Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 2 votes

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


  • Please log in to reply
1650 replies to this topic

#1621    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:21 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 27 December 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

I am not upset, but I expect more of posters who want to take part in discussions. I am aware of some of your information from debating you in recent months, but that does not mean Swede is aware of it. He asked you for a source, therefore it is only reasonable for you to provide one. You could at least point him to a specific post or two that you wrote, which would explain your position in more detail.

If you're writing a book and are too busy to do this, then take a break and step back from this discussion. Do not expect others to do the work for you. That's not "hardball" but it comes across as evasion. You've been asked, you should answer. It's only fair.

Thank you.

SC: No. Swede made a statement that is factually incorrect. If s/he does a bit more research for him/herself then s/he will discover for him/herself why the statement is wrong. This site has a search facility, doesn’t it? It’s not too difficult to use.

“Take a break?” Yes, I am sure that would appeal to you.

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1622    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,713 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:25 AM

Scott, in case you don't understand, I wrote the preceding two posts as a Moderator. I am trying to be helpful and at the same time cautioning you.

I advise you leave it alone at this point. Either take part in the discussion or leave it alone altogether.

Thank you.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1623    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:35 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 27 December 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

Scott, in case you don't understand, I wrote the preceding two posts as a Moderator. I am trying to be helpful and at the same time cautioning you.

I advise you leave it alone at this point. Either take part in the discussion or leave it alone altogether.

Thank you.

SC: Caution? For what exactly? For advising another poster to do more research on his own (the best way actually of doing research)? Why exactly should such friendly advice warrant a caution? Do explain yourself. Let me see - by my very questioning of this silly caution, you will now feel justified to revoke posting rights? Is that the plan? Muzzle and shut down the poster when you do not like the theories they present, especially when they challenge your own cherished views. Is this the new censor regime you spoke of recently? Censor posts, remove posts etc.

Listen up folks and smell the coffee...

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1624    jmccr8

jmccr8

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined:30 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:41 AM

Hello Scott,

  I know that what I am about to say may offend you but that is not my intent.The questions that you face here are only voiced by a few,many of us are thinking the same thing and would like to see your supporting evidence,look you have over 1600 posts in this thread and over 50,000 views.Sure you have probably invested 1000nds of hours looking at things and to you your theory is all good.You know after I build a car I take it to a garage to have someone else look at it just to make sure that I have tightened all the bolts and have another view on it.It re-inforces the end product and I exercise this in all areas of interest and life.

  The barriers that your proposal faces here should be an avenue for you to enhance and refine your theory.If you do not then you limit your ability to effectively project your ideas.


#1625    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 16,406 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:23 AM

I think this is a real good time for me to post a couple of reminders:

6a. Compliance: You agree to co-operate with the requests of our site staff should you be asked to stop doing something that they deem to be disruptive, inappropriate or in violation of the terms of service.

6c. Appeal: Do not post content designed to complain about, rally support against or to criticise moderator action. If you disagree with action taken by a member of staff you have the option to appeal the decision by PMing a moderator or administrator.



At this point it would be a very good idea to review the UM rules.

Edited by Lilly, 27 December 2012 - 10:31 AM.
format

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#1626    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 12:34 PM

View PostLilly, on 27 December 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

I think this is a real good time for me to post a couple of reminders:

6a. Compliance: You agree to co-operate with the requests of our site staff should you be asked to stop doing something that they deem to be disruptive, inappropriate or in violation of the terms of service.

6c. Appeal: Do not post content designed to complain about, rally support against or to criticise moderator action. If you disagree with action taken by a member of staff you have the option to appeal the decision by PMing a moderator or administrator.



At this point it would be a very good idea to review the UM rules.

SC: Please explain to me exactly how I breached UM rule 6a you cite above? Is it an obligation of a UM member to respond in detail to every point made in another's post? Is it an obligation of a UM member to provide every piece of information when asked? I have provided much information relating to Swede's particular question already elsewhere in this thread - and beyond UM. Anyone familiar with the search facility of UM and the wider internet can easily find the further evidence/citations for themselves.

