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

#1336    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:20 PM

Perhaps I should write in Russian so that all may make their own translation of what I say....
In my words "Religion clouds the mind, belief in some supernatural fantasy is incompatible with fully understanding the physical world" is not attack on religion. Yet this is not understood, or deliberately misunderstood by the Englishman who thinks the first intermediate period lasted two thousand years or more. It is in his book, chapter four "Lost Time of the Gods". I think I lost valuable time in reading such tendentious rubbish....

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 29 November 2012 - 05:23 PM.


#1337    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence.

  • Member
  • 11,489 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:52 PM

View Postlakeview rud, on 29 November 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Harte, I have never said that the pyramids pre-date the AE's.  What I am asking for is a reasonable explanation for the vertical erosion on the Sphinx.  If you can provide a picture of Mr. Hawass breaking off a 'chunk' of repair stone I'd like to see it. (where its located and how old it is estimated to be would help). it's obvious that this (erosion on repair blocks) is not common to most or all of the blocks since if it was we'd surely have lots of pictures.
I know you didn't claim this, but look at the thread title.

Re. Hawass, I told you where I saw it.  I can't view youtube at work and in any case I'm not inclined to search youtube.

View Postlakeview rud, on 29 November 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

The fact remains that erosion of this type, whether this happened when the Sphinx was exposed or buried, should be relatively uniform and dependent on the age of the block or stone at the time when it was cut or placed.

Please keep in mind what I said about the broad variations in limestone, even from the same bed.  Parts of the sphinx body (for example, the head) are far less eroded than other parts (for example, the parts level with or below the lip of the enclosure.)  Many times here the drawing (from Lehner, IIRC) showing the various different layers of limestone within the sphinx has been posted here.  The layers included in the head are quite a bit harder than some of the lower layers.  Do you have information concerning which layers the casing stones came from, or if they even came from the enclosure at all?  Even within the same layer of the same bed, limestone hardness can vary widely.

View Postlakeview rud, on 29 November 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Awhile back our New York State 'experts' declared that if the limestone blocks from the Western Terminus of the Erie Canal were exposed to air they "might explode".  Our idiot leadership took this at face value until one local professor declared it to be rubbish.  The terminus has now been excavated and we have a bit of American history.  I find the attempt to place the reason for this vertical erosion on "dew" to be almost as preposterous.

The fact that you might consider this preposterous doesn't deter people that try to preserve stone monuments from recognizing the existence of this pervasive type of erosion:

Quote

FLAKING:

This is an early stage of peeling, exfoliation, delamination or
spalling evidenced by the detachment of small flat thin pieces of
the outer layers of stone from a larger piece of stone.  Flaking is
usually caused by capillary moisture or freeze-thaw cycles which
occur within the masonry.  


Source: Historic Preservation - Technical Procedures

Also:

Quote

The erosional circumstances of the Sphinx today were explored by the team of Egyptologists and geologists in the 1980s. The phenomenon of overnight condensation and absorption by capillary action was noted, with evaporation in the morning sun that leads to crystallization of salts within the rock's pores and spalling off of surface flakes as a result of the expansion of the crystals. It was also noted that condensation on the bedrock of the Sphinx and its enclosure could take place beneath a sand cover, leading to a situation in which the sand might he perfectly dry at the surface but wet through only a few centimeters beneath, while the rock itself could be soaked in water at some depth underneath the wet sand. This circumstance was judged to encourage the migration of salts from the depths of the bedrock towards the surface.
From: Tour Egypt

As you can see (hopefully,) the situation I described is certainly not unusual.

Re. the "exploding" limestone, I'm not sure where they got that.  They may, however have been referring to normal weathering of limestone which is caused by exposure to air, not water, which is the sort of weathering that Robert Schoch based his early date for the sphinx on:

Quote

Subsurface weathering is essentially a mineralogical and petrological change in the rocks that proceeds once the rock surface is exposed to the air or atmosphere (such as occurred when the core body of the Sphinx was excavated), no matter what the climate is like. Loose porous sand piled up in the Sphinx enclosure will not significantly protect the bedrock from this type of weathering. This type of weathering is certainly not caused primarily by rainfall collecting on the rock surface and seeping down. It could even be argued that in some cases a moister climate with periods of standing water on the rock that protects the surface from atmospheric exposure may actually result in a slower rate of this form of subsurface weathering than may occur under dryer conditions.

