902 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 30 December 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

Technically you are totally correct.

technically about the sole thing they ever said that actually survives is "Nefermaat is he
who makes his gods in words that can not be erased.". Obviously from this it's safe to deduce
they were superstitious and so primitive that the only possible means to lift a stone is to use
a ramp.  Nevermind that it's a five step pyramid and denies the possibility of ramps and virtually
proves stones were dragged up the side because "Nefermaat is hewho makes his gods in words
that can not be erased.".

I believe that it makes more sense to work with the words they actually chiseled into pyramids and
those words say that they used a henu boat to lift the stones.  The words in the cemeteries support
this and also virtually proves they did not use ramps.

So we all bask in the certainty that they mustta used ramps right up until they open this cave and
actually start doing their jobs.

You can try to reinterpret it all you want, but the fact is that your henu boat still resides in a cradle ON A SLED. This is not something that would go up the side of a pyramid. That much should be obvious.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 30 December 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

I think people are forgetting a few vwery obvious facts.  No, it's not that this boat
has all the defining characteristics of a device to lift stones but that the Egyptians
said that the gods built the pyramids and they defined how they did so.  They said
"let this boat be brought for the "bridge girderers" of the desert".  They said that Osir-
is towed the earth in his name of Seker by means of balance and they said that Osir-
is became Seker in this boat.  They even carved these words in stone... ....where?...
...you guessed it, right into a pyramid.

I don't need to comprehend how people see ramps that aren't there and are blind
to the words, culture, and physical evidence of a five step pyramid assembled by
pulling stones up a level at a time.  All I need to do is keep seeking the proof to what
is actually rather obvious to anyone who's willling to look at the facts. The fact that
everyone is to cowardly to investigate this cave is also supportive but the important
point is that it exists.  The important point is that the news is, has been, and will con-
tinue to support thew fact that water was used to build these structures.  The import-
ant point is that the cave is still there as proof of concept even when Egyptology can't
bring itself to investigate any of the basic facts because they already know everything.

I can defend the argument far better than this but experience tells me that everyone
will simply dismiss it and instead tell me what their INTERPRETATION of the evidence
is.  When I point out that their interpretation ignores a lot of evidence they'll just claim
that evidence is a red herring and has no bearing on ramps.  Meanwhile I can under-
stand more and more of the PT and the ancient science.

Expecting something frpom 1300 years after the pyramids were built to actually reflect
reality in all ways is unreasonable.  If there were other depictions of the []nw-boat (henu
boat) I'd certainly use them but there aren't because this was a later invention.  However,
anyone can look at the more ancient art and see numerous boats built on sleds and even
boats suspended in mid-air on a column of water.

I would suggest that Egyptology simply misunderstands the entire culture.  Rather than
investigate facts they just ignore them or put gates up to make sure no ever knows.

No, the only fact is that you misidentified a Dynasty 20 wall relief from deep in southern Egypt as something to do with Old Kingdom pyramids. And in this long post you completely evaded that fact. If I seem put off at times, it is because of your grandiose belief that two centuries of Egyptological scholarship has somehow "misunderstood" the culture while your own level of research is limited to the Great Pyramid involving outdated translations of the Pyramid Texts and an inability to translate the source language or interpret its meanings in any way relevant to the culture itself. In short, you've apparently investigated much less than 1/2 of 1% of the relevant research material available to you.

As I always stress to other posters and people in general, when they hear someone say all of professional scholarship is wrong while only he or she knows the "truth," then you can be certain this individual is quite clearly the one who's wrong. It is not only unrealistic to think such a thing, it comes across as mentally unsound. Such a person is not and never will be taken seriously, so you're advised to avoid doing this sort of thing.

I do apologize for being harsh, but I don't deal well with people who toss mud at Egyptology who at the same time don't understand Egyptological methodology. It's like a creationist insisting the world was created in 4004 BCE because they do not understand science and, due to their fixed and rigid loyalty to their own assumptions, do not even wish to try to learn the science.

Now I've begun to ramble, a habit too common for me. The above post of yours which I quoted goes into a number of things that have nothing to do with the points I brought up in my own Post 218, which was a comment on your Post 211 and its illustration from the shrine at Medinet Habu. Do you wish to reply to it so you can address the points I brought up?

cladking, on 30 December 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

Here's a little something a few people might find interesting;

http://www.egyptolog...sis_PTs_vs1.pdf

It's not just the forward that attracted my attention but this scholar is using my methodology
to at least a limited extent to understand the PT.  I'm not sure his work is any better than Allen's
because I have no expertise to judge it and believe Allen diverted this work from the intended
meaning.

