[aquatus1]

cladking, on 30 October 2009 - 11:33 PM, said:

Sorry, but this doesn't hold water on any level.
You can't just say 12,000 men could drag a pyramid up ramps
because it is there.

As opposed to saying that it was built a different way because of what isn't there?

[cladking]

aquatus1, on 30 October 2009 - 09:13 PM, said:

As opposed to saying that it was built a different way because of what isn't there?

I think it's significant when what isn't there is any sign
on the pyramid that there had been ramps. The lack of any
sort of cultural evidence that they had used high ramps is
most telling. Ramps by themselves would have been enormous
projects employing large numbers of men but there is nothing
in the record to suggest that any of these men existed. There
is no record of "ramp archetects", "ramp overseers", or "drunk-
en ramp builders of Menkaure".

There are no proposed ramp systems that would be sufficient to
the task of delivering a stone every couple minutes. There is
no God of Ramps nor Goddess of ramp builders. There are no
drawings of ramps from the great pyramid building age. The
word "ramp" doesn't appear in the Pyramid Texts in the usage
suggested with construction. There is no viable and evidenced
theory that a ramp system even could have been used. An engi-
neer recently stated that it was impossible for the ancients to
have developed and maintained the horsepower required to build
with ramps. I would add that there likely wouldn't have been room
for this Horsepower on any proposed system of ramps.

There's really very little evidence to go on but what is there
strongly suggests that 1,= stones were pulled up the side, and 2,=
there is evidence that water was available at the base of the pyr-
amid. There's not a great deal of evidence beyond these things.
Suppositions can be made about how the water got there and what
conduits carried it. We can speculate about counterweights since
there is some evidence for these. We can ask if men pulled the
stones up from the top or if they pulled them up from the opposite
side. We can calculate that passing ballast up the side of the
pyramid would be far more efficient than any other means of lift-
ing the stones using what is considered "primitive technology".
We can go on to calculate the necessary tonnage per cycle required
to maintain a delivery rate of half a stone per minute.

I still believe that if the minds much sharper than mine were to
put a little effort into this line of thought that this would open
itself up pretty quickly. I believe that the necessary evidence
already exists and if not it can be found easily. I think that
the Pyramid Texts really is wholly distinct from what it evolved
into and that the writers were describing in a superstitious manner
their belief in creation and their need for "words of truth" to be
read at the ascension ceremony. This concept does fit the actual
evidence and is not really wholly at odds with orthodox understand-
ing of the people themselves. It does paint them as being far less
superstitious and far less primitive in that they are merely stating
their beliefs in a way which won't offend their Gods. Mostly it just
means that they are much more like us and much smarter than we give
them credit for. But look at the pyramid; this says that they were
at least sane and could do something quite remarkable. It's just not
reasonable to suppose they might have lived counter to human nature
or that they would choose the least efficient possible method to make
so massive a project especially in relation to the size of their econ-
omy.

We need to concentrate far more on what is there and probably much
less on what we think should be there or must have been there.

[kmt_sesh]

zoser, on 30 October 2009 - 03:00 AM, said:

Yet another major refutation of the tomb theory:

Most 4th dynasty pharaohs are credited with more than one pyramid.

(Including Mr Khufu himself).

http://www.ancient-w...uk/Ghizawhy.htm

There's simply too much material in the linked page to deal with every point made, and certainly no one is interested in listening to me go on that long, but I'd like to comment on some of the information presented. It's yet another (no surprise) internet attempt at upsetting orthodoxy but with clearly little fundamental understanding of orthodox research. In the end it is only more misinterpretation and imaginative speculation. I have to break my responses into two posts, unfortunately, but I wanted to be thorough. That said, let's take a closer look at a few things.

Quote

The Babylonian Ziggurat of Ur is classed as a 'stepped solar-pyramid', which many believe to be a predecessor of the Egyptian pyramids and there are several similar construction features between the Babylonian pyramid and Djoser's 'step pyramid' at Saqqara.

