Egyptian Dawn: Exposing the Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt has a bold title, and (several) bold theses. What this latest work by the heterodoxical academic and mystery solver Robert Temple puts down to the public is a picture of Ancient Egypt that attempts to challenge long-held conventional views of its history.
The Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt
The book begins with a problem on the Giza plateau, on which Temple spends much time throughout. He prefers to date the ‘Osiris Shaft’ and its sarcophagi much earlier than commonly thought (it is dated usually to the late, Saitic period), to as early as the Fourth Dynasty, and Middle Kingdom. The connection he makes with the pyramids, which form the next chapter, is purely geographical, as he provides yet another series of giant question marks over the identity and nature of these enigmatic structures. Temple sees many weaknesses in traditional dating to the Fourth Dynasty, and suggests their contruction in a time centuries before. The pyramids, yet again, seem up for wider and deeper scrutiny.
Most of the work (4-8) deals broadly with the problem of early dynastic Egyptian history in the Old Kingdom, and before that. Temple, from a quotation in Herodotus tries to find the tombs of the traditional pyramids builders, Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure, elsewhere on the Giza plateau, while he also challenges common thinking on Old Kingdom chronology. He highlights serious problems in the evidence for chronology, and attempts to re-date the Valley and Sphinx Temples, and the tomb of Khasekhemui of the Third Dynasty.
All of these discussions question the identity of the early kings, with whom he believes some connection is to be made with an ancient megalithic culture which left marks of its existence across North Africa, Spain, England, and even allegedly in Armenia. These he names tentatively the Libyans, but does point out the uniqueness of the Badarian civilisation in Egypt. Temple is probably right to emphasise the problematic nature of early Egyptian history, but maybe overdoes it when he tries to posit an origin for these. The possibility of an early, highly advanced culture (about which much has been written, and often centering around Atlantis, which Temple claims he can hereby explain) being responsible for the technological advances in early Egypt, and even the Giza pyramids, is nonetheless creative, and worth a read.
Controversial statements on Egypt and Egyptologists
An aspect of this book which certainly will endear it to general readers, but which may prove problematic for specialists, is Temple’s journalistic style. Often he seems to deviate from the point at hand, and relates fascinating, if at best tangential stories of his fiery encounters with Zahi Hawass (the now retired ex-Egyptian Minister of Antiquities), stingy and troublesome archaeological attendants, and even long expostulations on the narrow mindedness of modern academia. Much of this work, one feels, has been written to combat exactly the perceived ‘Big Lie’ by which he titles the first chapter. Academia is a close-minded, self-motivated industry that has made serious presumptions about foundational aspects of Egyptian civilisation.
The academic may respond with an attack on Temple’s methodology. A specialist may easily criticise Temple’s similarly presumptuous statements on the forgeries of Howard Vyse in the Great Pyramid (which are crucial evidence for dating it), or the absolute conviction he has that the Pillars of Antaeus mentioned in classical literature refers to the megalithic site of M’Zorah. Often his ‘rhetoric of conviction’ might quickly deceive the credulous non-specialist. Temple in this book makes certain propositions about the Libyan origins of Egypt in the last chapter based on the extensive evidence from classical authors which may come across as an instance of selective presentation - perhaps appearing authoritative in its breadth, but actually the fruits of a careful search for the pieces that fit his hypothesis.
A book significant to both specialists and laymen
On the whole, however, it would be simply ad hominem to focus on the book’s methodological shortcomings, and forget about the very serious and big questions that Temple does present. Perhaps he has taken certain leaps of faith in coming to his conclusions, but there are still glaring problems that he has raised, which Egyptology must now answer. He raises very steeply the identity of the builders of the pyramids, and maybe even makes a case for Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure (to whom they are attributed) to have been buried elsewhere. The broader issue of Egyptian origins, highlighted by the serious holes in early dynastic chronology brought about by the evidence, and the drastic transition in technology between the second and third dynasties, are questions that Egyptologists themselves still have not been able to answer.
The evidence is there, and Temple has explored it all. It is at times unsystematic in its flow and progression from theme to theme, with seemingly unrelated issues following on after each other; but these are faults of style, and not of substance. Temple has brought to light fundamental questions of human civilisation, and in his errors alerts us to the incredibly multidisciplinary effort – the work of Egyptologists, historians of science like Temple himself, scientists, textual critics, classicists, anthropologists will need to be united to fully understand early Egypt. If this work comes across as patchy, incomplete or at times desperate it is only because Temple, polymath as he may be, is dealing with a topic that is beyond the control of a single man. Yet it is through works like this that the study of human society and history, one hopes, may progress to new enlightenment.
Marcus Chin - I write about various things, and in the main out of that simple human emotion - interest and, correspondingly, passion. Knowledge stems ...
Join the Conversation