1650 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 21 December 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

There's no question the air is ancient probably.  At least that it was half ancient can't be ruled
out by the evidence since the CO2 was half ancient.  If beetles were eating the wood then some
or most of its carbon might have ended upin the pit and all that carbon would be ancient and this
could account for the ancient air; it was just the boat.  But this seems improbable because the only
limitation on beetle population would be water availability.  It doesn't seem reasonable to suppose
that in 4700 years there wouldn't be enough water for the beetles to consume the entire boat.  The
implication being that we are misinterpreting the presense of the beetle.

What's needed are more facts but what are the odds that the beetles were counted, studied, or an-
alyzed?  I'd guess it's very low.

This is a faulty premise since there is no evidence the beetles were in the pit for c.4500 - 4600 years. At best they appear to have been there from 1987 - 2008. And no matter how many times you say "4700" it's not relevant to the reign of Khufu, which was in the 26th century BC/4600 BP.

cormac

[Alcibiades9]

cormac mac airt, on 21 December 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

the reign of Khufu, which was in the 26th century BC/4600 BP.

cormac

We,, there's a faulty premise right there.  We have no conclusive proof that Khufu reigned anywhere at anytime, no conclusive proof as to who he (or it) really was.  You are making a huge supposition based on fragments and scribblings passed down to us, and I am amazed that you quote it as fact simply because it forms part of the orthodox narrative.

Again cormac you do not live up to the high standards you demand of everyone else.

I suggest you give yourself a little quiet time over Christmas and think about what a naughty, presumptive and pharisaical boy you've been this year... and hopefully Santa will still be good to you, especially if you have it in your heart to try to be better in the new year.

[Quaentum]

Alcibiades9, on 21 December 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

We,, there's a faulty premise right there.  We have no conclusive proof that Khufu reigned anywhere at anytime, no conclusive proof as to who he (or it) really was.  You are making a huge supposition based on fragments and scribblings passed down to us, and I am amazed that you quote it as fact simply because it forms part of the orthodox narrative.

Again cormac you do not live up to the high standards you demand of everyone else.

I suggest you give yourself a little quiet time over Christmas and think about what a naughty, presumptive and pharisaical boy you've been this year... and hopefully Santa will still be good to you, especially if you have it in your heart to try to be better in the new year.

Yes fragments and scribblings:

His name is on the Turin Kings List and on Damaged Reliefs in his Mortuary Temple.  The duration of his reign found at the Dakhla Oasis.  Yet those fragments do show he was a king and did reign.  On the other hand, what evidence is there that ancient aliens were in Egypt or that advanced technology was used in building the pyramids?

[cormac mac airt]

Alcibiades9, on 21 December 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

We,, there's a faulty premise right there.  We have no conclusive proof that Khufu reigned anywhere at anytime, no conclusive proof as to who he (or it) really was.  You are making a huge supposition based on fragments and scribblings passed down to us, and I am amazed that you quote it as fact simply because it forms part of the orthodox narrative.

Again cormac you do not live up to the high standards you demand of everyone else.

I suggest you give yourself a little quiet time over Christmas and think about what a naughty, presumptive and pharisaical boy you've been this year... and hopefully Santa will still be good to you, especially if you have it in your heart to try to be better in the new year.

We also have no conclusive proof that you're a living, breathing human being and not a program developed by a misanthropic recluse for the sheer satisfaction of annoying people, either. But it's assumed that your a person with something relevant to say.

cormac

[Scott Creighton]

Quaentum, on 21 December 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

His name is on the Turin Kings List and on Damaged Reliefs in his Mortuary Temple.

SC: I wonder how long it will take a consensus Egypt-apologist to come in and correct your misinformation in the above statement. They probably won't because that's how it seems to work around here. Turn a blind eye to the obvious mistakes of the consensus cotterie but woe-betide anyone in the Alternative Egyptology camp that makes a blatant mistake. Suggest you do some more research on this.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 21 December 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[questionmark]

Scott Creighton, on 21 December 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

SC: I wonder how long it will take a consensus Egypt-apologist to come in and correct your misinformation in the above statement. They probably won't because that's how it seems to work around here. Turn a blind eye to the obvious mistakes of the consensus cotterie but woe-betide anyone in the Alternative Egyptology camp that makes a blatant mistake. Suggest you do some more research on this.

