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.


- - - - -

A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
798 replies to this topic

#616    patrickgiles

patrickgiles

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2011

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:10 AM

 kmt_sesh, on 28 November 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

Then please don't refer to yourself as an Egyptologist. I am holding you to that standard because of how you're describing yourself and the amount of research you've said you conducted. Everything I have posted in recent days in this discussion is more or less basic to the history of ancient Egypt and to the people who've excavated and studied ancient Egypt. I train docents at a Chicago museum to work in the Egyptian gallery and interact with the public, and if a docent I was training made some of the mistakes you've made in these pages, I would have to schedule him or her for retraining.

It's fine if you enjoy the argument, and it's perfectly fine if you're not well familiar with other eras of pharaonic history, but it's not fine, then, to call yourself an Egyptologist. Nor is it acceptable to pass yourself off as an expert. You're not. Nor am I. Still, I and others can and have caught the errors in your theme.



I realize I might be coming across that way because I'm holding the flame to you and challenging your arguments, but I am not self-righteous. I do not think that I will change any fundamental understanding in Egyptology, nor do I have the temerity to suggest two centuries of concerted scholarship is wrong on so fundamental an issue while I alone am right. This certainly doesn't describe me--but based on this discussion to date, it certainly describes you.



I don't know how else it could be answered. The water would go into the enclosure. I've never denied the existence of torrential rains, because we know from monuments like the Tempest Stela that they occurred. Tombs packed with rain-washed debris also attest to it (e.g., Kent Weeks's work in KV5). But I am not suggesting such rain storms were common. They were not. They are not today. They were and are the exception to the rule. North Africa is not tropical, nor has it ever been in the course of human history.



I don't know how many gallons would accumulate, nor do I much concern myself with the math. Other posters who are better at math than I have already addressed that issue, so I leave it to them. I stick to my own strenghts: the archaeology of the sites and our knowledge of the culture which produced the monuments. This knowledge, achieved through many decades of hard work conducted by countless highly intelligent individuals, alone tells me your rain-catchment theme is incorrect. This is not a personal attack on you, Mr. Giles, but merely a critique of your overall theme. Nothing personal is implied here, but you must get used to people's reactions to your alternative scenario. As off-base and roundly disproved as cladking's ideas are, he deals well with our critiques and remains almost always level headed. Follow his example.

As to the second part of your comment, I don't think you read my post well enough. I wrote that based on your rain-catchment theme, "the water was sluiced through the mortuary temple and down the causeway, to collect in the valley temple--what you call the cistern." I acknowledged that I understand the basic principle of your theme. That doesn't mean I agree with it, however.



You've referred to me and others as arrogant and have used other pejorative, personal remarks. You have addressed Swede in boldly condescending terms, and I don't think you realize the professional experience in these matters that Swede brings to the table. Yes, you're defending your theme, which you absolutely should, but in many instances you also resort to personal attacks, be they subtle or not so subtle. I have seen very few personal attacks on you yourself: it's your rain-catchment theme we're attacking, which we have every right and obligation to do. You need to develop thick skin. Again, follow cladking's example. I don't agree with nearly anything cladking has proposed over the years, and I have debated him in meticulous detail through the years, but I've always appreciated the even keel he maintains in the face of heated scrutiny.



I don't recall where I said anything about the King's Chamber being inundated. I've seen that argument from many fringe posters, but I for one would flatly refute it--in every case.

As for the Bent Pyramid, Sneferu obviously didn't abandon it because it was finished. Do I think he ended up being buried in it? No, I don't. Almost no modern scholar does (with minor exceptions), and I agree with the majority issue on this. I favor the majority view that Sneferu was ultimately buried in the Red Pyramid, even if definitive evidence is lacking.