Source: COMMENTS By Robert M. Schoch

Harte

Posted Image
See the new Harte Mark III
And the Mayan panoramas on my pyramid pajamas haven't helped my little problem. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Anybody like Coleridge?

#1338    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 7,002 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:40 PM

I read somewhere of a disagreement between Hawass and Lehner over whether PARTS of the Sphinx had been carved, or constructed, from it's creation.
       Lehner thought carved in it's entirety and Hawass argued for partial construction..  As i recall , he dug into the side or guts somewhere and found no weathering, or evidence of carving anywhere below those casing blocks.    Anyone hear of this?

  .. Maybe the 'builders' had better sense than to bother with carving some portions which they knew would fairly quickly disintegrate and clad them with harder block from the start?¿?

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#1339    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,853 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

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

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:39 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 28 November 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I find it curious how the Egypt-apologists on this Board will disparage the texts of the Arab chroniclers who tell us the early, giant pyramids were built as ‘recovery vaults’ and yet are more than happy to accept the Arab chroniclers’ texts when they state that al-Mamun was the first to enter the Great Pyramid, forced open the sarcophagus and found decayed bones therein. Odd how when I refer to the Arab chroniclers’ texts it is regarded as ‘nonsense’ but is perfectly acceptable when they use these same sources for themselves. Completely reprehensible behaviour.

As I haven't seen the accounts from the arabs that indicate the pyramids to be recovery vaults can you point me in the general direction?

Scott Creighton said:

SC: I explained this earlier in this thread. The pyramid is built layer by layer, course by course. The granite plugs are set in place at the bottom of the Ascending Passage as the pyramid is being built layer by layer (and long before the upper storage chambers are built). As the pyramid rises in height, the chambers are then built, filled with recovery goods and sealed, Queen’s Chamber first. The AEs continue building up the pyramid, course by course. Before sealing the Ante Chamber, the King’s Chamber and Grand Gallery are also filled with recovery goods. When these chambers are filled the Ante Chamber roof is then sealed thus sealing the pyramid. The builders then continue to build up the pyramid, course by course, to completion with the recovery items already inside the sealed pyramid.

Yet it still requires breaking into the pyramid to retrieve the goods.  Something they would not have done until after the catastrophe.  Since the catastrophe never occurred, they would have had no reason to remove the goods.  If the pyramid was known to be a recovery vault, Grave Robbers/Bandits would have had no reason to break in as it would have been far easier to steal food from others with less time and effort.  The only reason for them to break in would have been if they believed it to be the burial chamber of the king with all his possessions.

Scott Creighton said:

This article here presents compelling evidence that the granite plugs were built in-situ. So, how did they get a dead king’s body into a pyramid that is already sealed?

If I were to hazzard a guess and I admit I havent looked into this so can't say how plausible it might be.  Once the pyramid was completed but before the front entrance was sealed up, The kings body could have been taken down the descending passage, up the well shaft, then placed within the sarcophagus which would have been closed and sealed.  Then the workers go down the well shaft sealing it behind them, perhaps with the granite slab found in the grotto before finally exiting the pyramid and the entrance is sealed.

Scott Creighton said:

SC: It is far from conclusive that al-Mamun was the first to enter the Great Pyramid; even Lehner concedes this:

There is no mention in the Arab chronicles of al-Mamun having to remove the blocking stone to the Queen’s Chamber or indeed, the three granite portcullis slabs blocking entry to the KC, indicating that they had, by this time, already been removed as Lehner suggests.

After some research I agree it could have been  breached sooner and could be the reason there was no mummy or treasure within when the arabs entered in 820.  I have seen conflicting accounts of the entry in 820.  Some saying the arabs opening the sarcophagus and some saying it was already open.  If the former, the sarcophagus may have been opened and reclosed by those who first entered the tomb.

Scott Creighton said:

The decayed bones supposedly found in the stone box of G1 do not tell us if they were human bones or otherwise. When Belzoni first entered into Khafre’s pyramid, having struggled for weeks trying to find where the entrance might be, all that he found in the stone box therein was dry earth and the bones of a bull. (This discovery, incidentally, is entirely consistent with the RVT). Another of the Arab chronicles states that the only thing found in the stone box of the King’s Chamber of the GP was a dark pitch-like substance. Again, this is entirely consistent with the RVT.

