46 replies to this topic

[Harte]

Mekaure's pyramid has never been unequivocally dated because his reign has never been actually defined.

The date given by thermoluminescence agrees fairly well with the presumed date, though.

The problem Egyptology faces is that their dates are dependant on many other things not conclusively dated.  The entire timeline they were going by was thrown off by more than a hundred years when a fairly conclusive date for the explosion of Thera was obtained a few years ago.

Harte

[jaylemurph]

Spore, on 16 February 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

@jaylemurph  I wasn't aware that any Mesoamerican culture had glass -- indeed, as Stone Age people, I'd be curious to know how they managed to create glass, since in the Old World, they didn't have until the first or second century CE, and that's millennia after Stone Age technology.

mm  I'd be curious to know as well

Oh, so this wasn't an example of actual evidence/legitimate theorization.

How boring. Might as well tell people they were carved with Dalek projected energy weapons...

--Jaylemurph

[questionmark]

jaylemurph, on 17 February 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

Oh, so this wasn't an example of actual evidence/legitimate theorization.

How boring. Might as well tell people they were carved with Dalek projected energy weapons...

--Jaylemurph

Besides the little fact that the old world indeed had glass before the second century BC, in fact the ancient Egyptians had glass from a tradition handed down to them since the 5th millennium BC. But I don't think we let little details like that bother us.... especially if the rest of the statement is intellectual diarrhea

[lakeview rud]

The photo of the "proto pulley" in Cladking's post got me to thinking about a possible use.  To me it would make an ideal 'braking' device especially if used with say a wooden cylinder.  The wooden cylinder (log?) would also help with that sharp edge on the 100 ton granite piece that one of the others commented on.
Also, after viewing some of Temple's commentary, I'd like to ask Cladking (and any other readers of the Pyramid Texts) to verify if anywhere in them the phrase "Anubis by the causeway" is in fact mentioned as this would certainly bolster his argument that the Sphinx at one time resembled the jackal god of the dead. Thanks.

[cladking]

lakeview rud, on 17 February 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

Also, after viewing some of Temple's commentary, I'd like to ask Cladking (and any other readers of the Pyramid Texts) to verify if anywhere in them the phrase "Anubis by the causeway" is in fact mentioned as this would certainly bolster his argument that the Sphinx at one time resembled the jackal god of the dead. Thanks.

Not even the causeway appears in the PT in the orthodox interpretation.  In my interpretation
the causeway is most probably a small part of the "winding watercourse" but not an important
part to the rituals.  It could, at least in theory, be the "knst-canal" but I believe this term applied
only to what Petrie called the NE trench.

In the PT Anubis appears only on the pyramid top but at low altitudes this was on the winding
watercourse.

It appears that the Sphinx was a representation of Tefnut (phenomenon of downward) but the
human face is not explicable by this theory.  I believe there is a representation of Shu (phenom-
enon of upward) under the NE corner of G1 as the Mafdet Linx and this is the location of the so-
called "hall of records".  I have no clue how Cayce might have been able to predict this but the PT
seem fairly clear on the issue.  While I believe I understand the PT the language is such as to
be open to some small interpretation if you don't know the rules. One of the rules was likely not
to make direct statements per se but rather to "imply" what you want the reader to know.  Direct
statements were anathema to the builders because they knew that everything was tentative.  The
few things stated directly tended to be definitional or true by definition.

There is room for modification of my theory on this issue since Tefnut was normally depicted as a
human with a lion head rather than vice versa.

The so called god most closely associuated with the winding watercourse is "set" whom, I believe
was the name of the water which appeared atop the plateau.

I doubt this has been helpful but I can assure you that there is no major (or minor) interpretation
of the PT that will closely support your contention.  "Anubis" as the Sphinx is probably a remarkably
good guess but largely unsupportable directly.  I think "Wepwawet" might be an even better guess
but still unsupportable directly.  Wepwawet is the "other jackal" whom I believe represented the means
of building at ground level where Anubis was the primary director of building on the pyramid top.

Something is under the NE corner as disclosed by the gravimetric scan.