#617    patrickgiles

patrickgiles

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2011

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:28 AM

Wait a minute. I need to specialize in every facet of Egyptology in order to be an Egyptologist? Are you serious? As I understand academics as a scholar, a person normally goes to college and gets a degree in Near Eastern. Very general. Then that person gets a masters which focuses on a certain facet of Egyptology. A doctorate is the same thing.  You focus on one thing. So, at what point does an Egyptologist acquire all this extensive knowledge about everything else in Egyptology? Do I need to understand diseases in mummies too? Do you know any Egyptologist that has mastered all the various areas of the field? I assure you, my friend, that I could study the New Kingdom my entire life and I will never be able to know everything about it. There is the inherent fault in your logic. I don't like you. Normally, I would not speak to someone so unreasonable and short sited. However, I am doing this for the purpose of education, and not pleasure. Perhaps that is why I get so irritated. I really do not enjoy doing all this research and writing and computer stuff. I'd rather drink a beer and forget about it. I do this because I feel like I can help the scholars with my new angle of research. In fact, it would take a true Egyptian expert to be able to read and understand my book. I am as much of an Egyptologist as you are. Don't deny that you are one if you don't have the official degree. Just be true to your statement, as I believe I have. I said I was an Egyptologist and I have proved it. Now back off, and stick to the subject of the rain catchment or forget about it. Forget about me. I am an expert in the study of the Old Kingdom pyramids. That is a fact that cannot be invalidated by you or anyone. I find it odd that you even care about my expertise. Oh wait, you don't.  Well, enough about me. What is your area of expertise. Besides debate, I mean. If you accept that my theory is possible, you must accept that the water would go into the mortuary temple. I have described in my book how every single mort temp of the Old Kdingom functioned as a water management building. The purpose of this building was to receive and manage water. The only exit for the water was to the causeway aqueduct. why will you not accept this as so many already have? By the way, every causeway has a gentle declination that is constant. Perfect for the flow of water. I describe every aqueduct in my book. Every pyramid complex has a short chapter describing its entire function as a rain catchment system. All the cisterns are described. I have visited these sites in some cases. I spent seven years trying to disprove my own theory before I allowed myself to accept it as valid. I think it will take you less than that. Egyptology must evolve.
d

 kmt_sesh, on 28 November 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

Then please don't refer to yourself as an Egyptologist. I am holding you to that standard because of how you're describing yourself and the amount of research you've said you conducted. Everything I have posted in recent days in this discussion is more or less basic to the history of ancient Egypt and to the people who've excavated and studied ancient Egypt. I train docents at a Chicago museum to work in the Egyptian gallery and interact with the public, and if a docent I was training made some of the mistakes you've made in these pages, I would have to schedule him or her for retraining.

It's fine if you enjoy the argument, and it's perfectly fine if you're not well familiar with other eras of pharaonic history, but it's not fine, then, to call yourself an Egyptologist. Nor is it acceptable to pass yourself off as an expert. You're not. Nor am I. Still, I and others can and have caught the errors in your theme.



I realize I might be coming across that way because I'm holding the flame to you and challenging your arguments, but I am not self-righteous. I do not think that I will change any fundamental understanding in Egyptology, nor do I have the temerity to suggest two centuries of concerted scholarship is wrong on so fundamental an issue while I alone am right. This certainly doesn't describe me--but based on this discussion to date, it certainly describes you.



I don't know how else it could be answered. The water would go into the enclosure. I've never denied the existence of torrential rains, because we know from monuments like the Tempest Stela that they occurred. Tombs packed with rain-washed debris also attest to it (e.g., Kent Weeks's work in KV5). But I am not suggesting such rain storms were common. They were not. They are not today. They were and are the exception to the rule. North Africa is not tropical, nor has it ever been in the course of human history.



I don't know how many gallons would accumulate, nor do I much concern myself with the math. Other posters who are better at math than I have already addressed that issue, so I leave it to them. I stick to my own strenghts: the archaeology of the sites and our knowledge of the culture which produced the monuments. This knowledge, achieved through many decades of hard work conducted by countless highly intelligent individuals, alone tells me your rain-catchment theme is incorrect. This is not a personal attack on you, Mr. Giles, but merely a critique of your overall theme. Nothing personal is implied here, but you must get used to people's reactions to your alternative scenario. As off-base and roundly disproved as cladking's ideas are, he deals well with our critiques and remains almost always level headed. Follow his example.

