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.


* * * * * 1 votes

The Mysterious Egyptian Tri-Lobed Disc


  • Please log in to reply
580 replies to this topic

#106    louie

louie

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,844 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

  • The greatest sceptics are normally the biggest sheep. Anon

Posted 13 March 2009 - 06:09 PM

legionromanes on Mar 13 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

got nothing better to do than to coninuously harass me have you louie
what a boring life you must have
w00t.gif
thumbsup.gif

bowls by defenation do not attach to poles or other objects which this object has a reciver for, therefore its not a bowl, its more probaby an incense of lightning ornamrnt,


www.tmblive.com
If you dont know what it is, it must be art.

#107    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 9,021 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 13 March 2009 - 06:21 PM

louie on Mar 13 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

bowls by defenation do not attach to poles or other objects which this object has a reciver for, therefore its not a bowl, its more probaby an incense of lightning ornamrnt,


I don't know about that. There's nothing about being a bowl per se that means you can't put it on other things. Even as late as the Victorian period, oil lamps -- bowls with a wick in them -- were hung up by chains.  Granted, a pole might be a little difficult.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#108    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,367 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • Question everything

Posted 13 March 2009 - 06:47 PM

cladking on Mar 13 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

You're right; if it's a bowl than the analogy to the space shuttle doesn't
hold except it is still just as expensive to build as the nose cone.  I can't
think of any sort of luxury item today that is non functional.  Certainly
art doesn't necessarily "do anything" but where is the fine detailing on
this piece?  Even the grooves cut around the center cylinder appear to
be just scratched in hastily.

I've seen plenty of modern craft pieces that push or even destroy the limits of funtionality. Remember also the Chinese practice of foot-binding and some of the reasoning behind it. Sometimes having something that does nothing can be the ultimate in austentatious display, even if it looks ugly to others.

And I still say you're over-estimating the cost. The shuttle's nose cone probably cost tens to hundreds of thousands. A bowl like that would only cost a a few thousand at most today and that's with inflation and various skewed market drivers. Who knows what it would be in AE money.

Quote

I would maintain that it was not only worthless to tombrobbers in its de-
graded state but it was worthless when it was intact as a bowl.  Not worth-
less because such "junk" could be whipped out in large numbers, but
worthless because it was so very expensive and so very fragile.  If you
could point at an old drawing depicting this being used in some manner
such as offering food to the Gods then you'd certainly have an argument
but such a thing doesn't exist.  I'm doubtful that even a picture could
suffice to explain the function of this thing as a bowl.  Are the Gods ex-
pected to reach around the "lobes" to get offerrings?  Do they rest their
arm and legs on them while reaching with the other?  Perhaps the fins
are the ancient answer to the "no leaf gutter" and deflect spills to the
center of the bottom of the bowl where they can't be seen.


Look at the overhead picture again. The fins cover less area then the open parts, which can readily admit a hand. Anything underneath them can be easily reached from either side. And, yet again, it has no problem holding liquids or small, pourable objects. Like Skittles. The AE loved them some Skittles.


Quote

More serious perhaps this was a component of a much larger piece or
even a little one.  The fins could be a place to pour liquids into a larger
bowl.

Now you're getting it!



"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#109    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,068 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 March 2009 - 06:58 PM

cormac mac airt on Mar 13 2009, 12:06 PM, said:

A better question, IMHO, is what makes you think your opinion of the relevance of worth, usefullness or mindset has any bearing on what the Ancient Egyptians considered aesthetically or religiously pleasing, useful or worthy? Once again you are trying to place your 21st century mindset/opinions onto peoples of a bygone age. Unless or until you are willing to learn enough about the real history/society of Ancient Egypt, your meanderings hold no weight.


Is it really a given that egyptologist are the only people capable of understanding
the ancients?  Perhaps they are trying to place their 19th century mindset/opinions
onto peoples of a bygone age.

If egyptologists understand the people so well then why do they believe there are
grammatical errors in the Pyramid Texts?  If they really understand them so well
then why do most egyptologist say our understanding of this work is "slight" and ar-
gue about such basic concepts as the meaning of Horus' eye?  

I strongly believe that 21st century science can and will prove that we totally mis-
apprehend the ancients.  ...And even that we have some odd ideas about ourselves
and from whence we've come.  




Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#110    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,068 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 March 2009 - 07:37 PM

Oniomancer on Mar 13 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

And I still say you're over-estimating the cost. The shuttle's nose cone probably cost tens to hundreds of thousands. A bowl like that would only cost a a few thousand at most today and that's with inflation and various skewed market drivers. Who knows what it would be in AE money.


You can build one of these from pictures today using computers and
carvers.  I'd ask a buddy to build one for me but he could get in trou-
ble since it's company equipment.  The cost would be nominal since
the equipment is underutilized and the raw material is inexpensive.  
From his description it could churn one out in 15 minutes.  

If there were a market these could probably be sold for under $100
but who'd want one and what would they use it for.  

Quote

Look at the overhead picture again. The fins cover less area then the open parts, which can readily admit a hand. Anything underneath them can be easily reached from either side. And, yet again, it has no problem holding liquids or small, pourable objects. Like Skittles. The AE loved them some Skittles.


Sure, it could hold skittles or grapes, but why?  Any normal bowl
will accomplish the same function even better and not be so fragile.  
Do they stack the food up next to the central cylinder to hide it?  
If you use it for something like this then it has to be washed once
in a while and even this would be difficult because of its size, weight
and fragility.  

What would even be the point of having a bowl on a pole?  Tables
work fairly well and have been in use just about forever.  Perhaps
on a pole it might provide food or offerring at various levels but
it would have to be moved up and down the pole very carefully by
some means.  It  would be very stable sitting on a narrow tripod
but, again, we're complicating the issue rather than simplfying it.
What would be the point of the tripod other than to hold the bowl?
Why use a tripod and not a table?  

It appears to be a total failure as a bowl, an abomination as an
art object, and a reject as idle carving.  

It looks like it would work fine as an oil lamp that burned only on
rough water.  



Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#111    Voyager10

Voyager10

    Bass City Roller

  • Member
  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined:28 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • "The light in the window
    Is a crack in the sky
    A stairway to darkness
    In the blink of an eye"
    -Ozzy Osbourne

Posted 13 March 2009 - 08:31 PM

cladking on Mar 13 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

You can build one of these from pictures today using computers and
carvers.  I'd ask a buddy to build one for me but he could get in trou-
ble since it's company equipment.  The cost would be nominal since
the equipment is underutilized and the raw material is inexpensive.  
From his description it could churn one out in 15 minutes.  

If there were a market these could probably be sold for under $100
but who'd want one and what would they use it for.  



Sure, it could hold skittles or grapes, but why?  Any normal bowl
will accomplish the same function even better and not be so fragile.  
Do they stack the food up next to the central cylinder to hide it?  
If you use it for something like this then it has to be washed once
in a while and even this would be difficult because of its size, weight
and fragility.  

What would even be the point of having a bowl on a pole?  Tables
work fairly well and have been in use just about forever.  Perhaps
on a pole it might provide food or offerring at various levels but
it would have to be moved up and down the pole very carefully by
some means.  It  would be very stable sitting on a narrow tripod
but, again, we're complicating the issue rather than simplfying it.
What would be the point of the tripod other than to hold the bowl?
Why use a tripod and not a table?  

It appears to be a total failure as a bowl, an abomination as an
art object, and a reject as idle carving.  

It looks like it would work fine as an oil lamp that burned only on
rough water.


Some good points here, cladking. I agree.


Posted Image

http://beam.to/dreamjournal
No matter how I try I find my
way into the same old jam

-Led Zeppelin


#112    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,747 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 March 2009 - 10:00 PM

Quote

Is it really a given that egyptologist are the only people capable of understanding
the ancients?


Egyptologists are in a much better position to understand Ancient Egyptians, their history and culture than the average layman, which would not include you as your admittedly ignorant (and in many cases, dismissive) understanding of most things, and in this case AE, would make that understanding less than average.

Quote

Perhaps they are trying to place their 19th century mindset/opinions
onto peoples of a bygone age.


And perhaps your need to place their current (21st century) understanding in the 19th century is an attempt to ignore reality. Or at least make your interpretation seem more relevant, somehow.

Quote

If egyptologists understand the people so well then why do they believe there are
grammatical errors in the Pyramid Texts?


To put it succinctly, language changes over time. DUH!

