmark that would have become, towering far
higher than the Great Pyramid of Giza if put side by side. The plans were first
put before parliament in 1830, and later at the Crystal Palace Great Exhibition
of 1851 for another proposed location. But ultimately garden cemeteries (out of
town with help from new-fangled railways) and later crematoria were more
practical solutions.
Can you imagine the problems Willson’s pyramid would have caused for future generations when it was full? And what a useful landmark it could have been for German bombers in World War 2. One clear strike and there could have been five million extra cadavers spread across London. Now there’s an alternative history for you.
4 comments:
Thank you for this excellent research ! Much appreciated !
I always had a question about the "measurements" they used.
I have read things like "pyramid foot", "pyramid inch", "pyramid yard" and so forth.
When these measurements were taken, were they using modern day units?
And if so, did these units exist when the pyramids were built?
Thanks,
Andrew Grzadzielewski
They spoke about a "pyramid inch" - which was supposed to be 1/25 of a sacred cubit, and slightly different from the inch we use today in measurement. The belief of some was that the British system of measurement came from antiquity and pre-dated the metric system. I used to be believe that they started off with the results they wanted and then worked back to "find" a unit of measurement that fitted. That is somewhat unfair, but you can get a reasonable precis of the story if you look up Wikipedia on "pyramid inch."
If you look up the booklet "Battle of the Standards" by John Taylor you will find an in depth writing on a comnparison to the British inch in measurement, supposedly similar to the measurements Moses would have used and then why the French system was a poor substitute simply because the French "like change, they like grand ideas and they like arithmatic." [ page 46 ]
It goes into a comparison of the metric to the imperial systems of measurement and weights.
And I think Jerome hit the nail when he said they started off with the measurements at habd and worked backwards to get what they wanted. The Brits had to keep an eye on those French in everything. Even the "pyramid inch ".
Raymond S.
Thanks to both of you for the comments. I will use your suggestions to dig a bit deeper.
Andrew Grzadzielewski
Post a Comment