SC

The obvious being of course that it was all due to some deities of which we have no reference until 1000 years AFTER the time, of course.

[Quaentum]

Scott Creighton, on 21 December 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

SC: I wonder how long it will take a consensus Egypt-apologist to come in and correct your misinformation in the above statement. They probably won't because that's how it seems to work around here. Turn a blind eye to the obvious mistakes of the consensus cotterie but woe-betide anyone in the Alternative Egyptology camp that makes a blatant mistake. Suggest you do some more research on this.

SC

I may be wrong and am more than willing to admit so if it can be showed to me.  This is what I have found.

Indications he is on the kings list

http://en.wikipedia....Turin_King_List
http://www.narmer.pl/tur/turyn_en.htm

Statue with his name on it

http://www.khufu.dk/...name-family.htm

Reliefs

Quote

Reliefs

http://www.answers.c...ic/khufu-cheops

Khufu is depicted in several relief fragments found scattered in his necropolis and elsewhere. All reliefs were made of finely polished limestone. Some of them originate from the ruined pyramid temple and the destroyed causeway, where they once covered the walls completely. Others were found re-used in the pyramid necropolis of king Amenemhet I at Lisht and at Tanis and Bubastis.^[9][19] One of the relief fragments show the cartouche of Khufu with the phrase: "Building of the sanctuaries of the gods". Another one shows a row of fat oxes decorated with flowers – they were obviously prepared as sacrifices during an offering procession. The guiding inscription calls them "beautiful bulls of Khufu" and "bawling for Khufu". A third one shows the earliest known depicting of royal warfare: the scene is called "archer's prepare", since it shows archers drawing their bows. And a fourth example shows the king with the double crown and impaling a hippopotamus.^[27][28]
At the Wadi Maghareh in Sinai a rock inscription contains Khufu's names and titles and reports: "Hor-Medjedu, Khnum-Khuf, Bikuj-Nebu, the great god and smiter of the troglodytes, all protection and life are with him". The work-off of the relief is likewise to that of king Snefru. In one scene king Khufu wears the double-crown, nearby the depiction of the god Thoth is visible. In another scene, close by, Khufu wears the Atef-crown while smiting an enemy. In this scene the god Wepwawet is present.^[17][29]

[Alcibiades9]

cormac mac airt, on 21 December 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

We also have no conclusive proof that you're a living, breathing human being and not a program developed by a misanthropic recluse for the sheer satisfaction of annoying people, either.

cormac

Now cormac, what did I tell you about trying to be a good boy?

If I have to, I'll take your pants down right here in front of everybody and smack your bottom.  And I don't care if anyone sees your "little man".

You cannot make assumptions in support of orthodoxy while demanding evidence and explicit proof for every claim made for an alternative narrative.  Which seems to be your main talent.

[Scott Creighton]

Quaentum, on 21 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

I may be wrong and am more than willing to admit so if it can be showed to me.  This is what I have found.

Indications he is on the kings list

http://en.wikipedia....Turin_King_List
http://www.narmer.pl/tur/turyn_en.htm

Statue with his name on it

http://www.khufu.dk/...name-family.htm

Reliefs

[/background][/left][/color]

SC: So we have gone from the absolute statement "...his name is on the Turin King's List..." to the tentative statement "...indications he is on the king's list...".   Alas, the links you present simply do not crack it. Like I told you - more research required.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 21 December 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[kmt_sesh]

Alcibiades9, on 21 December 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

We,, there's a faulty premise right there.  We have no conclusive proof that Khufu reigned anywhere at anytime, no conclusive proof as to who he (or it) really was.  You are making a huge supposition based on fragments and scribblings passed down to us, and I am amazed that you quote it as fact simply because it forms part of the orthodox narrative.

