The Snefru Code – Part 8


From the tale of Josè Louis Borges : « THE IMMORTAL »


Dans les clapotements furieux des marées,
Moi, l’autre hiver plus sourd que les cerveaux d’enfants,
Je courus ! Et les Péninsules démarrées
N’ont pas subi tohu-bohus plus triomphants.

A. Rimbaud


One of the most serious problems of that field of knowledge, familiar to many people since childhood, but in actual fact very complex and enigmatic that we call “archaeology”, is the one of dating in a definite way the various finds that we encounter in different ways and by different means. This applies not only strictly to archaeology, but in many cases also to history, when it avails itself of written documents that belong to cultures to which it is unknown an idea of time and historical events similar to our one.

To offer to the reader a typical example, in The Snefru Code part. 1, we had analysed the hermeneutical problems that arise from the relief in which it is described the victory of Ramses II at Kadesh. In particular, we had focused on the absolute impossibility to believe in the tale of the presumed battle in the open field with the Hittite army, that would have been defeated by the Pharaoh alone, without any collaboration of his army.  So we had questioned ourselves on the deep meaning that this strange tale could have. A tale that to us seems nearly incredibly childish, and that therefore only with a lot of effort we can attribute to the builders of architectonic master-works of nearly inhuman perfection, such as the temple of Luxor or the Pyramids of Giza.

But it is clear that there are cases in which it is easier for us to give credit in an immediate way to the content of the Ancient Egyptian documents. For example, in a relief found at the feet of the Sphinx, we can read that Tuthmosis IV would have made it restore after that the Sphinx in person had appeared to him in a dream , promising him the Kingdom in exchange of the work of restoration.

In this case, there are little historians that have doubted on the reliability of the news, that in effect does contain no elements of improbability such to put even slightly in alarm our common sense.  Of course, someone could suspect that Tuthmosis IV had invented from scratch this dream for propagandistic reasons. But the fact that he made restore the Sphinx seems plausible more or less to everyone, because we think that if he didn’t do it for devotion, it was at least to gain fame and consensus (it is surprising how the slightest trace of cynicism makes whatsoever historical news immediately digestible, also to the most delicate of modern stomachs: usually, the features of authentic religious devotion have a tendency to seem to us fake and questionable at first sight, even if maybe they are referred to a group of people and to an epoch in which religious faith was a so obvious and wide-spread thing as in the present is the cult of power for its own sake).

But, once again if we believe the story that we read in the relief, in this case as in other similar ones, all that we know or that we  believe to know, is that Tuthmosis IV had found the Sphinx already sculptured. From this we can also deduct that its production must have necessarily taken place before his reign. But it still remains the fundamental problem of who has built it and when.

And we all know how this situation of ambiguity and obscurity applies to the majority of Ancient-Egyptian history, in particular to the Ancient Reign. In this sense, the Pyramids of the so-called IVth Dynasty – in particular the three that together with the Great Sphinx constitute the most relevant parts of the complex of Giza, as also the two of Dahshur – remain the most unsettling cases.

2. In the Great Pyramid, in one of the so-called “discharge chamber” or “upper chambers” of the Chamber of the King, it is situated the scroll (this is a sort of personal emblem) of the Pharaoh Cheops. This scroll is considered by official archaeology as a reliable witness that this building was made by a Pharaoh named Cheops, that would have reigned in Egypt around 2600 B.C.

This seems an obvious thing to many historians, but in hindsight it could not be so obvious as it appears. The scroll is in fact taken as a sort of signature at the bottom of a document authenticated by a notary, of which it is never legitimate to doubt. As if it had never happened to everyone to meet a dishonest notary, or a falsified document, maybe for completely innocent reasons (let’s think of the ones that are used to realize a film or a play: maybe exactly for a sacred play).

In effect, if to official Egyptology the historical meaning of this scroll results obvious, to the independent one instead it appears less clear. They are many archaeologists of this trend that think that, lacking major information, the attribution of the Great Pyramid needs further investigation. In effect, how can we be certain that the presumed name of this Pharaoh was not in reality one of his many honorific names, maybe referred to some divine qualities or even to some Gods in a strict sense? In the end, this is what happened to the appellation of “Ra”, the name of the God of the Sun, that appears as a conclusive part of names of very famous Pharaohs, as Khaf-Ra and Menkau-Ra that we usually call Khafre  and Menkaure. So, in hindsight, we cannot be certain that the name that we found in the discharge chambers had not been adopted by many other rulers in the course of Ancient-Egyptian history.

A story that, if we listen to what Manetho says and not only to what it seems reasonable to us, starting from the evolutionary prejudices, should have been lasted even for more than 30000 years. Considering the Ancient-Egyptian tradition of restoring very ancient monuments, would it be so strange if a sovereign of 2600 B.C., could have taken that name exactly to attribute to himself a building that had been there for many millenniums? Maybe, just like Tuthmosis IV, to conquer the reign according to the merit of having it restored.

3 . In effect, if we had a variety of crossed sources of various kind available, the scroll could result the definitive proof of the validity of the complex of the historical documents which are in our possession. But in the case of the Pyramids of Giza, we have no coeval document of the presumed epoch of their construction that could work as a context and so give a perfect sense to the scroll found in the discharge chamber. Neither, in this case, can archaeology-astronomy  be of any help to date the document, as instead we have believed until now.

As indeed was to be expected, given the nature of the beliefs of these people, so different from us,

in The Snefru Code part 5 we have discovered some proofs – that in their complex seem unlikely questionable – that the date to which the wells of the Chamber of the King and the ones of the Chamber of the Queen seem to allude, didn’t correspond at all to an historical fact or to a date in the European-Western  sense of the term. On the contrary, just like the relief of Ramses refers to a mythical-cosmic event destined to an eternal comeback (the God that rushes to the aid of the ineptitude of men and that fights and wins instead of them), the inclination of the wells aims at the golden section of a precessional semi-circle of ascension or of descent at the horizon of the Dog-star, Alnitaki, Kochab and Thuban. But, because the precessional cycle and the golden section were considered sacred, the golden section of a precessional cycle was in turn considered sacred. So it is reasonable to assume that the wells point to this particular moment of the cycle of the Dog-star, Alnitaki, Kochab and Thuban for reasons that have nothing to do with the date in which they were realized (and, as we’ll soon see, the radiocarbon test confirms that the “official” date is incorrect of at least many centuries).

In fact, it seems completely obvious that the golden section of a precessional semi-cycle does not correspond at all to an historical moment in the European-Western sense of the term, but instead to a moment of the cosmic cycles, destined to an eternal comeback. So it is equally obvious that the 2450 B.C. is only one of the dates to which the wells allude. In addition to this, we also find the 18500, the 23500 or the 31000 B.C. (and obviously also the 10500 A.D. etc.).

Neither a period as 31000 B.C. has to seem to us too ancient as a possible date of the construction of the Great Pyramid, or at least of the attendance of Giza as sacred-astronomical observatory. We have clearly seen in The Snefru Code part. 6 that the starry cult to which the archaeological-astronomical structure of the Chamber of the Queen alludes has some very close points of contact with the one of the Chapel of the Lions and the Rhinos of Chauvet, that has been realized just around the 31000-32000 B.C.

4. It is clear that the lack of consideration of the point of view of other people, tends to cause mistakes of prospective in the reading of documents and characters that don’t belong to our culture. In a cultural context like the Ancient-Egyptian one, nobody knew about a linear time neither of unique and unrepeatable historical characters and events, given that, for as much as we know, these are characteristics almost unique of the historical vision of the modern West. So, in a context of this kind, the scroll with the name “Cheops” says it all and says nothing, given that the chance that it refers to a person are practically equal to zero.

To have an idea of the possible misunderstandings that we can generate associating in an immediate way figures of different historical periods, we can cite a very famous example.

Every Western historian is inclined to associate figures like the ones of Julius Caesar and  Napoleon. And, in effect, the association has even a certain base and a certain explanatory power.

Only that, for people of our epoch, it is very easy to forget that Napoleon Bonaparte’s ambition was the one to go down in history (that is: to be remembered) just as Napoleon Bonaparte (that is: as an unique and unrepeatable human being). Instead, a man like Julius Caesar, with his accomplishments, aimed in identifying himself and in being identified with Dionysus, just like before him, Alexander the Great managed to do. Something logical, given that in  pagan times we believed that to become immortal we had in some way to disguise us with the Gods, that are the only living beings of the Cosmos that benefit of the gift of immortality.

This intimate tie with the divine was claimed by Julius Caesar also to give lustre to his lineage: without any sense of irony he claimed in fact to be a descendant of Venus. OK, maybe he didn’t really believe this story, and he said these things only for propagandistic reasons. But it is clear that he counted on the fact that the Roman citizens believed in it, because the culture of the time willingly accepted that the Gods mated with humans and generated with them children.

In hindsight, these are things only apparently stupefying. If we consider that in the pagan culture, even if very different from the Ancient-Egyptian one, it was still alive the idea of a cyclic-mythical time, in which the same characters and the same happenings were destined to endlessly come back, the behaviour of Caesar will seem to us completely obvious. It took an egocentricity  of the calibre of the one of Nietzsche, the most Western of Western philosophers, to be able to believe to have been the first one to see history as an eternal comeback of the same. An idea that at the time of the Classical Greeks was still very common like water .

5. Given this, we cannot assign to the scroll of Cheops a larger explanatory-evidential value, compared to the one that we can legitimately assign to the famous diorites statue of Khafre or to the ones of Menkaure,  that are in turn the only proofs according to which we attribute a name to the builders of the second and third Pyramid of Giza. In this cases, the absolute certainty with which the scholastic Egyptology takes for granted these attributions, looks really surprising, especially if considering the fact that these statues have been found in the Temples in Valley, and not in the Pyramids. We don’t really understand how to not even one professor could have come to mind that they have been put there in a later epoch, maybe for reasons that we are not even able to imagine in a clear way. What would we say if in five-thousand or ten-thousand or fifteen-thousand years, once the tombstones and the documents have worn out, someone would say that Roma has been built by the Ancient-Egyptians, because in one of its main squares we have found a perfectly well kept obelisk, that is more or less the only monument that has some possibility of lasting intact in that time frame?

We would not have a minor misunderstanding even in the case in which we would attribute to Marco Aurelio the relatively modern buildings that nowadays surround the equestrian monument, or at the time of Caravaggio the electrical installations of the museums where his pictures are kept.


6. We have cited as an example the case of the Pyramids of Giza, only because it is very famous and usually it is well known to  those interested even in a not so deep way in the epistemological problems connected to archaeology. But worldwide we can find very important finds that result completely or nearly completely dumb. Digging a certain site, all that we can obtain with the traditional methods is a stratigraphy of the finds. From this we can get to a relative dating of the finds, quite reliable, at least concerning the same excavation or the same area, but nothing more.

But, as interesting as they can be, these conclusions are completely useless when we want to establish an absolute date. Let’s suppose that in a Palaeolithic cave there are  two successive layers, in the first one the shells, and then some perforated lion’s teeth. From this we can deduct that the shells have been used as decoration in a successive time in comparison to the teeth, and so far we all agree. But when do these find date back to? 10.000, to 20.000, to 30.000 or to 70.000 B.C.?

The problem could seem at a first sight not very important, but instead it is related to hermeneutical and historical-philosophical problems of primary importance. If we suppose that a certain type of artefacts should be collocated in the 15000 B.C. instead than in the 2500 B.C., whole chapters of our history books but also of archaeology and  palaeontology would  be rewritten. If then instead we should date them back of 100000 or 200000, not only the single chapters, but our whole vision of world and history would change.

7. In this sense, it has become very famous the case of the stone tools found at Hueyatlaco (Mexico) in a geological layer that, once tested with the quantitative methods usually considered to be reliable, has even been judged more ancient than the 200.000 B.C., even if some results push the possible date up  to 570000 B.C.

To these news, the academic community has had a rather strange reaction. Instead than taking notice that the ideas commonly accepted concerning evolution and the spreading of the human being on Earth had become questionable (until that moment we had believed that men had arrived in South-America starting from Africa in a date around 10000 and 15000 B.C.), we had the brilliant idea of intimidating in various ways all those scholars that were not willing to recant or soften the conclusions of their researches.

Still, these scientists should have been considered until that moment as influential and reliable, otherwise nobody would have bothered to find the money to make them come from the United States up in Mexico, make them do the stratigraphy, the tests, etc. What had happened that made the influential scholars suddenly transform themselves in incompetent, crazy or even fraudulent megalomaniac,  ready to falsify the results of their tests in order to gain a day of notoriety?

