[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 04 November 2009 - 10:44 AM, said:

If there are any caves under the Plateau, they do not appear to have any relevance to the archeology in general. There is no evidence to suggest such features played a significant role in the religious and ritual evolution of the site. You seem to be ignoring the massive amounts of relevant archaeology that has been conducted, cladking, in favor of subterranean features that may or may not exist. No architectural or inscriptional evidence in the tombs of the Plateau bear a single reference to the supposed caves. And despite Collins's book, no one who is actually familiar with the archaeology and geology of the Plateau has ever mentioned such caves. That's the deciding factor.



Egyptologists no longer spend much time at all trying to prove ramps existed. They've already proved the existence of ramps because of the physical evidence for ramps. You obsess over ramps more than any of the professional researchers, which I'm starting to see is perhaps not so much obsession on your part but insecurity.

Oh my.

Things don't go away just because no one looks at them.

Osiris was the Lord of Caverns. Caverns is another word
for caves and Giza is the mouth of caves. Osiris' tomb is
at Giza and his passageway was specifically stated to be a
cave. There are aves incorporated right into the layout of
G1 and right before Hawass emerged from the "Osiris shaft"
to announce there were no caves at Giza he had been inves-
tigating a cave.

When Osiris isn't standing he returns to his cave.

You imply caves have no bearing on construction techniques
at Giza but might it not be wise to first establish that there
are no caves before saying they are irrelevent?

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT THAT THEY USED RAMPS TO
RAISE STONES ON THE GREAT PYRAMIDS EXCEPT THE FAIRLY CONCLU_
SIVE EVIDENCE THT THY DID NOT. THese are the facts. You've
had years to come up with something better than a few flimsy
ramps scattered here and there.

Any ramp prposal will have to explain how it's possible to
leave only horizonral and vertical lines on the pyramids. Go
ahead and try since you might prove me wrong but this will be
an impossible hurdle to overcome.

[kmt_sesh]

Cladking, you've got to remember that we cannot apply the Pyramid Texts to anything in Dynasty 4. Although some form of them must have existed at that time, we cannot know which spells for certain predate Dynasty 5 simply because no evidence has ever surfaced for earlier dates. As I've also tried to counsel, there is no evidence as of yet for any cult of Osiris prior to the reign of Djedkare Isesi, late in Dynasty 5. Therefore, we cannot apply the caverns of Osiris to any construct of Dynasty 4, anywhere in Egypt, including Giza. To attempt to do so is only speculation outside the boundaries of all extant evidence.

In fact, based on the overall corpus of netherworld texts from pharaonic history, which is replete with mention of caverns, caves, and chambers, most or all such features are almost certainly mythical in nature. A greater study of the religion on your part will help you to understand this.

Again, a reminder that there is no evidence within the context of Egyptian architecture or texts extant at Giza that any sort of subterranean cave system was of importance to them. I am not denying the possibility of caves below Giza, but there is nothing as yet to suggest that their possible existence played a significant role in the development of ritual and religion at Giza. Always remember two things:

1) All theories must be framed from the perspective of the ancient society based on what extant evidence has revealed; cultural context is paramount
2) Speculation or 21st-century attitudes are irrelevant if not thus framed, and lead the student only farther away from the proper perspective

As for ramps, I'll also stress that while no definitive evidence yet exists for the use of ramps up to the tops of the Giza pyramids, even less evidence exists to substantiate your own hypothesis. I honestly do hate to say this, but what you've posited to date would be unlikely to be taken as credible by the historians, archaeologists, geologists, and other scientists who work professionally in Egypt.

[cladking]

Kmt_Sesh;

I don't understand how you can say such things. About the only
cultural evidence we have for the great pyramid builders IS the
Pyramid Texts and you want to chuck them out because we don't know
the original date of each utterance!?! This is truly throwing the
baby out with the bathwater. We are left with a cultural void in-
to which anything can be inserted. How can you in one breath say
that the Pyramid Texts are spells because of things that came AFTER
they were written and then in the next say they can't be applied to
things that happened when they were written? It seems to me you might
do better to divorce this work from later ones rather than worry the
exact time they were written.

If I'm right then this is exactly the point that egyptology went entir-
ely wrong. This is where they started seeing ramps for which there is
no evidence and assigning magical properties to the king.

The lines on the pyramid eliminate almost any possible ramp configuration
fronm consideration and most of the rest are virtually eliminated by prac-
ticalities. The evidence states there were no ramps. The evidence says
the stones moved straight up the side. From here we have to figyure out
if they walked up, were dragged by men from the top, or wetre pulled up by
counterweights or similar means from a distance.