Your grandiose tendencies are showing even here. Are you sure you read the forward to this paper? I already had this PDF in my files and have perused it. Shmakov would not even recognize or understand your methodology because it follows no recognizable protocols. It seems you clearly missed it but Shmakov praises James Allen in his forward and in fact is following Allen's methodology in addressing the Pyramid Texts. He even employs some of Allen's research into the more arcane forms of sDm.f verb forms. I am not extensively familiar with Shmakov but I've encountered some of his work on the EEF postings, as well as this and other texts he's written for review. This person is soundly academic and highly professional, and I'm reasonably certain he's not even a professional historian. Even so, I am quite confident he's forgotten more about hieroglyphs in the past week than I'll learn the rest of my life.

That's the gist of it. Shmakov is using hieroglyphic transcriptions to analyze the Pyramid Texts—he's employing the source language. Your own manner of personal assumptive interpretations is absent from the work of someone such as Shmakov. Also, note that Shmakov is one of many who plainly states that Allen's translations have become the standard. I know how much that drives you nuts, but it's the pain you suffer for insisting on sticking with very outdated and incomplete translations.

[kmt_sesh]

cormac mac airt, on 30 December 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

You can try to reinterpret it all you want, but the fact is that your henu boat still resides in a cradle ON A SLED. This is not something that would go up the side of a pyramid. That much should be obvious.

cormac

Not to mention the fact that extant wall reliefs depicting such apparatuses show that they were carried in procession by around eight to ten priests. These boats were small. Given that the average pyramid stone weighs around 2.5 tons, placing one stone on top of or within such a boat would've promptly crushed the boat.

This is a classic and clear sample of someone's whimsical, personal interpretation of ancient art. It is not grounded in evidence, nor is it logical. It did not happen.

I cannot recall the earliest attestation for Henu Boats of Sokar, but the workmen's cemetery at Giza yielded the burial of someone who built such boats for the cultic processions of Neith, whose cult center was in the Delta. This at least tells us that such processional boats were being made in the Old Kingdom—but absolutely not for building purposes. No evidence even remotely suggests it. Such valuable cultic devices were not wasted as construction tools.

[Swede]

kmt_sesh, on 30 December 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

Not to mention the fact that extant wall reliefs depicting such apparatuses show that they were carried in procession by around eight to ten priests. These boats were small. Given that the average pyramid stone weighs around 2.5 tons, placing one stone on top of or within such a boat would've promptly crushed the boat.

This is a classic and clear sample of someone's whimsical, personal interpretation of ancient art. It is not grounded in evidence, nor is it logical. It did not happen.

I cannot recall the earliest attestation for Henu Boats of Sokar, but the workmen's cemetery at Giza yielded the burial of someone who built such boats for the cultic processions of Neith, whose cult center was in the Delta. This at least tells us that such processional boats were being made in the Old Kingdom—but absolutely not for building purposes. No evidence even remotely suggests it. Such valuable cultic devices were not wasted as construction tools.

Kmt - To add to your list - Am unsure of the specific Sokar association, but the recent funerary boat recovery by Tristant at Abu Rawash is dated to the First Dynasty (2950 BC).

.

[cormac mac airt]

Swede, on 30 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Kmt - To add to your list - Am unsure of the specific Sokar association, but the recent funerary boat recovery by Tristant at Abu Rawash is dated to the First Dynasty (2950 BC).

.

Just to add to this Swede it should be pointed out that at approximately 19.6 feet long and 4.9 feet wide and seamed together the way it is, such a boat (or something similar) would be practically useless for moving even one block. Let alone several. And with it resting in a cradle on top of a sled the level of ridiculousness intensifies. The quantity of seams/eyelets alone would call into question its durability for such a usage IMO.

http://www.dailymail...aeologists.html

cormac

[Swede]

cormac mac airt, on 30 December 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Just to add to this Swede it should be pointed out that at approximately 19.6 feet long and 4.9 feet wide and seamed together the way it is, such a boat (or something similar) would be practically useless for moving even one block. Let alone several. And with it resting in a cradle on top of a sled the level of ridiculousness intensifies. The quantity of seams/eyelets alone would call into question its durability for such a usage IMO.

http://www.dailymail...aeologists.html

cormac

Agreed!

.

