The Pyramid (Re)Genesis Plan

[Scott Creighton]

Wrong as the first pyramid was built for Djoser whose dating, per the same article is given as 2691 to 2625 with a median date of 2658.

SC: You're a card - really, you are! I say ca.(circa) i.e. around 2,630 BCE and you feel you still have to correct me by 28 years which is still only an AVERAGE. Get a life.

CMA: One of the more assinine statements made by Hawass. And you believe it? That's sad.

SC: How so very typical. As soon as 'one of your own' says something that disagrees with your cherished paradigm he is immediately disowned and banished to fringeland.

So sad.

So pathetic.

So downright predictable.

It never actually crosses your mind that there might actually have been a reason why Hawass said what he said - because, unlike you and others on this forum, Hawass saw the writing on the wall for this particular science. It never crossed your mind that Hawass said what he said (and was very clear and specific in what he said, offering what he believed were better scientific dating methods) because he was perhaps hedging his bets? No, that never crossed your mind at all, did it?. You just blithely accept and believe everything you are told and only challenge anyone who challenges what you want to believe.

CMA: But I understand why since if you can bastardize Ancient Egyptian history and the science in support of it then maybe the gullible will believe you know what you're talking about.

SC: Alas, Cormac old chum, the bastardization of Ancient Egyptian history has been done by mainstream Egyptology and its coterie of sycophant apologists for the past 150 years. I don't expect you will see it that way - probably not ever - because you are simply too set in your ways.

The evidence, however, supports the RVT far better than it ever will support the tomb theory. I know you won't accept that either since you are obviously perfectly satisfied to accept a theory that has no real evidence to support it. Your choice....

Best wishes,

SC

Edited May 9, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

I don't have a lot of time to post today so I'm just popping in, and I noticed your refutation of the carbon dating. Beware the things said by Zahi Hawass. Stick only to his written material in the professional literature, where he's solid. No Egyptologist or archaeologist would agree with Hawass's statement on carbon dating, and I think you yourself know it's grossly incorrect.

SC: I know nothing of the sort and do not presume to know my mind. Hawass was very clear and very precise in what he said, so much so - in fact - that he even went on to describe his preferred dating methods. Doesn't it occur to you that Hawass is perhaps distancing himself from a sicence that he himself knows to be fatally flawed? And Hawass is not the only scientist/researcher who believes this to be the case. Here are a few examples of some others (and believe me - there are many, many more examples I can quote. This is jusr a few):

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. … No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.” - Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon, Ages in Error”, (Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981), 9, 29.

“…when a radiocarbon date agrees with the expectations of the excavator it appears in the main text of the site report; if it is slightly discrepant it is relegated to a footnote; if it seriously conflicts it is left out altogether.” - Peter James, Dr I. J. Thorpe, Dr Nikos Kokkinos, Dr Robert Morkot and John Frankish, Centuries of Darkness, (London: Jonathan Cape, 1991)

‘I’ve used carbon-14 dating… frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they’ve already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, “Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.” But if it doesn’t agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that’s the end of it. It’s only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) NEVER date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it [C14 date] if it agrees with their conclusions.’ - David Down, Archaeologist

“Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past. We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying," which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio). And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." - Dr Walt Brown, In the Beginning, (2001), 176.

SC: Hawass said what he said because Hawass probably sees the writing on the wall for this 'science'.

KS: Carbon dating is extensively used in archaeology and is highly reliable, especially at the level of precision it's reached today.

SC: There are countless scientists who would disagree with your statement. See the few examples I quoted above. There are countless others.

KS: It's a fundamental tool in archaeology, and what Hawass's bizarre comment doesn't include is the fact that he's used it extensively in his own excavation analyses.

SC: Hawass is promoting other methods over C14-dating because he wants to distance himself from that particular technique. Why? Because Hawass, unlike you, is more likely to know and understand the flaws and trustworthiness of such a 'science'. Hawass, unlike you, knows just how many C14 dates have came back that are 'erroneous' and disagree with other dating techniques. Why else would he make such a comment?

KS: With all the work you've put into your paper, Scott, I find myself incredulous that you would believe such a statement. I have to think you're quote-mining, for some reason. It's not a healthy thing to ignore basic science.

KS: And neither is it healthy to ignore those who seriously question that science and who are pointing out its glaring problems. If you want to do that then that's fine - for you. I personally like to consider ALL views before accepting something as valid or otherwise.

KS: The paper cormac cited is rock solid. I'd also suggest Bonani et all from 2001, whose report summarizes the extensive carbon-dating tests conducted on numerous Old and Middle Kingdom monuments, including those at Giza.