For another take:

"Although they are first attested in the pyramid of Unis, most of the Pyramid Texts are undoubtedly older. With few exceptions, their grammar is that of a stage of the language that disappeared from secular inscriptions at least fifty years earlier, and the architecture of the pyramid chambers that they reflect came into use at the end of the Fouth Dynasty, more than a hundred years before Unis's time. Some of the texts reflect burial practices that are even older, in earthen graves beneath tombs built of mudbrick."

Allen, J.P. : The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Society of Biblical Literature - Atlanta, 2005

Source

Quote

If they really understand them so well then why do most egyptologist say our understanding of this work is "slight" and argue about such basic concepts as the meaning of Horus' eye?


Who are “most” Egyptologists? Don’t give me a list of a few. I want to know what constitutes “most”. Also, that there may be some disagreement as to the meaning of phrases/words does not, in any way, mean that such words/phrases are open to interpretation by anyone unqualified in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics/linguistics.

Quote

I strongly believe that 21st century science can and will prove that we totally mis-
apprehend the ancients.


I strongly believe that there is much about Ancient Egypt yet to learn or be found. I don’t find it necessary or useful to insert 21st century understanding to a people who lived thousands of years ago, based solely on what I want to be true, which is obviously not true with you.

cormac


The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#113    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,068 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 March 2009 - 10:28 PM

cormac mac airt on Mar 13 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Egyptologists are in a much better position to understand Ancient Egyptians, their history and culture than the average layman, which would not include you as your admittedly ignorant (and in many cases, dismissive) understanding of most things, and in this case AE, would make that understanding less than average.


Perhaps I've led the thread a little astray here but will comment
on this anyway. You might dismiss my understanding of the PT
as the wishful thinking of a modern person taken far out of context
to what the Egyptians were thinking but It is I who take the Egypt-
ians at their word.  It is the egyptologists who say their words are
mere incantation and drivel.  I can back up my interpretations with
what the pyramid builders actually said but egyptologists have no
choice but to rely on their interpretation itself and the interpretation
of other egyptologists.  

For instance something as basic as where the king is buried the
egyptologists have to take the Pyramid Texts as symbolic and not
literal simply because they are pretty explicit that the king is not
buried in the pyramid.  The king's grave is in the sky.  

This isn't to say tht the egyptologists are necessarily wrong, but
it certainly implies the ancient Egyptians might have thought they
are entirely and utterly wrong.  You say I'm not qualified to have
an opinion but I think the veracity of this statement hinges on the
ability of someone to prove I'm wrong rather than their ability to
repeat the same mantras they've been repeating for 150 years.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#114    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,747 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 March 2009 - 11:43 PM

Quote

You might dismiss my understanding of the PT as the wishful thinking of a modern person taken far out of context to what the Egyptians were thinking....


Because that is exactly what it is.

Quote

It is I who take the Egyptians at their word


That is your failing, not that of Egyptology. If you are going to take the PT as written history, then you also must take the Quran, the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic Gospels, the Mahabharata, the Lebor Gabala Erren, the Epic of Gilgamesh etc., as well. It amounts to the same thing.

Quote

It is the egyptologists who say their words are mere incantation and drivel.


Whereas Egyptologists say that the PT are religious texts, none AFAIK would consider them drivel. The PT are still very useful in understanding AE, particularly as to the development of their religion.

Quote

I can back up my interpretations with what the pyramid builders actually said...


No you can't, because the scribes writing down these texts and the artisans inscribing the various structures with same would not have been the same people who actually constructed the pyramids. Jobs would have been specialized even at this early date.

Quote

You say I'm not qualified to have an opinion.....


I never said you weren't qualified to have an opinion, what I said was:

QUOTE
Also, that there may be some disagreement as to the meaning of phrases/words does not, in any way, mean that such words/phrases are open to interpretation by anyone unqualified in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics/linguistics.


To put it another way, the "interpretation" of Egyptian religious texts as historical fact by one who is unqualified in AE history, especially hieroglyphics and linguistics (also to include religion) is rather useless. Basically, you "interpret" it to mean what you want to because you don't even have a grasp on the basics of AE society. With that, I'm done with your off-topic wishful thinking.

cormac


The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#115    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,068 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 14 March 2009 - 12:22 AM

cormac mac airt on Mar 13 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

That is your failing, not that of Egyptology. If you are going to take the PT as written history, then you also must take the Quran, the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic Gospels, the Mahabharata, the Lebor Gabala Erren, the Epic of Gilgamesh etc., as well. It amounts to the same thing.