So please explain to me exactly how it is a cautionary offense to ask people to research material for themselves?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 27 December 2012 - 12:55 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1627    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,063 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:13 PM

The original request was simple and innocuous enough, it is generally more helpful to provide a source in a discussion than to tell others to go and figure it out for themselves. Nobody suggested that it was a policy issue or that you were obligated to do so, it was a matter of etiquette and a helpful suggestion in reference to others' criticisms. The reason these rules have been quoted to you now is because you won't stop arguing with the moderators about it despite being asked to and the thread is being disrupted as a result.

Can we please return this thread to the topic being discussed.

Thank you.


#1628    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 05:40 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 24 December 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

SC: First of all, of the early giant pyramids, only THREE were found to contain a stone box.  Of those three, one has gone missing so it is impossible to otherwise prove its provenance. The second was found to contain earth along with the bones of a bull. The third is empty and lidless (although there are ancient claims of various items having been found therein).

That these stone boxes have been labelled as 'sarcophagi' by consensus Egyptology in no way MAKES them sarcophagi. As far as I am concerned these stone boxes represent an element of a chthonic religion with the stone boxes being the archetype or fore-runner to the later form of 'Osiris Bed' - these are stone (sometimes wooden) boxes the AEs made to bury earth and seeds under a mound of earth. There was never any intention to place a physical body in these stone/wooden boxes. The seed placed in the earth in these boxes represented the Ka - the hidden life-force - that resurrected the earth. Consensus Egyptology has made a HUGE ASSUMPTION in declaring these stone boxes sarcophagi. They were never found with a body and later AE festivals show us exactly why these stone boxes were found empty and what these stone boxes actually were - 'Osiris Bricks' or 'Osiris Beds'. The early, giant pyramids came to represent the allegorical 'Body of Osiris'. The stone box containing seed and earth would symbolise the Ka of Osiris. The stone box containing earth and bull bones represents the Ba of Osiris. These stone boxes contained the 'soul of Osiris' (his ka and Ba) within the allegorical, dismembered Body of Osiris i.e. the early, giant pyramids.

If we look at an Osiris bed, we see that the inside is in the rough shape of Osiris and that they are small in size, when compared to the sarcophagi found in the pyramids.

Posted Image

The image was filled with dirt and Barley (I believe).  None of the sarcophagi have been found with the image of Osiris and only one contained dirt and the bones of a bull.  None of the Osiris beds had animal parts or bones buried within them.

The sarcophagi are too large to be Osiris beds as it would have been a waste of dirt for the planting of a few seeds.  If the sarcophagi were Osiris beds, dirt would have been found in all of them and this is not the case.

I tend to think that the sarcophagus found with dirt and the bones of a bull were tied to a ritual to Apis rather than anything to do with Osiris.

Osiris beds are from the new kingdom while the sarcophagi are from the old kingdom.  Despite that, you continue to claim that the sarcophagi were the forerunners of the Osiris beds.  Can you point me to anything that supports that view?

One point you keep raising is the lack of mummies.  If we look at what was found with King Tut, we see what normally would have been buried with the king.  A tempting target for any and all grave robbers.  You previously claimed that you believe that the Arabs were not the first to break into the GP but was done much earlier.  It easily could have been tomb robbers at work which is why nothing was found wheh the Arabs entered the GP.  Someone, earlier in this thread I believe, though it could have been a different thread, posted a picture of a mummy salesman which would explain why, if tomb robbers did empty the GP, there was no mummy.  It would have been yet another source of revenue for them.

Scott Creighton said:

Mortuary Temple? Again this is but a LABEL consensus Egyptology attaches to these temples. SAYING they were Mortuary Temples does not and will not MAKE them Mortuary Temples. What consensus Egyptology, with regard to the early, giant pyramids, must do is PROVE these temples were mortuary in nature. As far as I am concerned these were Chthonic Temples built to recite spells, prayers and incantations to ensure the rebirth of the KINGDOM. The AEs built temples to recite such spells etc to ensure that the Sun would be reborn each and every day - their sun temples. The temples attached to the pyramids were NOT mortuary temples for the king but Chthonic Temples ensuring the rebirth of the earth (kingdom). Why do you think the fragments from the causeways from these temples were found to have been inscribed with stars, plants, animals etc?  Because this is symbolising the rebirth that would come from within the pyramid - just as it did at the First Time (Sp Tpy) of Creation. Mortuary Temples, no. Chthonic Rebirth Temples, yes.