SC: Which are as likely to have questionable results as any other given the 'precarious' nature of this particular 'science'.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited May 9, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

SC: You're a card - really, you are! I say ca.(circa) i.e. around 2,630 BCE and you feel you still have to correct me by 28 years which is still only an AVERAGE. Get a life.

You haven't shown that 2630 BC is remotely relevant to the discussion. BTW, I have a life and it DOESN'T include having my own subforum in order to make things up for the intellectually stunted. That's your job.

SC: How so very typical. As soon as 'one of your own' says something that disagrees with your cherished paradigm he is immediately disowned and banished to fringeland.

He's not "one of my own". Nor is it the first idiotic thing he's ever said. And I doubt it will be the last.

And to add, from the same article Salima Ikram, professor of Egyptology at AUC, says:

“They fit well with the archeological evidence that we already have,” she said. “Of course, ten years from now, there might be an improvement in carbon-14 dating, and the current crop of dates will have to be revised. Hard science is helpful, but should always be contextualized and tested against other data."

So he's not exactly speaking for everyone.

SC: Alas, Cormac old chum, the bastardization of Ancient Egyptian history has been done by mainstream Egyptology and its coterie of sycophant apologists for the past 150 years. I don't expect you will see it that way - probably not ever - because you are simply too set in your ways.

Sorry, but I see you for exactly what you are. A BS-artist. And you're not even good at it IMO.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

Sorry, but I see you for exactly what you are. A BS-artist. And you're not even good at it IMO.

SC: Oh deary, deary. There go the toys out the pram.

Very best wishes,

SC

PS - Thanks for the Ikram quote. I'll use that one.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

While I appreciate the Ancient Egyptians considered the South a 'positive direction', and may have based their opinion of the 'positivity' of other cardinal directions on facing this way, none of the citiations you posted grant any credence to the view of 'South' as 'Up'.

....Orienting themselves in their land from the direction of the Nile River's flow, the "top of the map" for the ancient Egyptian world view began from the south...

- (Frankfort, Frankfort et al. 1977 <1946>: 43; Hannig 2000: 914a, 633a and 633b, respectively). (Griffis 2002: 13-16) (emphasis mine)

SC: In my book "top" equates to "up". Top (up) was their south.

Leo: You have made this view of south=up relevant to your theory by suggesting this is the reason the ground plan of the Giza pyramids appears to be (loosely) based on an inverted Orion asterism. In the evidence you provide, there is no verification of this view. It might give a hint of possibility, but that does nothing to provide credibility for your theory.

SC: See above.

You were saying?

Best wishes,

SC

Edited May 9, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

You are correct. You're under no obligation. Still, you're the one who brought this debate to us, so if someone presents a counterargument and wishes a reply, you should at least feel obligated to address the comment. Otherwise, why the hell are you here?

SC: I didn't bring a debate to you. I put a paper up in the OP that posters here thought they could just kick around. I tend to kick back. I'm sure you've noticed.

KS: Scott, I think you can appreciate the importance of citing evidence germane to the time period in question. You're all over the map (pun intended).

The first image is quite recognizable. It comes from the cenotaph tomb (TT353) of Senenmut at Deir el Bahri, and dates to around 1470 BCE. This is over a thousand years after the construction of the monuments at Giza. This is the oldest-known star map or astrological representation in pharaonic Egypt. It represents the southern and northern regions of the night sky and was painted as a ritual seasonal map—it has nothing to do with building activities.

SC: That's not why I posted them. The comment made by 'Questionmark' was:

QM: And, we don't know about a single Egyptian representation that contains Orion.(Emphasis mine)

SC: I posted those images to show that his comment above was quite wrong. There is more than a single Egyptian representation that contains Orion. And if you want a representation from the 4th dynasty, simply take a look at Giza. It's pretty unmistakable.

[snip]

KS: So while the two images might contain a representation of Orion, this does not imply relevance to the people and events of Dynasty 4.

SC: But nevertheless - the people of the 4th dynasty simply had to look up of a winter's evening and Orion is right there in front of them.

KS: Short of presenting rock-solid evidence for Orion or cultic practices tied to it in Dynasty 4, your theme does not survive scrutiny.

SC: Why is everything reduced to religion and cultic practices with you? The Giza-Orion concordance we find in the layout of the Giza pyramids is about TIME and NOT about religion.

Best wishes,

SC:

[Sensible Logic]

SC: I am under no obligation to answer posts - yours or anyone else's.

Absolutely correct. If I may ask, if you didn't want discussion why post onj a discussion board and not just in a blog?

[Scott Creighton]

Absolutely correct. If I may ask, if you didn't want discussion why post onj a discussion board and not just in a blog?