Not at all.  I'm not claiming these other works do or don't mean anything.  To
suggest that Rocky and Bullwinkle are fictional and hence the Pyramid Texts
are metaphorical is a non sequitor.  

Quote

Whereas Egyptologists say that the PT are religious texts, none AFAIK would consider them drivel. The PT are still very useful in understanding AE, particularly as to the development of their religion.


Surely you don't believe in magic and spells.  I personally would consider
"hocus pocus open sesame" to be a form of drivel until it can be shown that
it does something.  If this drivel is so important than why is the fact that the
Nile River barely gets a mention brushed off?  

Quote

No you can't, because the scribes writing down these texts and the artisans inscribing the various structures with same would not have been the same people who actually constructed the pyramids. Jobs would have been specialized even at this early date.


If I understand you correctly then you are suggesting that the illiterate art-
isans inscribing the walls of the pyramid  knew only as many words as nec-
essary to write it down wrong.  And anyone who wasn't directly involved in
dragging stones up ramps didn't contribute to the job and couldn't have
known how it was done.  

Quote

I never said you weren't qualified to have an opinion, what I said was:


Hog wash.  What you said was; "Egyptologists are in a much better position to understand Ancient Egyptians, their history and culture than the average layman, which would not include you as your admittedly ignorant (and in many cases, dismissive) understanding of most things, and in this case AE, would make that understanding less than average."

You simply ignore the fact that I believe the egyptoilogists are
wrong and hence see little value in studying their take on things.  
What you say here amounts to my opinion meaning nothing at
all.  You pretty much state the average layman can have an op-
inion but I'm "dismissive of understanding".  


Quote

To put it another way, the "interpretation" of Egyptian religious texts as historical fact by one who is unqualified in AE history, especially hieroglyphics and linguistics (also to include religion) is rather useless. Basically, you "interpret" it to mean what you want to because you don't even have a grasp on the basics of AE society. With that, I'm done with your off-topic wishful thinking.


Obviously my understanding of the Pyramid Texts is a form of
interpretation as well.  But there's a difference; it's internally
consistent and it's consistent with the evidence.  Best of all though
is that it is the words of the builders rather than someone who is
making the assumption the pyramid is a tomb and reading between
the lines and finding confirmation.  

More than one author has said that they can't wait to get their book
published so they can find out what it's about.  Something tells me
that your understanding of this post will bear little resemblance to
what I said or meant.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#116    Qoais

Qoais

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Female

Posted 14 March 2009 - 03:54 AM

Well, I got through about 6 and a half pages and don't really think the thing is a bowl.  It's not THAT delicate that it can't be used for whatever practical purpose it was made for, expecially if it was a gentle motion of some kind.  Like constant stirring.

It put me in mind of a device that would be used by farmers when they milk a lot of cows.  They do not want the cream to rise to the top straight away - for whatever reason - the milk may have to be shipped somewhere before it's used - and this device could be used to gently stir the milk - not of course beat it and make butter or churn it, but just gently keep it moving so it cannot "set" and the cream rise to the top.  Whatever peg or pole was attached to it would be used as a handle to turn it with.  Perhaps it is suspended from a cross member down into the container of milk, and the worker turns the handle from above.

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Intuitive knowledge is knowledge beyond intellectual reasoning.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."

#117    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,367 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • Question everything

Posted 14 March 2009 - 04:45 AM

cladking on Mar 13 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

Sure, it could hold skittles or grapes, but why?  Any normal bowl
will accomplish the same function even better and not be so fragile.  
Do they stack the food up next to the central cylinder to hide it?  
If you use it for something like this then it has to be washed once
in a while and even this would be difficult because of its size, weight
and fragility.

...And we're back to the fragility thing. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, there's no reason to assume from appearences that it's any more fragile then any piece of fine glass or ceramic ware. As long as you're careful with it and don't bang it around like a monkey it's perfectly capable of lasting a lifetime. There're innumerable households all over the world that have items every bit as breakable as this that've not only survived a lifetime of use but have indured for generations after.