SC

You're right.  Saying they are mortuary temples, by itself, does not make them mortuary temples.  However, let us examine just one,  Hatshepsut's.  There is no doubt that the AE's would have prayed and performed rituals in the solar chapel and others within the temple.  The existence, within the temple, of the tomb of Senenmut and chapel to Anubis who was associated with mummification and the afterlife clearly mark it as a mortuary temple. http://ancientegypto...morttemple.html

Can you show anything that supports your view that they were merely Cthonic temples whose purpose was to ensure the rebirth of the kingdom?

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#1629    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:40 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 27 December 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Quote

QN: If we look at an Osiris bed, we see that the inside is in the rough shape of Osiris and that they are small in size, when compared to the sarcophagi found in the pyramids.

The image was filled with dirt and Barley (I believe).  None of the sarcophagi have been found with the image of Osiris and only one contained dirt and the bones of a bull.  None of the Osiris beds had animal parts or bones buried within them.

The sarcophagi are too large to be Osiris beds as it would have been a waste of dirt for the planting of a few seeds.  If the sarcophagi were Osiris beds, dirt would have been found in all of them and this is not the case.

SC: First of all, kudos to you for going and doing some research into this of your own rather than expecting me to spoon-feed it to you.
Secondly, you confuse ‘Osiris Bricks’ with ‘Osiris Beds’.  Whilst thousands of Osiris Bricks have been found (made of wood, stone or mud-brick), only a small number of Osiris Beds have been discovered. (This is understandable given that the idea was that they would be buried under a mound of earth hence not easy to find).

Quote

”…the priests bring forth a sacred chest containing a small, golden coffer, into which they pour some potable water… and a great shout arises from the company for joy that Osiris is found (or resurrected). Then they knead some fertile soil with the water… and fashion there from a crescent-shaped figure, which they cloth and adorn, this indicating that they regard these gods as the substance of Earth and Water.” – Plutarch, Isis and Osiris.

Quote

”In the tomb of Tutankhamun was a huge black box containing a figure of Osiris swathed in linen. This "Osiris-Bed" or "germinated figure of Osiris" consists of a wooden frame moulded in the form of this deity, hollowed out, lined with linen, filled with Nile silt, and planted with barley. This was moistened, the grain germinated, and the inanimate form became green and living thus symbolising the resurrection of Osiris, and, of course of the deceased. The life-size effigy found in Tutankhamun's tomb was completely bandaged in the same way as a mummy.

Other examples of "Osiris-Beds" with germinated barley are known: two were found in the tomb of Yuya and Thuya, measuring 1.63m. and 1.73m. respectively in length. Another specimen, 1.78m. long and 68cm. wide, was found in the tomb of Mahirper at Thebes. In the Cairo Museum is an empty specimen from the tomb of Horemheb, and in the Egyptian Museum at Stockholm is a small "Osiris-Bed", of unknown date, dug into a brick about 25cm long and filled with germinated barley"

Peter Ucko, G. W. Dimbleby, The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, p.135

Quote

"The god Osiris was closely associated with vegetation, and particularly with germinating grain. The emergence of young growth shoots from the fertile mud of Egypt was regarded as a powerful metaphor for human resurrection, and this notion was given physical form in Osirian images and figurines in which earth and corn were basic constituents. Some royal tombs of the New Kingdom contained an 'Osiris Bed', a seed bed in a wooden frame or on a piece of textile, made in the shape of Osiris. This bed was planted with barley, which germinated in the tomb, symbolising the renewal of life for the dead king via the agency of Osiris. A similar concept underlay the creation of “corn mummies”, figurines composed of earth or mud mixed with grains of barley and fashioned into a miniature mummiform image of Osiris. These figures were manufactured in an elaborate temple ritual during the month of Khoiak, and then buried in areas with sacred associations."- John H. Taylor, Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt, p.212

