Page 181 - Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock

Graham Hancock – FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS

Pyramid (2pi) called for the specification of a tricky and idiosyncratic
angle of slope for its sides: 52°. Likewise, the desired height/perimeter
ratio of the Pyramid of the Sun (4pi) called for the specification of an
equally eccentric angle of slope: 43.5°. If there had been no ulterior
motive, it would surely have been simpler for the Ancient Egyptian and
Mexican architects to have opted for 45° (which they could easily have
obtained and checked by bisecting a right angle).
What could have been the common purpose that led the pyramid
builders on both sides of the Atlantic to such lengths to structure the
value of pi so precisely into these two remarkable monuments? Since
there seems to have been no direct contact between the civilizations of
Mexico and Egypt in the periods when the pyramids were built, is it not
reasonable to deduce that both, at some remote date, inherited certain
ideas from a common source?
Is it possible that the shared idea expressed in the Great Pyramid and
the Pyramid of the Sun could have to do with spheres, since these, like
the pyramids, are three-dimensional objects (while circles, for example,
have only two dimensions)? The desire to symbolize spheres in three-
dimensional monuments with flat surfaces would explain why so much
trouble was taken to ensure that both incorporated unmistakable pi
relationships. Furthermore it seems likely that the intention of the
builders of both of these monuments was not to symbolize spheres in
general but to focus attention on one sphere in particular: the planet
earth.
It will be a long while before orthodox archaeologists are prepared to
accept that some peoples of the ancient world were advanced enough in
science to have possessed good information about the shape and size of
the earth. However, according to the calculations of Livio Catullo
Stecchini, an American professor of the History of Science and an
acknowledged expert on ancient measurement, the evidence for the
existence of such anomalous knowledge in antiquity is irrefutable.
16
Stecchini’s conclusions, which relate mainly to Egypt, are particularly
impressive because they are drawn from mathematical and astronomical
data which, by common consent, are beyond serious dispute. A fuller
17
examination of these conclusions, and of the nature of the data on which
they rest, is presented in Part VII. At this point, however, a few words
from Stecchini may shed further light on the mystery that confronts us:
The basic idea of the Great Pyramid was that it should be a representation of the
northern hemisphere of the earth, a hemisphere projected on flat-surfaces as is
done in map-making ... The Great Pyramid was a projection on four triangular
surfaces. The apex represented the pole and the perimeter represented the
equator. This is the reason why the perimeter is in relation 2pi to the height. The

The most accessible presentation of Stecchini’s work is in the appendix he wrote for
16
Peter Tompkins, Secrets of the Great Pyramid, pp. 287-382.
17 See The Traveller’s Key to Ancient Egypt, p. 95.

179