If you toss out the notion that the PT must be a collection of spells be-
cause that's what they turned into many centuries later then the answer to
the question of what pulled them up is consistent with the physical evidence
and the historical record. They all seem to agree.

Osiris was the Lord of caverns. The PT say he did the work in his name of
Seker meaning "come to me". Doesn't it seem logical to take a look in the
caves and at least seeing if Osiris is still there???? Perhaps there's ev-
idence of Seker even if he's long gone. Remember the coffin texts say that
Osiris "efflux" (yeast gas)(CO2) is buried in four jars at Giza. It wouldn't
surprise me if the first thing modern researchers would do is break the seal
and lose the sample but we could at least go find the jars.

We shouldn't dismiss evidence just because it doesn't fit our assumptions.
But one thing we can dismiss automatically is eveerything that came long after
the the great pyramids and that certainly means every single aspect of the
religion from the middle kingdom and later.

I sincerely believe Petrie would be mortified to know the state of egyptology
today.

[cladking]

Let me explain that last sentence a little rather than
go back and edit it.

If I could tap old Flinders on the shoulder and tell him
I believed they pulled stone up the side using water that
occured naturally at altitude I'm certain he could rell me
right on the spot why I was wrong or would locate evidence
one way or the other as proof within weeks if not days or
hours. If he couldn't shoot down an idea he'd get the evi-
dence to do it rather than watch me sweat and twist for three
years finding ever more convincing evidence.

As I said two years ago. Watch all the new evidence that
comes to light as time goes on. It will be supportive of
pressurized water rather than ramps. This will continue and
really accelerate if anyone ever goes looking for how they
really built the pyramids rather than merely assuming it must
have been ramps.

[aquatus1]

cladking, on 04 November 2009 - 11:00 PM, said:

If I could tap old Flinders on the shoulder and tell him
I believed they pulled stone up the side using water that
occured naturally at altitude I'm certain he could rell me
right on the spot why I was wrong or would locate evidence
one way or the other as proof within weeks if not days or
hours. If he couldn't shoot down an idea he'd get the evi-
dence to do it rather than watch me sweat and twist for three
years finding ever more convincing evidence.

That's enough of that Cladking. You were telling this same story when you first joined, and I myself gave you plenty of points why it would not work in that geological region. Over the years, I've watched others do the same, not just due to the geology, but with various other aspects of it as well. Now you are at the stage where you are convincing yourself that other people are deluded and that if only you could get a real expert (and you have to name a dead one because no one alive is agreeing with you), at least that experts could treat you fairly. Heck, you have even begun advocating the ludicrous notion that even our modern technology is not capable of creating the Great Pyramid, and that even if it was, it would, by necessity, have to incorporate your concept.

You have not been able to validate this idea geologically, you have not been able to validate it archeologically, and you have not been able to validate it in an engineering fashion. Indeed, in your attempts to do this, you have illustrated a very narrow range of knowledge. This is not a knock against your intelligence, rather a sign that you have focused solely on your idea, and never bothered to study the rest. You are slipping into the real of True Believer, rather than reasoned researcher.

Kmt_Sesh, and all the others that have responded, I recommend taking a break. You have already made your points quite clearly and have expanded on everything that was needed. The only counters that are now being made are repetitions, postulates, and appeals. Don't let yourself get dragged down to the point of frustration that causes your professional demeanor to crack (take it from me; it's not a pleasant thing to face yourself afterwards).

[cladking]

Petrie is not my hero, he's orthodoxy's hero which is
why I chose him to make the point.

If I could prove this theory there would be no need
for the conversation at all and the same applies if
anyone could prove me wrong.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 04 November 2009 - 05:51 PM, said:

Kmt_Sesh;

I don't understand how you can say such things. About the only
cultural evidence we have for the great pyramid builders IS the
Pyramid Texts and you want to chuck them out because we don't know
the original date of each utterance!?! This is truly throwing the
baby out with the bathwater. We are left with a cultural void in-
to which anything can be inserted. How can you in one breath say
that the Pyramid Texts are spells because of things that came AFTER
they were written and then in the next say they can't be applied to
things that happened when they were written? It seems to me you might
do better to divorce this work from later ones rather than worry the
exact time they were written.

This is exactly how legitimate research works. Few doubt that some form of the Pyramid Texts existed in the time of Dynasty 4, but we can know nothing definitive about them because to date no evidence for them appears in Dynasty 4. They are found within pyramids of Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6, so there's the proper context.

We can infer much from the spells about how religion functioned in a general sense throughout the Old Kingdom, but we cannot tie the spells with any certainty to Sneferu, Khufu, Djedefre, Khafre, or Meknkaure. We have instead the inscriptions from their temples and from some tombs of the period, but no Pyramid Texts. The most obvious cautionary example, which I continually site, is the apparent complete absence of Osiris in Dynasty 4 inscriptions. As common as this god appears by the end of Dynasty 5, including in the Pyramid Texts, we do not find him earlier; therefore, we can infer no direct veneration of Osiris in Dynasty 4.