Quote

”The assumption must be that Osiris bricks were filled with soil and sand, and planted with grains, in the same manner as New Kindom Osiris Beds… The fact that examples of pottery bricks have been found with their original contents indicates that they cannot be regarded as moulds for a three-dimensional figure. It seems much more likely that these are receptacles with lids, perhaps a variation of New Kingdom Osiris Beds…. The form of Osiris Bricks is essentially that of the mummified Osiris (the recess), placed inside a rectangular sarcophagus (the brick), analoguous to the wooden Tutankhamun bed. In this New Kingdom example the mummiform shape, wrapped in linen, was then deposited inside its own rectangular coffin. The same treatment is seen in the small Osiris container in Florence. In one object, the makers of these pottery bricks have combined a a receptacle to containe the soil, sand and cereal grains, the Osirian shape or Osiris mummy, and the outer rectangular coffin of the god. The small size of these objects is to be expected, since the Khoiak Festival was a dramatisation of the Osiris myth, and the ‘stage-props’ used during it were of small scale.” – A. M. Tooley, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol 82 (1996), p.179

SC: What is plainly evident here is that the AEs made stone, wood or mud-brick containers that they buried in the ground under a mound of earth that had nothing to do with the physical burial of an AE king. What is also plainly evident here is that the festival of Khoiak enacted a Chthonic ritual centered around the god Osiris. It is my contention, and I see no reason to doubt it, that this chthonic festival with its ‘Osiris Bricks’ packed with grain and buried under a mound of earth, arose from the original function of the early, giant pyramids as recovery vaults (containing grain and other seeds, containers, tools and other essential recovery items) built to ensure the rebirth of the earth (after an anticipated deluge). The temples attached to the pyramids would be central to this chthonic rebirth ritual. Such festivals do not arise out of nowhere. They generally have a basis in some actual historical event. It is my contention that the pyramids as recovery vaults (as the 16 dismembered body parts of Osiris) was that historical event.

Quote

QN: I tend to think that the sarcophagus found with dirt and the bones of a bull were tied to a ritual to Apis rather than anything to do with Osiris.

Quote

According to Manetho, his [Apis Bull] worship was instituted by Kaiechos of the Second Dynasty. Hape (Apis) is named on very early monuments, but little is known of the divine animal before the New Kingdom. Ceremonial burials of bulls indicate that ritual sacrifice was part of the worship of the early cow deities and a bull might represent a king who became a deity after death. He was entitled "the renewal of the life" of the Memphite god Ptah: but after death he became Osorapis, i.e. the Osiris Apis, just as dead humans were assimilated to Osiris, the king of the underworld.- From Wiki

SC: The bull was also closely associated with threshing of grain, another ‘chthonic ritual’.

Quote

QN: Osiris beds are from the new kingdom while the sarcophagi are from the old kingdom.
SC: IAs I said before, there is some evidence that the chthonic ritual of Osiris Beds predates the 4th kingdom. But you present an over-simplification and entirely miss the point. I take the view that the stone boxes found within the early, giant pyramids were the archetype of later Osiris Bricks and even later ‘Osiris Beds’ which were associated with a chthonic religion relating to the pyramids as recovery vaults to ensure the rebirth of the earth (kingdom). In celebrating Easter, Christians provide children with small eggs which—in one interpretation—is symbolic of the stone that was rolled away from Christ’s tomb. They do not require a full-sized stone to symbolically take part in the festival of Easter. Likewise ancient Egyptians do not require full-sized stone boxes to celebrate the chthonic Festival of Khoiak.

Quote

QN: Despite that, you continue to claim that the sarcophagi were the forerunners of the Osiris beds.  Can you point me to anything that supports that view?

SC: No—sarcophagi ARE sarcophagi and can be found in mastaba tombs, rock-cut tombs and shaft tombs. Sarcophagi are found in TOMBS and are generally easily identified as such with inscriptions on the sarcophagus itself and/or within the tomb (even in thirD and fourth dynasty tombs). But this is completely different to the stone boxes and chambers in the early, giant pyramids which were completely uninscribed—just like their later incarnations—Osiris Bricks and Osiris Beds.