Neither the Arabs in 1820 nor Belzoni indicate that the bones were those of a bull.  That is something determined after Belzoni.  Since neither described finding pitch, It may have been pitch from those that used pitch soaked cloth for torches while investigating the pyramid.

Bull bones do not support the recovery vault theory since they would not have needed the entire bull, just the meat.  They would have salted and dried the meat and sealed it in containers.  Since the bull was sacred in Egypt, it may have been there as paret of some ritual or religious ceremony to Osiris

Scott Creighton said:

SC: This is one of those little facts that the tomb-theory peddlers like not to inform people of. The AEs actually created wooden or stone boxes, filled them with earth and seed and buried them in the ground under a mound of earth. There were no physical bodies in these boxes. In later times these would become known as ‘Osiris Bricks’ and later still, 'Osiris Beds' but there is some evidence that this practice occurred prior to the 4th dynasty. The stone boxes in the early, giant pyramids were *not* sarcophagi but the forerunner or archetype of the later ‘Osiris Bed’. Again this practice is consistent with the RVT.
SC

Archeologically, Osiris Beds can only be traced back to the new kingdom as far as I can find.  If you have links to information that suggests otherwise I would like to read the material.  The concept of the sarcophagus in the kings chamber being an Osiris bed is invalid because of the presence of the bull bones.  The Osiris Bed contained dirt and barley seeds only, no animal parts.

Of note is that there evidently was a sarcophagus in the queens chamber as well. The more you look at what information and evidence is available the more likely it is that the Great Pyramid was a tomb.

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

#1340    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,499 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:53 PM

View PostQuaentum, on 29 November 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

  The more you look at what information and evidence is available the more likely it is that the Great Pyramid was a tomb.

I couldn't disagree more.

A cursory look certainly suggests they were tombs but then as you look deeper you'll
see massive holes in the assumption.  The biggest hole is the utter lack of any direct
evidence from the time they were built to support the assumption.  There is no writing,
no drawings, and no direct evidence.

If they were tombs then why didn't the builders call them tombs?

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1341    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,159 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:08 PM

View Postcladking, on 29 November 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

I couldn't disagree more.

A cursory look certainly suggests they were tombs but then as you look deeper you'll
see massive holes in the assumption.  The biggest hole is the utter lack of any direct
evidence from the time they were built to support the assumption.  There is no writing,
no drawings, and no direct evidence.

If they were tombs then why didn't the builders call them tombs?

Since there are no extant texts from the IVth Dynasty, we don't know what the builders called them. So that's not a point in your favor.

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

#1342    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,310 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:13 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 29 November 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

Since there are no extant texts from the IVth Dynasty, we don't know what the builders called them. So that's not a point in your favor.

cormac

And we needn't fuss too much over the texts from later in the Old Kingdom, either. The Pyramid Texts are replete with references that make it clear the priests who maintained this corpus clearly regarded the pyramids as tombs. The Pyramid Texts are the very language of funerary ritual.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#1343    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 888 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:14 PM

Quote

SC: I find it curious how the Egypt-apologists on this Board will disparage the texts of the Arab chroniclers who tell us the early, giant pyramids were built as ‘recovery vaults’ and yet are more than happy to accept the Arab chroniclers’ texts when they state that al-Mamun was the first to enter the Great Pyramid, forced open the sarcophagus and found decayed bones therein. Odd how when I refer to the Arab chroniclers’ texts it is regarded as ‘nonsense’ but is perfectly acceptable when they use these same sources for themselves. Completely reprehensible behaviour.

Q: As I haven't seen the accounts from the arabs that indicate the pyramids to be recovery vaults can you point me in the general direction?

SC: Perhaps start with Murtadi, Saurid.