As to the second part of your comment, I don't think you read my post well enough. I wrote that based on your rain-catchment theme, "the water was sluiced through the mortuary temple and down the causeway, to collect in the valley temple--what you call the cistern." I acknowledged that I understand the basic principle of your theme. That doesn't mean I agree with it, however.



You've referred to me and others as arrogant and have used other pejorative, personal remarks. You have addressed Swede in boldly condescending terms, and I don't think you realize the professional experience in these matters that Swede brings to the table. Yes, you're defending your theme, which you absolutely should, but in many instances you also resort to personal attacks, be they subtle or not so subtle. I have seen very few personal attacks on you yourself: it's your rain-catchment theme we're attacking, which we have every right and obligation to do. You need to develop thick skin. Again, follow cladking's example. I don't agree with nearly anything cladking has proposed over the years, and I have debated him in meticulous detail through the years, but I've always appreciated the even keel he maintains in the face of heated scrutiny.



I don't recall where I said anything about the King's Chamber being inundated. I've seen that argument from many fringe posters, but I for one would flatly refute it--in every case.

As for the Bent Pyramid, Sneferu obviously didn't abandon it because it was finished. Do I think he ended up being buried in it? No, I don't. Almost no modern scholar does (with minor exceptions), and I agree with the majority issue on this. I favor the majority view that Sneferu was ultimately buried in the Red Pyramid, even if definitive evidence is lacking.


Edited by patrickgiles, 29 November 2011 - 12:30 AM.


#618    patrickgiles

patrickgiles

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2011

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:39 AM

I have heard several very strong arguments about the fact that the KIng's chamber was never entered until Al Mamum or whatever name in 820 CE broke into the ascending corridor accidentally when his workers dislodged the stone that covered the entrance. I have also read that the well shaft was plugged until very recently. It was not made by tomb robbers, and this is evident by the very carefully carved top part of the shaft at the base of the grand gallery. This was sealed during the Old Kingdom by the builders of the pyramid according to most experts. Therefore, I think it has been established that nobody entered that chamber since it was sealed. The Greeks did not know about it because there is no Greek grafiti. But more importantly, it is certain that the Arabs were the first to enter the chamber, but they found nothing at all.

 Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 28 November 2011 - 10:45 PM, said:

Can I add also the demand for mummy dust in Europe which contributed for a high number of mummy thefts.



#619    Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Aus Der Box Skeptisch

    apologist by opinion

  • Member
  • 2,766 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona (originally the wisconsin/minnesota area eh!)

  • Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ―Siddhārtha Gautama

Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:14 AM

 Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 28 November 2011 - 10:45 PM, said:

Can I add also the demand for mummy dust in Europe which contributed for a high number of mummy thefts.
Here's a page that touches on the subject briefly
http://www.uic.edu/c...se in Egypt.htm

"Though I stand in opposition to you, I am not opposed to you. Night and Day stand in opposition to each other, but they are not opposed to each other -they are merely two halves of the same coin."

#620    Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Aus Der Box Skeptisch

    apologist by opinion

  • Member
  • 2,766 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona (originally the wisconsin/minnesota area eh!)

  • Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ―Siddhārtha Gautama

Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:33 AM

 patrickgiles, on 29 November 2011 - 12:39 AM, said:

I have heard several very strong arguments about the fact that the KIng's chamber was never entered until Al Mamum or whatever name in 820 CE broke into the ascending corridor accidentally when his workers dislodged the stone that covered the entrance. I have also read that the well shaft was plugged until very recently. It was not made by tomb robbers, and this is evident by the very carefully carved top part of the shaft at the base of the grand gallery. This was sealed during the Old Kingdom by the builders of the pyramid according to most experts. Therefore, I think it has been established that nobody entered that chamber since it was sealed. The Greeks did not know about it because there is no Greek grafiti. But more importantly, it is certain that the Arabs were the first to enter the chamber, but they found nothing at all.
Hi Mr Giles. I wasn't specific as to which mummies were used for mummiea. I was adding support as to why few mummies have been found. That's all. Thank you for responding to my post though. Its appreciated. Would you agree that quite a few mummies were lost forever due to ground up mummy being used as a medicine in Europe?
Edit to delete dust from a sentence as it was redundant.