SC: I posted an article I thought some readers here might find interesting. Don't blame me if people start asking questions about it and I decide to answer them (or not, as the case may be). I have posted other items on this site which I think the UM community might find interesting or useful and which I don't necessarily wish to get into a discussion about like e.g. my recent thread with the link to the Giza Virtual Tour.

If I want to discuss, I will. But I am not obligated to. Don't you understand the difference?

Best wishes,

SC

PS - I will be coming back to your earlier post tomorrow.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

SC: Oh deary, deary. There go the toys out the pram.

Very best wishes,

SC

PS - Thanks for the Ikram quote. I'll use that one.

Considering that she's saying the current revised radiocarbon dates per Ramsey's team "fit well with the archeological evidence that we already have" it should be interesting to see how you twist those words to say something they don't. But then, I'd expect no less from you.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

SC: I know nothing of the sort and do not presume to know my mind. Hawass was very clear and very precise in what he said, so much so - in fact - that he even went on to describe his preferred dating methods. Doesn't it occur to you that Hawass is perhaps distancing himself from a sicence that he himself knows to be fatally flawed?

Are you not aware of the absurdity of Hawass's statement? Let's review it here, as quoted from your Post 42:

"

Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarchaeology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary."

- Zahi Hawaass

Geoarchaeology is generally not a means of dating organic materials. DNA is not a dating method. Laser scanning is not a dating method. Forms of laser analysis are involved in some dating techniques, as I understand it, but you're clinging to one of the most absurd statements Hawass ever made. In stating "we consider" Hawass is in fact not speaking for all archaeologists but for a scant and perhaps misinformed minority.

You should also understand that Hawass has not been a real archaeologist, nor really a researcher, for many years now. He spent the last half of his career as a bureaucrat and politician, as well as a spokesman and entertainer. Like I said, instead of quote mining, try reading Hawass's professional research from back when he actually did dig in the dirt—he was much more credible then. We'll return to Hawass and his credibility in a little while, but I would suggest turning to respected and renowned Egyptologists for their input. Your diligent quote mining is coming back to bite you in the ass.

And Hawass is not the only scientist/researcher who believes this to be the case. Here are a few examples of some others (and believe me - there are many, many more examples I can quote. This is jusr a few):

SC: Hawass said what he said because Hawass probably sees the writing on the wall for this 'science'.

SC: There are countless scientists who would disagree with your statement. See the few examples I quoted above. There are countless others.

You have a knack for embellishment, too. Countless others, eh? I was going to spend awhile throwing back quotes in support of carbon dating, but I decided it wouldn't be worth anyone's time. Carbon dating is a proven science, in spite of your quote mining. I'm not even sure who the folks in your list are. I don't know your personal background, and I've always been frank that I myself am not a professional historian, but in my museum capacity I've worked with some of them. This includes Egyptologists. All of them have used carbon dating extensively in their work. I'd suggest PMing Swede and soliciting his own expertise in this matter, seeing as how he's a ready and professional resource for us all here at UM.

It's evident you do not understand how C14 dating works, beyond perhaps a layman's comprehension. I'm hardly an expert myself, but your quote mining is giving me a chuckle.

I'm not sure why we even got onto the subject of C14 dating. I don't know how it would affect your theme one way or the other, but it's nothing new. The fringe typically shuns real-world science when it's inconvenient to their agendas. Let's move on.

SC: Hawass is promoting other methods over C14-dating because he wants to distance himself from that particular technique. Why? Because Hawass, unlike you, is more likely to know and understand the flaws and trustworthiness of such a 'science'. Hawass, unlike you, knows just how many C14 dates have came back that are 'erroneous' and disagree with other dating techniques. Why else would he make such a comment?

Hawass has no doubt forgotten more about ancient Egypt than I'll ever learn. At one time he was a respected researcher. But you're putting words into Hawass's mouth without license to do so, and you do not speak for him. Nor do I, for that matter, but seeing as how you've latched onto Zahi Hawass for your cause, let's review a few things about his tenure in his latter years of employment:

• Announced without reservation that KV63 must be the tomb of Kiya, mother of Tutankhamun. Absolutely no evidence suggested this during the clearing of the tomb by Otto Schaden and his team, nor has evidence surfaced to support the idea since that time. In fact, Schaden has more or less proved that KV63 was just a cache tomb. Hawass's colleagues distanced themselves from him.
  
• Announced the discovery of the mummy of Hatshepsut, the great female pharaoh, which led to a very entertaining TV special. I myself was more or less convinced. But as time has gone by, a backlash has risen from many who don't agree. In the most recent issue of KMT, for example, Dennis Forbes wrote an article detailing the many weaknesses of Hawass's theory and suggesting convincingly a different mummy for the identification. Hawass's colleagues distanced themselves from him.
  