It is necessary to underline the fact that not all these scholars surrendered to the orders or to the threats of the academical community.  This meant that a geologist, Virginia Steen McIntyre, culpable of  making public the results of her analysis in spite of the warnings received, had been expelled in a first place from her University, and then ostracised by the entire scientific community. In this way, her academic career had unexpectedly and sadly come to an end for reasons that, even if apparently could seem scientific, on a more deep level could instead be considered typically religious.

We are saying this because such a behaviour makes us suspect that the “standard” date that the academic palaeontology bestows to the South-American colonization carried on by men, is not lived as an ordinary scientific data, subjected to falsification and correction. On the contrary, it seems to be considered and defended like a dogma. One of the many dogmas of the so-called “evolutionary theory” that even if disguised as a “rational” scientific theory, in reality seems nothing more than a strange kind of religious faith. A faith that, even if not promising salvations of any kind, grants some privileges to who becomes an orthodox disciple of it. For example, the one of occupying a place in the hierarchy that preserves the academic faith, and from such “influential” position to ostracise every scholar or even every empirical data that could contradict it, including the ones obtained through test derived even from physics, the queen of the empiric sciences. In effect, every historian realises that in this case the scientific community (“scientific”?) has behaved towards one of its members as the so despised and backward  Catholic Church would have done towards an heretic (though, we must say, that nowadays the Catholic Church results much less intolerant than  a certain kind of “rationalism”).

8. The problem of the dating of the finds seems therefore of the utmost delicacy and importance, at least for the personal consequences that threaten to fall on the scientists and on the dissenting intellectuals. And it seems now proved that reliable answers cannot be found on the basis of purely critical-aesthetic means.

To cite once again a very famous example, the paintings of the Chauvet Caves seem to our aesthetic judgement  of a much more refined make, in comparison to the ones of five or even ten millenniums years after (paintings like the ones of Pech-Merle, just to cite a name). Even, in some details of these paintings, we notice that the painters of Chauvet must have had a rather developed sense of prospective, even if at a level that seems only instinctive. Yet, we all know that the finds of Chauvet are among the most ancient ones that the figurative art has left us as an inheritance, given that they date back even to 32000 B.C. Now, if it’s true that natural and human history is an evolutionary history, that is a more or less rapid succession of progresses, why did the painting technique, from then on, underwent what we will certainly define as an involution ? How’s that only at the times of Altamira and Lascaux it has recovered the skills developed fifteen millenniums before?

9. Yet this problem could be ill-posed because, in hindsight, an artistic product that to us seems “refined”, “evolved” and “developed” may not seem so to people of cultures different from ours.

If a Chinese of the nineteenth century A.D. had listened to a symphony of Beethoven, maybe he would have listened only to a deafening cacophony,  not clear if composed by sounds or noises or other things. Yet many Western historians think that until the seventeenth century China was the most technologically and culturally advanced country of the world.

Likewise, European-Western architecture doesn’t seem fit to express the soul of people that have a sense of space radically different from ours. Remaining in China and in the surrounding cultures, we see that the shape of the temples’ roofs and of other sacred-monumental buildings, is often characterized by an arched profile, with rounded edges that “bounce” upwards with a curve similar to the one of the descendant part.  This shape (that in certain cases we find also in the helmets of the armies of the iron age) seems to allude to such a vision of space in which the notions of high and low tend to slide the one towards the other. Therefore, buildings like the ones that we see in the below photo seem to tell us: the high slips towards the low, the low slips towards the high.

This vision of the sacred-architectonic space has obviously a deep spiritual meaning. In a first place it reminds us “ The Book of Changes”, in which the world is seen as a passage from an opposite to the other, but also the  “Tao-Thè-King”. In the same way as the saint Taoist rules the reign (this is: a high task) going to occupy the humblest position (this is: the lowest), so the architectonic space of the temples tends to assimilate the opposite directions. The low points towards the high, and so to say it in a brief way, it contains the highness. In general, we see that in the ancient Chinese culture, just like in Heraclitus’ Philosophy, every opposite contains the other.

This thought could have not been more different than the European-Western spirit, whose most potent symbol is certainly the violent mono-directional tension typical of the Gothic cathedrals, that allude to a leap towards the high and towards infinity that in principle can never go back on its steps. What else could mean two structures like the ones represented in the below images?

Let’s notice that to this interpretation of the sacred-architectonic space, it perfectly corresponded the Gothic interpretation of Christianity as a spiritual experience.

That made  possible, for example, that until the coming of Pope Francesco the chiefs of the Church had always occupied the highest place, and that they had always addressed the faithful from top to bottom. Something completely logical, given that in this vision of the world there was no space for commingling of authority and folk, at least concerning the hierarchic structure and so the handling of the temporal and doctrinal power. It’s true that on the spiritual level many saints have exerted a very powerful influence, exactly depriving themselves of every earthly power and wealth. But these instead should have remained as an essential feature of every subject that belonged to the proper hierarchy, that the higher it was placed, the more it had to rise also in these features (that in this sense, where not at all “worldly”). In this way he confirmed its distance from the common world and its proximity to the divine.

Therefore, it seems clear that the papacy of Francesco is an epochal turning point of the Church, that prepares itself to a new interpretation of the Gospel, that probably will have little in common with the Gothic one, that shortly will become a past. A past that it’s not at all clear if it will be considered a glorious or a very uncomfortable one.

Sometimes it takes just a phrase to mark the abyss that divides one historic epoch from the other, maybe one that seems banal to the majority. On the airplane that took pope Francesco to Sri Lanka, while talking to the journalists, he enunciated an aside that at the moment nobody noticed: “To say what one thinks is a duty, that gives a contribution to the society improvement”.

The journalists, in theory, should have started shouting stupefied: how’s that? A Pope that invites all the observants and even the non ones to say what they think to improve the world? On the contrary, until now the Church institution has invited everyone, and in particular the observants, to  repeat without judging the dogmas “motu proprio” established by the authority and to leave aside or even to quieten the individual thoughts and considerations, and so even the conscience. Wasn’t there, until not so time ago, the index of the prohibited books? Haven’t they got to the extent of even  burning the “Letters to a provincial”, didn’t they even discourage the reading of the Holy Books?

What is happening to the Church? And what is happening to our world, given that for centuries the Western-World’s history and the Church’s one have practically overlapped?

What is happening indeed? It is happening that the West is directing itself from sun-set to a deep twilight, and it is not clear if in the pope’s words we should read the extreme decadence of something already very old, or the birth of something new. Only the following generations will be able to tell it, admitting that the future generations will care about History in the Western meaning of the term, and therefore  also about the Western one that came before their owns one. The time that our world will need to definitively go down will go much far beyond this generation and therefore for the contemporaries is really difficult to get a whatsoever idea, even a false one, of the future.

10. Considerations like these, make us understand that concepts like those of “progress”, “evolution” and other similar ones, should be understood by open-minded historians in a less absolutist manner compared to what usually happens among Western intellectuals. Maybe in the whole world there is not and there has never been one and only one evolutionary, natural or human line. Maybe nature as much as men always develop from many different or parallel directions, in a succession of comparable yet still irreducibly unique and different shapes .

So we don’t have to be so surprised if in The Snefru Code part 7, in the project of the Great Pyramid, we have found traces of that theory of unified fields that still today we have not been able to develop.

This discovery shows that the empiric-mathematical science it is not an exclusive patrimony of modernity. Neither it represents an irreversible point of arrival of human knowledge: it has existed in another form thousand and thousand years ago, it has been forgotten and then it has been reinvented. So it is very probable that in future its destiny will be once again this one. In fact, noting what has happened in the past, it is not difficult to imagine that within many thousands of years men will have forgotten all that we have learned, and that then they will learn it again, maybe in a slightly different way. Moreover they will naturally believe again, just like we had believed, that they will be the first ones to discover and to take possession of the secret of nature through mathematics.

To show that that absolute scientific uniqueness and superiority of our culture it is nothing more than an illusion: isn’t the sense of our research exactly this one? That civilities that have reached a degree of scientific knowledge equal or superior to ours have existed and disappeared without, until now, having had  an inkling of their existence: isn’t it exactly this that we have been able to demonstrate? Therefore the meaning of men in the Cosmos and in history goes much more beyond the restricted limits imposed by evolutionism. On the contrary, the same evolutionism, in the end, reveals itself as a naïve and  pre-critical idea of the West, that today is still at the dawn of the comprehension of the deep past of mankind, and so also of its own origin, no less than that of its own destiny.







1- Resuming the line of the historic-hermeneutic reasoning that we were carrying on at the start of this article, we must remember that the condition of extreme uncertainty concerning the exact age of the archaeological finds, has lasted until the 60’s of the last century, when we have found the way to solve the problem of the dating of the finds, with the discovery of the decaying of Carbon 14.

This new method, although it has forced palaeontologists and archaeologists to repeatedly  review  some datings that we believed ascertained, yet it has not reached and touched all the archaeological sites of the world in an indistinct way.

This has happened because the method works only on organic finds, and it is impossible to apply it if we have to date finds like stone, terracotta, or metals. Such kind of objects are dated in an indirect way, but inductively, only where we can associate to them in a secure reasonable way, some organic finds. But this does not always happen, and instead, there are extremely relevant cases on the historic-archaeological debate on the method to get to noteworthy conclusions.

This is the case of all those places where structures that we can suppose to be very ancient, have been occupied and re-used by successive populations  to those who had built them. In this way, the site undergoes what we could define a “biological contamination”, that makes totally unreliable the test of the Carbon 14. To once again make an example immediately comprehensible to everyone, if someone would think to date the Cathedral of Milan, according to a test made on a wooden chair bought in the 60’s, it would prove in an absolute way the date of the chair, but not the one of the cathedral. The same, happens every time that the new populations take possession of the buildings of their maybe completely unknown predecessors. The new inhabitants tend to cancel the biological traces of the precedent ones, in a way that the test of Carbon 14 has always to do with the finds that belong to more recent cultures, and never or nearly never to the original ones.



2. This seems to be once again, the case of the Pyramids of Giza. When we have found near the Great Pyramid, a find that has resulted of the 5000 B.C., this find didn’t practically have consequences of historical-theoretical type. This happened because the majority of the finds always indicates successive dates, that we believe that can confirm the current ideas concerning the history of Ancient Egypt. But let’s ask ourselves: how can we be certain that the finds of also much more ancient epochs (for example the 7000 B.C., corresponding more or less to the age of the Circle of Nabta Playa), haven’t been destroyed and/or covered by the ones of successive epochs (therefore also by the ones of 5000 B.C.)?  It is completely obvious that certainties of this kind are impossible.

The Carbon 14 test performed on organic fragments extracted directly from the Great Pyramid and from other nearby buildings, has given in turn contradictory results.

If in many cases, it has systematically indicated a date around the 3100 B.C., yet in a case it has reported a very unsettling date, around the 3800 B.C.  Obviously no professor would not know precisely what to do with a date of this kind, given that academic Egyptology places the building of the Pyramids of the IV Dynasty, in a date around 2500 B.C. On the other hand, not even the ones who think that this Pyramids belong to a much, much more ancient epoch, is willing to take into account this find. In fact, many of these archaeologists accept the ideas of John Anthony West, and trace the origin of the Pyramids at an epoch equal or prior to 10000-11000 B.C. Therefore the 3800 B.C., for the fact that it doesn’t support anyone’s ideas, it has been rapidly forgotten. As if the radiocarbon test, that is a scientific evaluation which results usually are judged as objective and unquestionably certain, in this particular case had no importance.

Instead, taking this find seriously, we could or even we should ask ourselves if the construction of the Pyramids of Giza had started 1300 years before the “canonical” date ( that is in 3800 instead than in 2500 B.C.). Secondly, we should ask ourselves, if the works have been concluded circa 6 centuries beforehand compared to what until now we have believed (as many finds that give as a result the 3100 B.C., suggest us). At this point, not only we would be forced to shift backwards the dating of the Pyramids, but even to reassess the time that it was necessary to their construction: from a few decades up to at least seven centuries (a period of time that seems moreover more reasonable compared to the twenty years that  have been usually attributed to an inhuman task like the one of erecting Cheops Pyramid).

But naturally, once broken the boundaries of the traditional interpretation, we could ask ourselves another kind of question, that is: the time interval established by these dates, that is the one between the 3800 and the 3100 B.C., does it refer to the construction of the Pyramids, or to their restoration? And if we referred to their restoration, on which basis could we establish the date in which the works have been started for the first time?

Once again, nobody could reasonably say to have solid and definitive certainties  regarding this matter, especially if we consider that at the convention of the American geologists of the 1991, it had been accepted the theory of West and Schoch, that is that the signs of erosion on the Sphinx are explainable only with torrential rains. This theory has radically undermined the traditional dating, given that rains of this kind occurred in Egypt only until the 7000 B.C. So not only we should backdate the building of the Sphinx by many millenniums, but also and above all, the use of the Plateau of Giza as a sacred place.