While it's true that proto-ziggurats of the prehistoric Mesopotamian period predate the first Egyptian pyramid by centuries, there is no connection between the two types of architecture. The only connection one can make, in fact, is that both ziggurat and pyramid are wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, which is simply because that was the only way to build a colossal structure in the Bronze Age. There was definitely some degree of contact between the two cultures (Egypt probably derived cylinder seals and certain pottery types from Mesopotamia, for instance), but there is no logical, cultural connection between ziggurats and pyramids--any more than there are between Egyptian and Aztec pyramids.

Quote

The development of such unparalleled 'super-structures' at this time, along with such a dramatic change in the social order and worship strongly supports the idea of another, as yet unidentified influence in the Nile valley culture.

Definitely not true. As I've stated many times at UM over the years, after more than 200 years of constant excavating, archaeologists have yet to find the slightest evidence of a culture pre-existing the Egyptians in the Nile Valley. The statement also makes it sound as though the masonry pyramids seem to have sprung out of nowhere, whereas a proper study of royal funerary architecture in the Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom shows beyond doubt how the masonry pyramids were a logical development of this architecture. A proper study also reveals how the masonry pyramids themselves were a process in the making.

Quote

One of the major problems we have today is that there are no contemporary records or inscriptions to commemorate the constructions at Giza. In itself, this is a peculiar fact, as other contemporary Egyptian funerary structures abound with 'sacred' and 'magical' texts and inscriptions inside them to assist the passing of the dead pharaoh into the underworld.

It's true that "building records" have not been found for the pyramids, but such records have in fact rarely been found for any sort of monument from 3000-plus years of royal architecture. The sacred and magical texts the statement mentions--meaning such writings as the Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, Book of the Dead, Amduat, and Book of Gates--have nothing whatsoever to do building plans or construction records. Trying to find this sort of information in ritual texts is a fruitless endeavor, to be sure. Rather, scholars have to turn to the work of archaeologists, who have answered a wealth of questions, despite what the whimsy of fringe literature might say. The above quote is fundamentally flawed.

Quote

In relation to this, Fix cites evidence to show that the quarry-marks and cartouches that have been used to attribute pyramids to kings may have been misinterpreted.

They have not been misinterpreted. The authenticity of quarry marks and graffiti found in the Great Pyramid's relieving chambers are beyond dispute. Some of the writings in those chambers had to have been put there prior to the placement of the masonry in the relieving chambers. The argument made in this quote was definitively laid to rest a long time ago. It is nothing but transparent misdirection.

Quote

Some of the cartouches of 4th-dynasty kings may originally have been sacred symbols identifying different schools of religious thought, rather than primarily the names of individual pharaohs.

There is no evidence the Egyptians practiced such a thing. The name was of tremendous power in their worldview, and the name of the king was sacred. Sneferu, Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure, and to a lesser extent Djedefre (whose reign followed Khufu's) are too well attested at different sites for their names to have been anything other than their names. I don't know where the author of this web page came across this bit of information, but it is also flawed.

Quote

It seems relevant that the name accredited to the building of the structure (Knufu-Shufu-Suphis), is also name that is independently associated with both a God (Khnum-Khufu), a sacred/good luck charm (Khufu), and the ancient name of the constellation Orion.

Wow, pretty bad from start to finish. Khnum-Khufu was not the name of a god; it was the full and formal name of Khufu. Khnum was the name of a god. The proper full name is Khnum-Khuf, which means "Khnum is his protector." I've never heard of a good-luck charm called "Khufu," and the Egyptian word for the constellation was not Khufu but Sah. As I said earlier today in another thread, the people who write this stuff don't seem to be much concerned with fact-checking.

Quote

The inscription appears to states that Khufu built a pyramid for the Princess Henutson beside the temple of the goddess (Archeology confirms this with the southernmost of the three small pyramids beside the great pyramid). It also makes it clear that Khufu saw the sphinx. Since Khufu, who was supposed to have built the great pyramid, was Khafre's father, how can Khafre have built the sphinx?

This is in reference to the inscription found on the Inventory Stela, an inscribed tablet found by Mariette in the mid-nineteenth century. Sitchin is big into this stela, too. Both the author of the web page and Sitchin himself are clearly unfamiliar with the archaeology in question; Sitchin himself is repeatedly guilty of referencing terribly outdated and questionable sources, to boot. The Inventory Stela was definitely inscribed in the Late Period, around 2,000 years after Dynasty 4. A serious student of history knows better than to regard it as a work of history, which it certainly is not. The Inventory Stela is authentic, but those who inscribed it probably did not know any more about the history of their Old Kingdom than the Greek writer Herodotus did. The stela is properly dated by its literary style and by the features of the deities that appear on it, not by the whims and hopes of fringe writers.