[cladking]

lakeview rud, on 17 February 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

The photo of the "proto pulley" in Cladking's post got me to thinking about a possible use.  To me it would make an ideal 'braking' device especially if used with say a wooden cylinder.  The wooden cylinder (log?) would also help with that sharp edge on the 100 ton granite piece that one of the others commented on.

Are you picturing the device being pulled into a rotating drum at right angles?

I do not endorse this site or their contentions but on page 3 there is a good drawing of the proto pulley;

http://archiv.ub.uni...denbau_2011.pdf

I believe that these were used to fasten stones together in the quarry in such a manner that
they could be accelerated in unison for their flight to the pyramid.  They are essentially merely
couplers.

[DieChecker]

poppet, on 14 February 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

here is a image inside the Sphinx temple with what appears to be a hole in the bedrock.

I thought the actual Sphinx was sitting on solid rock, and the temple was built in what was once a quarry right in front of the Sphinx.

Quote

here we can see a 100 ton worked piece of granite brought 500 miles up from Aswan and sunk into the bedrock of the temple.

you can also see that the granite block was sunk into the bedrock before the temple was constructed, as the temple wall is built over the top.

I'll give you that the block does appear to be very unusual and probably should be followed up on.

Judging off the Sphinx pic and this follow up pic, the granite block runs in almost directly from the north?

Quote

this is one of three found on the Giza plateau and may have been used as a cable guide that fits into the recessed slot in the granite block, and was this how they lowered 40 to 60 ton objects safely down into their resting places.

I thought that Hawass and others had dated the Osiris sarcophogi to th 6th dynasty?
http://www.drhawass....iris-shaft-giza

The idea that the proto-pully could be used with a granite block with a slot in it to lower large objects into various pits does have some merit to it, IMHO. Nothing weird needs to be imagined for that to have occurred.

Edited by DieChecker, 17 February 2013 - 10:12 PM.

[cladking]

DieChecker, on 17 February 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

The idea that the proto-pully could be used with a granite block with a slot in it to lower large objects into various pits does have some merit to it, IMHO. Nothing weird needs to be imagined for that to have occurred.

Nothing weird, no.

But the fact is these are usually found out in the desert.  This implies they were used out in the desert.

[DieChecker]

cladking, on 17 February 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

Nothing weird, no.

But the fact is these are usually found out in the desert.  This implies they were used out in the desert.

The pully thing is found in the desert? I'd not heard that. Let me look around.....

Edit: The first little bit of online stuff I found says that these proto-pullys have been found a various pyrmaid sites. It also suggests that these were not used to slide ropes over, but may have been used to hold ropes in place and provide leverage. Because everyone found so far is granite and has a rough surface which would have damaged any rope run over it very quickly.
http://books.google....o pully&f=false (2nd occurance of "proto-pully" on Page 103)

Edited by DieChecker, 18 February 2013 - 03:50 AM.

[lakeview rud]

Re the proto-pulley; I think we can agree that it was used somehow in conjuction with ropes as a means to either re-direct a pulling force or to perhaps slow down the movement of the ropes.  Die Checker's statement that they had a rough surface may re-inforce the idea of their use as a 'brake'.  There's no way of knowing for sure unless we can pick one up in a heiroglyphic scene now that we know what to look for.  There seems to be enough room in the hole that Temple is standing in to have a wood cylinder in place perpendicular to the granite piece and then have this device mounted perpedicular to that log to provide some control. Of more immediate concern to me is getting someone to confirm his contention that he found stalactite (or stalagmite) stones in the Valley Temple area as the probability of that type of stone being brought to Giza is extremely low.

[Everdred]

cladking, on 17 February 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

It appears that the Sphinx was a representation of Tefnut (phenomenon of downward) but the
human face is not explicable by this theory.

There is always the possibility that the head was originally a lion head and then recarved later.  The head is clearly disproportionately small for the body, which would be explained by a recarving.