I cannot prove my view any more than consensus Egyptology can prove its tomb theory. Do not ask me to do something that consensus Egyptology cannot do to support its own theory. Suffice to say, however, the RVT has large quantities of seed and tens of thousands of other recovery goods found within and around the Step Pyramid complex to support the premise. How many AE kings have you found in-situ to back up the tomb theory you so obviously adhere to?

Quote

QN: One point you keep raising is the lack of mummies.  If we look at what was found with King Tut, we see what normally would have been buried with the king.  A tempting target for any and all grave robbers.

SC: Hence why the AEs would not have been so stupid to build such a massively visible ‘target’ if all it would do is attract robbers  to the pyramid and especially so given the importance of the dead king’s body.

Quote

QN: You previously claimed that you believe that the Arabs were not the first to break into the GP but was done much earlier.  It easily could have been tomb robbers at work which is why nothing was found wheh the Arabs entered the GP.  

SC: Or it could be, as I maintain, that the pyramids were Recovery Vaults DESIGNED to be secure but not so secure that they could not be breached to access the recovery goods therein. Just like some of the Arab chronicles tell us.

Quote

QN: Someone, earlier in this thread I believe, though it could have been a different thread, posted a picture of a mummy salesman which would explain why, if tomb robbers did empty the GP, there was no mummy.  It would have been yet another source of revenue for them.

SC: And if the mummy of the king went missing, where is the Ka replacement? And the ka replacement if that one was stolen?

Quote

SC: Mortuary Temple? Again this is but a LABEL consensus Egyptology attaches to these temples. SAYING they were Mortuary Temples does not and will not MAKE them Mortuary Temples. What consensus Egyptology, with regard to the early, giant pyramids, must do is PROVE these temples were mortuary in nature. As far as I am concerned these were Chthonic Temples built to recite spells, prayers and incantations to ensure the rebirth of the KINGDOM. The AEs built temples to recite such spells etc to ensure that the Sun would be reborn each and every day - their sun temples. The temples attached to the pyramids were NOT mortuary temples for the king but Chthonic Temples ensuring the rebirth of the earth (kingdom). Why do you think the fragments from the causeways from these temples were found to have been inscribed with stars, plants, animals etc?  Because this is symbolising the rebirth that would come from within the pyramid - just as it did at the First Time (Sp Tpy) of Creation. Mortuary Temples, no. Chthonic Rebirth Temples, yes.

QN: You're right.  Saying they are mortuary temples, by itself, does not make them mortuary temples.  However, let us examine just one,  Hatshepsut's.  There is no doubt that the AE's would have prayed and performed rituals in the solar chapel and others within the temple.  The existence, within the temple, of the tomb of Senenmut and chapel to Anubis who was associated with mummification and the afterlife clearly mark it as a mortuary temple. http://ancientegypto...morttemple.html

Can you show anything that supports your view that they were merely Cthonic temples whose purpose was to ensure the rebirth of the kingdom?

SC:  When considering the AEs Creation Myth where everything in existence came out from within the primeval mound (the archetype pyramid) and in consideration of the physical evidence recovered from the pyramids and the ancient texts that indicate their original function, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the temples associated with the pyramids were Chthonic in nature and not mortuary. The fragments from the causeways depicting stars, animals, plants etc is precisely what we would come to expect from the ‘burst of creation’ coming forth from the eastern side of the pyramid. In short, whilst I cannot prove my contention any more than consensus Egyptology can prove its, I believe I make a better argument. Hatshepsut’s temple is irrelevant to my argument since it is from the 18th dynasty when the original function of the pyramid as rebirth instruments for the earth (kingdom) would have been adopted as rebirth instruments for the king and the temples associated with that also adopted for the king.