Quote

Comment: If it can be shown that the Sphinx was already present at Giza before the 4th dynasty, then there is an argument that other structures would also have been present. The disproportionate size of the head and the body would concur with a re-working (or several), as may have been the case with the whole Giza plateau.

The excavations and analyses of Mark Lehner's GPMP team have established beyond doubt that the Sphinx dates to Dynasty 4, and almost certainly to the reign of Khafre. Were the writers of fringe material to stay current on archaeological research, they would know this. The GPMP's findings have corroborated what most Egyptologists have stated all along.

Quote

The radiocarbon dates for the Great Pyramid ranged from 2,853 - 3,809 BC, which suggests (proves), the date of construction for the Great pyramid an average of 900 years older than is currently believed.

A gross distortion of the truth. The statement reflects the picking and choosing of anomalous findings, and does not draw from the most comprehensive or more current C14 analyses. Double strikeout.

Quote

A decree from the time of Pepi I (6th Dynasty), which exempts the priests of 'the two pyramids of Snoferu' from certain taxes, was written in relation to the 'Red' and 'Bent' pyramids at Dashur. Cartouches of Snoferu have also been found on both pyramids (On the corner-stones and upper chambers of the 'Bent' pyramid), but none yet on the Meidum pyramid.

Note - Snoferu is only credited with a reign of just 23 years (2,575 - 2,551 BC) (2), suggesting that he managed to move three times the amount of stone as his son, Cheops (Khufu), but in only half the time.

It's true that some scholars still dispute the identification of the Medium pyramid with Sneferu, but they are very much the exception. The majority of historians attribute this pyramid to Sneferu, in fact. It used to be argued that the Medium pyramid was at least begun by Huni, last king of Dynasty 3, and finished by Sneferu, which might well be true but most scholars still favor Sneferu's commissioning of it. There is simply no existing solid evidence to tie it to Huni, while the burial ground around it is filled with tombs belonging to family members and court officials of Sneferu (such as the famous mastaba of his son Nefermaat). Further, the Bent Pyramid was almost certainly being built while Sneferu was converting the Meidum monument from a step pyramid to a true pyramid, and the Red Pyramid was being erected while the Bent Pyramid was being finished. Construction of the three pyramids did not take place fully one after the other.

To be continued in the next post...

[kmt_sesh]

Continued from my previous post...

Quote

Comment - Apart from circumstantial funerary remains from around Giza, the fact is that the only 'evidence' that the pyramids themselves were intended for funerary purposes is from Herodotus original text, which was itself not an observation, but rather a third person narrative.

Here the author makes a common fringe mistake: that the only evidence we have for burial is from Herodotus. Again, it's an application of outdated and questionable source materials. The author ignores the abundance of inscriptional material from the complex itself, not to mention the indisputable graffiti in the relieving chambers. And of course the sarcophagus. Also, the pyramid was sealed tight, which logically means burial took place. There's more to say on this matter, but suffice it to say the statement is in error.

Quote

Apart from the 'Tomb' theory, there are a number of other reasonable suggestions, such as: That Giza served as a geodetic marker, an 'Initiation' centre, an Astronomical observatory, a Religious/Cult centre or a Suppository for Knowledge.

There's no extant evidence whatsoever that the Giza monuments were used for these purposes. These are all New Age, fringe propositions that have no place in reasonable theory because there is simply no evidence to corroborate them. The Egyptians built pyramids for one reason only: royal burials.

Quote

Piazzi Smyth suggested that the Giza complex was the centre of the world's landmasses.

That people still cite Smyth is beyond comprehension. This is not just outdated material but laughably, intellectually quaint. A talented land surveyor, Petrie went to Egypt to survey the Great Pyramid because he was quite honestly intrigued by Smyth's findings, but along the way what Petrie discovered was that Smyth was wrong in every respect. Smyth's argument was destroyed in a few years of careful work on the part of Petrie. Smyth became a curiosity and laughing stock, and Petrie went on to become one of the greatest and most respected archaeologists in history.

