Jump to content




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


* * * * - 2 votes

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


  • Please log in to reply
1650 replies to this topic

#1096    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

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

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 06:48 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 13 November 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Yet if they were not tombs, then where are the missing bodies, where were they buried, where are the tombs of the pyramid building kings?

This is a perfectly legitimate question even though many alts don't believe the great pyramids
were tombs so it hardly seems to impinge on them to locate the kings' remains. But it is a fair
question since every indication is that the disposition of dead kings appears to be of supreme
interest to the builders as evidenced by the Pyramid Texts. One doesn't need to understand
the translations or the language to see that that the dead king is of great importance and they
wouldn't have lost, misplaced, or forgotten the remains.

I believe the Pyramid Texts are quite specific about how the mummy (dead king) was handled.
This work is simply ritual that was read aloud to the people at the various ceremonies involving
the ascension of the dead king. I believe they specifically stated in many lines that the king was
cremated in a ceremony but even if you don't accept that there is a coherent meaning to these
words it is still strongly implied that the body was cremated.  The disposition of the ashes is no-
where mentioned and I believe this implies that they were not of great importance once the king
was reborn (essentially as the pyramid/ kingdom/ etc/ etc).  This is presumptive and it's entire-
ly possible the remains were of at least minor import and they might have even been left in the
pyramid.  But this is no minor point because the people did not believe these were tombs whet-
her the king was inside or not.  Not one individual working on building the pyramid would consider
himself to be building a tomb.  It was a house of life and not death.  It was a living king(dom) and
not a tomb.  There was no limit to the number of kings who might live in a great pyramid but the
number of dead kings was capped at "zero" in every single instance*.











* possibly excepting S1 (the first great pyramid).

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1097    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

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

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:07 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 13 November 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Of course there's no evidence to support that, because no one in Egyptology believes it. The change is very evident in many factors, but you've narrowed your entire interest in ancient Egypt to one small window in Dynasty 4 so I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with the changes, which is why you're applying inaccurate assumptions. Egyptology isn't.

We are looking at different pictures from different perspectives and vastly different
levels of knowledge.  I'm sure you know a great deal more about details of the pre-5th
dynasty Egyptians and infinitely more about the Egyptians of the book of the dead.
From your perspective you can see countless changes in the language as well as some
in the culture and the "religion".  You can see vast changes in politics and archetecture.
Egyptologists see many changes that are invisible to me since I know very little about
these later times and the way words are spelled.  Most of this stuff I'm simply in no pos-
ition to argue or dispute the words of experts.  I generally accept most of their pronoun-
cements at face value.

But I can quite easily dispute mainstream interpretations of the people and culture that
built G1.  This is because all the evidence for the people and culture is interpretative. It
is being misinterpreted and the proof is that the orthodox theory doesn't work.  It never
worked.  It's not broken but was ill concieved.  It was invented broken and built broken so
it doesn't work and never will.  The metaphysical meaning of theory is that it is capable
of making accurate predictions but mainstream assumptions have never created anything
but more mysteries.  It is through these predictions that theory is reinforced by means of
experiment or by means of news events.  If you jettison the assumptions the evidence has
other ways to fit together more coherently and more capable of explaining news since the
1880's, modern news, and the physical evidence.

Figuring out all the details of the lives and ideas of the builders will be a monumental task
but so far mainstream is simply obsessed with tring to get all the evidence to fit tombs.  It's
never going to fit because they weren't tombs and simple science can prove it.  Rather than
employing such simple science they keep drilkling holes and desicrating graves.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1098    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:02 PM

View Postcladking, on 13 November 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

But this is no minor point because the people did not believe these were tombs whet-
her the king was inside or not.  Not one individual working on building the pyramid would consider
himself to be building a tomb.  It was a house of life and not death.  It was a living king(dom) and
not a tomb.

Though with pyramids we see an evolutionary process from mastaba to true pyramid that mitigates against anything other than them being tombs. Now, clearly GP is somewhat different to the others. It's so very clever exactness and dimensions, it extra features, cause us to scratch heads. If it were not for that pyramid, then I suspect there would not be nearly so much debate about them being tombs or not, and possibly not as much debate about the esoteric affairs that have been heaped upon them. Perhaps to look at GP as some sort of deluxe model, with the true purpose of the expensive extras still lost to us. G1 is the Zil of pyramids, while G2 is a Chaika and all the others Ladas, yet all are still autos/tombs and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
Пока!