Quote

SC: I explained this earlier in this thread. The pyramid is built layer by layer, course by course. The granite plugs are set in place at the bottom of the Ascending Passage as the pyramid is being built layer by layer (and long before the upper storage chambers are built). As the pyramid rises in height, the chambers are then built, filled with recovery goods and sealed, Queen’s Chamber first. The AEs continue building up the pyramid, course by course. Before sealing the Ante Chamber, the King’s Chamber and Grand Gallery are also filled with recovery goods. When these chambers are filled the Ante Chamber roof is then sealed thus sealing the pyramid. The builders then continue to build up the pyramid, course by course, to completion with the recovery items already inside the sealed pyramid.

Q: Yet it still requires breaking into the pyramid to retrieve the goods.  Something they would not have done until after the catastrophe.  Since the catastrophe never occurred, they would have had no reason to remove the goods.  

SC: But catastrophe *did* occur. The Old Kingdom collapsed and it is becoming clearer that this resulted from sudden and dramatic climate change. The pyramids were breached and what had been contained therein was removed. The AEs tell us they did this in their own words.

Quote

Q: If the pyramid was known to be a recovery vault, Grave Robbers/Bandits would have had no reason to break in as it would have been far easier to steal food from others with less time and effort.  The only reason for them to break in would have been if they believed it to be the burial chamber of the king with all his possessions.

SC: Nope. When the kingdom collapsed along with the rest of the Near East cultures, the pyramid contents would become vital. Why do you think that these other cultures faded from history after this collapse and yet the AEs were able to revivicate their civilisation and continue, not as the identical kingdom, but very close to what had been before the collapse?  What did the AE do differently from their neighbours that allowed them to restart their civilisation after the catastrophic collapse?

Quote

SC: This article here presents compelling evidence that the granite plugs were built in-situ. So, how did they get a dead king’s body into a pyramid that is already sealed?

Q: If I were to hazzard a guess and I admit I havent looked into this so can't say how plausible it might be.  Once the pyramid was completed but before the front entrance was sealed up, The kings body could have been taken down the descending passage, up the well shaft, then placed within the sarcophagus which would have been closed and sealed.  Then the workers go down the well shaft sealing it behind them, perhaps with the granite slab found in the grotto before finally exiting the pyramid and the entrance is sealed.

SC: In which case, why bother with the Ascending Passage and why bother plug it with three granite blocks? The point here is that re-entry was needed and anticipated in the RVT but *not* the tomb theory.  If you were hauling the king’s body up the Well Shaft there was no need to create the AP or to plug it.

Quote

SC: The decayed bones supposedly found in the stone box of G1 do not tell us if they were human bones or otherwise. When Belzoni first entered into Khafre’s pyramid, having struggled for weeks trying to find where the entrance might be, all that he found in the stone box therein was dry earth and the bones of a bull. (This discovery, incidentally, is entirely consistent with the RVT). Another of the Arab chronicles states that the only thing found in the stone box of the King’s Chamber of the GP was a dark pitch-like substance. Again, this is entirely consistent with the RVT.

Q: Neither the Arabs in 1820 nor Belzoni indicate that the bones were those of a bull.  That is something determined after Belzoni.  Since neither described finding pitch, It may have been pitch from those that used pitch soaked cloth for torches while investigating the pyramid.

SC: Okay, I think something has gone awry here. The bull bones were found by Belzoni in the stone box of G2, not in G1. Belzoni sent them to London to be checked. Some Arab legends describe a dark pitch-like substance having been all that was found in the granite box in the KC of the GP. When earth, grain and water are mixed and left for decades/centuries/millennia, the grain will decay into the earth, turning into a dark pitch-like substance thus suggesting that the granite box did indeed serve as an archetype ‘Osiris Bed’.

Quote

Q: Bull bones do not support the recovery vault theory since they would not have needed the entire bull, just the meat.  They would have salted and dried the meat and sealed it in containers.

SC: You are quite unfamiliar with the wider RVT.  Bull bones found in the stone box of G2 do indeed support the RVT.

Quote

Q: Since the bull was sacred in Egypt, it may have been there as paret of some ritual or religious ceremony to Osiris.

SC: Exactly. You might want to have a read over this thread, The Birth of Osiris.

Quote

SC: This is one of those little facts that the tomb-theory peddlers like not to inform people of. The AEs actually created wooden or stone boxes, filled them with earth and seed and buried them in the ground under a mound of earth. There were no physical bodies in these boxes. In later times these would become known as ‘Osiris Bricks’ and later still, 'Osiris Beds' but there is some evidence that this practice occurred prior to the 4th dynasty. The stone boxes in the early, giant pyramids were *not* sarcophagi but the forerunner or archetype of the later ‘Osiris Bed’. Again this practice is consistent with the RVT.