...

Goodness, Alcibiades9. Sometimes you're soundly logical and at other times you stretch the limits of reason. To the latter is your earlier amusing comment that the beetle in the second boat pit might have awakened from some sort of stasis 4,500 years later. I can only hope you were joking with that one.

And now there's this. In your efforts to tarnish two centuries of sound scholarship you're claiming we have no evidence that a king named Khufu even lived. Would you care to reconsider?

I'm away from home for the holidays and have no access to my library to cite sources, so I'll pull general details from memory. Other posters have touched on this. First and foremost we have the Great Pyramid complex itself. Khufu's name, in a cartouche, appears in its two forms in the relieving chambers, as does his Horus name. Khufu's temples are in ruins but enough fragments have been recovered to clarify the plentiful attestation of his name in those constructs, too. His name in a cartouche has even been found in the masonry of a Dynasty 12 pyramid on a chunk of relief carving originally taken from the Great Pyramid complex. Moreover, his name appears throughout the complex, in a cartouche, in the tombs of family members and officials of his court.

Other attestations have been found in oases of the Western Desert, on the little statue of the king found at Abydos, in the turquoise mines of Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai, and as I recall also in certain archaeological contexts of the Levant.

Furthermore, and very important, are royal annals, particularly the Palermo Stone and Turin canon.

That said, there is no possible, logical reason to doubt a king named Khufu reigned in ancient Egypt. The evidence is unarguable. And in recounting such evidence from memory, I have no way of knowing for certain how much evidence I am not recalling and have skipped over. I've repeatedly stressed the importance of a cartouche because in the Old Kingdom starting in Dynasty 3, and only in uncommon examples thereafter, did the name of anyone other than a king appear inside a cartouche.

As to when Khufu reigned, the royal annals are quite clear on this, too. Khufu's positioning as second king of Dynasty 4 also rests there on sound and plentiful archaeological grounds. Khufu followed Sneferu and preceded Djedefre. I can't think of any realistic, working evidence that would contradict this.

[kmt_sesh]

Alcibiades9, on 19 December 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

It doesn't mean that at all.  You are simply choosing to conclude that.  They found a beetle, but they did not find an "opening somewhere".  Find the opening, and you solve the mystery.  Until then, you have a mystery... perhaps even the bizarre possibility that a beetle was preserved alive somehow for thousands of years.

As it is, I too would assume that there is probably an opening, but we have to go by the evidence, not mere supposition.   Evidence, cormac, evidence.   Odd that you regularly storm on here with that ridiculous puffed up attitude of yours, and yet you don't even play by your own rules...  you know, the ones you demand cladking plays by.

Ho ho ho

I had to return to this. I'm still chuckling over the beetle somehow waking to life after 4,500 years of "hibernation." You acknowledged the likelihood of some sort of opening, so why would you stress the scientifically implausible over the logical?

Enough said on that.

The idea that this sort of limestone-lined pit was sealed absolutely perfectly is not very realistic. It would be no more true than thinking all of the tombs were perfectly sealed and impervious to insects. The fact is, regardless of how well something was blocked over in antiquity, insects will find their way inside. Look at KV63 discovered and excavated only several years ago. It was deep underground with access via a shaft cut through the bedrock and subsequently packed solid with sand, rubble, and fill. Nevertheless, down through the centuries countless armies of termites had dug their way down there and all but consumed most of the coffins.

All it takes is a tiny opening, perhaps an edge or corner of masonry that wasn't fully dressed. I remember years ago when they drilled a hole through the masonry capping the boat pit and sunk a fibre-optic camera down there. One of the first things they noticed was a little beetle crawling about. Obviously it had gotten down there somehow. It probably enjoyed munching on the boat.

I have to ask, why is this even a question?