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1630    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,410 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:16 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 27 December 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

SC: In relatively recent history I have made many claims and have also provided the evidence/citations to back up my claims as a number of Egypt-apologists on this Forum (and elsewhere) have already found to their cost. Only a fool would make claims they cannot substantiate. But do not think that I am about to spoon-feed you. Far from it. On this one you’ll just have to do your own research. Trust me – the evidence is there. Not that such evidence is what actually matters to you in any case since you have already decided that it is not going to change your mind one iota. It’s tombs or bust for you. Your desire for me to present the evidence supporting my claims to you on a plate (instead of you doing your own legwork) is all about you trying to find some means of discrediting the evidence that backs up my claim. For you this is not about the evidence supporting what I am saying – for you it’s simply about trying to find a means of debunking it. You have already decided that my re-interpretation of the evidence is wrong and that it is not going to change your mind a single dot. One has to wonder then - why bother with what I am claiming? If you want to learn more about my re-interpretation of the evidence then you are just going to have to get up off your bahookie and do your own legwork. Think of this as ‘keeping one’s powder dry’.

SC

Critical evaluation of self-admitted "claims" (and the data purportedly supporting them), particularly those claims professed to "overturn" current and well studied understandings, is part and parcel of research. As you have so graciously deemed to, after the fact, present a modicum of your references/interpretations, these will be addressed.

.


#1631    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,410 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:17 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 27 December 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

SC: No. Swede made a statement that is factually incorrect. .

SC

And this would be?

.


#1632    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,410 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:38 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 27 December 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

SC: 1) Whilst thousands of Osiris Bricks have been found (made of wood, stone or mud-brick),

SC:2) What is plainly evident here is that the AEs made stone, wood or mud-brick containers that they buried in the ground under a mound of earth that had nothing to do with the physical burial of an AE king.

SC: 3) As I said before, there is some evidence that the chthonic ritual of Osiris Beds predates the 4th kingdom.

4) tens of thousands of other recovery goods found within and around the Step Pyramid complex

SC

1) Citation? And from what period?

2) Yet none of your cited references would appear to propose this concept.

3) Citation?

4) As you are aware, many of the vessels associated with the Step Pyramid complex were quite small (cups/bowls, etc.) Would you be suggesting that these were to be considered effective "mass storage" implements? Additionally, a notable proportion of these vessels can be dated as early as the First and Second Dynasties. Given the understood practices related to establishing associations with ruling lineage, would this not appear to be a more well supported interpretation?

.


#1633    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:44 PM

View PostSwede, on 27 December 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:

And this would be?

.

Quote

Swede: There would appear to be inconsistencies in your rationale. To my knowledge, there are only three known "Osiris Beds" (KV36, KV46, KV62). From here.

SC: There were more than three discovered (see my citations above) hence you were factually incorrect.

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1634    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:49 PM

View PostSwede, on 27 December 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

1) Citation? And from what period?

2) Yet none of your cited references would appear to propose this concept.

3) Citation?

4) As you are aware, many of the vessels associated with the Step Pyramid complex were quite small (cups/bowls, etc.) Would you be suggesting that these were to be considered effective "mass storage" implements? Additionally, a notable proportion of these vessels can be dated as early as the First and Second Dynasties. Given the understood practices related to establishing associations with ruling lineage, would this not appear to be a more well supported interpretation?

.

SC: I think I have given more than enough for you now to continue your own research into this topic. And trust me - I NEVER say anything I cannot later substantiate as some on this forum have already found to their cost. Good luck with your own research into this intriguing field of AE history. I am hopeful that by the end of your own studies into this we may find some consensus here.

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1635    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,942 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:55 PM

What many people seem to keep forgetting is how sparse evidence of any sort
is from before the 5th dynasty.  Then there is the simple fact that much of the little
evidence that survives is open to wide interpretation. We all look at the later per-
iods and try to see how our understanding fits into the evolution of the cultural art-
efacts but we should never lose sight of the simple facts that none of these later
practices and artefacts can have any direct bearing on the earlier period.  I believe
it is orthodoxy who are most guilty of this projection of later ideas and even word
meanings.

The evidence is out there but there is simply nothing determinatve.  People need
to remember there's more than one way to skin a cat and a cat mummy doesn't have
to be interpreted in only one way.  We share few ideas and perspectives with the
ancients so understanding them in our terms or in the terms of the 19th dynasty can
lead one far astray.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users