1650 replies to this topic

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 22 December 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

KMS: ... To that end I would recommend Ann Macy Roth's excellent book on workmen's graffiti of the Old Kingdom. It's the best source I can cite for this situation....

Quote

QM: A foreman of an Egyptian work-team around 2500 BC could certainly NOT write.

SC: So - the workmen can apparently read/write graffiti but the foreman of the work-team "...could certainly NOT..."? Is it just me or does anyone else here see how these two Egypt-apologists contradict each other? Make up your minds.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 23 December 2012 - 12:31 AM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

there is actually a difference between being able to write and being able to read.
Admittedly the later IS an important part of the former.
However, and here's me as a teacher speaking, we see the later being developed faster then the former. I've taught five year olds who read at a 10 year old level but whose writing vaguely resembles letters and words in so far as they're both squiggles on a page, even the kids struggle to read their own handwriting.

[Harte]

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

But it's assumed that your a person with something relevant to say.

cormac

Speak for yourself.  I've assumed exactly the opposite about him and thus only read his posts when you or others quote them.

Harte

[Harte]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 23 December 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

you mean I am poor at being a fool? well, now I am heartbroken, a sad clown

and this egg nog sounds like some terrible blasphemy and sacrilege

You're absolutely right about that.
The next morning.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Scott Creighton, on 23 December 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

SC: So - the workmen can apparently read/write graffiti but the foreman of the work-team "...could certainly NOT..."? Is it just me or does anyone else here see how these two Egypt-apologists contradict each other? Make up your minds.

SC

I will go on record as stating that probably at least some of the higher-ranking foremen were literate, or at least passably so. The average grunt working in the quarries, hauling stone masonry, or placing blocks in the pyramid certainly was not literate. Literacy rates for the Old Kingdom are believed to have been between one and three percent. The average person—farmer, herdsman, brewer, baker, et cetera—would've had no practical reason to be literate, beyond the ability to write his name and perhaps some familiarity with numbers.

But bear in mind the bureaucracy of pharaonic Egypt. There is no doubt that a large number of scribes were on-site at all times. Scribes were often assigned to individual work gangs to help keep account of who showed up for work, and who were issued what tools and whether those tools were returned at the end of the work day.

We will never know for certain who wrote that graffiti. There are no personal names of which I'm aware, beyond Khufu's. It could have been a literate foreman or a scribe.

Your jab at QM and me is a tad disingenuous. You've read enough of the professional literature to know that professional historians are not always in agreement. Why should posters at UM be any different? For that matter, fringe writers are often working from competing ideas. They tend to get more bizarre and more divorced from reality as time goes by, but fringies disagree, too.

[kmt_sesh]

I've noticed the general negative trend posts are taking between certain posters. I needn't name names—all of you know who you are.

This is not necessary and I ask that it cease. If posters do not get along and feel they must resort to ridicule when posting, then that's a good sign to avoid writing such posts. If necessary, ignore or avoid a poster who pushes your buttons.

Thank you.

kmt_sech

[questionmark]

Alcibiades9, on 22 December 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

Yes... and the English lower classes couldn't read or write either, and knew nothing about science.  Oh but then there was Michael Faraday....


Don't make silly generalisations.  Don't tell me who couldn't read or write.  Don't tell me who didn't know what.  Don't project your own ignorance onto others.

Which leads your foreman theory at absurdum. Which is my point that would have gone unnoticed if you would keep your peace at certain posts.

[lakeview rud]

One way to establish how old the Sphinx is, is to  establish how old the Sphinx temple AKA Valley temple is, as it makes sense that the temple would be built AFTER the Sphinx was sculpted.  Mark Lehner's done a vey small bit of carbon 14 dating of mortar of the temple and got two dates, about 2000 B.C and 2700 B.C. Not very conclusive.  The temple supposed has quays (docks for ships) and even may have a drainage system (why would a drainange system be needed in a desert climate?) Docks would be needed to bring any substantial materials to the Giza site. They would be there before construction of the pyramids. There are supposedly amulets found at Abydos that show a partially buried Sphinx (Abydos is 1st dynasty I believe).  There is stone repair work on the Sphinx that dates to the 4th dynasty.  Why would a newly carved monument (if built in the 4th dynasty) need repairs?  Clearly there is not enough evidence to date it to the 4th dynasty, but also clearly the other dates are similarly not good enough since they lack conclusive evidence.

I would think a good place to look for more evidence is at the Sphinx temple.  Right now I'm going to suggest that the 2700 B.C. carbon dating of the mortar is a reasonable date for construction of the temple.  Finding more evidence at the temple (or even a more detailed carbon dating of the mortar) would be a logical place to continue ito investingate

[Scott Creighton]

kmt_sesh, on 23 December 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

For that matter, fringe writers are often working from competing ideas. They tend to get more bizarre and more divorced from reality as time goes by, but fringies disagree, too.