• Announced in the JAMA report that the mummy known as KV55, which is now known genetically to be the father of Tutankhamun, was Akhenaten. What resulted was an immediate backlash from the professional community. The evidence cited for the identification as Akhenaten was exceedingly frail and unconvincing, and eventually Hawass backed off his stance. Hawass's colleagues distanced themselves from him.
  
• Announced that he had likely found the tomb of Cleopatra, which he believed was shared with Marc Antony. The site in question yielded some coins bearing Cleopatra's likeness, statue fragments, numerous middle-class burials, but nothing else. Hawass's colleagues distanced themselves from him.
  
• In an interview with Al Jazeera, Hawass made blatant anti-Semitic remarks. He tried to backpedal but could not clear himself. This was particularly embarrassing not just to Hawass but to the Egyptian government, which over the years had managed to maintain workable relations with Israel. Hawass's colleagues distanced themselves from him.
  
• In an interview with a Western journalist, Hawass stated that anyone who could not spend more than $1000 dollars when visiting Egypt, should not be visiting Egypt in the first place. Hawass's colleagues distanced themselves from him.
  

These are mere highlights. They reflect Hawass's unacceptable recklessness both in academia and in government. The death knell to his credibility was his participation in that idiotic (and thankfully failed) History Channel special Chasing Mummies. His fall from his government position as Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs was due to his close associations with the toppled Mubarak regime, so that doesn't reflect on his credibility so much as it does just playing for a bad team.

The short of it is, be careful who you cheer for, Scott. In your quote mining for Hawass I don't think you fully realized the weight of the mistake. There are so many other Egyptologists you could've turned to for enlightenment, yet you chose the star of Chasing Mummies.

[kmt_sesh]

Considering that she's saying the current revised radiocarbon dates per Ramsey's team "fit well with the archeological evidence that we already have" it should be interesting to see how you twist those words to say something they don't. But then, I'd expect no less from you.

cormac

Ikram is a Pakistani Egyptologist. LOL She also happens to be a favorite of mine. She is one of the world's most respected and recognizable Egyptologists, due to her own efforts, intelligence, and highly regarded body of publishing. Let's look again at that quote:

“They fit well with the archeological evidence that we already have,” she said. “Of course, ten years from now, there might be an improvement in carbon-14 dating, and the current crop of dates will have to be revised. Hard science is helpful, but should always be contextualized and tested against other data."

All Ikram is saying is, archaeology has yielded evidence allowing researchers to establish both relative and absolute dates for artifacts and historical sites—and C14 dating as a tool has demonstrated more often than not, that archaeologists' relative and absolute dates have been correct all along. It's a form of science corroborating work in the field.

But we all know how skilled fringe writers are at misrepresenting evidence. Writers like Sitchin, von Däniken, and Bauval brought it to unimaginable heights to sell their sci-fi books. Never underestimate the fringe. They're crafty!

[Swede]

Scotty - Have been quite busy and simply do not have the time to fully address the extent of your selective quotations/misunderstandings in regards to radiocarbon dating and the calibration methodologies currently in utilization.

For the benefit of others, one of Scotty's references:

http://www.centuries.co.uk/preface.htm

For those who would appreciate a more qualified and detailed understanding of the topic:

http://researchcommo...1FB6?sequence=1

For those who would wish to enter and calibrate their own raw data:

http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/download/

.

[cormac mac airt]

"Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarchaeology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Zahi Hawaass

Geoarchaeology is generally not a means of dating organic materials. DNA is not a dating method. Laser scanning is not a dating method. Forms of laser analysis are involved in some dating techniques, as I understand it, but you're clinging to one of the most absurd statements Hawass ever made. In stating "we consider" Hawass is in fact not speaking for all archaeologists but for a scant and perhaps misinformed minority.

Just to add to what kmt_sesh was saying, it wouldn't matter if DNA studies 'were' a dating method as they don't provide specific/absolute dates either. So Hawass has once again shot himself in the foot, figuratively speaking of course.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

SC: I didn't bring a debate to you. I put a paper up in the OP that posters here thought they could just kick around. I tend to kick back. I'm sure you've noticed.

Indeed I've noticed. You hang in there quite well. Still, you've been around UM a long time—longer than I have—so you know perfectly well what you were going to encounter. This isn't ATS or Atlantis Rising, where form what I've seen so many posters seem to lack the ability to apply critical thinking. Here at UM we bite. So if you were expecting all of us—or even most of us—to sit back and agree and pat you on the back, you were fooling yourself. We will address your paper in the manner it needs to be addressed.