Q: Archeologically, Osiris Beds can only be traced back to the new kingdom as far as I can find.  If you have links to information that suggests otherwise I would like to read the material.  

SC: It’s there. As I said before – better you do your own research than have me spoon-feed it to you.

Quote

Q: The concept of the sarcophagus in the kings chamber being an Osiris bed is invalid because of the presence of the bull bones.  The Osiris Bed contained dirt and barley seeds only, no animal parts.

SC: The ‘Osiris Bed’ with seed and earth (stated in some legends to have been found in G1 by al-Mamun) contained the Ka of the ‘pyramid body’.  As Cladking has oft told us – the Pyramid is the Ka of the King.  The bull bones found within the granite box of G2 (another part of the dismembered ‘body of Osiris’) would have been placed there as the Ba within the ‘body of Osiris’ i.e. the pyramids. As the Pyramid Texts clearly state: ‘This pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris.’  The granite boxes within ‘the body of Osiris’ contained the soul aspects of Ka and Ba – imo.

Quote

Q: Of note is that there evidently was a sarcophagus in the queens chamber as well.

SC: I have no objection to another stone box being in the QC for the storage of important artefacts but it does present something of a problem to consensus Egyptology who now mainly regard this as a serdab chamber where there would be no sarcophagus.

Quote

Q: The more you look at what information and evidence is available the more likely it is that the Great Pyramid was a tomb.

SC: Alas, I have to disagree. 10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory.

SC

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

#1344    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • 9,310 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 30 November 2012 - 03:57 AM

View PostQuaentum, on 29 November 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

...


Archeologically, Osiris Beds can only be traced back to the new kingdom as far as I can find.  If you have links to information that suggests otherwise I would like to read the material.  The concept of the sarcophagus in the kings chamber being an Osiris bed is invalid because of the presence of the bull bones.  The Osiris Bed contained dirt and barley seeds only, no animal parts.

To add to the information on Osiris beds, Dodson and Ikram's important book on ancient Egyptian mummification has some good information on this, as well as on the so-called corn mummies (1998: 120). The practice might date back to the Middle Kingdom during the reign of Senusret II, in his necropolis at Lahun, although in truth there is no observable connection yet with Osiris. In Senusret's time these were rectangular boxes, small in size, filled with soil and seeds on the cusp of germinating. The practice may have been inspired by Coffin Text 269, where the deceased is likened to barley growing from the body of Osiris. The bottom line is that Osiris was not only the ruler of the underworld but also a prominent fertility god, so in burial rites Osiris is often equated with his fertility aspects.

But you're correct that Osiris beds and corn mummies in the shape of Osiris are not evidenced prior to the New Kingdom (beginning c. 1550 BCE). This is when the Osiride form filled with soil and seeds first appears and takes off as an item of burial equipment. Theoretically, the rectangular, soil-filled boxes from Lahun are attached to Osiris because this was the point in time (Dynasty 12) when the cult of Osiris was beginning to flourish.

The corn mummies in the shape of Osiris seem to have supplanted the Osiris beds in function. They are specific to later periods and are rarely more than about 20 inches long, although exceptions exist. They served the same basic ritual function as the Osiris beds.

Scott has made use of both Osiris beds and corn mummies in his work about recovery vaults, but almost without exception they are considerably smaller than all extant sarcophagi. Moreover, the containers that held these objects were almost exclusively made of wood, not stone. Also, there remains no evidence that Osiris was venerated prior to the end of Dynasty 5, and neither his image nor his name appears anywhere in Egypt in a Dynasty 4 context. This doesn't mean an earlier tradition didn't exist absent Osiris, such as with the rectangular soil beds of Lahun, but to date no example of which I'm aware predates Dynasty 12. Sarcophagi did not serve this purpose.

Posted Image
The evil overlord mummy moderator has spoken.

Visit My Blog!