#1099    Alcibiades9

Alcibiades9

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 109 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2012

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:31 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 12 November 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Yet we live about 4,500 years after GP was built and he only 1,000. He lived when the language, religion, culture, everything, was still alive. Much of what he would have access to on papyrus is long dust. Many buildings and inscriptions are damaged or also dust. There is information he would have known, that we do not even know existed. Rather like the famous "Known unknowns and unknown unknowns". We can apply scientific method to excavations and so forth, even know something about construction of some tomb or building that he was not aware of because it was complete in his time. He would not have thought to destroy a building just to scrabble about in the ruins to see that some workman left the remains of his dinner in the foundations, or scrawled some rude remark on a surface that would never have expected to be seen until the end of time. My basic premise is good, and is not about the stela, it is about his knowledge. We cannot possibly know what he knew or didn't know, and some 3,500 years after him, how can we say we know more than him about his own culture, it is just not credible. There may well have been two intermediate periods between the pyramids and him, but there was no great fracture, no fundamental change, even with the Hyksos interlude, in Egyptian culture, as there was, for instance, within Britain between the building of Stonehenge and modern times. I believe he would have had reasonably good knowledge of his past. I cannot prove it, but it also cannot be disproved, and he should, as an actual AE, be given the benefit of the doubt. I think if any of them could see what all us of write about them, then they would be roaring with laughter.

Roaring with laughter? I think they would be spinning in their graves.  Or tombs.  Or mastabas.  Or pyramids... if we ever found a body in a pyramid that is.  I think kmt-sesh put it perfectly when he wrote: "Tuthmosis VI's separation in time from the Old Kingdom is valid: people living in Dynasty 18, royals included, would've known very few real facts about what had happened back in Dynasty 4, a thousand years earlier. Histories were not recorded, fact-checked, and stored in a manner similar to what we take for granted today."

We will clearly have to agree to disagree, but I will say this.  My father served in the Second World War, but talking to him I was always surprised to find that he seemed to know a lot less about the war than I did.  He didn't, for instance, know that Soviet Russia also invaded Poland in 1939.  He didn't know anything about Bletchley Park.  He had never heard of the battle of Kursk.  He had, generally, very little idea about various aspects of the broader scope of the war at all.  And yet he was there, actually in it, and his experience was detailed and undeniable, and all his day to day actions and involvement and subsequent memories were more direct and real than anything I ever learned or will learn from a history book.  And yet I knew more about the Second World War than he did.  Saying that is not dsrespectful to him and it does not in any way denigrate him or his personal knowledge or experience.  He was there, in the actual event, but I, long after the actual event ended, was able - through the myriad of sources available - to put together a better and more complete picture than he had himself.

So, I think, it is with Thutmose IV.  It is tempting to think of ancient Egypt as a linear and stable civilisation, but by Thutmose's time, the Sphinx was long buried and abandoned... the power, importance and truth of Giza had been obscured for centuries. He was entitled to draw whatever conclusions he did from the questionable evidence available to him... but we are no more obliged to accept it just because of his proximity in time to 2500BC that we are obliged to say that Budge must know slightly more about the AEs than us because he is 80 years nearer to them than we are.


#1100    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

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

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:37 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 13 November 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Though with pyramids we see an evolutionary process from mastaba to true pyramid that mitigates against anything other than them being tombs. Now, clearly GP is somewhat different to the others. It's so very clever exactness and dimensions, it extra features, cause us to scratch heads. If it were not for that pyramid, then I suspect there would not be nearly so much debate about them being tombs or not, and possibly not as much debate about the esoteric affairs that have been heaped upon them. Perhaps to look at GP as some sort of deluxe model, with the true purpose of the expensive extras still lost to us. G1 is the Zil of pyramids, while G2 is a Chaika and all the others Ladas, yet all are still autos/tombs and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

I can agree that if not for the existence of G1 there there would be less debate probably.

But, the facts would not necessarily be any different.  There are lots of fine details and good
craftsmanship in other structures and pyramids as well.  For many of us, it's not at all the in-
terior of the great pyramids that first attracted our attention but the vast enormity of the struc-
ture and effort required to lift and build it.  Even if G1 didn't exist, G2 is still nearly as massive
and even the smaller great pyramids must have been significant undertakings.

The facts remain the same and the facts are that there is no direct evidence that the kings
from before the 5th dynasty were buried in tombs.  That they might have been is a given, that
they were is an assumption based on interpretation of facts.  The assumption flies in the face
of the words left by the builders who clearly stated many times that the king's grave was in the
sky.  616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave"; 616e. she has em-
braced thee, in her name of "Grave";.