Let's be crystal clear on one thing. The Egyptians did not even believe the world was a sphere, and they had little to no knowledge of landmasses beyond the Mediterranean, much less the greater world. They most certainly could not have cared less where the Great Pyramid stood in relation to other continents, most of which they did not know existed.

Quote

4.33) The Association with Isis-Osiris. - When the Sphinx was cleared by Vyse and Cavaglia, they uncovered a Greek inscription saying that the sphinx was the 'Guardian of the tomb of Osiris'.(10)

We must be clear on something else. The earliest attestation for Osiris occurs during the reign of Isesi, in Dynasty 5. The earliest for Isis, in the Pyramid Texts of Unis' monument. There remains no conclusive evidence that either Osiris or Isis were venerated or possessed a cult prior to this time. This includes the time of the masonry pyramids in Dynasty 4. As such, any argument attempting to link Osiris or Isis to the Great Pyramid or other Dynasty 4 monuments of Giza is fundamentally flawed and does not stand.

Quote

4.40) The word 'pyramid' translated. - The earliest symbols for pyramids were hieroglyphic. The shape was not an exact triangle, but was used as a sign for a 'solar temple' (se Fix). Hawass points out that the pyramid shape is 'clearly related to the ben-ben, the symbol for the sun god' (13).

Hawass's statement is correct but the preceding statement is not. The author reveals an unfamiliarity with hieroglyphs, which is a place no fringe adherent should try to step because he or she ends up looking foolish to those who have been schooled in Egyptian hieroglyphs. The glyph the author of the web page mentions is the glyph for the ben-ben, as Hawass states. It is not the glyph for pyramid. The pyramid was ritually associated with the ben-ben stone of the Heliopolis cult, but the two were not just different words but altogether different objects.

Quote

The Egyptian name for the pyramids is 'Khuti'

No, of course, it is not. I'm not sure of the meaning of "khuti" but "khut" was a generic term for a sanctuary, not any sort of tomb. A close-sounding term is Hwt-aAt (hoot-ah-aht), which was the word for "burial chamber." The author may have come across bad information. The word for pyramid was mr, and in the glyphs was spelled like this.

Quote

Davidson (2) believed that this name originated from the semetic equivelant which was 'Urim' - 'The lights'. In Phrygian and Greek, the root 'Ur' - 'light', became successively 'Pur' and 'Pyr' (fire), and 'Pyra' (Plural), for 'Beacon fires'.

None of this is even close to reality. The word "pyramid" derives from a Greek term (something like puramis, I believe) for a kind of conical bread or cake. I don't know if I'm familiar with this Davidson fellow, but he certainly turns linguistics into a tortured path.

Quote

Well known American Egyptologist Mark Lehner has stated that the ancient Khemitian term for pyramid was something he calls MR.Pyramid. Lehner bases this on his translation of MR as "Place of Ascension" following his belief that pyramids were tombs for kings and where the dead king's souls "ascended".

I've read this before, and I know cladking has written of it in some of his posts, but I honestly don't know where Lehner gets this from. As much respect as I have for the man, there is no sound linguistic foundation to this. Frankly the etymology for mr is unknown, but I've never come across in the professional literature any associations with words for "ascension."

It's possible Lehner is being fast and loose with the language. An archaic term for "mastaba" would seem to be "to ascend," but this can be tied into pyramids only in as much as the mastaba eventually became a pyramid at Djoser's complex, in Dynasty 3.

Quote

However, the ancient Khemitians apparently used the term PR.NTR, Per-Neter, for pyramid. Per means "house" and Neter has been translated by Egyptologists as "God" or "Goddess"

I've never heard of such an association, though I am not saying it's altogether impossible. The author's translations are correct but pr-nTr, "house of the god," was a term for temple, not tomb. The temple was a god's house.

LOL I also chuckle every time I see something like "Khemitian" in place of "Egyptian." The ancient Egyptians certainly did not call themselves Khemitians. There was no such word. I fringe writers are so against using proper and accepted lexicon like "Egyptian" (which derives from the ancient Greek, after all), they could at least use the correct term the ancient Egyptians themselves often used: Rekhyt ("the people").