#1345    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 888 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:31 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 30 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

KMS: To add to the information on Osiris beds, Dodson and Ikram's important book on ancient Egyptian mummification has some good information on this, as well as on the so-called corn mummies (1998: 120). The practice might date back to the Middle Kingdom during the reign of Senusret II, in his necropolis at Lahun, although in truth there is no observable connection yet with Osiris.

SC: There is evidence of the practice in Dynasty 2.  And a connection with Osiris at this time is not actually necessary.

Quote

KMS: In Senusret's time these were rectangular boxes, small in size, filled with soil and seeds on the cusp of germinating. The practice may have been inspired by Coffin Text 269, where the deceased is likened to barley growing from the body of Osiris.

SC: And I suggest that the Coffin Texts were ‘inspired’ by the actual act of placing large quantities of various seed type in, under and around the pyramids i.e. inside the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’.  The 14 or so early, giant pyramids BECAME the dismembered Osiris (as per the Myth of Osiris). Osiris most likely was a fertility god in early dynastic Egypt but was not at that time associated with ‘Afterlife’ or ‘rebirth’.  This association came into being when (for want of a better term) the ‘Osiris Project’ was set in motion i.e. the building of a number of Recovery Vaults into which all manner of recovery items would be placed, including but not limited to, all manner of seed types. In this way the ‘seed of Osiris’ was ensuring the rebirth of the kingdom.  This is what the later rituals at, for example, the ‘Festival of Khoiak’ were commemorating. Festivals don’t just spring out of nowhere – they generally have roots in some actual, historical event.

Quote

KMS: The bottom line is that Osiris was not only the ruler of the underworld but also a prominent fertility god, so in burial rites Osiris is often equated with his fertility aspects.

SC: Osiris became the AE god of rebirth/regeneration because his ‘seed’ placed within the pyramid recovery vaults (his dismembered body) made rebirth (of the kingdom) possible. This is what the later ‘Osiris Bricks’, ‘Osiris Beds’ and ‘Corn Mummies’ were commemorating. Bottom line – the AEs were making wooden and stone boxes that had nothing to do with death and the burial of anyone but everything to do with ‘revivication of the land’ since they would bury these wood/stone boxes containing earth and seed in the ground under a small mound of earth, mimicking the original mound of creation, just as the pyramids did. The seed went INTO the pyramid and creation came OUT of it. Just as it was in the Sp Tpy (First Time of creation).

Quote

KMS: But you're correct that Osiris beds and corn mummies in the shape of Osiris are not evidenced prior to the New Kingdom (beginning c. 1550 BCE). This is when the Osiride form filled with soil and seeds first appears and takes off as an item of burial equipment.

SC: They may not have been known as ‘Osiris Beds’ prior to the 4th dynasty but there is evidence that the practice was taking place before the 4th dynasty.

Quote

KMS: Theoretically, the rectangular, soil-filled boxes from Lahun are attached to Osiris because this was the point in time (Dynasty 12) when the cult of Osiris was beginning to flourish.

SC: Osiris, as you know, was already revered as a god by the end of the 5th dynasty.

Quote

KMS: Scott has made use of both Osiris beds and corn mummies in his work about recovery vaults, but almost without exception they are considerably smaller than all extant sarcophagi.

SC: And in later times they built their pyramids much smaller too. But you miss the point here – these wood/stone boxes were made for the general populace in order that they could participate in the festival. You are not going to supply them with full sized versions of the original, archetype ‘Osiris Bed’.  In Christian tradition, the Easter Egg is symbolic of the stone that was removed from the tomb of Christ. You are hardly going to buy someone an Easter egg the size of the original stone, are you?

Quote

KMS: Moreover, the containers that held these objects were almost exclusively made of wood, not stone.

SC: Quicker, easier and cheaper to make for the general populace at festivals.

Quote

KMS: Also, there remains no evidence that Osiris was venerated prior to the end of Dynasty 5, and neither his image nor his name appears anywhere in Egypt in a Dynasty 4 context.

SC: Christ wasn’t ‘officially’ venerated as the ‘Son of God’ until long after he died. Osiris doesn’t have to be venerated at the time the ‘Osiris Project’ was initiated. That the ‘Osiris Project’ enabled the kingdom to rise from the ashes of its collapse might, of course, bring Osiris to have been venerated and celebrated by later dynasties, hence the Festival of Khoiak etc.