It will take science to settle the matter but no science is being done.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1101    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:09 PM

View Postcladking, on 13 November 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

I can agree that if not for the existence of G1 there there would be less debate probably.

But, the facts would not necessarily be any different.  There are lots of fine details and good
craftsmanship in other structures and pyramids as well.  For many of us, it's not at all the in-
terior of the great pyramids that first attracted our attention but the vast enormity of the struc-
ture and effort required to lift and build it.  Even if G1 didn't exist, G2 is still nearly as massive
and even the smaller great pyramids must have been significant undertakings.

The facts remain the same and the facts are that there is no direct evidence that the kings
from before the 5th dynasty were buried in tombs.  That they might have been is a given, that
they were is an assumption based on interpretation of facts.  The assumption flies in the face
of the words left by the builders who clearly stated many times that the king's grave was in the
sky.  616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave"; 616e. she has em-
braced thee, in her name of "Grave";.

It will take science to settle the matter but no science is being done.

And no matter how many times you make this false claim the Pyramid Texts inscribed within the tomb of Unis some 150 years after the fact are not the words of the builders of the GP.

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

#1102    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

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

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 13 November 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

And no matter how many times you make this false claim the Pyramid Texts inscribed within the tomb of Unis some 150 years after the fact are not the words of the builders of the GP.


And no matter how many times you claim these words have nothing to do with the
great pyramids you can't show me they aren't their exact words.  No matter how many
times you make the same empty claim you can't show me the actual words of the buil-
ders.  No matter how many times you claim these words are distinct from the builders,
even Egyptologists agree with me that many of these words date back even earlier than
the builders of the great pyramids.

Egyptologists want to interpret these words in terms of the beliefs and language of the
writers of the book of the dead.  THIS IS ILLEGITIMATE!  We don't know that there
were no changes between these times.  But it is perfectly legitimate to analyze these
words as having been used by the great pyramid builders.  Top some small extent I
do agree with you that they are from a later time even if they were ancient in that spec-
ific later time so we need to not put undue weight on the words.  We need to realize and
understand that even so simple a concept as "Osiris" was being written int the work in
the place of Atum, for instance.

You are simply wrong that these aren't the words of the builders.  You'd be much more
correct to say we don't know exactly which words belong to the builders and which were
appended in the succeeding century.  But these are the words of the builders and the
concept that the king was burned and the pyramid was his ka is woven into and though-
out the work.  These concepts are intimately woven into the fabric of the PT and it seems
most unlikely that they were added in after the great pyramid buildinmg age.

This is what they said and it's OUR job to determine why they said it.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1103    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 10:43 PM

View Postcladking, on 13 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

And no matter how many times you claim these words have nothing to do with the
great pyramids you can't show me they aren't their exact words.  No matter how many
times you make the same empty claim you can't show me the actual words of the buil-
ders.  No matter how many times you claim these words are distinct from the builders,
even Egyptologists agree with me that many of these words date back even earlier than
the builders of the great pyramids.

Egyptologists want to interpret these words in terms of the beliefs and language of the
writers of the book of the dead.  THIS IS ILLEGITIMATE!  We don't know that there
were no changes between these times.  But it is perfectly legitimate to analyze these
words as having been used by the great pyramid builders.  Top some small extent I
do agree with you that they are from a later time even if they were ancient in that spec-
ific later time so we need to not put undue weight on the words.  We need to realize and
understand that even so simple a concept as "Osiris" was being written int the work in
the place of Atum, for instance.

You are simply wrong that these aren't the words of the builders.  You'd be much more
correct to say we don't know exactly which words belong to the builders and which were
appended in the succeeding century.  But these are the words of the builders and the
concept that the king was burned and the pyramid was his ka is woven into and though-
out the work.  These concepts are intimately woven into the fabric of the PT and it seems
most unlikely that they were added in after the great pyramid buildinmg age.

This is what they said and it's OUR job to determine why they said it.

It's real simple. They're inscribed within the tomb of Unis and addressed to Unis. Not to Khufu, not to Khafre nor even Menkaure. "Many" of the words dating back to the time of the Gizamids doesn't mean the text, as a whole, does as well. So unless you can provide evidence that the text as a whole dates to the earlier period then your claim is meaningless.

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

#1104    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

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

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:10 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 13 November 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

It's real simple. They're inscribed within the tomb of Unis and addressed to Unis. Not to Khufu, not to Khafre nor even Menkaure. "Many" of the words dating back to the time of the Gizamids doesn't mean the text, as a whole, does as well. So unless you can provide evidence that the text as a whole dates to the earlier period then your claim is meaningless.

