Aussitôt après que l’idée du Déluge se fut rassise,
un lièvre s’arrêta dans les sainfoins et les clochettes mouvantes,

et dit sa prière à l’arc-en-ciel,
à travers la toile de l’araignée.
A. Rimbaud

In an ancient cave used by Ancient Egyptians to build their most famous monuments, the Pyramids, we can find a relief attributed to Pharaoh Snefru, who’s believed the founding father of the IV Dynasty, protagonist in about a century of the building of the great renown Giza Plateau, a place in which we can find the most impressive Pyramids ever built by any culture in all history and the biggest and most famous sculpture in the world, the Big Sphinx. One of the current interpretations of this enigmatic iconic-hieroglyphic complex is that it represents the divine king while killing an enemy. It’s useful to observe with great attention this stone work, that will be the subject of this brief inquiry

Actually, at first sight, it seems obvious that the scene we are watching at should be that of a killing of an enemy: but it’s not clear who exactly this enemy could be. Following an immediate an realistic kind of interpretation we may think that the Pharaoh is caught in the moment in which he kills an invader coming from North-East, as the relief was sculpted in a cave situated in the Sinai. But who even in a minimal way is expert of the Ancient Egyptian iconographic art knows from the beginning that probably things are not like that. Taking a more famous relief as an example – the iconographic complex representing the as many famous Ramesses victory against the Hittite enemy in Qadesh – we see that this relief tells us of a battle that was won by the Pharaoh war chariot against all the entire enemy army: it is clear that we can’t find just one historian who had considered this kind of story in a serious way. No one in all the modern western world could take into the slightest consideration the hypothesis that the “facts” told by the relief correspond with what we can call the “real events”, or, in other words, with “the truth”. All we know about old and modern tactic, strategy and armaments and all that is reasonable to suppose about the real conditions and real or realistic events of an open field battle forbid us to believe in a serious way – even for a moment – that an entire army, formed by thousands of soldiers, surprised by the enemy in his own encampment, disorderly retreating and got into panic could be saved by the action of a single man, whatever big could be his force, his courage, his ability. The plot of the single hero who in an open field battle knocks down an innumerable mass of enemies is nowadays considered as a fairy tale which just a very little child could believe without being laughed at, or even despised. But, as it doesn’t seem reasonable to suppose that the builders of masterpieces that represent the most high point ever reached by the human architecture during his so long history could be ingenuous children or fools, we have to suppose that the relief of the Qadesh battle must have another kind of not literal meaning: maybe the perspective of the narrators was entirely different from ours, maybe they watched at the same particular facts with a Weltanschauung of other kind, so that a narration that to us results just a fairy tale, built up twisting in a fanciful or even raving way a real historical fact, is in reality a symbolic, religious transfiguration of the events of the battle. So, returning to our enquiry, we could hypothesize that also in the case of the Snefru relief the enemy knocked down he’s not what we could define a real, terrestrial enemy, culturally and geographically well defined. Probably, the divine king is knocking down an enemy that is divine too, a demon, as we could say, a demon that perpetually hangs over Egypt, that perpetually threaten it, and from whom Egyptian people perpetually needs to be protected and saved.