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch, 29 November 2011 - 01:36 AM.

"Though I stand in opposition to you, I am not opposed to you. Night and Day stand in opposition to each other, but they are not opposed to each other -they are merely two halves of the same coin."

#621    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:39 AM

 patrickgiles, on 29 November 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

What is your area of expertise.

I think this is the root of the problem.  

Skeptics are simply accepting orthodox beliefs in a knee jerk reaction.  They
don't understand that this isn't about orthodoxy and it's not about paradigms
and convention.  I reject all the assumptions which means I reject the para-
digms.  The facts have to stand on their own and rather than get arguement based
on facts and logic you're going to get argument founded on the idea that the
assumptions must be correct.  This is a battle of attrition that assumption
isn't going to win because the assumptions are wrong.  Any ten year old can
see these are water catchment devices and until such time as it can be shown
that they aren't orthodoxy is doomed to lose.

Expertise is irrelevant. Only the facts count.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#622    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:43 AM

 Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 29 November 2011 - 01:33 AM, said:

Hi Mr Giles. I wasn't specific as to which mummies were used for mummiea. I was adding support as to why few mummies have been found. That's all. Thank you for responding to my post though. Its appreciated. Would you agree that quite a few mummies were lost forever due to ground up mummy dust being used as a medicine in Europe?

Such an appetizing subject. :w00t: Who knows how many mummies ended up as a dust for tonic into medieval times? It can indeed be considered a contributing factor to the many tombs found without human remains, or at least those remains originally intended for the tomb (meaning, intrusive and secondary burials are a whole other subject). Even more disturbing to think about is how many of those "mummies" ground up to become tonics, were actually ancient Egyptian bodies or contemporary medieval bodies dug up in cemeteries and made to resemble mummies.

Overall, however, I should think mummies used for tonics represent a minority in the means by which ancient bodies were lost to us. The leading factors would be tomb robbing, animals, and environmental conditions. Ethnoarchaeologists and others who've studied the demographics of pharaonic society have estimated that throughout the 3,100 years of dynastic Egypt, something on the order of 70 million people were mummified. Sounds impressive but it would represent a noticeable minority of the general population at any one time. Still, that's a helluva lot of mummies. Have archaeologists found that many over the past couple of hundred centuries? No, not even close. Not even close to being close. There are many more mummies left to be found in the ancient necropoli of the Nile Valley, but I personally would wager that the majority of mummies were destroyed by one means or another in ancient times.

Now, Aus, go relax with a nice steaming mug of mummy-dust tea.

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

Visit My Blog!

#623    Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Aus Der Box Skeptisch

    apologist by opinion

  • Member
  • 2,766 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona (originally the wisconsin/minnesota area eh!)

  • Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. ―Siddhārtha Gautama

Posted 29 November 2011 - 01:53 AM

Ooh hemlock mummiea tea sounds like a great way to relax...LOL
Thanks for the added info to the subject I can always count on you to add more for me to ponder. I am researching it more as its the flavor of the moment for me... I love thought trail study.....................

"Though I stand in opposition to you, I am not opposed to you. Night and Day stand in opposition to each other, but they are not opposed to each other -they are merely two halves of the same coin."

#624    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,352 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:20 AM

 patrickgiles, on 28 November 2011 - 01:49 AM, said:

One inch on one pyramid creates this much water for drinking. This is only one inch. It surely rained more than that. Also, there were 28 known major pyramids. This is plenty of water considering how long the pyramids lasted, they soon enough caught a lot of water.  It was worth it to them apparently. What do you mean that I have been cautioned. Are you a cop? Are you gonna tell Hawass or my publisher. I do not care about your academic background, by the way. I doubt your character. There can be no damage to my credibility. I simply state the facts and let them speak for themselves. You still have not answered my question. I did not ask if if rained. Let's assume the exact pyramid is in Florida, where it rains a whole lot. What happens to the water? Why won't you answer this. Your data is weak and one-sided, and you are the only one who cannot see that.