I think that's enough. Practically the entire web page presents inaccuracies, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, or New Age speculative whimsy. It's perfectly fine if those of you reading this don't believe me. As I've said in the past, if you don't believe me, then by all means research it for yourself. The information is out there, in the professional literature. I honestly hope you do turn to legitimate scholarship for genuine answers. Most of all, you can be guaranteed that the internet is not quite the place to go. This web page is proof of that!

[kmt_sesh]

cladking wrote:

Quote

Once the king died there is no evidence he could still give direct orders
or that anyone believed he could. Yet there are no great pyramids only
nearly complete.

Yes. It is opinion. But it's opinion based on fact and evidence.

Research the religion, cladking. The answers are there. The Egyptians believed that the king's survival into the afterlife was critical. Two things had to happen when a king died, and these two things never changed throughout pharaonic history:

1) The king had to be properly buried so that his soul could ascend.

2) A new king had to ascend to the throne.

If these two things failed to occur, the Egyptians believed the cosmos would most likely crumble and the chaotic waters beyond the ordered world would destroy everything. The king did, in fact, go on ruling in the afterlife, as a god. That is why all pyramids functioned as cults to deceased kings. Some of these cults, such as for Khufu at Akhet-Khufu (his pyramid), existed for centuries.

Quote

These structures required vastly more efforst and work
than the temples to the gods so the implication is that the kings were far
more powerful than the gods even after they died.

In the Old Kingdom it's possible that the king was viewed as a living god. We honestly don't know how true this was to the average farmer or herdsman, but it's true that in the Old Kingdom the largest temples appear to have been for the kings. All work expended on pyramid construction and on the building of their attendant temples, was considered essential, as was the continued cult of the king after his death. Ideology had to be maintained.

The situation was reversed in the New Kingdom and thereafter, where ordinarily the king was considered divine but not a god (exceptions can be made for the occasional monarch like Amunhotep III and Ramesses II, who deified themselves when they were alive). As magnificent as royal tombs still were in this time, the great state temples such as at Karnak, Luxor, and Abydos dwarfed them.

I don't mean to be unkind when I say this, cladking, but what you regard as fact for your own hypotheses, you draw from very incomplete information.

[cladking]

A gross distortion of the truth. The statement reflects the picking and choosing of anomalous findings, and does not draw from the most comprehensive or more current C14 analyses. Double strikeout."

There are some real problems with the site and the claims
but I liked his logic if not always his facts. I was es-
pecially fond of the more detailed description of the "red
ochre" found on G1. From this source and a couple others
I now suspect that it was ferrous manganese and ground gran-
ite concoction put on in Roman times.

I couldn't find a chemical analysis but If it post-dates the
pyramid I'm not really concerned with the chemistry so much.
It's still of great interest to me since the Egyptian heiro-
glyph had a red band at the bottom but this "paint" isn't so
interesting.

I give a lot of credence to each experiment/ test and rela-
tively little to each part. To put it another way there were
multiple radiocarbon tests that said 200 to 500 years older
so the one single series of tests that were spot on with or-
thodoxy just weights it a little younger. If there were some
error it might have been repeated across all the samples.

I'll believe the later dates when they are confirmed. Right
now I believe them all equally.

[cladking]

"I don't mean to be unkind when I say this, cladking, but what you regard as fact for your own hypotheses, you draw from very incomplete information."

If it weren't for you I'd have a far weaker understanding
of mainstream thinking on the subject. Few people are as
patient as you in explaining nor are they as good at explain-
ing.

You're right that my informatyion is very incomplete. It is
not only incomplete about traditional thought which is under-
standable since I don't believe it but there is a lot more in-
formation out there which I don't have ready access to.

I doubt there's anything out there that would significantly
impact my thinking though since no one has brought things for-
ward which negate any of the key aspects. I suppose if I'm
wrong then it will be embarrassingly so.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 31 October 2009 - 12:10 AM, said:

If it weren't for you I'd have a far weaker understanding
of mainstream thinking on the subject. Few people are as
patient as you in explaining nor are they as good at explain-
ing.

You're right that my informatyion is very incomplete. It is
not only incomplete about traditional thought which is under-
standable since I don't believe it but there is a lot more in-
formation out there which I don't have ready access to.