Quote

KMS: This doesn't mean an earlier tradition didn't exist absent Osiris, such as with the rectangular soil beds of Lahun, but to date no example of which I'm aware predates Dynasty 12. Sarcophagi did not serve this purpose.

SC: And ‘Osiris Beds’ and their archetype are not sarcophagi.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 30 November 2012 - 12:02 PM.

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

#1346    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 7,002 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 30 November 2012 - 01:01 PM

View Postlightly, on 29 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

I read somewhere of a disagreement between Hawass and Lehner over whether PARTS of the Sphinx had been carved, or constructed, from it's creation.
   Lehner thought carved in it's entirety and Hawass argued for partial construction..  As i recall , he dug into the side or guts somewhere and found no weathering, or evidence of carving anywhere below those casing blocks. Anyone hear of this?

  .. Maybe the 'builders' had better sense than to bother with carving some portions which they knew would fairly quickly disintegrate and clad them with harder block from the start?¿?

  Ok,  i misremembered the story but here is some info to support the idea that the Sphinx may not have been entirely carved at it's creation but at least partially Constructed..(  rough carving faced over with block )    Has Hawass changed his opinion on this? Has he been proven wrong?

http://www.davidpbil...et/sphinx5.html

  Zahi Hawass, The Secrets of the Sphinx: Restoration Past and Present (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1998), 34 pp.
In a 1998 booklet on the restoration history of the Sphinx, Dr. Hawass observed that his workers had found unweathered rock at the base of the Sphinx after removing a large facing block that had protected the stone for millennia:

"At the very base of the Sphinx," he wrote (page 10), "where we have been able to examine the mother rock closely, there are extremely large Tura-quality limestone blocks that cover the bedrock and form a casing. Since the hard part of the mother rock could not have weathered after the casing was applied, its rough surface underneath these large blocks must have been left as we see it by the original Sphinx builders."

Hawass did not identify or illustrate the location of this rock, although he seemed to refer to the Member I rock along a rear side of the monument. If concealed by the casing stone, the unweathered body rock would not have been visible to Lehner during his 1979 survey and would be evidence that the monument was at least partially faced at the time of its original carving. Hawass identified the facing stone as well as the body rock with the Old Kingdom



http://www.world-mys...s.com/mpl_3.htm



Zahi Hawass, The Secrets of the Sphinx: Restoration Past and Present (American University in Cairo Press, 1998), 34 pp.
In his 1998 booklet, Dr. Hawass argues that the Sphinx was carved in the rough and that the oldest facing stones of better-quality Tura limestone were applied as part of the original monument and not as later repairs. The underlying rock was not suitable for fine modeling and was simply cut in a rough way and then faced with stone blocks. Only the head, neck, and beard were cut from the original rock and left exposed.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#1347    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:19 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 30 November 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

In Christian tradition, the Easter Egg is symbolic of the stone that was removed from the tomb of Christ
Typical Anglocentrism. The egg and the rabbit are stolen from Slavic paganism and have nothing to do with this jesus guy


#1348    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,771 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 30 November 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Typical Anglocentrism. The egg and the rabbit are stolen from Slavic paganism and have nothing to do with this jesus guy

Don't know what time you are talking about, but as fertility symbol it existed way before Slavic paganism.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#1349    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 05:50 PM

Yet in religion it is not possible to go back futher than paganism, because that was religion from its unknown beginnings in the mists of time. What was way before Slavic paganism that can be said to be origins of easter eggs and hares, and how can it be proved to be before Slavic paganism when the origins of all religion are hidden to us by time. The modern traditions are stongest in Eastern Europe, the eggs are painted in pagan symbols even today, and have been for very long time. Certainly it is obvious that eggs are fertility/life symbol and many cultures will see this, but what we see today as an easter egg is Slavic in origin, as with the hares.


#1350    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,159 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:28 PM

Quote

SC: But catastrophe *did* occur. The Old Kingdom collapsed and it is becoming clearer that this resulted from sudden and dramatic climate change. The pyramids were breached and what had been contained therein was removed. The AEs tell us they did this in their own words.

Care to try again? The Ancient Egyptians, meaning those of the 4th Dynasty who actually built the Giza Pyramids, tell us no such thing.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users