[cladking]

lakeview rud, on 18 February 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

Re the proto-pulley; I think we can agree that it was used somehow in conjuction with ropes as a means to either re-direct a pulling force or to perhaps slow down the movement of the ropes.  Die Checker's statement that they had a rough surface may re-inforce the idea of their use as a 'brake'.  There's no way of knowing for sure unless we can pick one up in a heiroglyphic scene now that we know what to look for.  There seems to be enough room in the hole that Temple is standing in to have a wood cylinder in place perpendicular to the granite piece and then have this device mounted perpedicular to that log to provide some control. Of more immediate concern to me is getting someone to confirm his contention that he found stalactite (or stalagmite) stones in the Valley Temple area as the probability of that type of stone being brought to Giza is extremely low.

I'm in close agreement about the stalactite.  I'd say this is of the utmost importance.

DieChecker's last post has some interesting information about the "proto-pulley".  I simply
can't believe these were used to redirect or handle ropes and there would be far more
advantageous means of doing such a thing.  I do agree that the grooves are "obviously"
intended to fit ropes but not that the ropes moved relative the device.  It appears the de-
vice moved relative the ropes and the grooves are simply for the purpose of holding it
from twisting.  There would have been a wooden peg in it to accept a sling in operation.

Has anyone read the relevant parts of the book concerning the stalactite?

[samspade]

poppet, on 16 February 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

the very mention of Robert Temple sent Schoch into a savage rant and I was quite taken aback, when he had calmed down I tried to explain the cable conduit theory and Schoch knew absolutly nothing about it, I found this very puzzling as those two have been having a lituary ding dong for a while now and I would have thought Schoch would have been up to speed on anything new concerning the Sphinx and Sphinx temple.
Schoch gave me his e mail address a few days later and asked me to send him on this new information , but I am still waiting for a reply.

So is Schoch expected to reply to you or is that your opinion ?

Schoch was basically John Anthony West side-kick, and he had little knowledge about Ancient Egypt at that time and was used just to confirm what West  already knew about the Rock.

Certain mindsets are not trained  in problem solving, thus its easy to see why Schoch would not even bother to follow anything Robert Temple wrote after 'The Sirius Mystery' in the 1980's with the mention of aliens with the Dogon tribe.
http://www.bibliotec...ry.htm#CONTENTS

Temple is just speculating there with the conduits and possible burial locations of pharohs, while i personally dont think so, one cant remove the possiblity until evidence suggests otherwise.

Everdred, on 18 February 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

There is always the possibility that the head was originally a lion head and then recarved later.  The head is clearly disproportionately small for the body, which would be explained by a recarving.

Its even possible that  it may of been just a human head orginally and not a lion as some claim. Then at a later date carved the body, Thus it is possible the  human head is in fact what was orginally intended.

Edited by samspade, 18 February 2013 - 04:30 PM.

[cladking]

Everdred, on 18 February 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

There is always the possibility that the head was originally a lion head and then recarved later.  The head is clearly disproportionately small for the body, which would be explained by a recarving.

So much time has passed it's really difficult to know much and almost everything was
changed by centuries of continual human habitation and activities.  It is possible that
the original Sphinx was beginning to erode so it was recarved.

While so very much changed after construction it appears that some of the stones were
abandoned in the Sphinx Quarry right where the original workers left them.  This is the
nature of "industrial" sites; to have a moment frozen in time when operations cease.  But
unlike most such sites Giza was still used for festivals and other purposes for a very long
time after construction was halted.  It appears to have been maintained for centuries as
well.  Some of these things might never be positively determined but the basic outline
should be an open book by now.  This site needs systematic study.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

cladking, on 18 February 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

Has anyone read the relevant parts of the book concerning the stalactite?

Yes
On pages 173 and 174. Temple took a piece to London Natural History Museum, and without saying where it came from, asked opinion of geoligist who said it was a stalactite. Temple believes this alabaster stalactite, and the large blocks in the photo on his site, not in the book, is from a limestone cavern underneath Sphinx. He reasons this because the alabaster blocks he found are of different type, and better quality,  to those that AE are known to have quarried from Hawara. He thinks one purpose of the lifting gear, if it is such, was to raise these blocks. He also thinks that the reason Memphis was known as White Walls, is that it was enclosed with these blocks from a cavern underneath Giza that he says must be a big as a city. Perhaps one day we will see the truth of this, or not...