3. A very similar situation applies also to pre-Colombian sites like Cuzco, Sacsaywaman, Macchu Picchu, and many others. Cases in which even a not very expert eye immediately notices a relevant technical and stylistic discontinuity between the structures built by the Incas and the ones in which the same Incas, when questioned by the conquistadores, strongly refused the authorship on it, saying that “obviously” they had been built by the Gods in far-away epochs.

We must admit that this is an answer that no western archaeologist, be it academic or independent, is willing to consider correct, also because, where we live, nobody believes any longer in Gods since at least fifteen centuries (at the most we can find somebody willing to believe that the Inca tradition is judging Gods what for us are the much more reassuring aliens). Maybe it’s for this reason that the academic archaeology, lacking other candidates, has thought well to attribute also the Cyclopean monuments to the Inca, without bothering much about explaining the fact that they refused the authorship.

Now this doesn’t seem one of those positions that we can define as scientifically based. As a first thing, we must notice that there is no knowledge that the same Inca have ever shown of possessing the ability of building such master-works or even to be able to restore them. In effect, we notice that when the Cyclopean structures presented some empty spaces, they were systematically filled with little stones, fitted or cemented between them in an approximate way. So, if those monuments have not been built buy the Gods, they are probably to be attributed to cultures that have nothing or nearly nothing to do with the Inca one.

But unfortunately also this appears a case in which it seems completely useless to try to solve the problem with the Carbon 14 test. Because these sites have been occupied for many centuries by relatively recent populations, the biological material that we can find belongs almost on principle to this populations, that therefore are the ones that affirm that were the Gods the ones who built the Cyclopean walls. So, the discussion on this topic, for the moment, can be carried on only on the level of a stylistic comparison, and, above all, on the one of the different building techniques connected to the various sites.

4. In effect, it has been more than once said and by more than one person, how the buildings that the Inca attributed to themselves, completely lack of those “Cyclopean” features that are instead typical of the buildings that they incorporate, or to which they lean on.

Far from the opinion of divine origin, the Inca walls seem really the most banal structures of the world, this because they are composed by stones that usually don’t go beyond the weight that results easy to lift and easily placeable by one or maximum two people. These stones have very often been left untreated, or they have been grossly squared before been haphazardly fitted with other similar stones, often with the help of any type of mortar.  Walls of this type can be easily found in every epoch and in every part of the world (included in the fields and in the vegetable gardens of the modern West), co-inhabit with gigantic megalithic polygonal structures, built by granite stones worked in a very refined way.  These polygons reach a weight that in certain cases is estimated in 400 tons and the number of even fifteen angles ( but there is who affirms to have seen one that reaches the incredible record of 32).

Even if these polygons where coupled with tolerances of some millimetre, the task of erecting these walls would have been really Cyclopean. Instead, as we all know, the couples reach such a precision that it seems impossible to insert a blade even if thin, in the gaps (nobody until now has ever managed to establish in a satisfying way a degree of tolerance with which they have been originally realized the joints: but we must say that there are cases in which it is very difficult to distinguish the juncture point from the solid rock, at least to the naked eye).

5. Moreover, these stones show to  have been secured to each other through a system of “little keys” completely similar to the one that we have noticed in the Ancient Egypt, of which we can observe two examples in the below images (in the photo on the left we can see a little key in which it has been find a trace of the metal that has been poured on it)

This is a building detail that  adds processing difficulties of metallurgic type to the already enormous one of the placing of the stones, that at least for us is of an unimaginable difficulty.

Observing these images it seems completely clear that the polygons, firstly, were perfectly fitted. Only at this point, the place for the little key was indent in it, and finally the liquid metal was, usually copper or bronze, was poured in it. A procedure of this kind presumes that these people were able to liquefy the metal with ovens that could be moved in the working sites in which there was progressively the need to pour the metal for distances that, for example, in a place like  Sacsaywaman are even hundreds of meters. Or we must think that they had available some crucibles able to keep the metal at the liquid state even after a long time that it came out the oven.

6. All this group of technical challenges, has led many historians and independent archaeologists to conclude that between these structures and the Inca constructions, there must certainly be a clear discontinuity both cultural and chronological. This seems an observation absolutely reasonable, if not to say completely obvious.

So obvious, that if it was not for the opposition that  it encounter in official history and archaeology, we would not even loose time in discussing it. Just to make a comparison easily understandable, if a tourist sees in the middle of the African savannah, the carcass of a Jeep re-employed by a “primitive” tribe as a hen-house, certainly he wouldn’t think to attribute the construction of the car to the same people that re-use it as a hen-house.

But whilst we perfectly know who has built the Jeep ( and we also have an idea of the technical system necessary to built it), in the case of the Cyclopean South-American structures, it seems to be no trace left of the culture or of the cultures that have built them. All that we know is that in relation to the Cyclopean structures, the Inca walls seem in fact the ones of a hen-house. This has led many researchers to think that not only the culture that has built them is different, but also that it is enormously more ancient than the ones that are usually defined “pre-Colombian”. But it is not clear to anyone how far away in time we can or we should push this dating.

On the other hand, the images that we can see here below, shot at Macchu Picchu, at Ollantaytambo and at Cuzco, seem to leave no doubt. Really, we are questioning ourselves on how we can reasonably believe that the builders of the walls that overlap or/an incorporate the inferior ones, can be the same, or that their general knowledges concerning the working of the stone, and so their science, their mathematics, their technique, their tools and standards of work, and last but not least, their soul, the sense that they gave to their construction, could have the same roots

Naturally, in fields like history or aesthetics, nothing can impose on anyone, not even evidence.

It is for this reason, that official archaeology, relying on the authority that with no other reason, arises from the officialism of its statements, easily affirms that, for example, that gigantic block of pink granite of Ollantaytambo, that we see in the first row of pictures on the right, of the weight of some tens of tons, worked in a very refined way, has been worked by the same people that have used it to lean on it in a very approximate way some unrefined stones, worked in a very coarse way. It is useless to object that even the first reporter that has reached Sacsaywaman after  the Spanish conquest, Garcilaso De Vega, wasn’t able to understand how those stones could have been put together without the help of the Devil. It is still even more useless to point out that it has no sense, neither from an  architectonic nor least of all aesthetic point of view, to build colossal foundations up to the point of seeming nearly inhuman and then use them to build such common and banal buildings, of which any old person physically fit can build a perfect imitation in his own garden.  Might as well put the engine of a Ferrari in the structure of a side-cars, we would like to say. But the academical culture, in cases like these, tends to abandon the collective common sense, to save the historical-archaeological one. In this way, in the Universities around the world, the professors of archaeology repeat, with the tone of who has God on his side, that the Inca are authors of both the structures.

7. On the other hand, despite the stubbornness with which still nowadays it is defended by a certain “officialism” the theory that polygonal walls like the ones of Macchu Picchu or Ollantaytambo was made by the Inca, for some time now an hermeneutic tendency, increasingly wide-spread and of the majority, has risen. And, against a certain kind of academic blindness, it recognizes in the clear qualitative and stylistic difference of the structures, an as much clear and distinctive cultural and chronological stratification.

This tendency, with no hesitation, attributes the megalithic polygonal walls to a pre-existent civility than the Inca one, even if, obviously, then it is difficult to find an agreement concerning the nature of this civility and the epoch of its birth and disappearance. In effect, the only structure that has provided a hold to an attempt of dating, is the one of Tiahuanaco. Here, trough archaeological-astronomy, we came to the hypothesis that this city had been build around the 13000 B.C., because we have discovered that the alignment of the temple to the solstices, that today results, even if in a slight way, incorrect, maybe it was correct in that moment of the precessional cycle.

We came to this hypothesis because as we have greatly seen in the previous parts of this work, the angle of inclination of the Earth’s pole compared to the one of the ecliptic, oscillates in the millenniums between 21°,5 and 23°,5. And this oscillation has obviously an effect also on the angle that results between the two opposite solstices. For this reason, if we imagine that the temple of Tiahuanaco would have been built around the 1300 B.C., the alignment of the temple would have been perfect. This fact has led to hypothesize that its construction has taken place in that epoch, because we really have to make an effort to think that the builders have made and accepted a mistake of that kind. In fact, from what we can understand both from the archaeological finds and from the mythical tradition, for this people the alignment to the solstices was not a banal aesthetic decoration, but a very, very important ritual-religious element, maybe the most important of all. To align the temple to the Sun was to link in a holy way the city and the people with the patron deity, homage him, glorify him and conform to his omnipotent will. A mistake in the alignment therefore should have been interpreted as a kind of sacrilege: how can we think that the builders made it pass like a common defect, especially after having coupled the stones in such a way that not even a hair can pass between them?

But, apart from these considerations of a cultural kind, the collocation of Tiahuanaco in 1300 B.C. has on its side the fact that it makes it possible to think that the mysterious culture that erected the Cyclopean walls, has extinguished already many millenniums before of the Olmecs, that’s to say the civility that we suppose to be at the basis of all the pre-Colombian cultures  that we know trough various ways. A thing of this kind would perfectly justify the fact that the Inca did know nothing about the builders of the Cyclopean walls at the moment in which they had been questioned by the Spanish. This would lead us also to think that also the Olmecs, that are presumably at the basis of this mythical tradition that believed that they were built by the Gods in very ancient times, did know nothing about it.

An interpretation that doesn’t have to surprise no one, if even Garcilaso De Vega, that according to the evolutionary theory belonged to an enormously much more advanced culture compared to the Inca one, not being able of doing better, attributed it to the Devil, that is certainly an evil creature, but still gifted with magical powers.

8. This association of the Cyclopean structures to the divine, made both by the Inca and by the European invaders, makes us suspect that the mysterious culture that has built them, even if so ancient that it has been completely forgotten, however should have been technically and scientifically much more advanced at least in some features, compared to the one that felt to ascribe it to the Gods. This would be a new confirm that the evolution doesn’t carry on according to a unique and irreversible line. On the contrary, if this dating and the new attribution would result right, this would be a proof that that dogma of the evolutionist religion that we have discussed above, that is that men has colonized South-America around the   10000 – 15000 B.C., must be certainly reconsidered. Or, to be more precise: that everything that we believed to know concerning history and prehistory and also about the position and the destiny of men in the Universe, must be put in doubt, rethought. And we will see very soon how the archaeological finds that we are about to analyse, will give us a further boost and maybe a decisive one in this direction. It will be the unquestionable empiric-observational evidence to force us to re-analyse  our dogmas, our fixed ideas, our stale habits of thought. From the Cyclopean walls of the Wall of Alatri, so unjustly judged as a rather insignificant monument of the Roman period, it will reach us the unquestionable proof that the chemical knowledges of this people were many steps ahead compared to ours (at least in certain fields).

From the pictures that we will show, the reader will easily conclude that for these ancient builders, the stone was not a hard material, difficult to remove, to transform and transport. On the contrary, for these people, the stone was a familiar substance, so familiar, easy and economic as it is plastic nowadays. And we will be able to see how this discovery could be useful to clear the mystery of the building technique employed for the Ancient-Egyptian and Pre-Colombian megalithic works.

Lastly, we hope that these discoveries could lead our chemists and our physicians to change the direction of their researches, in such a way to be able to comprehend and therefore to employ some possibilities of transformation of the matter that are still completely out of our reach.

Possibilities that maybe will be able to save our world from one of its many eventualities of self-destruction: the one of suffocating in its garbage, so brutally similar to the one for which an organism can suffocate in its own excrements.




1. The cases of which we have discussed until now are very famous, to the point of nearly representing a commonplace of the actual historical and archaeological discussions. But there is a much less famous case, yet maybe not much less important, that in theory should interest the Italian historians and archaeologists much more than the finds of the pre-Colombian cultures.

We are talking about the Upper Walls of Alatri, at the top of which there is currently a church leaning on the most internal and elevated finds of the ancient megalithic structure. In front and around it, there is a garden suitable for a children playground. Apart from these, that are the better preserved parts of the complex, there is a more external wall, 4 km long circa. Also this one, at least at intervals, is still in very good conditions. Within its limits it has been built what adapting  to a common use, we can call “the old city”.

Therefore at Alatri, just like it has happened in the pre-Colombian South-America, the powerful finds of the Cyclopean walls have not ended under a pile of debris. Because of their extraordinary robustness and of their favourable collocation, they have been instead re-occupied and re-employed by people that presumably, also in a very ancient epoch, were completely unaware of the identity of who had built them. It happened at Alatri the same thing that happened at Cuzco, or at Ollantaytambo. There, after the Inca, also the Spanish have employed the ancient walls, inside which the descendants of the Indigenous just like the conquistadores, live nowadays their daily life, presumably, without knowing much more of that nothingness that by now, four-hundred years ago, their ancestors showed to know.