In regards to precipitation, will yet again provide the following reference:

http://onlinelibrary...2/gea.10065/pdf

The following lay-oriented reference regarding modern precipitation levels may also worth a brief perusal:

"Moving southward, the amount of precipitation decreases suddenly. Cairo receives a little more than one centimeter of precipitation each year"
.

http://www.touregypt.net/climate.htm

It should be noted that the precipitation belts have shifted N > S over time. Further documentation can be provided. However, it is well established that precipitation in the area of focus has been quite limited for an extended period of time (beginning circa 5200 BP).

Thus, the one inch factor utilized in the calculations is not at all unreasonable for even a heavy rainfall given the time period and locus of concern.

You would also appear to incorrect in your estimation of major pyramids. The number is considered to be something more in the range of 36 (Lehner 1999:17). And how many of these have enclosure walls? Not to mention that they are spread over some 13 distinct site areas and cover a building span of some 10 Dynasties. To attempt to demonstrate that such a personally contrived "system" of water management was the intended motivation behind the construction efforts becomes more than questionable.

In addition to not addressing the basic mathematical issues, you have also assiduously avoided addressing the economic viability of your proposition. Primers on economic theory (be they biological or cultural) can be provided.

As to what happened during the rare incidence of abnormally heavy rainfall on the Giza Plateau? May it be speculated that the population involved merely dealt with such incidences much as can be observed today?

Re: "My theory is already accepted by so many." (PG # 560).  As previously demonstrated, the term theory would hardly be applicable. And who are the "so many"? Hard numbers?

Lastly, it may be construed that you are operating under the premise that it is up to legitimate science to demonstrate the numerous flaws in your presentation. This is, of course, not the case. It lies upon your research to definitively demonstrate the mathematical, economic, cultural, and archaeological validity of such claims. This would not appear to be the case.


Edit:Typo.

Edited by Swede, 29 November 2011 - 02:40 AM.


#625    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 16,377 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:27 AM

 cladking, on 28 November 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:

I'm not ruling this out and find the idea that the pyramid was a pump to be
very attractive. But I don't believe this.  I believe that there was a natural
source of water that delivered it to 80' above the plateau.  This was probably
a cold water geyser.  


Well that one got to about 6 or 7 feet, due mainly to there being a funneling pipe there that raises it 4 feet. So it probably would naturally be only 3 feet high. Somewhat less then 80 feet. The extent to which a 80 foot geyser would have to be operating would likely need a tremendous amount of CO2. Maybe enough to cover the area in a layer of it and kill all the workers?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#626    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:28 AM

 patrickgiles, on 29 November 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

Wait a minute. I need to specialize in every facet of Egyptology in order to be an Egyptologist? Are you serious?


No, you don't need to specialize in every facet. But if you honestly consider yourself an Egyptologist, you need to be very familiar with all of the basics. I'm home right now but my posts from earlier today were composed during breaks at work, which means I was just drawing from memory. I had no access to my library. Still, I've been able to post about New Kingdom tombs and the socio-politics of that period because they are very basic facts. I am not an expert and I am not an Egyptologist, but pulling basic facts from memory is hardly a challenge. If you don't have a grasp of such basics, refrain from calling yourself an Egyptologist. You're only going to hurt yourself.

Quote

As I understand academics as a scholar, a person normally goes to college and gets a degree in Near Eastern. Very general. Then that person gets a masters which focuses on a certain facet of Egyptology. A doctorate is the same thing. You focus on one thing.


This is essentially what I wrote in an earlier post, aside from your comments about doctoral studies. A doctorate is not the same as a masters.

Quote

So, at what point does an Egyptologist acquire all this extensive knowledge about everything else in Egyptology? Do I need to understand diseases in mummies too?