Quote

It appears to be a total failure as a bowl, an abomination as an
art object, and a reject as idle carving.

The first is disprovable, the second debatable, the third dismissable.

Quote

It looks like it would work fine as an oil lamp that burned only on
rough water.

..Until such time as the rough water swamped it, necessitating the dragging of it's useless, delicate self across the bottom to shore.


"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#118    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,068 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 14 March 2009 - 05:41 AM

Oniomancer on Mar 13 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

...And we're back to the fragility thing. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, there's no reason to assume from appearences that it's any more fragile then any piece of fine glass or ceramic ware. As long as you're careful with it and don't bang it around like a monkey it's perfectly capable of lasting a lifetime. There're innumerable households all over the world that have items every bit as breakable as this that've not only survived a lifetime of use but have indured for generations after.


All rock is quite brittle.  Even hard stone like granite is brittle.  Someone
compared this to slate and I have enough familiarity with slate to know
that you'd be taking a chance just carrying this thing by a "handle".  It's
heavy enough that if this thing is bouncing up and down with a fast gate
then you just might be left holding the handle.  

Quote

The first is disprovable, the second debatable, the third dismissable.


Ok, then why are there no bowls in existence today from any time or still
in production that are even vaguely similar to this?  Bowls don't come with
their own obstructions almost by definition.  There are such things as covered
bowls but these fins woulsd get in the way of a covering even.  

Art objects are usually finely made and wouldn't have the scratches around
the center post.  Art objects either depict or suggest something.  This one
seems to suggest the carver was having visions.  It doesn't depict anything.  

It makes a poor idle carving since it's lopsided.  This would come in handy
for the lantern described in the PT but it shows sloppiness otherwise.  

Quote

..Until such time as the rough water swamped it, necessitating the dragging of it's useless, delicate self across the bottom to shore.


If it turned enough it would swamp and sink.  This is where the uneven shape
is beneficial; it can be oriented in the water so that it gets just the right amount
of rocking.  According to the PT the geysers didn't spray straight up and the cli-
mate here has a prevailing wind out of the NW all through this season.  There
should be very little problem with it sinking so long as it's properly set.  



Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#119    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,068 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 14 March 2009 - 05:47 AM

Qoais on Mar 13 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

Well, I got through about 6 and a half pages and don't really think the thing is a bowl.  It's not THAT delicate that it can't be used for whatever practical purpose it was made for, expecially if it was a gentle motion of some kind.  Like constant stirring.

It put me in mind of a device that would be used by farmers when they milk a lot of cows.  They do not want the cream to rise to the top straight away - for whatever reason - the milk may have to be shipped somewhere before it's used - and this device could be used to gently stir the milk - not of course beat it and make butter or churn it, but just gently keep it moving so it cannot "set" and the cream rise to the top.  Whatever peg or pole was attached to it would be used as a handle to turn it with.  Perhaps it is suspended from a cross member down into the container of milk, and the worker turns the handle from above.



Not a bad idea.  But the same device can be made just using
a couple of discs with ridges or cut away sections that would
have a small fraction of the cost of these and be equally effec-
tive.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#120    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,122 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 14 March 2009 - 05:51 AM

cladking on Mar 13 2009, 05:28 PM, said:

Perhaps I've led the thread a little astray here but will comment
on this anyway. You might dismiss my understanding of the PT
as the wishful thinking of a modern person taken far out of context
to what the Egyptians were thinking but It is I who take the Egypt-
ians at their word.  It is the egyptologists who say their words are
mere incantation and drivel.  I can back up my interpretations with
what the pyramid builders actually said but egyptologists have no
choice but to rely on their interpretation itself and the interpretation
of other egyptologists.


A few of us, myself included, are guilty of straying off topic, but I'll comment on this. And actually it fits in to how you, yourself, are viewing the bowl from the eyes of a 21st century man, not a man from 3,000 BCE. First of all, in all my years I have never heard a single Egyptologist refer to any text as "mere" incantation or "drivel." Especially the latter. If that's how an historian viewed something written by an ancient culture, he or she obviously would have no interest in or understanding of that culture to begin with. I stress "mere" in the other instance because, while the Pyramid Texts are indeed incantations, there's nothing "mere" about them. They were powerful magic. The fact that so many of the recitations begin with the introductory clause "Words spoken by" make that perfectly clear. That is the standard introduction to a great many spells written during the entire dynastic period.