SC: That's not why I posted them. The comment made by 'Questionmark' was:

SC: I posted those images to show that his comment above was quite wrong. There is more than a single Egyptian representation that contains Orion. And if you want a representation from the 4th dynasty, simply take a look at Giza. It's pretty unmistakable.

SC: But nevertheless - the people of the 4th dynasty simply had to look up of a winter's evening and Orion is right there in front of them.

If that's the case questionmark and I would probably disagree, but we've done so more than once in the past. My point was that you cannot use a state of the religion from more than a millennium later to try to bolster your claims in the Old Kingdom. Where questionmark and I would most certainly agree, as would all of the others involved in this debate—and as would the academic world—is that you can't use Dynasty 4 to prove an Egyptian observance of Orion. And definitely not in the way you're arguing.

And bear in mind at all times: you've presented no evidence to date that proves your Orion argument about the Giza Plateau in the Old Kingdom. You've presented only your own personal belief about it. I've allowed others to dissect your astronomical arguments while keeping my distance from them because I am not well versed in archaeoastronomy, but I always chuckle over your lines and measurements based on drawings and images that are considerably less in precision than the sort of survey plats you actually need.

I've also noticed you tend to ignore many if not most of my own points based on archaeology and the culture and religion of pharaonic Egypt.

SC: Why is everything reduced to religion and cultic practices with you? The Giza-Orion concordance we find in the layout of the Giza pyramids is about TIME and NOT about religion.

Best wishes,

SC:

This goes to my previous sentence. The fact that you're incredulous about my approach to the argument, reveals your lack of fundamental familiarity with what Giza was about to the Egyptians. And that's the only thing that matters: to the Egyptians of Dynasty 4 the Giza Plateau was a royal necropolis, excepting a couple of interruptions, and to the Egyptians a royal necropolis was a particularly powerful place of religion. There is simply no possible way to ignore the hundreds of tombs and all of the temples erected for that very purpose.

Scotty - Have been quite busy and simply do not have the time to fully address the extent of your selective quotations/misunderstandings in regards to radiocarbon dating and the calibration methodologies currently in utilization.

For the benefit of others, one of Scotty's references:

http://www.centuries.co.uk/preface.htm

For those who would appreciate a more qualified and detailed understanding of the topic:

http://researchcommo...1FB6?sequence=1

For those who would wish to enter and calibrate their own raw data:

http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/download/

.

I've been waiting and hoping you'd pop in, Swede.

Thanks for shedding some reality on the situation.

[Leonardo]

SC: In my book "top" equates to "up". Top (up) was their south.

And this is what I have pointed out, it is "in your book" - i.e. your opinion, not established fact. The turn of phrase used in the (modern) quote is not evidence from any ancient Egyptian source.

When standing north of the Giza pyramid complex and looking south (as this would be the only way to view the asterism of Orion's belt and the pyramids at once) the asterism is higher in the west (Mintaka) and descends in a gentle parabolic curve towards the east (through Alnilam to Alnitak). The Giza pyramids, by contrast, would be 'higher' in the east (Khufu's pyramid) and 'descend' in an inverted parabolic curve to the west ( through Khafre's pyramid to Menkaure's).

No mental manipulation of the cardinal directions alters this discrepancy.

[questionmark]

If that's the case questionmark and I would probably disagree, but we've done so more than once in the past. My point was that you cannot use a state of the religion from more than a millennium later to try to bolster your claims in the Old Kingdom. Where questionmark and I would most certainly agree, as would all of the others involved in this debate—and as would the academic world—is that you can't use Dynasty 4 to prove an Egyptian observance of Orion. And definitely not in the way you're arguing.

"Strangely" we are in agreement, that statement is naturally valid for the time before the Hellenization of Egypt, which changed the whole religious and "supernatural (sic.)" outlook of the Egyptians. Both Greek and Egyptian mythology started to intermix, and so did the religion and the superstitions. But that has as much bearing on the 4th dynasty as the Greek mythology is influenced by modern religious practice.

Now, I did not expect the retort to be a under the belt punch in form of a 1st century drawing. I sure expected a little more solid evidence, at least relevant to the religious or agricultural practice of the 4th dynasty.

If we talk astronomy in the early agricultural periods we always talk calendar functions. While I disagree with the statement that Sirius was the "most" important star it was important to any agricultural society in the northern hemisphere until the introduction of the 365 day calendar because it showed the sowing and germination period of grain crops. For the ancient Egyptians its rise generally coincided with the flooding of the Nile, the fundamental requirement for a fertile crop.