[Quaentum]

Scott Creighton, on 21 December 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

SC: So we have gone from the absolute statement "...his name is on the Turin King's List..." to the tentative statement "...indications he is on the king's list...".   Alas, the links you present simply do not crack it. Like I told you - more research required.

SC

Indications from indicate - to show or shows  Indications he is on the king's list = shows he is on the kings list.  Nothing tentative about it.

No comments about the statue with his name on it or the inscription at the oasis?  Oh that's right, they actually support Khufu being a king of Egypt.

[Alcibiades9]

kmt_sesh, on 21 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Goodness, Alcibiades9. Sometimes you're soundly logical and at other times you stretch the limits of reason. To the latter is your earlier amusing comment that the beetle in the second boat pit might have awakened from some sort of stasis 4,500 years later. I can only hope you were joking with that one.

And now there's this. In your efforts to tarnish two centuries of sound scholarship you're claiming we have no evidence that a king named Khufu even lived. Would you care to reconsider?

I'm away from home for the holidays and have no access to my library to cite sources, so I'll pull general details from memory. Other posters have touched on this. First and foremost we have the Great Pyramid complex itself. Khufu's name, in a cartouche, appears in its two forms in the relieving chambers, as does his Horus name. Khufu's temples are in ruins but enough fragments have been recovered to clarify the plentiful attestation of his name in those constructs, too. His name in a cartouche has even been found in the masonry of a Dynasty 12 pyramid on a chunk of relief carving originally taken from the Great Pyramid complex. Moreover, his name appears throughout the complex, in a cartouche, in the tombs of family members and officials of his court.

Other attestations have been found in oases of the Western Desert, on the little statue of the king found at Abydos, in the turquoise mines of Serabit el Khadim in the Sinai, and as I recall also in certain archaeological contexts of the Levant.

Furthermore, and very important, are royal annals, particularly the Palermo Stone and Turin canon.

That said, there is no possible, logical reason to doubt a king named Khufu reigned in ancient Egypt. The evidence is unarguable. And in recounting such evidence from memory, I have no way of knowing for certain how much evidence I am not recalling and have skipped over. I've repeatedly stressed the importance of a cartouche because in the Old Kingdom starting in Dynasty 3, and only in uncommon examples thereafter, did the name of anyone other than a king appear inside a cartouche.

As to when Khufu reigned, the royal annals are quite clear on this, too. Khufu's positioning as second king of Dynasty 4 also rests there on sound and plentiful archaeological grounds. Khufu followed Sneferu and preceded Djedefre. I can't think of any realistic, working evidence that would contradict this.

No need to go overboard kmt_sesh, the key word there was conclusive.  Do I personally think Khufu existed?  Yes, probably.  Do I accept it as an established fact, in the way that I would accept Rameses III as an established fact?  No.  The evidence is still too inconclusive.

Now, when you set yourself up as a debunker of alternative theories, demanding of them the highest level of proof for every point they argue, then you must furnish your own orthodox claims with the same high level of proof.  Which in the case of Khufu, you can't.  He is no more proven to be real than King Arthur.  That does not mean he was not real.  It just means that we cannot talk of him - as cormac did - as though it were an established fact.

Now, as for the beetle, again it was just a case of logic and evidence.  It is much more likely that there was a hole though which the beetle got in than it is that we have a 4500 year old beetle scuttling about.  But the existence of the beetle and our belief that a beetle cannot live for 4500 years does not mean there is a hole.  There may not be a hole.  The beetle may have lived for 4500 years.  The beetle may have fallen out into the pit out of someones hat rim.  Until we find the hole, though, we cannot state as fact that there is a hole.  Again, you cannot simply make assumptions simply because you are on the orthodox side of the argument.  All this "well the beetle must've done this" or "the beetle must've done that" as long as the beetle isn't serving an "alternative" narrative doesn't cut it with me.  And neither does making rock solid conclusions about Khufu based on the flimsiest of historical sources, particularly primary sources.

I'm not undoing any scholarly research, I'm just setting the bar at the same height for orthodox explanations as I do alternative explanations.