SC: You digress. Any theory that is not supported by the extant evidence or which contradicts the extant evidence should be considered a "fringe" theory. The pyramid tomb theory, much beloved and promoted by consensus Egyptology and its apologists, falls squarely into this category and, as such, should be regarded as fringe as any other "out there" theory. Of course, if compelling empirical evidence can be presented in support of a particular theory then, naturally, this will bring the theory nearer to acceptance and further away from fringedom. Without such empirical evidence the theory is destined to languish in fringedom. When Joe Public comes to realise the extremely weak case presented by consensus Egyptology in support of its tomb paradigm with regard to the early, giant pyramids I have little doubt that they will themselves banish consensus Egyptology to the realm of fringedom where any unevidenced theory belongs.

SC

[kmt_sesh]

lakeview rud, on 24 December 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

One way to establish how old the Sphinx is, is to  establish how old the Sphinx temple AKA Valley temple is, as it makes sense that the temple would be built AFTER the Sphinx was sculpted.  Mark Lehner's done a vey small bit of carbon 14 dating of mortar of the temple and got two dates, about 2000 B.C and 2700 B.C. Not very conclusive.  The temple supposed has quays (docks for ships) and even may have a drainage system (why would a drainange system be needed in a desert climate?) Docks would be needed to bring any substantial materials to the Giza site. They would be there before construction of the pyramids. There are supposedly amulets found at Abydos that show a partially buried Sphinx (Abydos is 1st dynasty I believe).  There is stone repair work on the Sphinx that dates to the 4th dynasty.  Why would a newly carved monument (if built in the 4th dynasty) need repairs?  Clearly there is not enough evidence to date it to the 4th dynasty, but also clearly the other dates are similarly not good enough since they lack conclusive evidence.

I would think a good place to look for more evidence is at the Sphinx temple.  Right now I'm going to suggest that the 2700 B.C. carbon dating of the mortar is a reasonable date for construction of the temple.  Finding more evidence at the temple (or even a more detailed carbon dating of the mortar) would be a logical place to continue ito investingate

This sort of work has already been done on archaeological grounds by the Giza Plateau Mapping Project (see the relevant pages here). Archaeologically, the Sphinx is an integral part of the pyramid complex of Khafre.

A range of dates between 2500 BCE and 2700 BCE is entirely possible for the Sphinx temple. Carbon dates produced from organic matter originating from the Early Bronze Age can vary by a couple of centuries. A date of 2000 BCE is definitely not correct. Were you viewing the calibrated dates? I'm away from home for the holidays and don't have access to that information in my library back in Chicago.

Rest assured, no expert in the field, and especially no expert who specializes in Old Kingdom Egypt, posits that repair work was performed on the Sphinx in Dynasty 4. I've seen this information on websites espousing alternative and revisionist history, but never in the relevant professional literature. That repair work was performed on the Sphinx in antiquity is certainly possible, but I know of no real evidence that would support such work in Dynasty 4.

The quays are there and some degree of archaeological work has been conducted on them, but it's unlikely they will ever be fully exposed and studied. The suburban crawl of modern Cairo has oozed right up to the foot of the Plateau. Just the same, the quays would've served multiple purposes. Initially, as you stated, they were convenient for bringing barges with materials from the Nile to the Plateau, for construction purposes. Thereafter, however, they were a principal means of access by priests and other officials to the temples and other monuments of the Plateau.

The drainage system was there for a reason. If the Nile flooded too high, the quays would as well. Some degree of drainage would've been needed for the temples that fronted the quays.

[abhijit_b]

kmt_sesh, on 24 December 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Rest assured, no expert in the field, and especially no expert who specializes in Old Kingdom Egypt, posits that repair work was performed on the Sphinx in Dynasty 4. I've seen this information on websites espousing alternative and revisionist history, but never in the relevant professional literature. That repair work was performed on the Sphinx in antiquity is certainly possible, but I know of no real evidence that would support such work in Dynasty 4.

Sphinx restored during the old kingdom is prominent in earlier research publish by most orthodox historians. But when alternative theorists raised questions over them, these vanished from orthodox quotes. But still you can find here http://www.drhawass....og/story-sphinx where Zahi Hawass mentions:

"The Egyptians of the Old Kingdom knew that the stone from which the lion’s body was carved was very poor. For this reason, they added large blocks of better-quality stones to the outside of the lower parts of the Sphinx, and modeled the details of the body in this better quality material."

But this is actually a diversion of his research earlier, mentioned in his book "The secretes of the sphinx", page 26 -
"...On the upper part of the body, we found old Kingdom blocks, of the same quality used to face Khafre's causeway, reset against a badly weathered old kingdom core...."

Also wikipediastates this:
"Mark Lehner, an Egyptologist, originally asserted that there had been a far earlier renovation during the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2184 BC), although he has subsequently recanted this "heretical" viewpoint."