I wish you'd stop denigrating Egyptologists, cladking. I've called you to task for this before, and you generally reply that you don't do that, but it's clear that you do. Such comments as "It is the egyptologists who say their words are mere incantation and drivel" are clearly meant to demean the body of work of professional historians, no matter how sly you try to phrase it. Unless you've invested significant time and effort into the study of Egyptology and have a sound understanding of its precepts, you are simply not in a position to attack it. Period.

As another example, you're insistence that Egyptologists rely only on work achieved up to the nineteenth century is also clearly inflammatory. Never mind that it's utterly baseless, but it does in fact reveal the limits to your understanding of the research and science involved in modern Egyptology.

It's ironic that your preferred mentor, so to speak, is Samuel Mercer. Mercer wasn't technically an Egyptologist to begin with, but for his translations he relied solely on the German translations of Kurt Sethe--whose work was published in 1908. Yes, 1908. You're relying on translations that are 100 years old. If you understand anything at all about linguistics, you should find that to be quite outdated. It's also important to understand that Mercer's work of 1952 is simply an English translation of Sethe's German. I doubt Mercer himself ever spent a moment inside the pyramids.

And again, how you've interpreted the Pyramid Texts has nothing to do with the pyramid builders. The Pyramid Texts were inscribed by professional scribes and craftsmen, not by the men who cut the masonry or stacked it into position. Only around one percent of these men would've even been functionally literate. When you're talking about the Pyramid Texts, you're referring to a much higher-status level of craftsman. Not to mention much better educated. These men did not cut or stack masonry.

Quote

For instance something as basic as where the king is buried the
egyptologists have to take the Pyramid Texts as symbolic and not
literal simply because they are pretty explicit that the king is not
buried in the pyramid.  The king's grave is in the sky.


The king's grave is the pyramid. The king's afterlife is in the sky.

Quote

You say I'm not qualified to have
an opinion but I think the veracity of this statement hinges on the
ability of someone to prove I'm wrong rather than their ability to
repeat the same mantras they've been repeating for 150 years.


I personally have never said you're not qualified to have an opinion. Opinions do not require qualifications. A number of us have written information ad nauseam to show where you've been in error, but you readily dismiss us just as you do the professional scholars. You are not comfortable with conventional scholarship, and are unfamiliar with the numerous fields and disciplines involved, so it's easiest for you to dismiss orthodoxy as though that wraps it up in a neat bow. It does no such thing, and it certainly doesn't bolster your argument. As I've written many times, you need to address definitively and accurately how your views are right and orthodoxy is wrong. It's as simple as that.

I would not come down so hard on you, cladking, if you were someone who had spent many years delving hard into the study of ancient Egypt. I give you credit for admitting you've studied very little of ancient Egyptian history, and I respect the honesty, but in the same light you must see how this does not put you into any position to dismiss conventional research. In the same way, unless you've spent significant time studying the ancient language and the culture and religion into which it fit, you're interpretation of the Pyramid Texts cannot stand scrutiny. What you've done all along is apply your own English spin on the English translations of very outdated German translations of a language that's been dead for over a thousand years. Understanding the Pyramid Texts is considerably more complex than you seem equipped to admit.

I still think you're trying to make a lot more out of this bowl than you need to. Your reply to my previous post about the nature of prestige items in burials shows your unfamiliarity with the commonality of and reasons for this practice. I don't know why you were trying to apply Pyramid Texts to the bowl in some of your earlier posts because these texts have nothing whatsoever to do with the object. And then you wrote this:

Quote

Art objects are usually finely made and wouldn't have the scratches around
the center post. Art objects either depict or suggest something. This one
seems to suggest the carver was having visions. It doesn't depict anything.


Here again is your tendency to insert your own, 21st century value judgements on an ancient artifact, and on ancient artwork in general. It doesn't work. At least in saying this, and mentioning the bowl several times, I've sort of brought the discussion back to its proper place. grin2.gif

Edited by kmt_sesh, 14 March 2009 - 05:58 AM.

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

Visit My Blog!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users