This kind of “archaic” interpretation of the “real” historic facts – which from the modern western point of view results so surprising and incredible that we are inclined to contradict it with sarcasm much before than with reasons – it is confirmed by the fact that in the relief subject-matter of this work the ancient sculptures and drawers seem to have codified with a geometric-mathematic method – that is still unknown but certainly very, very complex – the most famous Pyramids of that period of the Ancient Egyptian history that is usually called “Ancient Kingdom”. Let’s analyze the images:

These images seem to show us as an obvious and apparently incontestable truth what is in fact an historic hypothesis which in contrary – given our current ideas about the Neolithic and the Eve of Historic Times – results overwhelming, incredible or almost absurd: in the Snefru relief we can see enclosed, following the rules of a mathematical-geometrical code that already at first sight appear very refined – not only his most famous Pyramids – the Red and the Bent Pyramids – but also the Pyramids of his still to born descent, that’s to say his son Cheops, his grandchild Khefren, and the Khefren grandchild Menkaure. Actually, it seems that both the iconographic part of the imagine and the hieroglyphics were been formally studied and mathematically dimensioned in a masterly way to get in touch – always in a very meaningful way – with at least five Pyramids, which have very different internal structures and different typical inclinations. And the same geometrical phenomenon goes on if you change the position and the dimensions of the Pyramids. Pointing with the top in other places than the Snefru eye you can see things that result even more overwhelming
The probability that a thing like that had happened by chance – as we always say in the cultural western world any time we are not capable to understand the products of the genius of our ancestors – it is one on some billions of billions of billions (a number of this kind is useful only to give an idea: probably the real number is very, very much smaller). So, syllogistically reasoning, if it is true that A) THE SINAI RELIEF REALLY BELONGS TO SNEFRU B) THE GIZA PYRAMIDS ARE CODIFIED IN THIS RELIEF we have to deduce from these two premises that 1) Already in the Snefru times Ancient Egyptians had developed mathematics and geometry up to very high level: so, it wouldn’t be true what is currently told by mainstream history and archeology, that’s to say that Ancient Egyptians built their most important monuments in form of pyramids because the pyramid structure is very simple and naturally robust and safe, so that it doesn’t need any kind of refined calculation. 2) Therefore it would be falsified the idea that the high mathematics arrived in Egypt in the late and decadent times of their civilization, as an influence of the Late Classic Greece: high mathematics already existed there thousands of years before the arrive of the Greeks and – furthermore – watching at those images we could easy suppose that at the Snefru time very complicate geometrical theorems were already developed – maybe from hundreds or even thousands of years – connected with a calculation power which up until this moment was historically inconceivable, or at least hard to hypothesize. 3) Therefore, in contrary of the current ideas of the mainstream history about the development of human thought, for thousands of years not only mathematics and geometry as a science didn’t know any progress, but instead they were subjected to an involution process until the point to be almost entirely forgotten. Then they were reinvented after various millennia – with different forms and methods – first in the Classic Greece and then in the Modern Western culture. 4) Therefore, in contrary of what we are used to believe, already in the Snefru times all the very complex architectonical project of Giza was already in the mind or even in the drawings of the architects of the progenitor: so, all that happened from Snefru times on was only the actuation of a plan imagined very much time before, and not a succeeding of architectonical productions decided independently by different generation of planners. 5) Therefore we have the irrefutable proof that the actuation of this plan didn’t depend on the supposed omnipotent or almost omnipotent willing of a single Pharaoh, but on an established project, that went on independently from the fact that a single Pharaoh would live long enough to build “his” Pyramid, as Pyramids didn’t belong to any particular individual and so obviously they were not single tombs. 6) Therefore it seems possible or even probable that the architectonical enterprise connected to the construction of a Pyramid lasted many more time than the life of a single Pharaoh, and that the cause of what in the Pyramids appear us as a rough or unfinished element was not caused by the premature death of the alleged Pharaoh-Builder, but some other motives of a nature that we can only conjecture without at the moment any possibility of any kind of historical verification. 