If we go to the Orion belt we notice that its periodicity of more than 50,000 years makes it very unlikely that it could have any practical purpose nor does its short rise coincide with any important agricultural events therefore it is very unlikely that it had any relevance at all. Unless of course we can show that somebody lived long enough to record the whole cycle or complex mathematics knowledge in the 4th dynasty (yeh, right).

But in a way I was trying to build Mr. Creighton a bridge to show us his knowledge about the relevance of Orion, but so far I must say: We drew a blank.

[Scott Creighton]

SC: In my book "top" equates to "up". Top (up) was their south.

Leo: And this is what I have pointed out, it is "in your book" - i.e. your opinion, not established fact. The turn of phrase used in the (modern) quote is not evidence from any ancient Egyptian source.

SC: You have got to be kidding me, right? I have seen some desperate arguments in my day but yours – well, it really takes the biscuit. I am sure, Leo, in a more lucid moment you will actually find that it is an established fact in most of the planet that “top” (in whatever language) is regarded as equating to “up” , "upwards" or “uppermost”, "highest", "apex" etc, etc (in whatever language). You will also find that the academics who translate these texts tend to know what they are talking about. This is not my "opinion" - these are the translations of scholars. Granted - they don't always get it right but if you can find out where they have gone wrong in their translations with regards to this particular question, then point it out to them and then let us all know. The academics consider the AE south to be up, highest, apex, topmost etc, etc. Period.

top

[top] Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb, topped, top·ping.

noun

1. the highest or loftiest point or part of anything; apex; summit. Synonyms: zenith, acme, peak, pinnacle, vertex. Antonyms: bottom, base, foot, lowest point.

2. the uppermost or upper part, surface, etc., of anything.

3. the higher end of anything on a slope.

4.

British .

a. a part considered as higher:

adjective

23. pertaining to, situated at, or forming the top; highest; uppermost; upper: the top shelf.

24. highest in degree; greatest: to pay top prices.

25. foremost, chief, or principal: to win top honors in a competition.

From here.

Are you trying to suggest that “top” somehow equates to “bottom” or “down” or “downwards” or “lowest”? If this is the level your argument has descended to, essentially attempting to turn black into white, then there is little I am afraid I can do to help you.

I will be happy to continue this discussion but only when you start making sensible arguments.

The AEs regarded south as being “up”, “upwards” to the “top” – like this:

Leo:No mental manipulation of the cardinal directions alters this discrepancy.

SC: The only “discrepancy” going on here is your apparent insistence that “up” or “upwards” or “uppermost” or "highest" does not equate to being “top” or “topmost”. Truly unbelievable.

Until next time…..

Best wishes,

SC

Edited May 10, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Leonardo]

SC: You have got to be kidding me, right? I have seen some desperate arguments in my day but yours – well, it really takes the biscuit. I am sure, Leo, in a more lucid moment you will actually find that it is an established fact in most of the planet that “top” is regarded as equating to “up” , "upwards" or “uppermost”, "highest", "apex" etc, etc. You will also find that the academics who translate these texts tend to know what they are talking about. This is not my "opinion" - these are the translations of scholars. Granted - they don't always get it right but if you can find out where they have gone wrong in their translations then point it out to them and let us all know.

Are you trying to suggest that “top” somehow equates to “bottom” or “down” or “downwards” or “lowest”? If this is the level your argument has descended to, essentially attempting to turn black into white, then there is little I am afraid I can do to help you.

I will be happy to continue this discussion but only when you start making sensible arguments.

The AEs regarded south as being “up”, “upwards” to the “top” – like this:

Scott, I have to be brief as I am heading out. The word "top" was used in a modern context by the author you quoted. Similarly to how you have 'inserted' "south = up" into the ancient Egyptian lexicon, you (and that author) are now also inserting "south = top" - without any reference to actual ancient Egyptian sources.

I agree with the citations you posted which equated 'south' to 'front', because there is actual reference to AE sources to support that. I have stated this leads to the possibility that "top" or "up" are similarly associated with the direction south (because of the association with 'positive direction'), but without an AE source to verify that it remains only speculation.

As for the comparison of the Giza layout with Orion's belt you posted, if we are to continue with the 'positive' associations, then the first pyramid built should have been the upper, not the lower (which carries a 'negative association'.) This is not the case. Unless you are proposing the entire Giza complex was planned as it is at the very beginning of the construction?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Leonardo

[Scott Creighton]

Unless you are proposing the entire Giza complex was planned as it is at the very beginning of the construction?

SC: What do you think I have been presenting this past week or so? Yes - there existed a plan that was prepared before a single block was set in place at Giza. My paper in the OP shows the plan step-by-step. Obviously you didn't read it. No surprise there.