[cladking]

I don't supppose people are trying to miss the point but can't imagine how they
could possibly miss the point any more than they are.  It is Egyptological assumption
that the people of Egypt never changed.  I know for a fact, on a visceral level, that this
is an impossibility.  But it doesn't matter what I "know" any more than what Egyptology
"knows" because all that really matters is the evidence.  All we have are the metaphy-
sics for understanding and the measurements and experimental results.  Everything
says Egyptology is wrong and this is the bottom line.

Curiously enough the Egyptians are even speaking from the grave to say egyptology
is dead wrong.  They are saying they were not primitive bumpkins and that Egyptology
went wrong because of sampling error and assumption. It is probably impossible to un-
derstand a people by analyzing their graves.

But more curiously is that they say exactly how they built the pyramids inscribed right
into the stone of which they are made yet Egyptologists never bothered to read their
own translations.  In the Hymn to Osiris they said that in his name of Seker that he tows
the earth by means of balance.  They said downward makes the earth high under the sky.
They said that a boat was needed to build the "bridge in the desert" and it was needed
by Seker (you remember Seker, it was he who towed the earth using balance);

445c. N. is on the way to the place of Seker, chief of Pdw-š.
445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert.

Which boat do they need?

494a. bring this (boat) to N. Which boat shall I bring to thee, O N.?
494b. Bring to N. that which flies up and alights.

Why bring a boat for Seker?

1968a. Let then Seker of pdw come,...
...1970a. Wherewith shall N. be caused to fly?
1970b (N. 758-759). Then let there be brought to thee ------ ḥnw-boat, built by Mw-ḥn,
1970c. that thou mayest fly therewith, that thou mayest fly therewith,

"Hnw-boat" is the henu boat.

This is all to assemble Horus who is the dead king as the pyramid;

1965c. and how shall he be assembled?
1966a. Then let this copper be brought ------ the ḥnw-boat --- with it.

I could go on and on and on because this is what the dead people of Egypt say and they
say it all consistently without contradiction.  It is internally consistent because this is what it
means.  They say that the water comes up from under Giza from caves and fills the boat
known as "the Bull of Heaven" thereby causing stones to fly like the fledglings of swallows.

There is tremendous detail provided in their words of this bull and each of its constituent
parts.  These details are consistent with each other and the laws of physics (as we under-
stand them).

It's not only the consistency of the words and science but it's also the consistency with the
actual physical evidence as well as the ability of this paradigm to explain and predict.  Pre-
diction is the root cause to invent any science in the fiorst place.  If knowledge weren't use-
ful in making predictions then there would be no science.  I just learned this morning that
pyramid sites employed two "prophets".  Obviously these were the chief scientists who dir-
ected the work right under the chief architect known as "anubis".

We translate all these words wrong because the people did change.  No one can show that
this is untrue because there is no cultural context because nothing survives.  This is what the
true cultural context was; highly scientific people causing stones to fly with henu boats using
water that comes out of caves right on the Giza Plateau.  We can't even investigate this be-
cause we are superstitious bumpkins moribound by our belefs and the status quo.  This is
the reality.

[cladking]

Here's what dead people sound like when they speak;



They make many sounds actually but this is the sound they make when describing the
heavy wooden timbers of the "henu boat" rubbing against the "ladder of heaven" which
was right on the side of the growing pyramid as utterance #538;

1302a. To say: Back, thou lowing ox.
1302b. Thy head is in the hand of Horus; thy tail is in the hand of Isis;
1302c. the fingers of Atum are at thy horns.

This isn't a threat to a bull or a bunch of gods conspiring to tame it.  Such an interpretation
is simple absurdity.  But it does meanb exactly what it says.  Horus is the stones that com-
prised the pyramid who has no feet and no arms.

1964d. as Isis said to Nun:
1965a. "I have given birth to him for thee; I have deposited him for thee; 1 have certainly spit him out for thee."
1965b. He has no feet; he has no arms,

But he has hands which are the ability of a natural phenomenon to manipulate.  He sits on
the head of the bull of heaven on his own hands.

The tail of the bull is in the hand of Isis to oversees the counterweight.  She is the phenomenon
of the falling weight lifting another weight.  The fingers of Atum are on the horns of the bull.



So we can see and hear the bull being too far forward on the loading platform and the men having
to wait for the automatic leveling device (the Min) and the counterweight to restore the head of the
bull to the proper position.

Of course it's improbable that the ascender looked exactly like this, or the henu boat exactly like;




1772b. (for) he came forth with the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper,

But these are the general shapes which are consistent with the work needed to be done.  There's
plenty more detail but none of it has anything to do with ramps.