7) Therefore the usual chronologic position of the Giza Plateau – usually established in a century around the 2500 BC – become questionable and from now on it shouldn’t be considered obvious and consolidated. So, all those Plateau dating that up until now was considered “countercurrent” – as the most famous John Anthony West’s dating of the Big Sphinx – should be considered at this point not only geologically founded on the deep corrosion of the sculpture, of its enclosure and on the evidences of a stone technological working power of a science-fiction kind: they would become possible and thinkable from the most traditional historical, philological and archeological point of view too. 8) Therefore, if the traditional function that we attributed to Pyramids – to be the tomb of a single Pharaoh – is no more acceptable, we have well founded reasons to think that names like “Snefru”, “Cheops”, “Khefren” and “Menkaure” would be referred to Pharaohs which in more or less recent times took possession of Pyramids, maybe during the Middle or New Kingdom, or, in alternative, to very ancient stellar goddesses, connected with the Duat sky. 9) So, following the Bauval interpretation of the Plateau and considering the layout of the Giza Pyramids as a terrestrial image of the Orion Belt, we could maybe hypothesize that the Cheops Pyramid was the stone avatar of Alnitaki, Khefren of Alnilam, Menkaure of Mintaka – while the Dahshur Red and Bent Pyramids should be the terrestrial counterpart of the most bright stars of the Pleiades, which are the constellation precessionally “rival” of Orion-Osiris (from a point of view like Giza or Nabta Playa, Orion and the Bull seem – in the millennia – to wheel around to a common center, so that when the Precessional Cycle places the Bull at the maximum point, Orion is placed at the minimum, and vice versa. 10) Therefore, expressions like “Old Kingdom” or “Medium Kingdom” or especially “Intermediary Period” had not – to the Ancient Egyptians – the same usual modern western kind of sense, as they wouldn’t be referred to historical, cultural or political or factual situation, but instead to the cyclical position of the goddesses-constellation in the sky at the Vernal Equinox Heliacal Rising. A good example of “Intermediary Period” could be represented precisely by the relief of Snefru, as there we see the Pharaoh wearing a crown with horns. As the horns are a characteristic of the Bull – but the Pharaoh is traditionally an Osiris human avatar – we could hypothesize that in that moment represented by the relief the Bull was higher or at the same highness of Orion, so that, to embody his power, the Pharaoh had to wear some characteristic symbols of the Bull. 11) Therefore the Bauval Orion Connection Theory would result confirmed in a way that seems unequivocal. We should consider Giza and Dahshur no more the fruit of the casual summation of the wills of independent individuals, that following the vagary of their omnipotent desires made one Pyramid here, one there as they got up in the morning, but a terrestrial image of the divine stellar plane, that’s to say an image of the Duat in a certain moment of the Precessional Cycle. As it’s very well known, Bauval indicate the 10500 BC and – on the base of the Snefru Code – it’s not only possible but instead very reasonable to think that this could be the effective date in which the Plateau was built or even abandoned (a think like that happened in Gobekli Tepe, a very important megalithic site which was buried by their builders just around the 11000 BC, probably in connection with the conclusion of a certain phase of the Precessional Cycle: it’s not impossible that a think like that could be at the base of the mysterious disappearance of the Mayan culture too). 12) Therefore we could suppose that all the biological remains that we have been dating by the Carbon 14 could belong to people which lived in Egypt when Pyramids and others sacred constructions had been already built from centuries or millennia. So, the same thing that happened to the Classic Greeks, who lived between the ruins of the Cyclopean buildings of Mycenae attributing them without any hesitation to the work and the time of the Titans. In alternative to these conclusions we could hypothesize that this relief, always believed a Snefru kingdom work, was not attributed in a corrected way, and was instead a work of an another Pharaoh of more recent times, when the geometry of Giza and Dahshur Pyramids was so well known to permit the construction of a code capable to contain their profiles into an iconic-hieroglyphic image. But, after an “argumentation” of this kind, the first thing that comes in mind is that before the discover of the code no reliable doubt was ever raised about the attribution of the relief to the Snefru kingdom. So, the only archeological basis of a new attribution would be what we can call its “conservative utility”, that’s to say to be able to avoid the maybe unpleasant consequence to be forced to rewrite entirely History and maybe even Prehistory, as up until now no one had particularly doubts about the correctness of the usual attribution. Furthermore, even using this kind of intellectual stratagem, some problems of capital importance would remain still open and unsolved: why an image of this kind was constructed? why was sculpted in the Sinai caves? how could be a case that at least five Pyramids that we believe built by four different sovereigns could match in a code so unitary and coherent – if already at the beginning the code was not the same? Furthermore: why a so big intellectual effort lavished in the construction of a rebus that to the modern eye results totally innocuous and useless? and, above all, where did it come from a similar power of mathematical induction and calculation that obviously must have been used to engrave this image? If Pyramids was actually derived from different, incoherent and totally independent willing, this kind of solution would appear certainly nothing less than fantasy-fiction-like. In another sense, we could think that what we actually have discovered is a code studied specifically for the planning and construction of pyramids and engravings and so it’s logical and inevitable that – as it was always adopted in the project – each new pyramid would match with parts of this iconic-hieroglyphic complex, as any new musical figure always and inevitably matches with the harmony laws and the musical notation rules, and vice versa: but who and why could have had this kind of idea? If this is true, why pyramids should match in an aprioristic way with a similar kind of code?