2. It is completely obvious that in a context of that kind, the method of the dating with the Carbon 14 does have no possibility of being employed with a minimum foundation. So, unless sensational strokes of luck or unless not less sensational developments of the method of scientific-quantitative dating, we have no possibility of scientifically dating these structures that seem even more mute and anonymous than the Pyramids of Giza. Apart the style of the walls in fact, the only readable signs of the cultural identity of their builders are phallic symbols that had been sculptured on a minor entrance, maybe for this reason traditionally called the Door of Fertility. From the phallic symbols we can conclude with a certain safety that in this culture the sexual male organ was sacred, maybe because associated to a conception of the human sexuality that associated them intimately to the divine.

This is a very strange fact for us, given that the West of the Reform and of the Counter-Reform it has characterized the sexuality in the rank of things of which it is best to keep quiet, when not in the ones to demonise. Therefore since many centuries, within the Catholic and Protestant sacred spaces, the naked is not tolerated any-longer under any circumstances, supposing that it is not an ancient work, with some historical-touristic interest. But if the horror of the genitals seems completely obvious to the sense of the ethic-religious modesty of our culture, every historian and archaeologist is aware of the fact that in other cultures, even very refined ones, including the Ancient-Egyptian, the Classical Pagan, and the Hindu one, the genital organs where considered sacred, or even assimilated to Gods in a strict meaning. Something that, once left behind our prejudices, we can understand very well. The power of generating can in fact be spontaneously assimilated to the abilities of the mortals to transcend death, and therefore also time and transience of the human condition. An erected phallus and a vagina, for the fact that are means of generation, instead that as a shame can well appear as symbols of the eternal life to which  the human kind is destined, just like the condition of the Gods, that because of their essence don’t know death. So, because the door in which the phalluses  have been sculptured aligns with the Sun at the equinox, we can hypothesize that this was a way of associating the ability of the phallus to fecundate the vagina to the one of the Sun to fecundate Earth.

But, even  if these indications reveal something, they are still very generic. In fact, as it is known, this way of considering the Sun is much wide-spread worldwide and in all the epochs. Only in very rare cases the Sun has not been considered a divinity, or it is been considered a feminine one. Therefore, through the interpretation of these symbols, we don’t get to know nothing of really specific concerning the cultural identity of the authors of the walls, and nothing at all about the epoch of their building.



3. Because of this situation, who wants to investigate on the age of the Walls of Alatri, will find himself in the same conditions of those archaeologists that still didn’t have the method of the Carbon 14 at disposition.

Therefore,  all that we can still do today is to observe the walls and try to establish if their style is to be considered or not homogeneous and continuous, compared to the one of the buildings that have enclosed them, or that have superimposed on them. And this is a task to which we soon get an answer, given that even the more distracted and uninformed of the observers immediately notices that the megalithic structures have nothing to do with the successive ones, including those of the Roman period that we can see in that area.

But in addition to it, we can make a stylistic comparison with structures that we can consider, at least in an heuristic way, of near epochs, of which it is legitimate to suppose that they could have had an influence on these buildings. This way we can hope to get to a dating that, even if on a cognitive base less solid than the one of the Carbon 14, it will at least satisfy those stratigraphic-stylistic parameters that have characterized archaeology until the sixties.

Therefore availing oneself of a study of this kind, it will be difficult to avoid associating the walls of Alatri to the Greek ones of Mycenaean style, commonly dated around the  1000 -1200 B.C. Walls that, just like the ones of Alatri, can still be admired in good or even, in certain cases, perfect conditions of preservation. As it is obvious, the polygonal walls are a type of structure incapable of characterizing itself in a well defined style, distinguishable and recognizable at first sight, like the one of the Ancient-Egyptian temple compared to the Classical-Pagan one.

But even this kind of buildings, in what can seem a banal geometry of the whole project, has what we can call a particular touch. The single polygons show a style of their own, even if hasty, a style that is different according to the places and the cultures, so that, joining themselves, they give rise to something like a characteristic rhythm. But, because in fact such a kind of similarities and differences cannot be easily defined, it is best to let’s say “pass the world” to the same monuments and look carefully at the below pictures.

Even in a quick glance, it is not difficult to notice the extraordinary similitude between these two segments of walls, to the point that who is not a specialist of the subject, could easily think that these two photos have been taken in two different points of the same structure. Instead in one case (the photograph on the left) we see a section of the Walls of Alatri, in the other the one of Mycenae.

But the task that we undertook it was exactly this one: to associate both at a historical-chronological level and at a stylistic-cultural one, the Alatri walls with other similar structures, admitted that:


1) They present an evident affinity of technical and aesthetic-stylistic type.


2) They find themselves in a geographical position compatible with the possibility of more or less reciprocal influences.


At this point, we find out that the Mycenaean walls or those of Mycenaean style, are the first ones that we should take into consideration. Instead, even if with some perplexity, we should exclude the Ancient-Egyptian ones, even if for other reasons, they seem comparable to this ones.

The Ancient-Egyptian polygons have an individual shape and therefore give rise to a general geometrical rhythm, completely different from the typical one of Alatri and Mycenae.

The numbers of angles seems statistically very inferior (most of the times they remain 4, even if in cases that seem really rare we arrive up to 12), and the structure results much more linear. This way we notice its heterogeneity only in certain points. For the rest, these walls, seem rather similar to “normal” walls, that is with the basically octagonal evolution, with some interruption here and there, as we can see in the below photographs.

For completely different reasons, it is difficult to take into consideration the Cyclopean South-American walls, like the ones of Cuzco and Sacsaywaman, even if in certain points we can individuate some relation of aesthetic type. But in this case we avoid to associate these constructions. The South-America is geographically collocated to much far away to be able to hypothesize, without other basis, that it could have been reciprocal cultural influences with a place like Alatri. Whilst an hypothesis of this kind, it has already been made, and with good reasons in the case of Ancient-Egyptian.

We are saying this, because in Ancient-Egyptian, as well as in South-America, we find similar religious traditions, like the mummification of the corpses, the cranial deformation, and the construction of pyramids (even if in radically different style). Instead, in the case of Alatri, we can individuate the cult of the Sun as the only point in common with South-America. And this seems really a too much vague support to hypothesize a reciprocal influence.

4. Apart from Mycenaean Greece, also Malta, Tiro, Hattusa, and in other sites of the Mediterranean basin, we can observe that the walls that show to have in common with Alatri and Mycenae a system of what Ludwig Wittgenstein maybe would have called “ family affinities”( the below photograph is of the temple of Gozo).

It’s exactly for this reason that, at least at a first sight, we would certainly want to take into consideration also these finds for our research, to which it would certainly add also an element of

ulterior fascination and interest. In particular, the association to the Mycenaean style of the Maltese temples, would consent to backdate the origin of this particular building technique of at least two-thousand years.

But, when we cease observing these monuments in a let’s say, “panoramic” way, and we try to see more in detail, it becomes difficult to establish if the quality of the making and the one of the couplings was the same of the one of Alatri and Mycenae. Walls like the ones of the Temple of Ggantija, just to cite an example, are so eroded that in some points we can easily make one hand pass through the wall. In this case, to get to some reasonably certain conclusions, it would be necessary an accurate investigation on-site, to realize that if there are or not junctions well preserved. And, if they were, check if their quality would be comparable to the one of the Walls of Alatri.

In hindsight, also the junctions of the Walls of Alatri in certain points can seem at a first sight coarse and approximate, because in the most external part the junctures sometimes seem also very damaged. This way, we can get the impression that the blocks are separated by splits of many millimetres or even centimetres thickness. Looking more deeply, we immediately realize that the sides of the polygons seem coupled with a kind of precision that we can define with no other term than: vertiginous. In certain cases, also with a 10x lent, it is hard to distinguish the junction line.

In the below photographs, we put an Ancient-Egyptian match next to one of Alatri.

We can guarantee the reader, that if we remove the external defects due to the major erosion, the Walls of Alatri have nothing to envy to the ones of Osireion, the Chamber of the King, or others fairly celebrated master-works of  the Ancient-Egyptian architecture. The Walls of Alatri are the ones of the photograph on the right, and the point in which the juncture is still intact is indicated by us with an arrow. In both cases, note like it is very difficult to distinguish the junction point from the hard rock (later on we will show other images able to confirm even more the validity of this comparison)

Therefore at Alatri, the external defect, where it can be found, doesn’t seem the consequence of a bad construction quality, but instead due to the exposure to the sun and erosion events of various kind. These events obviously have acted in a more conspicuous way especially in proximity of the external part of the junctures, that are the weak part of this insofar very robust structure that has been realized with a limestone that seems of good quality.

5. Therefore the walls of Alatri, if analysed with the “old” method of the stylistic attribution, seem works of Mycenaean influence, to be collocated in an epoch that must be around between the 1200 and the 800 B.C. But despite what it seems an unquestionable evidence, it has formed a stable hermeneutic tradition, that in the course of time has become one of the many minor dogmas of which modern evolutionist-archaeology is full. This hermeneutic tradition considers the Walls of Alatri like a work built by the Romans and, as a consequence of this, we have datings that collocate it in the first or second century B.C.  It doesn’t surprise at all that this tradition has not formed itself starting from the observation and the comparison of the constructive styles and techniques in the Mediterranean basin, but instead on the interpretation of some written works of the Roman time, that are judged by many people  rather obscure and  of ambiguous  interpretation.

Obviously, no one wants to condemn the ancient writers and the written works, nor who studies and interprets them. Least of all we want to deny the help that they can offer us concerning the reconstruction of events that took place in past epochs. What we want to underline instead, is a delicate question of methodology regarding the use of such sources in the dating of a monument like the one of Alatri. An issue that looks very much like the one that we have dealt with in the beginning, regarding the use of the Cheops scroll to find out the authors and the dating of the Great Pyramid.

Let’s suppose that in the surroundings of Alatri, there was a Roman author that in a perfectly well preserved written work affirmed in such a way that gave no uncertainty that the Walls has been built, let’s suppose, by an eminent patrician relative of his. Also in this case, we would have not only and not so much the right, but also and above all the duty to doubt of the truth of such a statement. In fact, the fact that the Romans, since the Vth century B.C., preferred constructive methods, different from the one of the polygonal walls, seems already ascertained. These buildings in fact, seem instead to belong to a culture, to a style and a technique that, as much as we know until now, they don’t seem at all typical Roman, nor of the wide and varied pagan world that has formed in the Mediterranean basin, starting from the end of the Hellenic Middle Eve (that is around the 600 B.C., the epoch of the first written version of the Iliad and of the Odyssey).

Let’s remember that also the Classical Greeks just like the Inca, have built some of their most famous buildings leaning or enclosing the Colossal ruins of the Cyclopean architecture, that we attribute to the Mycenaean civilization. The problem is that such Greek ruins were not considered at all in the same way as they are considered by us, that is like “ruins of the Mycenaean architecture”. This was possible because they didn’t see history like a sequence of cultures and therefore also of building techniques, destined to rise and set along an only and irreversible evolutionary line. Least of all they imagined that just a few centuries before the Persian Wars, it existed on their land something like a “Mycenaean culture” .

On the contrary, as we can well observe also from the reading of Herodotus, the Classical Greeks thought that at that time the world was populated by divine creatures, the Giants of Tracia. So it seems logical that Pausania, an author of the II century B.C., referring to the Walls of Tiro, wrote with the air of who is talking about a completely obvious and verified fact that :


“ the wall, and everything that remains of the ruins of the city, is the work of the Cyclops: it is built with so big stones that a yoke of mules would be incapable of moving even the smallest one of them”.


The content and the tone of these sentences immediately remind us the considerations of Garcilaso De Vega, and above all, the way in which the Inca answered to the questions of the conquistadores regarding the Walls of Sacsaywaman. And from this we can certainly deduct that one of the reason for which as much as in the Pre-Colombian South-America as in the Classical Greece we have decided to build on the ruins of some unexplainable Colossal buildings. Because of the divinities or semi-divinity attributed to their builders, the Cyclopean ruins and the places in which they are situated, were considered sacred, that is near to the Gods. On the other hand, we notice that, apart from the one of Alatri, many important sacred structures of the Lazio where built on the remains of these walls. It is sufficient to think about the well-known Cassino abbey, that leans on it part of its foundations, just like at one time the Roman temple did, and that then the abbey had replaced.




6. In effect, whoever compares the ruins of Mycenaean walls that date back to 1200-1400 B.C. with the buildings that  have leaned on them in later in time, immediately realize like among these structures there is a stylistic discontinuity that seems radical. It’s a bit like what happens in the present days, when we put next to another some restored antique furniture and some modern ones. The aesthetic effect can even be very convincing and harmonious in its way: but it’s an harmony that comes out from a contrast. This is also the case of the polygonal walls that we can admire in Delphi, that when passing through it, we notice that seem like the Walls of Alatri in a very evident way.  