"In the Egypto-centred universe, the definition of the four cardinal directions was originally conceived in relation to geographic and physiological indicators, as we have shown (See Fig.1, supra). Orienting themselves in their land from the direction of the Nile River's flow, the "top of the map" for the ancient Egyptian world view began from the south.

From this facing direction, body directional values were associated with the corresponding cardinal directions, which later took on symbolic, cultic and ritual dimensions as the reflection of the cosmos was extended to major aspects of Egyptian life (Brunner 1957: 617; O'Connor 1995: 274; Wilkinson 2000: 62 ff.) (See Fig. 2, supra). Thus, "west" was deemed as a "positive" direction linked with the right hand, while "east" was linked to the left hand, with a less favourable status, particularly in the New Kingdom (Morenz 1975: 281). The direction of "north" seems to have held a negative or ambivalent position in value, although it was relegated to the idea (following from the Egyptian southerly orientation of direction), as a direction behind a person's orienting perception (Frankfort, Frankfort et al. 1977 <1946>: 43). As Frankfort further notes, it should be taken as significant that elements for the phrase for "northernmost border," /pHww/ are also to be found in the expression of /Xr pHwi/, also has the meaning of "behind" and "subordinate," while the phrase /Hr pHwi/ carries the sense of being "behind one's head"

- (Frankfort, Frankfort et al. 1977 <1946>: 43; Hannig 2000: 914a, 633a and 633b, respectively). (Griffis 2002: 13-16)

SC: The AEs faced south. The 'face' is at the top or uppermost part of the body. The left was to the east and the right was to the west. These are completely opposite to our modern convention. "Northernmost" was regared by the AEs as "subordinate". (emphasis mine).

So, if north is regarded by the AEs as "sub" i.e. beneath, below, under, down etc then, logically, south is atop, above, upper, top, highest etc, etc. I do not know why you continue to question this. But I guess you must since you must, at all costs, find some means of discrediting alternative theories - and I guess it doesn't really matter to you how ridiculous or spurious an argument you present.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited May 10, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Kantzveldt]

I've pointed out elsewhere to Scott, that the best and only case for an Orion related localized cult, for the Old Kingdom Period, is that of a Sokar/Orion concern, which predates the Middle Kingdom association of Sokar with Osiris and Osiris with Sah. Saqqara takes it's name from Sokar, and this Deity is well attested at Giza, as well as being considered the tutelary Deity of this Necropolis also, in terms of Sokar of Rostau.

Interestingly given Sokars Earth/Underworld cultic associations (as in Sokar of the Amduat), then association with a constellation that spent much of the year beneath the horizon and didn't rise to any great height (he was God of onions...) would actualy be appropriate.

Amusingly Scott will always choose to entirely ignore this evidence, as he has already said it was an Osiris-Sah based cult, after Bauval, and he after Massey of the Theosophists, and they're not one's for admitting they were wrong, even though Sokar is the given for presiding over the whole blessed Necropolis..

This is the evidence then for what would have been related to this cult of Sokar-Orion from later periods, when seen as Sokar-Osiris

Thus, on Khoiak 26th, king Sokar-Osiris or the Ancient One can become the New Horus, "the one whose right eye is the sun and the left the moon". This second phase of resurrection proclaims a king identified to the creator guarantor of the maintenance of creation and its two cycles, diurnal and nocturnal. Moreover, the 26th of Khoiak corresponds roughly to Orion's entry of its 90 days of visibility in the west.

The agrarian calendar perfectly defines the liturgy: the onions planted at the end of September and picked at the end of October are heralding the arrival of the light and are going to be transplanted in the land to be ready to be chewed at the time of the festival of Bastet, February 5th, as all snakes come out of their hibernation and when the swallows begin to return announcing the summer sun. The small onions, early fruits and vegetables, inhaled to receive a new breath at the time of the ntryt-night, having germinated during the winter period, become witnesses to a source of rebirth to a chthonian life, with the image of a living Sokar in a cave and carrying the solar star in the Duat. The solarisation or light created the 25th and 26th of Khoiak leads to a stellar design (or darkness with appearance of the constellation of Orion). The festival of Bastet, at the end of the Sokarian cycle

http://www.osirisnet..._fete_sokar.htm

Sokar was undoubtedly originally a distinct deity of the Memphite necropolis: r3-sT3.w "Giza" (like the name of this List's server "Rostau" though I would have spelled if "Rosetjau") and pD.w "Saqqara", the modern name of which is believed to come from that of Sokar. There is a possibility that he was actually transplanted to the Memphite region from Busiris or some other Delta location. He represented the fertility that lies at the bottom of the underworld as well as the minerals and vegetal produce of the earth. He was carried on a boat known as the Henu-barque which had the form of a the crescent moon. His stellar manifestation was that of Orion.