At this point is unavoidable to inform the reader that the computerized inquiry of the Snefru relief is just at its beginning, ant that an expert is accurately controlling if it could contain the constructive codes of others Old Kingdom Pyramids and – above all – if it does conceal what we can call a second level code – this time of an astronomical kind. That would make of this work and presumably of all the iconic Ancient Egyptian production a true geometrical and mathematical masterpiece. If the clues that already we seem capable to guess would become assured proofs, it would be very, very hard to attribute this kind of knowledge to a kind of craftsmen that we consider sort of “primitives” – even if we are generous enough to award them of an as deep as enigmatic “aesthetical sense” – as we usually think that they were devoid of instruments that to us result banal and obvious as the wheel and the pulley. Anyway, it’s clear that before to arrive to any kind of conclusion this issue will request a very long period of study, that could be able to prove or to disprove those which at the moment we can consider just starting points, or first impressions. But if at the end the existence of this codes would be mathematically demonstrated – because a mathematical and geometrical code could be proved only by its mathematical and geometrical reconstruction – and then confirmed both by the computerized analysis and by an however complex and difficult long period agreement between specialists – this discovery would pose inevitable questions about history and prehistory that obviously can’t be solved in the short space of an article and by the frail mind of a single human being. The facts that seem to come up would request the work and the collaboration of many experts of architecture, astronomy, mathematics, hieroglyphic inscriptions and iconography, because the consequences of the existence of a so complex and so ancient code would be really overwhelming and would have incalculable consequences in our vision of the world. Because, if it is clear that this relief is certainly an art work too, it seems to have also an hidden and enigmatic meaning, that in this moment we are not able to guess or even to conjecture: we can only say that – as the Big Pyramid shafts are oriented to stars – the relief too must have someway a some kind of astronomic meaning too, as the Big Pyramid has. But, aside this, it’s not sure even if future researches will arrive beyond what appear an incredibly and almost magically intricate surface, as the Ancient Egyptian architects could have worked with Pyramids as they did with the Snefru relief of Sinai, that’s to say hiding in there a meaning that was comprehensible only to initiates. It could be as if Bach, in some of his fundamental works, would have incorporated the whole of his works, following an hidden and secret system, so that intersecting the scores we could obtain a kind of experiences and knowledge completely different from which of a simple aesthetical pleasure. In conclusion, we have to emphasize the fact that this discovery doesn’t fit with the emphatic titles of the so called “popular press”, a bombasting useful only to catch the small time attention of a naïve public, the illusory screaming and rumors in which unrealistic gnoseological epiphanies are systematically promised and never kept: “Discovered the Ancient Egyptians secret!”, “Revealed the mystery of the Big Pyramid” and things like these. In contrary, the discovery of what – having not any better name – we called “the Snefru code” is the revelation of a Socratic knowledge of our ignorance, the vanishing of an appearance considered for decades a solid fact. The only thing that this for the moment enigmatic and silent language reveal us is that what we believed to know about the Ancient Kingdom and the Prepharaonic Period – and maybe about the entire Prehistory – do not correspond to the truth, and if to the truth we want to come to, we have to resign to begin our researches all over again.