I doubt there's anything out there that would significantly
impact my thinking though since no one has brought things for-
ward which negate any of the key aspects. I suppose if I'm
wrong then it will be embarrassingly so.

Very kind of you to say, cladking.

I can't say that you'd change your entire way of thinking if you put more time into a wider scope of research, nor do I necessarily expect that to happen. I just think that with a greater familiarity of ancient Egypt, such as with the religion and language, you'd be better equipped to frame the thoughts and ideas which mean more to you. Of course there's an ulterior motive on my part because I think you'd see for yourself why I argue so passionately about the things I do, and why modern analysis and investigation are so reliable.

Maybe it's that last part more than anything. You've intimated in the past how Egyptologists tend to have a nineteenth-century mindset, so I wish you'd acquaint yourself more fully with how scientifically advanced modern Egyptology is. It is truly a 21st-century science. I am fortunate to live in Chicago where there are frequent lectures given by Egyptologists who expound on their work and the science involved, not to mention a decent bookstore in every other neighborhood. I make an earnest effort to stay current on research, not just for my own sake but because I present the same information to the public at two Chicago museums. I have to think you have a decent library or two in your area. Many libraries are connected nowadays with a wide-reaching network, so that if they don't have a book on the shelf they can certainly get it for you.

Or come to Chicago. There's a decent bookstore in every other neighborhood.

[zoser]

Wow KMT.

I have to admire your thoroughness, and dedication. Yes i did read your whole post. If there is one common theme running through your belief's, it is that it is all based on the written work of someone else who either themselves did the original digging and theory formulation, or they were close to someone who did.

Your sources are therefore still one sided and cleave to a particular mindset. That mindset only interprets evidence one way, and the pre-requisite is that it has to fit within already established norms.

There is for example a significant number of scientists today (particularly biomedical researchers) who now doubt Darwin's evolutionary theory. The same doubt applies to man made global warming, and people believe that GW has more to do with solar magnetism.

My approach is always not to look too closely at what someone else has said. I look at the weight of evidence from what the artifacts themselves say. With the GP this is difficult since there is no precedent due to it's mind boggling complexity and therein lies the problem. Deductive research as far as a persons senses and mental development allows is the only way, since as the author of the website said - there are no written records explaining who built the GP and how they did it - what scant writing there is, is suspicious and can be interpreted in different ways.

Anyway, i am enjoying the debate, and I am grateful for your efforts KMT and Cladking.

[Hanslune]

zoser, on 31 October 2009 - 11:46 AM, said:

[/font][/size]

KMT a brilliant and well written debunk of the nonsense presented. Well done

Howdy Zoser

Your sources are therefore still one sided and cleave to a particular mindset.

Hans: And of course the fringe sources you referenced would NEVER do that ...right LOL

That mindset only interprets evidence one way, and the pre-requisite is that it has to fit within already established norms.

Hans: In the 19th century what norms existed for understanding the old kingdom Egypt – please list them.

There is for example a significant number of scientists today (particularly biomedical researchers) who now doubt Darwin's evolutionary theory.

Hans: Off subject and wrong too

The same doubt applies to man made global warming, and people believe that GW has more to do with solar magnetism.

Hans: Off subject yet again what exactly does this have to do with the pyramids?? Oh wait you are using the old fringe trick of saying well something could be wrong/everything is wrong therefore my idea must be right? What that really means is your idea is just as subject to being wrong....except that a special exception must be made for your idea which is of course not wrong {giggle}

My approach is always not to look too closely at what someone else has said.

Hans: Not to be too cruel Zoser but that is painfully obvious. So you're actually saying a lack of knowledge about ancient Egypt, especially the old kingdom is a GOOD thing? LOL. Yet you have been producing fringe site after fringe site to support your view- why did you do that?

I look at the weight of evidence from what the artifacts themselves say.

Hans: Which appears to be exactly what fringe sites tell you to believe. Why is that?


Deductive research as far as a persons senses and mental development allows is the only way,

Hans: So how many times have you been to the site Zoser? Do you live in the Mena hotel? It would seem everything you are saying is that we should base our responses to the pyramids based on hands on experience, first person experience....do you have that?

since as the author of the website said

Hans: Wait Zoser after dismissing everything said by other people you are actually quoting someone .....can you say the word 'contradiction'?