Pretty much everything I have written about pharaonic Egypt would be familiar to students pursuing an undergraduate degree in Near Eastern studies. But you don't need to hear this from me. This web page with its peripheral links will show you the educational program students encounter at the University of Chicago, as one example. However, a properly trained Egyptologist would in fact have a good understanding of diseases found in mummies. That's a given. Does it mean every Egyptologist would be an expert in the subject? No, which is why Egyptologists turn to paleopathologists. An Egyptologist needs to understand not only the monuments people built but the people who built them, which includes their language, culture, religion, lives, and things that affected lives such as diet and common pathologies. I've never met an Egyptologist who wasn't well grounded in such topics.

Quote

Do you know any Egyptologist that has mastered all the various areas of the field?


No, of course I don't know Egyptologists who have mastered everything. You're right that Egyptologists will go into specialties such as death and burial, linguistics, socio-politics, religion, and the like, but all of them have to have a very well-rounded education and be very well versed in the basics. I personally know several Egyptologists and of these I have become a close acquaintance with a couple, but I have worked closely with all of them whom I know. I'm saying this only to express the fact that any of these Egyptologists I know happen to know more about pharaonic Egypt than you and I combined (several times over) and could spin circles around the two of us.

This is why I react so strongly to people who call themselves Egyptologists but who actually have no such training or degree. You have not earned the right to call yourself that. Nor have I.

Quote

I assure you, my friend, that I could study the New Kingdom my entire life and I will never be able to know everything about it. There is the inherent fault in your logic. I don't like you. Normally, I would not speak to someone so unreasonable and short sited...

This is becoming less productive and useful the more you and I bang heads. You don't like me? Who cares? I'm not here for you to like me. I have no dislike for you, but I'm not at UM to be your buddy. I am here to defend orthodox scholarship. You keep returning to personal slights and subtle insults, and I don't understand why. I can't imagine you're enjoying yourself so I have to ask, why are you still here? This is just an internet forum. If you don't enjoy any of this, you don't have to keep at it. You can leave and not post anymore. If you wish to stay and continue to engage us, then that's good. Just stop it with the personal slights and subtle insults. They're tedious and unproductive to debate.

At this point there's no reason for me to go on replying to the rest of your post, so I am going to try to turn the conversation back to the merits of useful debate. I have some questions I'd like you to answer, based on your rain-catchment theme.

  • You argue that all of the pyramids were rain-catchment systems, working in union with their mortuary temples, causeways, and valley temples. Yet not all pyramids have all of these features in every case. Between Djoser's pyramid in Dynasty 3 and Ahmose I's in Dynasty 18, pyramid complexes took on a variety of forms. How do you explain the pyramid complexes that don't really fit your model?

  • In previous posts I and others have brought up the decoration plans of mortuary temples, causeways, valley temples, and later pyramids inscribed with Pyramid Texts. These decoration plans are strictly funerary in nature, showing the deceased kings in the attendance of mortuary deities and in various contexts of receiving offerings. Your answer is that these complexes may have been cenotaphs. That's an intelligent answer but not a complete answer. Why would the Egyptians have built such costly state projects to serve as both rain catchments and cenotaphs? Based on the full breadth of pharaonic culture, the two entities have no observable relationship.

  • In previous posts I and at least one other poster have pointed out that cenotaphs are not actually known until the Middle Kingdom, and specifically to the reign of Senusret III. I'm not saying an earlier model of cenotaphs is impossible, but what evidence can you offer to support your claim? Nearly all of the pyramids (albeit not all of them) can be directly attributed to specific kings between Dynasty 3 and Dynasty 18. So why has not even a single other tomb been found for any of these kings if all of their pyramids were cenotaphs?

I can think of more questions but this is enough for now. Hopefully this can get us back on track and help to dial down the acrimony building between you and me. Believe it or not, I don't want to bicker and I don't enjoy the hostility between us. I'd rather debate the evidence. ;)

Editing to add: What I did not express well at all in the above paragraph is that I apologize for the acrimony I have caused. I am at fault, too. I would rather talk ancient Egypt. If we both descend into bickering again, I'll probably back out of the conversation for a time.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 29 November 2011 - 02:33 AM.