http://www.rostau.or...ntroduction.htm

From the pyramid texts there is the identification of Sokar and the Henu barque in terms of 'the Ferryman' as seen in the ceiling of Senemut from the later period, as well as various lustration and resurection texts;

The premise then for what is sourced from the later Khoiak festival having probable basis dating back at least to the pyramid texts, and given the numerous tomb shrine attestations to Sokar at the Giza necropolis dating to Dynasty 4 a not unreasonable case can be made for an Orion-Sokar cult at that time and place.

http://www.cintronic...ramid Texts.pdf

Faulkner: A ‘ferryman’ text

O Kherty of Nezat, ferryman of the ‘Ikht-bark which Khnum made, bring me this, for I am Sokar of Rostau (r.st3.w), I am bound for the place where dwells Sokar who presides over Pdw-s. This is our brother(?) who brings this for these ... of the desert.

Faulkner: A ‘lustration’ text

O Re, make the womb of Nut pregnant with the seed of the spirit which is in her. May the earth be high under my feet, may Tefenet grasp my hand. It is Sokar who will purify me, it is Re who will give me his hand. May I be pre-eminent at the head of the Ennead, may I take my place which is in the firmament. O Hnny, Hnny, O ‘Ip3ty, take me with you.

Faulkner: A ‘resurrection’ text

O earth, hear this which Geb said when he spiritualized Osiris as a god; the watchers of Pe install him, the watchers of Nekhen ennoble him as Sokar who presides over Pdw-s^{1, (as) Horus, Ha, and Hemen.}

^{footnote 1 Cf. Komme (Sethe) ii, 228f; another instance Book of Hours, 2, 3}

Edited May 10, 2012 by Kantzveldt

[questionmark]

I've pointed out elsewhere to Scott, that the best and only case for an Orion related localized cult, for the Old Kingdom Period, is that of a Sokar/Orion concern, which predates the Middle Kingdom association of Sokar with Osiris and Osiris with Sah. Saqqara takes it's name from Sokar, and this Deity is well attested at Giza, as well as being considered the tutelary Deity of this Necropolis also, in terms of Sokar of Rostau.

just a small spanner in the works, the underworld barge departed every night at sunset, no exceptions known, to the underworld, therefore it cannot be seen in "our world". But yes, that could be an explanation attempt until going into deeper scrutiny. And then, well it kind of fizzles.

[Kantzveldt]

just a small spanner in the works, the underworld barge departed every night at sunset, no exceptions known, to the underworld, therefore it cannot be seen in "our world". But yes, that could be an explanation attempt until going into deeper scrutiny. And then, well it kind of fizzles.

That would be the solar barque you're thinking of, Henu barque differant form and function. It can be added some see in it's basic form the crescent moon, ie a nocturnal barque.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Kantzveldt

[questionmark]

That would be the solar barque you're thinking of, Henu barque differant form and function.

Henu always sailed to dawn or dusk, at least from the mythology of the times we know. That would imply, were it visible it would travel over the North at night. of which we know no star and certainly not Orion would do that, they all raise in the East and go down in the West. So it travels in the underworld to the point of dawn and is, therefore, not visible. All other would be cutting the puzzle piece until it fits.

[Kantzveldt]

Henu always sailed to dawn or dusk, at least from the mythology of the times we know. That would imply, were it visible it would travel over the North at night. of which we know no star and certainly not Orion would do that, they all raise in the East and go down in the West. So it travels in the underworld to the point of dawn and is, therefore, not visible. All other would be cutting the puzzle piece until it fits.

I'd be needing the citations for anything concerning what the Henu barque did or didn't do, my basic consideration is that as the solar barque set in the West then the Henu barque could rise into the Eastern night sky, and sail on until the dawn

What was involved is complex, but seems to involve the astralization of the soul;

[questionmark]

I'd be needing the citations for anything concerning what the Henu barque did or didn't do, my basic consideration is that as the solar barque set in the West then the Henu barque could rise into the Eastern night sky, and sail on until the dawn

What was involved is complex, but seems to involve the astralization of the soul;

Well, if it is the "astralization of the soul" you can pick whatever star you want, one fantasy is as good as the other. And even if the Henu bark traveled through the night it would still be first seen in the east, not sporadically in the west as Orion is. The only thing that could rise sporadically somewhere else is a demon out of the underworld. But the references of demons out of the underworld are not from the 4th dynasty nor from the first pyramid texts, that is a much more recent and mostly through Greek influence.