I believe Egyptology is about imagination and assumption along with science. As none can be sure of what exactly happened on that very period in history because of lacking written evidences, the imagination and individual theories have been accepted. While orthodoxs' imaginations those fit to the existing theory have been accepted and any diversion from the same has been rejected. And that is happening in the recent times, where the two sides have clear ego clash and no side accpeting a defeat.

I am no expert in Egyptology, but I gathered interest in it in past few years and found that Sphinx is really a mystery to the historians. Although very few facts about the Sphinx's history are clear to present day, yet the historian never agree to the fact. They will keep on putting names like Khafre or Khufu becuase that fits their timeline. In case of the GP, the orthodox history has answered almost all of the questions raised. But for Sphinx it's not true.

I definitely agree with many in this forum, that orthodox Egyptologists have closed the doors for new thoughts. Whatever orthodox historian says, reaches the text book easily even though that may be just an imagination of the historian. While the reverse is not trure for the alternative historian.

I think Dr Robert Schoch and John Anthony West are very much scientific in their approach of Sphinx erosion. Unfortunately, their thoughts are mostly rejected, instead of welcoming the new ideas and trying to evaluate it. The orthodox historian would just think of counter answers to disapprove this theory day and night with a closed mind. And when you just think negative about something, you may find a few points also.

The rain water erosion problem on Sphinx is still a big question mark, though there have been lots of counter attack to disprove it. And the biggest and simplest question about Sphinx that still not answered is whose face is it? I guess it should be the first question to be answered before trying to find archeological evidences whether Khafre's causeway decides Sphinx wall or not. The face is defnitely not Khufu or Khafre comparing the statues of both the kings.

[cormac mac airt]

abhijit_b, on 24 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Sphinx restored during the old kingdom is prominent in earlier research publish by most orthodox historians. But when alternative theorists raised questions over them, these vanished from orthodox quotes. But still you can find here http://www.drhawass....og/story-sphinx where Zahi Hawass mentions:

"The Egyptians of the Old Kingdom knew that the stone from which the lion’s body was carved was very poor. For this reason, they added large blocks of better-quality stones to the outside of the lower parts of the Sphinx, and modeled the details of the body in this better quality material."

But this is actually a diversion of his research earlier, mentioned in his book "The secretes of the sphinx", page 26 -
"...On the upper part of the body, we found old Kingdom blocks, of the same quality used to face Khafre's causeway, reset against a badly weathered old kingdom core...."

~SNIP~

The Old Kingdom of Ancient Egypt doesn't end with the 4th Dynasty, it ends with the 6th Dynasty at the earliest, which is more than 250 years later.

cormac

[Quaentum]

Scott Creighton, on 22 December 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

SC: Less misinformation from you and more actual fact would be good. Like I keep telling you - you need to do much more research. And FTR - I have never stated anywhere that Khufu never existed nor have I ever claimed anywhere that he was not a king of ancient Egypt. Furthermore, if you look back through my posts you will clearly find that I am consistent in my view having always accepted that Khufu was responsible for having had the Great Pyramid built (although I dispute the consensus Egyptology mantra that it was built on his orders to function as his eternal tomb).

SC

Your original reply to me concerning the kings list came across, as if you were indicating he wasn't a king, and that's how I based my reply to you.

As far as the king's list I have posted links that show he is on the king's list.  You keep saying I need to do the the research but my research shows he is on the list.  Can you show anything that indicates he is not on the list?  Or is the requirement of facts only for others?

[Quaentum]

Scott Creighton, on 24 December 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

SC: You digress. Any theory that is not supported by the extant evidence or which contradicts the extant evidence should be considered a "fringe" theory. The pyramid tomb theory, much beloved and promoted by consensus Egyptology and its apologists, falls squarely into this category and, as such, should be regarded as fringe as any other "out there" theory. Of course, if compelling empirical evidence can be presented in support of a particular theory then, naturally, this will bring the theory nearer to acceptance and further away from fringedom. Without such empirical evidence the theory is destined to languish in fringedom. When Joe Public comes to realise the extremely weak case presented by consensus Egyptology in support of its tomb paradigm with regard to the early, giant pyramids I have little doubt that they will themselves banish consensus Egyptology to the realm of fringedom where any unevidenced theory belongs.

SC

Attempting to present the tomb theory as a fringe theory is only possible if you ignore the existence evidence of the sarcophagus and the nearby mortuary temple, both of which deal with death and burial.

[questionmark]

Quaentum, on 24 December 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Attempting to present the tomb theory as a fringe theory is only possible if you ignore the existence evidence of the sarcophagus and the nearby mortuary temple, both of which deal with death and burial.

and the fact that the three grand pyramids are located in a Necropolis dating from the stone age.

Edited by questionmark, 24 December 2012 - 03:52 PM.