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

Visit My Blog!

#627    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,981 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:46 AM

Hi kmt,

please allow me to interject myself here with just a few points:

 kmt_sesh, on 29 November 2011 - 02:28 AM, said:

No, you don't need to specialize in every facet. But if you honestly consider yourself an Egyptologist, you need to be very familiar with all of the basics. I'm home right now but my posts from earlier today were composed during breaks at work, which means I was just drawing from memory. I had no access to my library. Still, I've been able to post about New Kingdom tombs and the socio-politics of that period because they are very basic facts. I am not an expert and I am not an Egyptologist, but pulling basic facts from memory is hardly a challenge. If you don't have a grasp of such basics, refrain from calling yourself an Egyptologist. You're only going to hurt yourself.

If one doesn't knows the basics of the field one is doing research in, there is a huge chance that one will (read: one will almost certainly) invalidate one's research as one cannot not constantly rely on the so important background information and compare one's findings to those basics. It essentially corresponds to confirmation bias. One doesn't really care about the basics, even if it makes the proponent look rather silly, it is just a need to promote the "theory" (the word theory used in the loosest sense of the word possible).  

Quote

This is essentially what I wrote in an earlier post, aside from your comments about doctoral studies. A doctorate is not the same as a masters.

Indeed. Especially in the US there is a huge difference between a masters and a doctorate, not so much in Europe (or Northern Europe, at least). Yet, it is still there and for a good reason.

Quote

Pretty much everything I have written about pharaonic Egypt would be familiar to students pursuing an undergraduate degree in Near Eastern studies. But you don't need to hear this from me. This web page with its peripheral links will show you the educational program students encounter at the University of Chicago, as one example. However, a properly trained Egyptologist would in fact have a good understanding of diseases found in mummies. That's a given. Does it mean every Egyptologist would be an expert in the subject? No, which is why Egyptologists turn to paleopathologists. An Egyptologist needs to understand not only the monuments people built but the people who built them, which includes their language, culture, religion, lives, and things that affected lives such as diet and common pathologies. I've never met an Egyptologist who wasn't well grounded in such topics.

<snip>

Admittedly, I know nothing of this field, but I find the arguments put forth rather interesting and it is not that hard to distinguish those that can argue their case from those that cannot. Even without basic knowledge in Egyptology :P Merely knowledge of science works.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#628    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 29 November 2011 - 02:53 AM

 DieChecker, on 29 November 2011 - 02:27 AM, said:

Well that one got to about 6 or 7 feet, due mainly to there being a funneling pipe there that raises it 4 feet. So it probably would naturally be only 3 feet high. Somewhat less then 80 feet.

It doesn't work that way.  

Quote

The extent to which a 80 foot geyser would have to be operating would likely need a tremendous amount of CO2. Maybe enough to cover the area in a layer of it and kill all the workers?

Yes.  They handled the CO2 and spoke about it extensively.  This was known
as the efflux of Osiris and they collected four jugs of it and buried it here
for future scientists.  

There was a tiny ridge in the Upper Eye of Horus through which CO2 was forced
by the water pressure and degassing water through a tube to a point under the
fire-pan which could keep it afloat and signaling water movement indefinitely.  
The Upper Eye was coated with a mixture of grease, natron, and musilagenous myhhr.
The grease wasa to bind the mixture and prevent its immediate dissolution.  The
Natron caused the water to degas and the myhhr added an odor to the water so work-
ers would know it was safe.  This entire area was enclosed by the Mehet Weret cow
and the "ram portals that hold people back". The children of Khenti-irty oversaw
this entire region from the djed to the ram portals.  Since it was the "enlosed
place" the CO2 would collect in the bottom.  This CO2 was sucked out by the "bil-
lows of the winding watercourse" marked at the point in the water catchment de-
vice where two inlets fed the canals leading to the cliff face counterweights. Air
was srawn in through the "air shafts" which they called an "air siphon". This air
was probably pushed in from the outside as well by small "sails" but I've not found
evidence for this yet.  