- there are no written records explaining who built the GP and how they did it - what scant writing there is, is suspicious and can be interpreted in different ways.

Hans: So are you saying we can each make up what we like and to hell with what other have found? That sounds a bit mentally ludditish. There is nothing at all suspicious in any way about the writing, none at all. This is simply a fringe creation. Made up in 1976 by Sitchin. It has no basis in fact. If that is best you have I would suggest you try harder. As KMT as suggested, your lack of knowledge is your main problem-spend a few years reading about ancient Egypt – instead of fringe books and webesites.


Question for KMT

When is the estimated time for the symbols for tomb changing from a mastaba to a pyramid?

Question for Zoser

Why are the pyramids built in a area full of older burials?

[aquatus1]

cladking, on 31 October 2009 - 04:56 AM, said:

I think it's significant when what isn't there is any sign
on the pyramid that there had been ramps. The lack of any
sort of cultural evidence that they had used high ramps is
most telling.

Nice verbal kung-fu and all, but even after this huge paragraph, you don't manage to get around that there is evidence that conclusively places the technology for ramps in Old Kingdom. The only thing you are complaining about is that technology we know existed isn't enough for you to agree that even better or more clever version of the technology existed.

Instead, you claim that it was built using a different technology, for which there is not only no evidence that conclusively places it in the Old Kingdom, there is only a handful of what could, at best, be claimed as anecdotal evidence from a book that is widely recognized to be religious in nature. You are basically trying to use the bible as proof, Egyptian style.

You complained that the theory was advanced based on something that wasn't there. As it turns out there was something there; you just disagree on the scale. But you advocate something that truly is based on something that isn't there, in any scale.

[cladking]

aquatus1, on 31 October 2009 - 08:16 AM, said:

Nice verbal kung-fu and all, but even after this huge paragraph, you don't manage to get around that there is evidence that conclusively places the technology for ramps in Old Kingdom. The only thing you are complaining about is that technology we know existed isn't enough for you to agree that even better or more clever version of the technology existed.

Instead, you claim that it was built using a different technology, for which there is not only no evidence that conclusively places it in the Old Kingdom, there is only a handful of what could, at best, be claimed as anecdotal evidence from a book that is widely recognized to be religious in nature. You are basically trying to use the bible as proof, Egyptian style.

You complained that the theory was advanced based on something that wasn't there. As it turns out there was something there; you just disagree on the scale. But you advocate something that truly is based on something that isn't there, in any scale.

I don't disagree that they had ramps in the old kingdom. There's
a word for ramps and there are ruins of ramps at Giza. Indeed, if
you want to score ramps vs counterweights at home this would be one
point for ramps since so far I've been unable to identify a generic
term for "counterweight". []nw-boat is probably the generic word
for a pyramid counterweight but one would assume that there would
be more general term and this would most unlikely be it. It would
suggest that all counterweights were the size of a boat or that this
concept was invented specifically for building large structures.

But that is certainly very little evidence that ramp technology was
used to raise stone onto the pyramids. Even here there is some.
There are a million tons of broken up debris and ramp material fill-
ing the quarry and dumped over one of the adjacent cliffs. I could
go on in this vein and I could make an argument for ramps. It would
still not be as good as the argument for counterweights and it would
still have holes in it.

Most of the evidence for counterweights is right in plain sight but
it's stuff that egyptology has cast aside as be irrelevent or to be
mere red herrings. It's the physical evidence for counterweights I
find compelling rather than the Pyramid Texts. There are only about
20 references to counterweights in this corpus and none are definit-
ional and even in toto they are not conclusive, it is exceedingly ap-
parent though. There are just not many possible referents which would
fit in every usage.

It's exceedingly difficult to believe that they suddenly invented some
sort of ramp that could take stones high up in the air in order to make
a pyramid and the very first time they used it they were able to build
a great pyramid. Think about this a minute. What kind of improvement
on existing ramp technology could possibly suddenly maker it applicable
to a far taller structure. Something like the ability to build it with
sheer walls would suffice but are we to believe they wouldn't test this
new technology on something easier first. Why commit to a huge structure
when you don't know if your new sheer walls can withstand the impact of
having a mountain dragged over them.