Instead, the typical buildings of the culture that has developed in Greece starting from the sixth-seventh century Before Christ, do not look at all like the ruins on which they have also leaned, as we can clearly see in the below photograph. The uniformity and the perfect symmetry of the colonnades, of the architraves, the walls and the staircases of Classical Greece do not mix well with the radical inhomogeneity of the single components of the Cyclopean walls, where there is not one single piece same to the other and where enormous stones are stuck with relatively smaller ones.

Obviously, no one would dream of denying that such an incorporation has happened in an excellent way, and that it gave rise to an extraordinary aesthetic result. On the contrary, an image like the one below, shows us like the Classical Greeks were able to build their sacred buildings in such a way to seem harmonious with the landscape as well as with the ruins that they used as a foundations. But, anyhow, we cannot help but notice a very clear stylistic discontinuity, that suggests us that the vision of the world of who has imagined these different structures was enormously different. The architectonic symbol doesn’t seem to express the same sentiment of life or, like we sometimes say with a more strictly philosophical term: a same  Weltanschauung.

So, if even a Greek historian would have attributed the ruins of Tiro to the architectonic genius of his time (and maybe he would have also made fun of who attributed them to the Cyclops of Tracia  “in an Enlighten way” ), exactly for this reason a nowadays historian, finding himself even too much at ease in so much old modernity, would have the right to doubt of the news. In fact, the different styles of the construction that serves as a basis to the one that is leaning on it, show a stratification and therefore even a cultural distance. Different ideas concerning the sacred space inevitably correspond to different ideas of life, that in the different architectonic and artistic styles, finds a likewise deep and crucial expression as well as in the ethic, in the religious dogmas or in the metaphysical systems.

The same reasoning applies also to the case that we are dealing with. And even  supposing that Vitruvius’ pass and the tombstone of the Acropolis of the Ferrentino, that are the written documents on which it is essentially based the attribution to the Romans of the Alatri Walls, where have interpreted in an absolute correct way, we would have the right to doubt about their truthfulness. This because no historical source, written or of other kind, can be judged as trustworthy irrespective of its content. And it is not as if who doesn’t agree with the attribution of the Walls of Alatri to the Roman architects, enters a clear conflict with what we know and we can observe regarding the whole of the history and evolution of the Classical pagan architecture in general and Roman in particular. ( Among other things, the Romans where particularly attentive to the technique, where it could be useful for war: we don’t understand why, if they were able to build so imposing fortresses in a relatively short time, they did not apply this technique also in other places than Alatri).



  1. Another particular tradition of the Alatri Walls (even if in this moment not particularly in vogue) is the one that attributes its construction to the Pelasgi, a folk which existence, from the historical point of view, doesn’t seem much credible than the one of the Giants of Tracia. To the Pελασϒοι, referred ancient Greek writers like: Hecataeus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and it seems they were already known to the same Homer. For what we can understand, with this name we refer in a generic way to the inhabitants of the Mycenaean epoch, and they are therefore considered as the local Greek inhabitants. Much more modern historians collocate instead their origins in Anatolia, around the XII century B.C. The Pelasgi are described as people of generally Hittite culture, that then would have moved towards West, finally reaching also Alatri. This attribution, even if historically lacking of any basis seems, despite this, certainly more reasonable than the one that attributes the Walls to the Romans. Nevertheless it consents in some way to make us realize the relationship between the style and the technique that have been used at Alatri and in other sites of the Centre of Italy, aside the ones of the Mycenaean Greece.

According to the most common version, the Pelasgi, moving from Anatolia towards West, could have in this way come in contact with the Mycenaean culture and assimilate its architectonic style, as well as the religious beliefs. Even if we could think that, on the contrary, they have been the Pelasgi to influence the antique folks of Pre-Classical Greece, or that the different cultures have both greatly changed from their reciprocal contact.

But, naturally, with reasoning of this kind we are still in the field of the pure game of hypothesis.

And how little clears our ideas a game of this kind, we can discover it trying to do a short brain experiment. Let’s suppose to call this folk, instead than the “the Pelasgi”, “the X folk”. Moreover, let’s suppose to have to define “X” without the simple and pure attribution of a name[1]. Without this too much convenient means of

[1]. In effect influenced by the very Western idea, that to know something, was sufficient to know their name, some European explorers, had mistaken for names some indigenous expressions that were not it at all. For example, when a Spanish asked to the guide which was the name of the beautiful valley that appeared in front of his eyes, the guide answered “Yucatan”: a phrase that in his language meant “it doesn’t have a name”. Or, when an English asked to the Australian aboriginal what was called that very strange animal with an enormous tail, that seemed to move only jumping, the aboriginal answered “Kan-ga-roo”, a phrase that we can translate more or less as “I don’t know”.


[1]. In effect influenced by the very Western idea, that to know something, was sufficient to know their name, some European explorers, had mistaken for names some indigenous expressions that were not it at all. For example, when a Spanish asked to the guide which was the name of the beautiful valley that appeared in front of his eyes, the guide answered “Yucatan”: a phrase that in his language meant “it doesn’t have a name”. Or, when an English asked to the Australian aboriginal what was called that very strange animal with an enormous tail, that seemed to move only definition, we immediately realize that of these people we don’t know their political-religious institutions, neither their customs and traditions,  nor their practical, technical and scientific knowledges. Moreover, we realize that we also don’t know nothing about the real place of origin of these conquerors or colonizers. Did they really come from Anatolia, or their migration has started even more East? And what do we know about the influences that they could have received, as well as given, in the course of their (slow?) migration towards Anatolia and the centre of Italy?

It is clear that, if we want to achieve some better founded notions about this people, we must use another kind of procedure.



1. This situation of complete obscurity regarding the origins of the Walls of Alatri, has recently found a possibility of progress, in a first place regarding the technique used in the working of the stone. As we have already seen below, observing the joints in the points in which they are still intact, we can barely catch a glimpse of a thin wire that separates the polygonal stones (that can have up to fifteen sides, even if usually there are “only” 8-10). Despite this, we can notice like a line of junction is nearly always rather discontinuous and in certain points nearly incredibly tormented, as we can see clearly in the below photographs (but we could show many others). In particular, the juncture in the right photograph is so thin, that despite the use of the x10 lent, we had to underline its contour with a red line, because otherwise it would not result distinguishable.

A so jagged profile of junction makes absolutely impossible to hypothesize that to elaborate a joint, they have been used machines and tools similar to the cutter and the grinding, machines that today are used respectively for works of high and very high precision (but on materials that are nearly always metals) to obtain flat or cylindrical surfaces accompanied by such a grade of precision similar to the one that we can find at Alatri (that seems to be around the hundredth-thousandth of millilitre, even if in some points it seems, incredibly, even more little).

2. Yet, as we can  clearly enough see from the photographs, also following such complicated lines, the precision of the matching remains the same that we find where it is more regular. In addition to this, we can observe many points of the wall, in which, with every evidence, the upper stone “crosses” the lower one. As jumping, the aboriginal answered “Kan-ga-roo”, a phrase that we can translate more or less as “I don’t know”.

if in some mysterious way it entered a relation with it.

We show some examples in the below photographs, but the curious reader can also go on you Tube and see the videos of Gabriele Venturi on Alatri, and in this way he will discover many other ones ( and also many others can be discovered going in person to visit Alatri and having a look around: something very useful in fact, because never as much as in this case it applies the say “ seeing is believing”)

We have to say that with the photograph it is very difficult to completely express the work of observation made on-site. But anyhow, even this way we can clearly see that in the points indicated by the arrows, we don’t notice any line of junction between the upper stone and the inferior one. This and many other points of the walls therefore lead to an hypothesis that starting from our chemistry results completely unthinkable (at least for the moment): that the stones of Alatri have been formed and collocated at the soft state (or at the liquid state). The paste of the upper stones, meanwhile it was modelled on the shape of the inferior one, finding itself in a perfectly active chemical state, it should have been able to melt the inferior stone, maybe even not yet perfectly solidified, and to melt with it.

This can see in a first place an unexpected discovery or even unsettling. In the final analysis, it results instead an empiric confirmation of an hypothesis that nearly necessarily had to rise from the observation of the conformation of the polygons, and above all from the precision of the couplings.

In hindsight there wasn’t and there isn’t any other possible explanation to the joints that we find at Alatri if not a chemistry before chemistry: a chemistry that reached results that for our one are, at least for the moment, completely unexplainable. Other hypothesis, including the ones that start from the most advanced modelling techniques, for various  reasons,  at the moment result unreliable. Let’s suppose in fact, that our engineers, instead than with stone, had to deal with easily workable materials. Even like this, they would not have available machines able to match irregular or even jagged surfaces in such a way to make them perfectly correspond on a surface that, we must remind, in certain cases it results of various square meters. Concerning the hand working, not even the master of stonemasons masters in one hundred years of work could produce even a single “M” matching like the ones that we have seen in the upper photographs.

Observing the photographs, someone has reacted saying that the stones, after centuries and centuries of reciprocal contact, have “naturally” related to each other. This is an instinctive as much as unfounded reaction. Not been able to accept something scientifically impossible, the human intellect instinctively deviates towards the typical “explanation” of the magical thinking. In this case, we tend to believe that two things become the same one if they are put in intimate contact. This “explanation” seems as much as naïve as unrealistic, spontaneous and inevitable.

Therefore it would be useful to remind that starting from our science of nature we cannot hypothesize that two portions of chemically dead material, like two lime stones at room temperature, can relate to each other being stuck to each other. On the contrary, time inexorably produces the effect of corroding the stone exactly starting from the junctions, that even if well made are obviously the most vulnerable points of the walls, as in effect we can find at Alatri.

3. Extending the archaeological researches from the Walls of Alatri to other similar finds that we can find in the thereabouts, another discovery has been made that can give us indications on a second type of technique that was used on the building of the polygons walls. In fact, it has been found at Arpino, fifty kilometres circa from Alatri – among the still in good conditions finds of a portion of wall recently fallen down – a stone that bares the signs of what certainly seems a megalithic saw. We can see it in the below image.

This traces, that in the photograph are shown only on the point in which they are more clear and deep, in reality go through all the length of the stone.

Practically, there is nearly no doubt that they have been produced by a cutting tool. A geologist, that went on-site to give a scientific opinion, has hinted at the possibility that the incisions could have been caused by the natural erosion processes. But one might think that in this case, the hint to causes of this kind, represents just an elementary professional safeguard. In fact, also at a first sight we notice that:


1) The cuts effect only the central part of the stone, in a point where we notice a certain convexity.


2) This was only one of the internal faces of the polygon, very probably the horizontal inferior one. Despite this, we must think that at least until the moment of the fall, it has been protected from the external agents by the intimate contact with the face of the stone in which it was stuck.


3) The fall of the wall and the complete exposition to the natural agents seems too recent to have  been able to produce so deep incisions according to the so precisely parallel inclination.


4) We must consider that the stone after the fall of the Wall, has taken an oblique position, so that a great fall of water had been pushed in different directions than the one in which these deep incisions have been carved.


5) We don’t understand what kind of natural erosion could have produced a cut like the one that we are able to show in the below blow-up.

Neither water, nor wind, or dust, leave cavities with sharp angles like the one indicated by the arrow in the photograph. On the contrary, these shapes of erosion tend to round the angles that they find.  Eventual chippings caused by the freeze or changes of humidity and of temperatures or of the salinity of the rock are instead able to produce sharp angles.

But we must notice that this kind of erosive agents usually don’t produce so regular effects like the ones that we see in the photograph. In hindsight, it would be really strange if a whatsoever erosive agent would have been able to produce some straight, parallel lines and moreover situated at a nearly homogeneous distance , for a length that is more or less equal to the one of the whole side of the stone.



  1. On the contrary, excluding the accumulating of coincidences and changes so unlike to happen and imagining a megalithic saw at work, it then becomes possible to understand what it could have happened. A straight blade, probably very thin, has been directed back and forth following the direction of the longest side of the block whilst it was pushed downwards along the vertical of the shortest side. At a certain moment, the blade should have crossed a point in which there was a part of the section of the softer rock (formed by the limestone of the amalgamation), and on the other point, the side of some pebbles. For this reason, the blade, following a more easy path, has slightly bended, in such a way that the cut has not resulted perfectly straight. The curving that has come out of it, results rather light, but enough accentuated to leave in the central area that indented cavity that we can see in the photograph.

The artisans, once finished preparing the stone for the joint, have probably realized that it was not possible to adjust the defect caused by the operation of cut without changing the shape, up to the point of making impossible the perfect collimation with the near blocks. An ulterior reduction of its height could maybe compromise the precision of all the other sides.