The CO2, exhaled air, and sulphur dioxide were all sucked down the covered canal
and harmlessly released down the cliff face.  

Read your PT.  It's all in there. They aren't telling you to tiptoe through Osiris'
efflux so you can slow down and enjoy the corpse drippings.  Thjey are telling you
to tiptoe because CO2 puddles in low lying areas and if you don't you'll die.  

These were not stinky footed bumpkins.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#629    patrickgiles

patrickgiles

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2011

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:07 PM

Mr. Skepticism, nice to meet you. Yes, I was aware that the mummies were used for medicine in Europe. I think they even used them for entertainment and display in fine mansions. Weird, but true. Yes, this where a lot of the mummies of the New Kingdom ended up. I shudder to think what was lost.

black"

 Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 29 November 2011 - 01:33 AM, said:

Hi Mr Giles. I wasn't specific as to which mummies were used for mummiea. I was adding support as to why few mummies have been found. That's all. Thank you for responding to my post though. Its appreciated. Would you agree that quite a few mummies were lost forever due to ground up mummy being used as a medicine in Europe?
Edit to delete dust from a sentence as it was redundant.



#630    patrickgiles

patrickgiles

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 104 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2011

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:15 PM

I have already provided two links that prove rainfall was sufficient to support an ecosystem like a savanna, and you have ignored it. Here is how you find the data. Go to ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVE OF CHICAGO, GO TO RESEARCH PROJECTS, GO TO GIZA MAPPING PROJECT, 2000-2001 annual report by Mark Lehner, scroll down to WADI WASH AND READ IT OUT LOUD TO THE WHOLE CLASS. You are a menace to this forum, and I wish you would leave it entirely. We can do it without you. I have studied all the major pyramids, and I can assure you that there are about 27. Who's Lehner? Just kidding? You must be referring to the smaller satellite pyramids. As for which ones were surrounded by walls--all of them. You should know that  if you've read Verner. As to who accepts my theory. Everyone I have spoken to about it who has enough information agrees with the theory. I regret that I ever communicated with you because now I have to clean that crap out of my head. Thanksandgoodbye.

 Swede, on 29 November 2011 - 02:20 AM, said:

In regards to precipitation, will yet again provide the following reference:

http://onlinelibrary...2/gea.10065/pdf

The following lay-oriented reference regarding modern precipitation levels may also worth a brief perusal:

"Moving southward, the amount of precipitation decreases suddenly. Cairo receives a little more than one centimeter of precipitation each year"
.

http://www.touregypt.net/climate.htm

It should be noted that the precipitation belts have shifted N &gt; S over time. Further documentation can be provided. However, it is well established that precipitation in the area of focus has been quite limited for an extended period of time (beginning circa 5200 BP).

Thus, the one inch factor utilized in the calculations is not at all unreasonable for even a heavy rainfall given the time period and locus of concern.

You would also appear to incorrect in your estimation of major pyramids. The number is considered to be something more in the range of 36 (Lehner 1999:17). And how many of these have enclosure walls? Not to mention that they are spread over some 13 distinct site areas and cover a building span of some 10 Dynasties. To attempt to demonstrate that such a personally contrived "system" of water management was the intended motivation behind the construction efforts becomes more than questionable.

In addition to not addressing the basic mathematical issues, you have also assiduously avoided addressing the economic viability of your proposition. Primers on economic theory (be they biological or cultural) can be provided.

As to what happened during the rare incidence of abnormally heavy rainfall on the Giza Plateau? May it be speculated that the population involved merely dealt with such incidences much as can be observed today?

Re: "My theory is already accepted by so many." (PG # 560).  As previously demonstrated, the term theory would hardly be applicable. And who are the "so many"? Hard numbers?

Lastly, it may be construed that you are operating under the premise that it is up to legitimate science to demonstrate the numerous flaws in your presentation. This is, of course, not the case. It lies upon your research to definitively demonstrate the mathematical, economic, cultural, and archaeological validity of such claims. This would not appear to be the case.


Edit:Typo.


Edited by patrickgiles, 29 November 2011 - 12:33 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users