And there are still all the other solid arguments against ramps. The an-
cients would know that dragging stones was highly inefficient. Most oth-
er efficient means were beyond their capability or too dangerous for a
small workspace like the pyramid site. But pulling the stones up the
side with teams of men was hardly beyond their understanding. You sim-
ply need bigger ropes and larger teams. This is nearly as efficient as
counterweights but there is the "human factor" that makes counterweights
better. Many men pulling on ropes will not have their hearts and legs in
it. It's much easier to lean on the ropes than it is to pull. But if
each man is on the side of the pyramid passing up ballast then the slack-
ers can be immediately identified. Very large amounts of water can be
passed up if you use a little pendulum action.

No, I don't believe they did it exactly this way either, of course. But
there is evidence right on the plateau for how it was done. All these
structures built at Giza are not irrelevent. All the information dismissed
by egyptology is not unrelated.

[eclectic 1]

zoser, on 27 October 2009 - 08:25 PM, said:

In the Puma Punku thread, KMT and others argued for the Tomb theory, while I argued against on the grounds that the GP was an energy machine. Other proposed a water device, and no doubt there are other even more diverse ideas out there.

Here are some lines this thread could look at (suggestions only):

1) What is the tangible evidence for the tomb theory, or what is the weight from evidence from say looking at a trace of burial customs of previous dynasties? Where did the tomb idea come from originally?

2) The GP is arguably the most intricate of the 3rd and 4th dynasty pyramids. Could the GP be a special case in some way?

3) One of the previous threads said that bones were found in the GP granite box. Not a mummy. What were they doing there? What about the animal bones apparently found in the box in Khafre's pyramid?

4) How does the architectural design of all the pyramids (The Red pyramid, The Bent Pyramid, Khafre's, Menkaure's)support the tomb theory? if not then what were they for?

5) Is there any evidence that the Giza Pyramids were from an earlier time and therefore had a different purpose other than tombs? Could the others be attempts at copying the originals created by some earlier culture, or were the Giza Pyramids a culmination and evolution from previous attempts. Is so then how do we explain the subsequent more inferior attempts?


This could be an interesting thread.

There was never any body ever placed in the GP, ergo it was not a tomb. The only bones ever found in it were a few rat bones. The GP was part of the attempt to recreate the heavens on earth by replicating part of the constellation of Orion. It may have served many purposes; one of which was a temple of initiation into a mystery cult. Whether it was a beacon for spaceships, or timeships, or whatever, as some say has not been proven, or disproven. It totally lacks any body, or funery decorations, or other signs of ever having been a tomb. To a large degree it was a Public Works Project used to give people employment. The builders were employees with pensions,and health care plans, rather than slaves. The GP was, thus, to ancient Egypt what various dams, and highways, were to Great Depression America.

[zoser]

Wow Hans you seem to be a very angry guy and another exponent of the orthodox school.

That's fine, since people here broadly fit into one of the two camps here.

Think for a moment Hans as you are presumably a man who is interested in history/archaeology.

Is there a debate raging about Rome? Answer No - at least not to my knowledge. What about Ancient Greece? NO Persia? No The Renaissance? The answer of course is no.

What about ancient egypt? Yes. Pre-History? Yes. Ancient sites where megalithic structures have been erected to mind blowing accuracy without clear understandable purpose? Yes.

Why does the debate rage one asks? Answer: There are those who doubt conventional explanations. Why doubt them? Well for two good reasons:

1) They are not reasonable against many different forms of assessment.
2) There are unfortunately vested interests at play. People need jobs, money and power, and that can only be had by following the orthodox norms.

Will the debate continue to rage because of your anger ? Unfortunately yes.

Now Hans, having dealt with that, what theories or research do you have to offer?

Furthermore while I have complimented KMT on his efforts, my personal belief is that nothing has been debunked (a favourite and overused term of the orthodox school to imply that things have been dealt with and put to bed when in fact they have not - a convenient dismissal phrase to mean "I hope it will now go away".), as he is simply quoting from old text books and orthodox research.

Sorry Hans

This post has been edited by zoser: 31 October 2009 - 06:12 PM

[zoser]

Post Deleted

This post has been edited by zoser: 31 October 2009 - 06:12 PM