Now, go back and enjoy your holiday and have a nice Christmas.

[kmt_sesh]

Alcibiades9, on 21 December 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

No need to go overboard kmt_sesh, the key word there was conclusive.  Do I personally think Khufu existed?  Yes, probably.  Do I accept it as an established fact, in the way that I would accept Rameses III as an established fact?  No.  The evidence is still too inconclusive.

Now, when you set yourself up as a debunker of alternative theories, demanding of them the highest level of proof for every point they argue, then you must furnish your own orthodox claims with the same high level of proof.  Which in the case of Khufu, you can't.  He is no more proven to be real than King Arthur.  That does not mean he was not real.  It just means that we cannot talk of him - as cormac did - as though it were an established fact.

I'm no authority on King Arthur and have no more background on him than watching the average Hollywood movie, but if memory serves he lives entirely within the realm of mytho-history. In other words, outside the pages of literary fiction, there's no real proof the man existed.

Much more can be said about Khufu. While Khufu himself was the subject of mytho-history fiction by the time of the Middle Kingdom (see the Westcar papyrus), the man's name is attested on physical objects from the Levant to the Sudan. He is in the formal annals as a living king. The brief rundown of places where his name can be found, not the least of which is within and around the Great Pyramid, more than establishes conclusively (yes, conclusively) that he was real. Come to think of it, it would be decidedly odd for the Egyptians of the Early Bronze Age to have not only built a massive pyramid for him if he was mytho-historical, but also for dozens of very powerful and elite people to have erected their tombs adjacent to his and make a point of it to include his name within their tombs.

His family was even buried right there, so I see no reasonable doubt that he was anything but real.

It's also odd to me that you're also now placing suspicion on the existence of Ramesses III as a real king—a man who is exponentially better attested than Khufu and about whom we know extensive details (everything from his parentage to the legal papers surrounding the harem conspiracy at the end of this life).

Quote

Now, as for the beetle, again it was just a case of logic and evidence.  It is much more likely that there was a hole though which the beetle got in than it is that we have a 4500 year old beetle scuttling about.  But the existence of the beetle and our belief that a beetle cannot live for 4500 years does not mean there is a hole.  There may not be a hole.  The beetle may have lived for 4500 years.  The beetle may have fallen out into the pit out of someones hat rim.  Until we find the hole, though, we cannot state as fact that there is a hole.  Again, you cannot simply make assumptions simply because you are on the orthodox side of the argument.  All this "well the beetle must've done this" or "the beetle must've done that" as long as the beetle isn't serving an "alternative" narrative doesn't cut it with me.  And neither does making rock solid conclusions about Khufu based on the flimsiest of historical sources, particularly primary sources.

This merely falls within the realm of logic. Beetles do not go into stasis and spring back to life 4,500 years later. The covering slabs have been removed from the boat pit so it's not likely they will ever be examined for holes or poor fitting, not that any researcher would bother to do so. It's a friggin' bug, for goodness sake.

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

Quote

I'm not undoing any scholarly research, I'm just setting the bar at the same height for orthodox explanations as I do alternative explanations.

Then you of course should not ask me to furnish a high level of proof. This is an ongoing problem I have with folks who question orthodox history merely for the sake of questioning things. It's also why I no longer tend to provide a lot of substantive material and citations. Most people who question orthodoxy don't even care to dig into the research and attempt to understand its veracity for themselves. They just want to question it. That doesn't strike me as either fair or reasonable. It strikes me as a copout.

Quote

Now, go back and enjoy your holiday and have a nice Christmas.

In all honesty, the same to you. Season's greetings.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 22 December 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

Which brings me to something I should confess. I'm not sure what the importance of this is. Why the fuss over a bug? What possible import could it have?

Simple, if a bug survives 4500 years that thing ain't no boat pit, it is the fountain of eternal youth!

Wish that 3/4 of the fringe would bury themselves into a boat pit as autoexperiment. The other 1/4 can stay around as intermission clowns.