Perhaps we'll one day find out that it's far more complicated than just water shooting out of the earth
from caves but for now we have the evidence we have and that's it.  You can't make up stuff about
ramps or anything without real evidence and expect it to last forever.

Edited by cladking, 30 December 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 27 December 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

I am one of relatively few who don't much jump to conclusions.  I jump ahead to the answer by means of intuition and this answer may well be entirely wrong but I don't jump to conclusions because I've never reached a conclusion.  I strive to be perfectly ignorant and should I live long enough I might yet achieve it.  

You should put this disclaimer in all your posts Cladking...

Others seek for Truth, but you are striving to be ignorant.

[cladking]

DieChecker, on 31 December 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Others seek for Truth, but you are striving to be ignorant.

This might be one of the most ironic statements ever made in 40,000 years of "intell-
igent" life on earth.  The Egyptian word that meant "balance" (ma'at) is usually mis-
translated as 'truth".  "Balance" is about weighing the evidence more than it is about
reaching conclusions or even knowledge.

This isn't why I liked your post but it's part of the reason.  I do like to remind peo-
ple once in a while that I have no problem with the concept of being wrong.  Everybody
always has  been anyway.




edited for typos.  

Edited by cladking, 31 December 2012 - 10:18 PM.

[dreamland]

WE first started talking on the subject of this topic which is " caves under the pyramids,then we moved into ramps and end up with " Here's what dead people sound like when they speak;". Any new more subjects?

Edited by dreamland, 31 December 2012 - 10:39 PM.

[DingoLingo]

dreamland, on 31 December 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

WE first started talking on the subject of this topic which is " caves under the pyramids,then we moved into ramps and end up with " Here's what dead people sound like when they speak;". Any new more subjects?

Mango's..

[kmt_sesh]

Swede, on 30 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Kmt - To add to your list - Am unsure of the specific Sokar association, but the recent funerary boat recovery by Tristant at Abu Rawash is dated to the First Dynasty (2950 BC).

.

That was an exciting an unexpected find, Swede. I've been unable to come across sufficient detail on it yet, but it was probably buried for the tomb of a nobleman. The Early Dynastic Period is unique in pharaonic history for the actual boat burials of noblemen—boat burials for all of pharaonic history are very rare, for that matter, but in all later periods they were for kings. Counting the remains of the fourteen Abydos boats dating to Dynasty 1, the Early Dynastic Period probably contains more boat burials than all of the rest of pharaonic history combined.

Cormac provided the dimensions for the Abu Rawash boat, which is reflective of a small riverine boat. The processional boats for such deities as Sokar were a lot smaller, so I doubt the example at Abu Rawash is related to that ritual practice. But as cormac also stated, none of these boats—large or small—would've been used to lift stones and bang against the sides of pyramids. They would've crumbled like a child's toy. It is a plainly unrealistic (not to mention unevidenced) premise.

It's easy to use one's imagination to dream up all kind of fanciful ideas, but quite another thing to commit one's self to legitimate historical research. Many people at UM, it would seem, prefer the easy approach. Tsk tsk.

[Mangoze]

DingoLingo, on 01 January 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

Mango's..

Huh?

[Swede]

kmt_sesh, on 01 January 2013 - 03:13 AM, said:

That was an exciting an unexpected find, Swede. I've been unable to come across sufficient detail on it yet, but it was probably buried for the tomb of a nobleman. The Early Dynastic Period is unique in pharaonic history for the actual boat burials of noblemen—boat burials for all of pharaonic history are very rare, for that matter, but in all later periods they were for kings. Counting the remains of the fourteen Abydos boats dating to Dynasty 1, the Early Dynastic Period probably contains more boat burials than all of the rest of pharaonic history combined.

Cormac provided the dimensions for the Abu Rawash boat, which is reflective of a small riverine boat. The processional boats for such deities as Sokar were a lot smaller, so I doubt the example at Abu Rawash is related to that ritual practice. But as cormac also stated, none of these boats—large or small—would've been used to lift stones and bang against the sides of pyramids. They would've crumbled like a child's toy. It is a plainly unrealistic (not to mention unevidenced) premise.

It's easy to use one's imagination to dream up all kind of fanciful ideas, but quite another thing to commit one's self to legitimate historical research. Many people at UM, it would seem, prefer the easy approach. Tsk tsk.

Kmt - Have also not yet encountered a full report. The brief AIA article attributes the burial to a "high ranking official", which is rather synonymous.

Edit: Punctuation.

Edited by Swede, 01 January 2013 - 03:57 PM.