I disagree.

It's not my claim that the text as a whole dates to the great pyramid building age.  My claim
is that it obviously dates to the great pyramid building age and can be deconstructed in that
light.  It is my claim that it not only obviously dates to the great pyramid building age but the
consensus opinion of the experts is that it  dates to the pyramid building age.

Calling the PT "the words of the builders" is only slightly hyperbolic.  This claim is certainly
much better substantiated than that this can be interpreted in the terms of the book of the
dead.  It is Egyptology engaging in poor methodology  and not me.  It is not my contention
that consensus opinion is worth much as it applies to the applicability of the Pyramid Texts
to the great pyramid builders even though they agree with me.  It is my opinion that this is of
value to other people even though it is not to me.  The PT is obviously the "religion" of the
great pyramid builders and has obviously been misunderstood for 140 years.  This misunder-
standing is a large part of the reason that the erroneous assumptions were made in the first
place.

Whether you believe the PT is the words of the builders or not the fact remains that it says
exactly what it says and what it says is not in agreement with Egyptological interpretations nor
is it in agreement with the book of the dead.  It much better supports Scott Creighton's argu-
ment than it does orthodoxy.

There must be some reason that there is no consistency between the PT and interpretation.
I believe I've identified and named those reasons.  Everything is falsifiable but everyone is
too afraid to do the science to falsify orthodoxy's opinion, Scott Creighton's opinion, or any-
one else's opinion.  They dig for ramps and desicrate graves as they damage the evidence
with drills, concrete, and iron bars.  I shudder to think how much evidence is buried under many
tons of concrete or hidden away by gates and locks.

I don't believe any longer that people want answers.  They want their beliefs.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1105    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:18 PM

Quote

Calling the PT "the words of the builders" is only slightly hyperbolic.

It's about as meaningless as the phrases "sorta pregnant" and "honest politician". Dating to the pyramid building age does not automatically equate to "dating to the construction of the GP".

Quote

It's not my claim that the text as a whole dates to the great pyramid building age.

It is when you've tried to imply it has any bearing of a timeframe 150 years prior.

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

#1106    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

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

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:46 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 13 November 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

It's about as meaningless as the phrases "sorta pregnant" and "honest politician". Dating to the pyramid building age does not automatically equate to "dating to the construction of the GP".



It is when you've tried to imply it has any bearing of a timeframe 150 years prior.


I'm not going to play word games.

They quit building pyramids after G2.

I will not discuss it.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1107    lakeview rud

lakeview rud

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 242 posts
  • Joined:15 Oct 2009

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

If you give some credence to the text of the Dream Stella of Tuthmosis IV who lived about 1000 years after the buiding of GP1 would you also not have to give at least that same credence to the texts from 150 years after GP1 was built? If not, why not?


#1108    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,037 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

About Egyptian Pyramids


by Pete Vanderzwet





In the last two decades much has been written on the pyramids, anchored not with archaeological evidence, but instead with wishful thinking and un-evidenced, fanciful imagination. This scholarly error has resulted in a general public that believes the pyramids, Khufu's in particular, are mysterious, magical monuments that appear overnight and with no architectural or cultural evolution. This could not be further from the truth; the Egyptian pyramid is the result of centuries of development, experiment and adaptation to various evolving cultural manifestations.

<<Moderator Snip>>

http://www.touregypt...idevolution.htm

Edited by kmt_sesh, 14 November 2012 - 12:08 AM.
See Post 1121


#1109    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,266 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:04 AM

View Postlakeview rud, on 13 November 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

If you give some credence to the text of the Dream Stella of Tuthmosis IV who lived about 1000 years after the buiding of GP1 would you also not have to give at least that same credence to the texts from 150 years after GP1 was built? If not, why not?

The only thing the Dream Stela is meant for is an attempt to legitimize the kingship of Thutmose IV. That's it. And as the Pyramid Texts are first found in the tomb of, and addressed to, Unis the Dream Stela is addressed to Thutmose IV. They are quite specific to those individuals.

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

#1110    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:06 AM

Posters are reminded not to copy and paste long passages of text from other sources. It likely comes across as too dense to interest other posters, and there are possibly copyright issues in many cases.

Copy and paste only a key paragraph, as well as a link to the rest of the article so that those interested can read it all.

Thank you.

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

Visit My Blog!




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users