You're arguing counterintuitively if you think we ought to remove the Pyramid Texts from research of the later pyramids; you would be trying to remove them from the only context in which they exist at that time, so such an approach would be completely illogical.

Quote

If I'm right then this is exactly the point that egyptology went entir-
ely wrong. This is where they started seeing ramps for which there is
no evidence and assigning magical properties to the king.

If you think it was Egyptologists who assigned magical properties to the king, you really, really need to study the religion more closely!

Quote

The lines on the pyramid eliminate almost any possible ramp configuration
fronm consideration and most of the rest are virtually eliminated by prac-
ticalities. The evidence states there were no ramps. The evidence says
the stones moved straight up the side. From here we have to figyure out
if they walked up, were dragged by men from the top, or wetre pulled up by
counterweights or similar means from a distance.

Your "lines" constitute a straw-man's argument. No one would expect lines from ramps to be on pyramids. Only permanent structures would've left such an indelible physical residue. Your evidence states there were no ramps, but you've never been able to topple orthodoxy's evidence for ramps. You're arguing a hydrological means for lifting stones, yet archaeology and the material culture of ancient Egypt show no such technology. You say orthodoxy is at fault for arguing a position that is absent evidence, but you're doing the exact same thing with the hydrological angle.

Quote

If you toss out the notion that the PT must be a collection of spells be-
cause that's what they turned into many centuries later then the answer to
the question of what pulled them up is consistent with the physical evidence
and the historical record. They all seem to agree.

No one who understands the religion would toss out the fact that the Pyramid Texts were spells because, well, they were spells. I could go on arguing details of this position for ages, but the very simple fact that so many of them begin with the phrase Dd-mdw ("Recitation" or "Words spoken") clarify that they were magico-religious spells. That was the typical opening phrase for countless Egyptian spells from all periods.

Quote

Osiris was the Lord of caverns. The PT say he did the work in his name of
Seker meaning "come to me". Doesn't it seem logical to take a look in the
caves and at least seeing if Osiris is still there???? Perhaps there's ev-
idence of Seker even if he's long gone. Remember the coffin texts say that
Osiris "efflux" (yeast gas)(CO2) is buried in four jars at Giza. It wouldn't
surprise me if the first thing modern researchers would do is break the seal
and lose the sample but we could at least go find the jars.

"Efflux" refers to his internal organs in this case. The four jars were canopic jars, for storing viscera. This method of evisceration is definitively attested from Dynasty 4, in the burial of Khufu's mother, a time when we have no evidence for Osiris. The cult of Osiris was only starting to grow strong among the wider population in the First Intermediate Period (when the first Coffin Texts appeared). As the cult of Osiris grew, so did the ideology of mummification by which he is known (traits which he seems actually to have assumed from other deities). Nothing in the rituals of mummification or the writings thereof, including the Coffin Texts, would translate as "yeast gas." Were you familiar with the ancient language, you'd know that what we call "canopic jars" were known by the ancients as Kbw-n-wat, "jars of embalming." I don't think they were storing yeast gas in embalming jars.

Quote

We shouldn't dismiss evidence just because it doesn't fit our assumptions.
But one thing we can dismiss automatically is eveerything that came long after
the the great pyramids and that certainly means every single aspect of the
religion from the middle kingdom and later.

That doesn't make any sense. No religion is a static and unbending thing. That would be like saying we should ignore how modern Christianity is practiced because it's not the same as it was in, say, the third century CE. The later religion in Egypt was a direct result of the early form, and though there were certainly difference, many things about the religion changed little or not at all in later periods. You're right that we should never dismiss evidence. What matters is the correct interpretation of evidence based on cultural context.

Quote

I sincerely believe Petrie would be mortified to know the state of egyptology
today.

If you knew anything about Flinders Petrie, you would know that he would be stunningly impressed with modern Egyptology. He would be proud to know that many standards he set are still being followed. The only thing that would mortify him is how some of his arguments have been long overturned, but they're the exception to his legacy.

[kmt_sesh]

aquatus1, on 04 November 2009 - 06:33 PM, said:

...

Kmt_Sesh, and all the others that have responded, I recommend taking a break. You have already made your points quite clearly and have expanded on everything that was needed. The only counters that are now being made are repetitions, postulates, and appeals. Don't let yourself get dragged down to the point of frustration that causes your professional demeanor to crack (take it from me; it's not a pleasant thing to face yourself afterwards).