Therefore they had the choose between three possibilities:



1) Rework the blocks with which the defected one should have go to get stuck, in such a way that the defect could be eliminated without compromising the precision of the joint.


2) Discard the defected block and prepare another one.


3) Accept the presence of the defect because altogether insignificant or anyhow acceptable for the purposes of the overall quality of the wall.


Observing the photograph, it seems evident that the builders have opted for the third possibility, because they must have judged that that defect, in addition to not changing in any way the resistance of the wall to the static forces or to the seismic forces, neither it could make it much permeable to water seepages, given that in the areas  close to the external perimeter, the block perfectly corresponded to the near one. This was sufficient to protect the internal surfaces of the wall from the action of external agents.



  1. The fact that what we find on the stone of Arpino are the traces of a megalithic saw, can be further discussed comparing them with the ones that we can see in the surroundings of Giza, or in the mines of Assuan, or in all the other places where the ancient-Egyptian artisans have left visible traces of the way in which they worked the stone. The slab of the below photograph, that is among the rests of the basalt floor of the Great Pyramid, shows signs of wear that are universally interpreted as a trace of the operation that has been used to cut it. And there is no doubt that they present a completely characteristic similarity with the ones individuated on the stone found at Arpino. A similarity that goes hand in hand with the rhythm with which the saw penetrates in the rock, that is more or less of two millimetres for each “chop”.
  1. What instead results surprisingly similar, is the rapidity with which in both cases, the two megalithic saws penetrated the rock. As already many important specialists of the subject have noticed, the Ancient-Egyptians seemed capable, as much as it could seem incredible to us, to cut a solid rock like basalt at a rhythm of circa two millimetres for each chop of saw.

Going down of infinitesimal fractions of millimetre, like it happens when we try to cut a hard stone with copper blades assisted by emery powder, the traces of the making seem completely different. And we can prove this not through speculations, but through laboratory experiments, repeatable and verifiable. They are the ones with which Christopher Dunn has unquestionably proved that the operation of cut or of probing effectuated with copper and emery, leaves signs that are completely different from the ones of Giza and therefore also from the ones of Arpino.

It’s true that in both cases the quality of the stone is radically different; however we must not forget that in the rather friable limestone of the stone of Arpino, there are included a great quantity of pebbles made of a material that seems certainly much more harder. And this structural discontinuity, makes the operation of cut, at least from certain points of view, rather difficult, because as we have seen, it is very easy for the saw to bend and deviate.



  1. Putting next to the other the stones that we have mentioned, the affinity of the technique and of the results obtained appears even more undeniable

Regarding the basalt of Giza, there is nearly no doubt that no way, not even with the most powerful means currently available, we would be able to repeat the performance. We could instead hope that on a stone of rather inferior quality, like the sandstone of Arpino it would be at least possible try to undergo the challenge. But we must not deceive that it is something obvious, or even easy. The conglomeration of the pebbles that we can see in the photograph above is kept together by a deposit that doesn’t seem particularly resistant. But the saw would gradually meet some materials that seem much more harder, and that in certain cases could reach a hardness comparable to the one of basalt, or even to the one of granite. And at this point, the difficulty of sinking the blade in the stone, would greatly increase, especially thinking that it is about working with a blade that moves forward of two millimetres for each chop for the whole length of the stone, that is approximately a metre long. This way, in certain moments, it would have to  sink through many pebbles at the same time.

Looking carefully at the photograph, we immediately notice that on top of the traces of the blade, that have been left in an exclusively limestone section, there is a group of three pebbles, presumably much more harder than the deposit that has included them. These pebbles occupy a length of circa ten centimetres, but we find other ones along the surface of the block. And it seems really impossible that on a material of that type, a copper blade helped by emery could go back and forth at that rhythm that we can see in the photograph.


Therefore, the cutting technique of Arpino, judging by the marks that has left on the stone, should be related with the one of which nowadays we can still find traces of various type in many Egyptian archaeological sites. And this could be a very important sign of a contact, one very complex and mediated in various ways, between the Ancient Egyptian culture and the one of the Alatri area. This hypothesis is reinforced by a fact that seems a decisive one, this is that also in the limestone of the Great Pyramid have been found signs of a working made at a liquid or a soft state, even if maybe less mandatory than the ones that have been found in Alatri.

In the seventies of the last century, the Physician Klein, together with a team of collaborators, studied 25 samples of the limestone of the Great Pyramid. The result of his studies was made public in 1979, at the second congress of Egyptology of Grenoble. The analysis of the samples, clearly indicated that the stones had a different consistence: like if everyone came from a different quarry. This was a very problematic fact to accept, at least for two reasons. In a first place, because it seems irrational to complicate the organization of the transport using even 25 (!?) quarries, of which at least some of them was far away from Giza. Secondly because it undermined the now common idea that affirms that the limestone used for the building of the Great Pyramid came mostly from the quarry of Tura.

Klein added another much more unsettling fact. The inhomogeneity of the limestone didn’t have to do only with different stones, but it could be found also inside the same stone. In fact, the samples analysed, systematically and clearly showed a major density on one side compared to the opposite one. And this characteristic seemed to be confirmed also by the observation of those stones inside the structure, that have been remained exposed to the erosive action of wind and sand for some century after that the Great Pyramid has been deprived of its covering of very fine limestone. These stones show to have underwent damages that are much more serious in certain parts rather than on others. This is a clear sign of structural inhomogeneity, that anyhow doesn’t seems explainable, starting from the quality of the stone that we can find in the quarries.

As we can clearly see in the below photograph on the left, the upper part of the stone indicated by the arrow, has practically remained unaffected, while the inferior part has been corroded by a depth that seems even of circa half a meter (or more). And the analyses of stones that we can see in the other images, gives rise to very similar remarks, even if the phenomenon can be found  in a much less conspicuous way. Yet the limestone of the quarry of Tura, doesn’t seem particularly inhomogeneous. On the contrary, apparently it seems of rather good quality: therefore it shouldn’t give rise to such visible erosive  discontinuities.

Klein’s results were later on confirmed by Davidovitz’s researches (Davidovitz is chemist of the Geopolimeric Institute of Paris and professor of applied archaeological science in the United States.

On the base of researches carried on in 1974 by technicians of the University of Stanford, he discovered that the limestone of the Great Pyramid contained a quantity of water much superior than normal standards and that this water was distributed in a inhomogeneous way. On one side it resulted much more greater compared to the opposite one, just like the density of the stone detected by Klein. Moreover, analysing the samples of stone, Davidovits found remains of human hair and nails. He thought that the only possible explanation to a fact like this, was that they had fallen in there while the stone was worked at the liquid  or at the pasty state, remaining this way incorporated in them. Here below, we can observe an image where what Davidovitz judged to be a human hair, in fact seems to have been included in the stone.

But even before empirical clues proved this fact in  a way that seems really unquestionable, to suggest us that in Egypt and South-America, in addition to the area of the Mediterranean, the stone could have been worked at the liquid and/or pastry state, is the enormous technical and logistical problems that otherwise we would have to face to build Cyclopean walls. Particularly serious, if not absolutely insuperable, seems the difficulty that arises in the moment of the construction of Polygons with a great number of sides, summed with the one of the jugged coupling profiles and tight tolerances. Already with a centimetre tolerance, building walls like the ones of Alatri would be a very difficult task. To build them with a  degree of tolerance inferior to a hundredth or a thousandth of a millimetre, is an unimaginable challenge. If we analyse with a minimum attention the technical problems connected to the details, we can get an idea of their nearly surreal enormity.



  1. If we linger on Alatri, object of our field surveys, we find that the Walls in their complex, measure, as we have already said, circa four kilometres. Employing rather safe numbers, we can imagine that for each kilometre have been used circa six-thousand stones, for a total of 24000. Considering that each stone has average of 8 sides and an average perimeter of three metres, it would get that for four kilometres of total length of the wall, there would have been realized circa 70 kilometres of joints for a total of circa 200000 sides. Considering that each joint is on average, one metre deep, we would get that the matched surfaces ( we remind it : with a tolerance of the order of the thousandth of a millimetre if not even inferior) would be equal to 70000 square metres. A challenge of this kind, really seems nothing less than a miracle. Who understand high-precision mechanics, or even who has a slight knowledge of it , understands very well why works of this kind have been attributed to Gods, the Giants of Tracia, or the devil.

Yet, official archaeology easily affirms that all this extreme joint work would have been carried on lifting and lowering the blocks one of top of the other, slowly adapting the surfaces until they corresponded in that perfect way that we have seen above. All of this, using stone hammers and copper or at the most bronze chisels. Now, as we can easily understand, to lift and lower some blocks of some tons, is not a problem of easy solution, having available only very backward technologies. However, it is completely clear that we could not lift and lower the blocks using the usual fastenings, like the ones of which we see an example in the below picture.

This could not be done, because obviously the fastenings would prevent the contact between the surfaces of stone, and this in turn would prevent the control of the precision of the joint. Therefore, to make a method like this work, we would have two alternatives:


1) Dig some channels in the stone in such a way that the fastenings don’t disturb the contact between the surfaces.


2) Create the stone in such a way that both in the front and in the back it has some linchpins that extend beyond the length that is needed for the construction of the walls. These linchpins could be used to fix the fastenings and then, once finished the work, could be cut away, leaving at least the front part smooth and clean, as in fact we can see at Alatri (in some points as in the back one, that is the one that looks towards the inside of the walls, we notice instead that there are some rough parts that extend towards a kind of point).


Analysing the stones that have remained uncovered, we don’t find the presence of channels like the ones described in point 1). Therefore, to carry on the theory that the work was carried on with the stone that had to be adapted by continuously been lifted and lowered, the only thing left to do, is to verify the hypothesis of point 2). That is that the stones had some linchpins that extend beyond the length needed, allowing  to fasten them without disturbing the contact between the surfaces to match. We can get a visual idea of this method, observing the sketch here below.

Now, at least concerning the walls of Alatri, this hypothesis could even work quite well, given that the stones weigh maximum 30 tons, but usually they are of much more inferior dimensions and weigh (usually 3 or 4 tons).

Let’s therefore suppose that the stones could be lifted and lowered according to the need of the worker. There still is the problem that, for as long as we know, joints with tolerances like the ones that we can find along the wall (that is of a thousandth of a millimetre or less), even if surfaces where particularly levelled (and they are not) they could have been realized only with very high-precision machineries. In addition to this, the joints should be checked in turn with very high-precision measurement tools. Tools that, to be produced, would obviously need machineries of an even higher level than the ones used to construct the joints.

But these, to be fair, are only plain suppositions. Suppositions that have a very reduced heuristic value, if not less than invalid. We have seen well that the irregularity of the joints, not only makes impossible the use of our very high or low precision machineries, nor even the one of checking tools like square ruler and dial gauge, that work only and exclusively on flat or circular surfaces (anyway regular). Therefore these joints, in addition of being created, should be eye-checked. And here a huge problem seems to rise, given that human eye is not capable to perceive discrepancies of the measure of a hundredth or of a thousandth of a millimetre (or even less) especially on surfaces of two or three square metres. Yet this is what we should do to build joints like the ones that we find at Alatri. In the above images we had a chance to see that even with a x10 lens it is hard to distinguish the line of the coupling. It is completely evident that without having at disposition a more powerful lens than this one, maybe assisted by a laser, the work could not even be imagined. On the other hand, this tools would be useful only to check the joint on its external part. But how can we check the quality of its internal part, sometimes even more than one metre deep, that in every case is completely inaccessible also for these even if refined checking systems?

On a practical level, this means that also the creation of just one of these matchings would require a manual ability that, following Garcilaso De Vega, could be defined with nothing less than diabolic.  This means that in turn, nowadays with our means, also create ten metres of these wall would be completely impossible, even if willing to spend billions of Euro for the task, in addition to, naturally, some years or many some decades years of work.

3. We realize that statements of this kind cannot seem so obvious to the reader who has no direct experience in the high-precision mechanics field. On the contrary, any engineer or even any architect, knowing the problems connected with the fulfilment of matchings inferior to a hundredth of a millimetre on a “grim” material like stone, will think that the reasoning that we have carried on until now is completely pointless and superfluous. Since from the first moment, what we can define as the “technical impossibility” of the Walls of Alatri, would have caught their gaze in an immediate and instinctive way.

Much more immediate and instinctive, it therefore appears the impossibility of walls like the ones of Sacsaywaman or other similar ones that we can find in South-America, where to the difficulties that we have seen at Alatri, we must add:


1) That the stone used is granite, a material enormously much harder than limestone, that results terribly tough also for the most advanced tools that we have nowadays.


2) That the weight of each stone appears on average ten or twenty times superior than the one of the polygons of Alatri, with points that seem to reach the 400 tons, but that on walls like the ones of Sacsaywaman difficulty goes under the 10 or 20 tons, with an average that seems to greatly exceed 50 tons.


