The Mysteries of the Pyramid

In this paper, I want to look at the alleged mystery surrounding the construction and power of the pyramids of the world. Kevin Arnett presents evidence to show that there was extraterrestrial help in the building of the pyramids. Craig and Eric Umland provide evidence to show that the Maya civilization was responsible for the construction of the pyramids. In both cases the evidence is either open to direct challenge or does not provide sufficient justification for their claims. I will conclude by rejecting the hypotheses of the construction of the pyramids having either extraterrestrial or Maya origins due to the weaknesses of the arguments.

The purpose and designers of the Pyramids: was there some other force or life form?

Arnett argues that pyramids, in particular the Great Pyramid of Cheops, were built by some supernatural or extraterrestrial life form. The basis of his argument is that the great size and the precision of the position and dimensions of the pyramid are too advanced to have been built by the Egyptians or by any other civilization. Arnett also suggests that the Great Pyramid could not simply have been a tomb for the King as a body has never been found in the chamber and it is not extensively decorated as was traditional in Egyptian tombs. He makes the point that it is bizarre that there is no evidence of off cuts that would be expected in such a large scale construction. Arnett mentions that the possibility that intelligences from outer space were responsible should not be ruled out as it cannot be proven that this is not the case. Arnett also argues that there is some mysterious force generated within the pyramid shape.

Arnett's argument that the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built by intelligences from outer space, rather than by the Egyptians, can be argued against by applying the SEARCH formula. The evidence provided is that the precision and construction of the pyramid would have required skill that was far beyond the means of that time. However, it could be that the pyramids were built with the use of excessive man power which was freely available to the rulers of those times. Regarding the lack of a body or extensive decoration in the tomb, this could be due to pillaging and looting over the years. There is no evidence of off cuts of the slabs, which could be due to the builders using these for other constructions or purposes. Although Arnett provides evidence, his explanation of extraterrestrial visitation offers no mechanism, as it cannot be explained how the aliens could have arrived here. Predictions cannot be made so his claim is not falsifiable or testable, and it is not a simple hypothesis as it assumes the existence of extraterrestrial life forms. The explanations I have offered as alternative hypotheses offer mechanism such as man power, human tendency to steal and resourcefulness. My alternatives also offer predictive power. For example, it can be predicted that prior to technology large numbers of slaves will be found where there are large constructions. Also, we can predict that there are groups of people who tend to steal from places of great significance, and there exist people who make full use of their resources. Each of my predictions are falsifiable, and do not assume there are life forms not know to science, and so are simple. One of the features of pseudo-science, looking for mysteries, can be seen in Arnett's argument. He has created the sense of mystery himself rather than looking at pressing problems, and "...scientists do not set out to look for anomalies." (Radner & Radner, p. 33). Arnett's argument can also be shown to be weak as he has argued from ignorance when he claims that since we cannot prove that there are no aliens, then there is the possibility that they exist.

The purpose and designers of the Pyramids: were they the Maya civilisation?

Umland & Umland present the argument that the Pyramids were built by the Mayan civilisation for a greater purpose than is thought. Similarly to Arnett, Umland & Umland present the evidence that the Great Pyramid of Cheops cannot simply be a tomb for a King. They suggest that the mummies that have been found in some of the pyramids of Egypt and Central America were late-comers who discovered the pyramids and turned them into tombs after the creators, the Maya, abandoned them. Again like Arnett, Umland & Umland argue that the Egyptians were far behind with mathematics and astronomy, and so it is unlikely they could have built such an impressive monument. They point out that there is more to the Great Pyramid than is thought, due to the astronomical and astrological significance of the size and position of the pyramid. They also argue that there are similarities between the pyramids found in Europe, Africa and the Americas which make it unlikely that they were built by separate groups of people.

A slanter can be found in Umland & Umland's argument that the Great Pyramid was not simply a tomb, "Can any man of common sense honestly believe today that the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built merely to house a royal corpse? Certainly not!" (Umland & Umland, p. 44) This is an example of abusive assuring or coercion which illustrates a weakness in their argument as they resort to persuading readers, and their "evidence is wide open to challenge." (Radner & Radner, p. 37). Although the argument that the Maya civilisation abandoned the pyramids and then another civilisation took over is reasonable claim, this is merely an assertion making the argument weak. A number of the marks of pseudo-science can be identified within the argument of Umland & Umland. To enhance their point that the pyramid was more than a tomb, they quote Erich von Daniken. This is considered a grab-bag approach to evidence as they are quoting Daniken as if his words have authority, rather than using evidence to support their argument. Umland & Umland constantly make spurious similarities. An example of this is the comparison they make between the lack of support for Charles Piazzi Smith, who claimed the dimensions of the pyramid were of significance, and the lack of support that Columbus had when he set sail for America in 1492. This is irrelevant to the actual content of the theory and does not strengthen the argument. Another example is the comparison between believing the pyramids of Europe, Africa and the Americas were built by separate people and believing the Earth is flat.

Conclusion

I have attempted to show that the arguments supporting the claim that extraterrestrial life forms or the Maya civilisation were responsible for the construction of the pyramids, Egyptian in particular, fail to provide sufficient justification for their conclusions and do not stand up to scrutiny. This is shown by the SEARCH method, the marks of pseudo-science, fallacies and slanter which all point out the weaknesses in the arguments.