To give an idea to the reader of what it means to move a weight of this kind, in the below photograph we show a crane suitable for weights of 200 tons. Notice the height of the man (indicated by the arrow) in relation to the one of the machine and notice that the crane is not moving on an uneven ground, but instead on a ground accurately prepared for this aim

Walls like the ones of Alatri or Sacsaywaman are therefore, at least from the point of view of our science and of our technique  “impossible objects”.

The cyclopean walls that seem to have been discovered in Russia, on Mount Shoria, seem even more impossible; the photographs show us what seem to be some granite megaliths carved in a very fine way. In certain points, these gigantic stones, that in some cases seem to weigh more than 3000 or even 5000 tons, seem to be interlocked with the same mysterious technique as the South-American ones.

In this image the precision of the joint seems really more or less the same, even if we must say that on the global lengths of the presumed wall, the parts that are still well preserved, are only a few.

We can immediately notice the unbelievable dimension of these walls, comparing in the picture on the left, the dimensions of the blocks with that of the person (indicated with a red arrow).

It all seems so disproportionate to the human possibilities, that from the start we have had very comprehensible doubts on the origin of these incredible artefact, that if it really were a human construction, it would lead reality far beyond any kind of imagination.

In effect, at least at first sight, the hypothesis that these walls are the product of a natural phenomenon doesn’t seem particularly well-founded. The granite is one of the most solid and compact stones that can be found on Earth. Usually it doesn’t show cracks or splits, and when it shows them, they are jagged ones.

As long as we know, nobody has ever seen a granite wall that forms an “L” joint in such a perfect way as the one that we see above. Even when it is cracked with a wedge, we notice that the fracture never runs in a perfectly straight way. It is something that we can verify observing this stone that has been abandoned by the Ancient Egyptians in the Assuan caves.

And instead these incredible boulders show a perfect or nearly perfect orthogonal evolution, as we can clearly see in the below photographs.

Anyway, even if it were a natural phenomenon, it would have to be something rather unusual, because until now we have never seen granite cracking in such an orthogonal way, and at the same time in a so “cyclopean” and “human to much human” way. Usually when we observe phenomena of this kind, it is about huge layers placed in such a way that the opposite telluric stresses can crack the stone in a regular way and therefore create the illusion of a pavement fulfilled by human beings (phenomena that for example can be found in the so-called Bosnian pyramids (that in fact seem extraordinary freaks of nature).

But in this case we cannot find the circumstances for a phenomenon of such a kind, given that this Siberian cyclopean wall is a sort of tooth that comes out the earth. This should make it free from vertical tension that act in a symmetrical way. This seems to clearly seen in the panoramic picture that we can see below, that seems even too much explicit.

These walls in fact seem the work of human beings, or, from another point o view, creation of the Gods. But, as it is a very recent discovery, maybe the best thing is to suspend the judgement and wait that deep  geological and archaeological studies  will give us more though-out ideas. The Siberian climate characterized by very violent temperature changes, would  probably make possible phenomena that elsewhere are unimaginable. But, even if it really was a product of nature, this discovery would still be precious, because it gives us a confirmation that our knowledge is limited, and that the world is still able to surprise us with unpredictable events.

Who knows, maybe deep into nature live forces of which our mathematical science still does know nothing of.

But if talking of technical impossibility when facing a project or an hypothesis seems plausible or reasonable, or watching at something that could be attributed to a natural phenomenon, it doesn’t seem plausible and reasonable to talk of it when dealing with finished objects that surely were built by man: because they are there, in front of everyone’s eyes. Therefore their realization is impossible for us. But obviously, who had built them should have available the technology suitable to carry on the work with not greater difficulties than the ones that our artisans, our engineers and our architects encounter when building a skyscraper.

On the other hand, it is completely clear that building walls like the ones of Alatri, brings up some difficulties of a completely different kind compared to the ones that we face when building a skyscraper. Therefore the technique that these people had available must have been different from ours.

Consequently, given the nature of the work and of the clues that we have found, it results logical to conclude, among  other things, that the builders of Alatri must have had available a system to liquefy and/or soften the stone. In this way, the work, far from resulting impossible, could have been even rather simple.

Let’s suppose in fact that the tens or hundredth of tons of granite of each one of the stones of Sacsaywaman could be definitely reduced at the liquid state. Or, brought to such a level of softness able to be transported in ten kilos at the time and modelled on-site. At this point, between a polygon of 4, 5, 10 tons or 100, 200, 400 tons there would be not such a great difference, if that the material could be poured in a mould, let’s suppose that, with some containers carried by hand. The only problem was the one of having a little patience. A bit like it would have happened if that same portion of walls would have been realized assembling a great number of smaller stones, or of bricks.

With this building method we could explain also the jagged yet absolutely precise nature of the profile of the joints. Working the way we do, this seems to us a work worthy of the Devil. But working with a paste it would result banal even to realize those “M” joints that we have seen at the beginning of the third part. All the same, the number of the sides of the polygon, wouldn’t be so surprising. To realise one with 5, 8, 10 or 16 sides would be an equally simple task. Everyone can realize this by trying to build a miniature polygonal wall, using material like Plasticine, like the one that we see in the below photograph.

At Delphi we find polygons that look of such an irregular shape, that it becomes even impossible to define the number of the sides. We can see some examples of them in the below photographs:

So, with a technique like the one that we have just described, also these ones, that until now we would be led to judge as inimitable master-works both in sculpture and architecture, would become a completely ordinary task, even simpler than turning a clay pot.



  1. To make this scene familiar to us, let’s imagine that these walls have been realized with clay. First of all we realize a polygon, and then we make it dry at the sun. Then we realize the next ones, afterwards the above one, and we leave them to dry in turn, and so it goes, until we finish the wall.

It can be that the clay, if it’s very humid, can melt the one of the polygons on which it is spread, especially if it is not still perfectly dried. And this would explain the points of the wall of Alatri that we have seen in this work ( and the others that we have published on YouTube), where the stone made of different elements seems mixed together. This fact would result incomprehensible if it had been worked and mounted when dry, as we have believed until now.

Moreover, this hypothesis gives us a satisfactory confirmation of  the easiness, common to Ancient-Egypt, South-America and Arpino, with which they were able to saw materials like basalt or pink granite, that resulted tough also for our most evolved machines and tools. If this people were really capable of softening the stone in a conspicuous way, then also with copper saws lacking of whatsoever reinforcement would have been possible to penetrate it at the rhythm of two millimetres for each stroke. And this would explain also certain signs that we find at Assuan, in which it seems that the stone has been worked in a similar way of the one of a spatula on clay. Some signs that are very common also to some stones that have been found at Puma Punku, an archaeological site near Tiahuanaco. Another clue that reinforces the hypothesis of a tie between the Ancient-Egyptian culture and the one of the pre-Colombian South-America can be seen in the below picture pictures (the pictures in black and white represent the stones found in the area of Tiahuanaco).

Sign of this kind can obviously not be found in the modern stone caves, given that the tools that we use to extract, proceed by removing chips of material. It is therefore obvious that they leave on the worked stones the signs of a chipping. But in no one of these photographs we find clues that the material has been chipped.  So, in case we want to obtain grooves of this kind, we could in  no way hope to obtain them as traces of casual working, but we should instead expressly sculpture them, like we do each time that we want to obtain any shape. Neither this traces of working, could have been left by dolerite hammers, that usually have a round or semi-round shape. Even the one represented in the photograph, that has a bit unusual shape, and it also slightly bigger than the average, could not obtain channels like the ones that we can see in the above photographs, particularly in the case of the south-American stones (unless that the chisel in question is a wizard, this means a close relative of the devil, as Garcilaso De Vega would have said). We decided to put two photographs next to each other so that we can have a clear idea of the challenge that we should face with such not suitable means.

The angle that we find at the end of the foxhole dug in the pink granite of Assuan is so sharp that to realize it, the Ancient-Egyptian artisans should have started working using the round or semi-round  grinding hammer, and then a trimming chisel (still in stone, because let’s remember that neither copper nor bronze are able to cut into granite). But with what aim? This is completely senseless. Considering that these signs of making have been found also on the famous incomplete obelisk, it is impossible to imagine that they have been realized to obtain a decoration, given that the surface of the obelisk, once finished, would have resulted clean and/or presumably covered by hieroglyphics. Therefore these grooves could be only casual signs of making, that show us in a way that seems unquestionable, that this stone has been worked at a pasty state.

Official Egyptology objects to these completely obvious information that actually a great number of dolerite hammers have been found in the Aussan caves as well as in other places where the Ancient-Egyptians have been working the stone. If we have used tools of another kind, why have these tools been brought into the caves? An answer that comes spontaneously to us, is that these hammers could have been part of a ritual, in which some tools that where considered sacred  because very ancient and part of a venerated tradition, where offered. Let’s make an example that makes the matter understandable to a modern mind: to nearly everyone (in Italy) it has happened to notice that the Carabinieri (or other similar police forces in other parts of Europe) during the official events, carry swords: but this doesn’t mean that the sword is actually been used during the ordinary duty. It is the symbol of a tradition to which nowadays we refer to as cornerstone of the ethic and civil ideals of the police/military forces, not as a weapon that nowadays is useful for anything.

The fact is that our culture and our science are already completely soaked in a laical extremism.

This makes us forget in a systematic way a great number of completely obvious  historical and archaeological data: the most obvious one of all is that in Ancient-Egypt the stone buildings had an exclusively sacred meaning. Consequently it is supposable that everything that had to do with it was in turn considered sacred. Starting from the raw material (the stone), including the places where it was extracted, lastly the technique with which it was extracted and worked. Hence, we would not have to be surprised if in a cave like the one of Assuan, were celebrated rituals in which traditional tools had an essential role.

Well, it’s true: if we start from the actual state of our physics and our chemistry,  the hypothesis that in ancient times the stone was worked at the liquid or pasty state looks like science-fiction. On the other hand, still in 1930 atomic energy and its possible civil and military uses would have looked as science-fiction to everyone, maybe even to those expert of atomic-physics  who were just about to discover it. This has not prevent the fact that only some years afterwards, atomic energy was being discovered  and that in 1945 it has been used to raze Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of this so ancient form of energy, but so absolutely new for us, if not completely revolutionary, we have found a first theoretic proof and we have exposed it in The Snefru Code part 3 and part 7.

Therefore we advise the reader who wants to have a clearer idea of the subject, to read these two parts.   Here, we can see very briefly that our hypothesis is based on the discovery that the mass and the common radius of proton and electron are inversely opposite:  the ratio in fact is  1/1836.

Therefore we can hypothesize in an heuristic way that the mass is inversely proportional to the space occupied by the electric charge. From this we can maybe deduce that the mass (and so the gravitational field expressed by the mass) is nothing more than concentrated magnetic energy.

So in an hypothetic way, if we would be able to concentrate the electron’s energy in a radius equivalent to the one of the proton, we could enhance its mass in a proportional way. On the contrary, expanding the space occupied by the proton’s electric charge, we would reduce its mass (and its weight) to a value similar to the one of the electron, this is 1836 times its normal radius. In this way a large rock like the Moon stone of Baalbek, of the weight of circa 1200 tons, would get to weigh 1200 : 1836 = 0,653 tons. The 5000 tons of the Mount of Shoria would become 5000 : 1836 = 2,72 tons, this means a weight that could be easily moved.

And this could be the way in which in ancient times they managed to move those granite blocks that to us seem monstrous and that in present we wouldn’t be able to move not even using our most evolved technique. Moreover it’s possible that this operation could create a chemical-magnetic imbalance that would reduce very hard materials into a pastry state. This would explain the extraordinary easiness with which people like Ancient Egyptians were able to work stones like diorites with the same efficiency as the one used by us while working plastic and aluminium. 

In this moment, it also seems  very important to underline that the theoretical  bases of a task such the one of reducing stone at a liquid or pastry state, have been crypt in the ancient sacred Egyptian architecture, because this fact creates the premises to establish a close cultural bond with a temple like the one of Alatri . A bond of which, on the geometrical level, we find clues of in the below images.

Around 1950 Ludwig Wittgenstein, in one of its most famous works, “About the certainty”, brought as an example of frenzied science-fiction a man that believed to have been or to be able to reach the Moon, because according to him this belief was radically in contrast with our scientific knowledges and with common sense. Less than twenty years afterwards, the first men have landed on the Moon, and after fifty we are thinking on how make them reach Mars.



  1. When dealing with master-works like the one of Alatri, we still are in a similar position of the one of Leonardo da Vinci, if we imagine him facing an ordinary and usual plastic basin: a commonplace object for us[1], but that for him it would have possessed some very strange and enigmatic features. He would obviously understand its possible uses in a generic way, and its shape would be familiar to him. But he would be completely perplexed regarding the type of material and the method used to model it.

Plastic seems translucent, but he would have straight away realized that it is not glass. Unlike glass, once it has been shaped it cannot be easily recycled to produce objects of different shape. Therefore, if Leonardo would have put a flame next to it, he would have seen it burn, but he would have not been able to melt it. Even in the case in which plastic would have been of that type that when slightly heated, softens, probably he would have not been able to give it a much different shape than the one that spontaneously tends to assume when heated.

Therefore, it is very likely that Leonardo da Vinci, even with all his genius, would have not been able to understand how we could actually have been able to create a plastic basin. Probably it would have been impossible to him also to guess the direction in which he had to direct his hypothesis to start the path that could lead a man of his time to comprehend of what it is made and how it is possible to create an object of that kind.

Considering his intellectual tendencies, maybe Leonardo would have not commented his cultural setback with the words of Garcilaso De Vega, and he would not have resorted to diabolic skills to explain the strange fact. But we must imagine that he would surely have  been very much perplexed.

We are likewise perplexed  when facing artefacts that belong to a cultural and scientific world that, at least until this moment, seems nearly wholly unknown and incomprehensible to us.



  1. To get an idea of the distance, not only and not so much technical and scientific, but also and especially of the spiritual one that separates us from the people like the ones of Alatri, we can move in one of the most amazing archaeological sites of the world. One of them in which the so-called reason and the so-called common sense are so much attacked, that at least for the moment, our only way to defend us is trough making it banal or better being completely indifferent to it.

The site of which we are talking about is the one of Nabta Playa, that it should certainly be placed in what we can define the prehistory of Ancient-Egypt, given that Carbon 14 establishes its attendance between

[1] Let’s notice that though its banality, doesn’t preclude the fact that only a few among its users have even the slightest idea of how in effect it is built, which technologies and which sciences and what kind of industrial organization are needed to produce it. If then we analyse mobile phones, including the one on offer at twenty Euro, the situation becomes inscrutable to everyone, except maybe for a few experts, that we can bet on it, even if having clear ideas on the subject, are not able to reconstruct every passage of its operation and of its production. These are already so complex notions that a single person can possess them no more: it is the system in its complex that possesses them. And the system is the entity that at the same time is the most abstract and real that we can imagine. Abstract because it seems incomprehensible. Real because it produces everything that we need without any one understanding on how it manages to do it.


[1] Let’s notice that though its banality, doesn’t preclude the fact that only a few among its users have even the slightest idea of how in effect it is built, which technologies and which sciences and what kind of industrial organization are needed to produce it. If then we analyse mobile phones, including the one on offer at twenty Euro, the situation becomes inscrutable to everyone, except maybe for a few experts, that we can bet on it, even if having clear ideas on the subject, are not able to reconstruct every passage of its operation and of its production. These are already so complex notions that a single person can possess them no more: it is the system in its complex that possesses them. And the system is the entity that at the same time is the most abstract and real that we can imagine. Abstract because it seems incomprehensible. Real because it produces everything that we need without any one understanding on how it manages to do it.

5000 and 7000 B.C. On the strictly architectonic level, all that we can see now, is a megalithic circle of rather small dimensions and a complex of alignments realized with stones that seem to have been worked in a very rough way (but we must think that they underwent a very serious corrosion, and therefore it is not easy to imagine which was its original quality of  elaboration). We can observe what it is left of them in the below photograph


In comparison to it, a site like Stonehenge seems to us enormously much more refined and “advanced”, if for no other reason than  its enormously superior weight to the one of the stones used and of their disposition in trilithons, that obviously results much more difficult than the simple menhir of Nabta Playa.

Though this, the site has some geometrical characteristics that are even more extraordinary.

Regarding  the relation with the golden number, we have already deeply analysed some of these problems in  The Snefru Code part. 5. But later one this structure seemed to have also a relation with the constant of Euler “e”, equal to   2,71828.. In fact, the angle formed between the North-South axis and the one of the summer solstice is included between the 69 and 70°. But the angle with tangent equal to “e” is in fact 69°,8024.. and, furthermore, if we divide the half of the round angle by 69°,8024.. we obtain a good approximation of its golden ratio


 √(180° : 69°,8024..) = 1,605835.. ≈ ɸ = 1,618033988..


Moreover both in The Snefru Code part 5 and part 7 we had seen the not least evident connections between the base angle of the Red Pyramid and the inclination of the Circle of Nabta Playa, which sum is  90°. In this way the two angles are reciprocal on the 90°, as we can see in the below image.



So, the base angle of the Circle of Nabta Playa in relation to the North-South axis, equal to circa 46°,50 , has a tangent practically equal to  1,054571, that is to the value of “cut h” ( the symbol is  “ħ”, a variation of the Plank constant , whose discovery is at the basis of quantum mechanics).The circle formed by physics, astronomy and geometry (at least regarding the ancient concept of it) closes in the moment in which we discover that this same angle has a sine equal to  0,7256. This number, multiplied by 100 gives us the duration in solar years of a Precessional Day, and differs of less than a thousandth from the measure of the hypotenuse of a right-angle triangle whose sides are equal to   1/ɸ e 1/ɸ² (let’s remember than when passing at  Giza Orion reaches a minimum declination that measures around the  8°,5: e 8°,523 it is the reciprocal angle on the 90° of the one of  81°,476, whose tangent is equal to the gravitational constant             G = 6,67428 (8°,59  is the reciprocal angle to the one of  81°417, whose tangent is equal  h = 6,626: in Giza the minimum angle reached by Orion could express one of these two constants or maybe, at least from the point of view of the numerological approximation, the two of them).

But, remaining in Nabta Playa, the surprises obviously are not missing when from the merely geometrical level we pass to the astronomic one. Studying the alignments of the stones of the circle, we have found evidences that:


1) its builders had some rather refined knowledges concerning the motions of the daytime sky and the cardinal point, given that the megalithic circle is oriented with good precision on the North-South axis and that has an unquestionable alignment with the summer solstice.


2) This knowledges extended also to the nocturnal sky, given that the megalithic circle, includes what we can define a stellar map that shows the positions of the stars of Orion’s belt and shoulders, respectively around 4900 and 18000 BC (on this point see the Snefru Code part 6) that at Nabta Playa, respectively are the maximum and minimum height reached by Orion at the horizon during a precessional semi-circle (on this point see The Snefru Code part 5).



7.  This last happening results already on its own completely incredible for official archaeology, given that we now believe and teach that the first to discover the phenomenon of precession has been the Greek astronomer Ipparco in the second century before Christ. Yet, this still doesn’t answer to all the astronomical “wonders” of the site. In fact, in the same area, where the circle is situated they have been individuated some alignments with menhir, on distances of a km circa, in which for the same six stars of Orion’s belt and shoulders, we individuate the moment of the heliacal-rise at the spring equinox – with dates that are distant between themselves more than 1500 years. We can have a visual idea of what it is about, looking at the below photographs.

One of the oddities of these alignments is that they are organized in a way that seems untidy and  lacking of any aesthetic meaning. The menhir are placed in the various directions in front of the one that works as viewfinder (the one that in the above pictures is in forefront) and furthermore they are placed at rather different distances, giving at a first sight, the impression of even having been put there in a casual order. In effect, if we observe the map of the alignments (following image) the first impression seems to be no other one than this.



Brophy, author of the discovery of the connection between the megalithic site and the stars of Orion’s belt and shoulders, was particularly surprised by this characteristic, and he questioned himself for a long time on what could be the reason of this ostensible disorder. At first, he asked himself if the different distances could have been put in relation with the different brightness degree of each star. But he soon realized that the sums didn’t add up, and that therefore the reason couldn’t be this one. So, nearly as if just for fun, he checked if by any chance they could be related with the different relative distances between the stars and the Earth.

Considering 0,799 metres lengths as a light year, the alignments that is directed towards Bellatrix has  a result equal to  318 x 0,799 = 254 light years. We actually measure this distance in 250 light years. Supposing that our measurement is the exact one, we find that the Ancient-Egyptian astronomers would have made a mistake inferior to the 2%. In the case of Beltegeuse the mistake is inferior than  0,25%

Probably there are no suitable words to express the astonishment that rises when finding out that  in these stones  aligned 7500 or even 9000 years ago are inscribed notions of such a kind of refinement. It is sufficient to say that in modern West we have been able to measure the distance of the stars from Earth only in recent times, using tools that at the beginning of the twentieth century probably would have been judged as science-fiction. Yet, these people, knowing the same things that we know, considered the Orion stars as divinities, to which provide a cult full of fear and trembling: the same stars that for us are only casual gas clusters that burn at hundred of million degrees, dispersing themselves at an imaginable speed in the cosmic void.

We obviously don’t know what it was and how it sounded the name of the divinities that we used to see in Orion at the time of the construction of Nabta Playa. But from written documents, we know that circa three millenniums afterwards that same constellation was going to be called Osiris, that the Pharaoh would have been considered his Son Horus, that with his death would have transfigured in his Father.



  1. The fact that the religious beliefs of these people – that we judge without any hesitation as superstitions – did not prevent them to know the Cosmos through mathematical-quantitative laws similar to the ones that we have, gives rise to very remarkable thoughts. This fact shows us that the notion of the sacred has nothing to do with knowing or denying the physical structure of the object that are considered divine symbols. Today, there are some catholic physicians that, even knowing perfectly the structure of the matter that constitutes an host, considerer it at the same time and without the smallest sense of contradiction a transfiguration of Christ’s Body. Similarly, at Nabta Playa, we find people that, even knowing perfectly the structure of the Cosmos and the nature of the stars, considered them not less than the body of their Gods.

In The Snefru Code part. 4 we have seen that the Circle of Nabta Playa, despite its apparent roughness, seems to have been codified in that same diagram of space-time in which they have been codified the sacred-Egyptian art and architecture of the dynastic period.

Later on, in The Snefru Code part. 7, we have seen that the angles created by the typical orientations of this structure are able to individuate the crucial points of two atomic diagrams, drawn in the last century. It’s best if we look again at these images that will help us to carry on our reasoning.

Maybe, observing these images, someone could have thought that the systems of coincidences between these diagrams and the Circle of Nabta Playa, could be due to a mere chance. But how can we continue to think something of this kind when we know that these persons were able to measure even the distance of the stars from Earth (we must remember that we have reached this kind of astronomical notion only circa seventy years after the time in which Bohr drawn the first diagram of the hydrogen atom)?

On the contrary, in The Snefru Code part 7, following the logical thought instructed by the structural coincidences between the sacred Ancient-Egypt space and our atomic and gravitational diagrams, we came to the point of hypothesizing that these people had to be in possess of that theory of the unified fields that in modern West we are still gropingly searching. And, in effect, overlapping the “golden” diagram of space-time elaborated by Fappalà with the one of the hydrogen atom elaborated by Bohr, we had seen that these diagrams seemed to have some points of structural contact that until know nobody dared to imagine. And again, it would be useful to freshen up our memory and see again these geometrical relations that could allude to much important relations of physical type. To the ones that we have seen in The Snefru Code part. 7, we added another one, that concerns the radium atom, that seems to confirm the hypothesis that we have made starting from the others.

It is interesting to notice that in the case of the radius atom (above image on the right) moving the diagram of space-time in different points of the one of the atom, we see again the recreation of systems of intersection. This seems another proof that the golden space in which Fappalà has managed to describe the Einsteinian space-time could be able to define also that quantum space in which the electrons move around the nucleus. Let’s notice also how the radius diagram seems able to define some important geometrical characteristics  of the Red Pyramid. Just like, in The Snefru Code part. 7, we had seen that the diagram of the hydrogen atom was capable to do with the Great Pyramid.


Now, if these people were really in possess of a so advanced physical theory, we must not be very much  surprised  if in turn  they possessed some advanced chemical knowledges. Knowledges that made possible a task that for us is unthinkable: that transformation of the cold  stone from liquid state to pasty state of which we have seen unquestionable traces in the walls of Alatri.

Of course, here, we don’t want to affirm that, because of the traces of a megalithic saw and of the stone working at the pasty state that we have found at Alatri and Arpino, the culture of Alatri should be immediately associated with the Ancient-Egypt one. In effect, at Alatri we don’t have proofs of an astronomical science comparable to the one that we can find on the Nile’s shores. On the other hand, we can’t neither deny that at least in some point, the kinship is unquestionable just as much as the differences. Like the Ancient Egyptians, the inhabitants of Alatri, are certainly to be counted among the so-called “people of the Sun”. People that, in contrast with what is affirmed by the evolutionary theory, where in possess of very advanced scientific knowledges. Traces of a technique of stone working of which human beings, since many centuries,  have lost any memory.


Gabriele Venturi