LOL I had already written my long-winded response by the time I saw your post, aquatus1. I honestly don't mind debating with cladking. He's one of the few alternative theorists who takes the time to flesh out his arguments and fully respond to those who dispute him. But I do see your point, and I agree we're rehashing, and re-rehashing, old arguments. I will give it a rest.

On a closing note for now, for the benefit of cladking and others who argue fringe positions: please, by all means, let poor Flinders rest in peace. Please, stop turning to dubious internet sources from which very poor information about Petrie is found. Perhaps most importantly, please, bear in mind Flinders Petrie was not a leading authority on the Great Pyramid, even if he did write about it. Do you folks not understand the benefit of turning to the leading authority of the time? In Petrie's case this authority was George Reisner. In modern times it is Mark Lehner, or even the much-maligned Zahi Hawass (I'm not crazy about the guy but he is in fact an authority on all things Giza). You have others like Dieter Arnold and Miroslav Verner and Aidan Dodson for proper citation. All of these men knew and know considerably more about the Great Pyramid and Giza than Petrie did. Consider your sources when you're trying to form an argument, because as a rule fringies seem to turn consistently to all the wrong sources!

Enough said.

[kmt_sesh]

If you want, aquatus1, please feel free to remove my last long response to cladking. I understand why you delivered a note of caution to all of us, and had I been more observant and seen your post, I wouldn't have written that response (#562). My apologies.

[PersonFromPorlock]

vampiredreamer, on 18 March 2007 - 02:11 AM, said:

What do you think they will find?

Socks. Many, many socks. None matching.

[lakeview rud]

Hi folks, just a few words about the Sphinx. A fellow named Robert Temple has a book called "Mysteries of the Sphinx" which has many old photographs of the Sphinx. Turns out the Sphinx has been "remodelled" so many times by people trying to save/restore it that its original shape, where the few entrance holes were etc have been lost. Turns out there's a minor shaft at the rear that descends then goes up and is blocked by timbers. A second was supposedly in the diagonal crack (natural splitting of the rock) in front of the rear paws. That was filled in with concrete late 19th or early 20th century. A third entry is supposedly at the front and is now sealed off. His book appears quite scholarly in that he takes pains to research previous work by poeple going well back in time. Some interesting points he makes. The sphinx was originally not a lion but a dog or jackal (Annubis). Most folks would agree that the head now on the sphinx looks totally out of proportion. The pharoah head on the sphinx is a mid-kingdom guy not old kingdom guy. (his argument is that the Sphinx got vandalized between kingdoms and this guy cleaned up what was left). Lastly, and maybe most importantly he argues that the sphinx pre-dates the pyramids but not by thousands of years but perhaps hundreds. This in part based on the fact that the causeways to the great pyramids seem to have been built to avoid it. One other theory which I find fascinating is that the signs of water erosion on the sphinx are due to it being in a pit which was water-filled in ancient times! It does appear to be sitting in a hole. One of the early maps shows a stream which seems to end near "Campbell's tomb. This argument he uses to explain many of the early texts. It also means that its unlikely that the "secret rooms or chambers" under the sphinx (if they exist) will yield much of anything when/if they are found. A tedious read sometimes but you folks might find it interesting.
Also the geology of the Giza plateau would indicate that its highly likely that caves/caverns do exist. Hawass doesn't seem to want to "rock the boat" on any new discoveries. The only satisfaction I can take is that I viewed the mummy of Rameses the Great before he did! It was exhibited in a dirty old museum in Niagara Falls Canada (mis-identified as an Egyptian general) until the museum closed and they did DNA testing and found out who he really was! How about that for some strange stuff.

[kmt_sesh]

lakeview rud, on 06 November 2009 - 07:09 PM, said:

Hi folks, just a few words about the Sphinx. A fellow named Robert Temple has a book called "Mysteries of the Sphinx" which has many old photographs of the Sphinx. Turns out the Sphinx has been "remodelled" so many times by people trying to save/restore it that its original shape, where the few entrance holes were etc have been lost.

I haven't read Temple's book but many of the arguments presented predate him. I think I once perused a copy of it at Borders, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, I admit to enjoying the abundance of old photos and diagrams. Though the book is not an orthodox work of research, the one I'm remembering was almost worth purchasing just for the photos. There's certainly evidence of ancient conservation and renovation, but extensive remodeling is a bit of an overstatement. The overall features of the face and nemes headdress fit within Old Kingdom norms for statuary; only the false beard seems to have been remodeled in later times, consistent with a style of the New Kingdom.

Quote

His book appears quite scholarly in that he takes pains to research previous work by poeple going well back in time.

What I see as a chief problem with fringe literature is the lack of observing current research. Many old sources are cited, but oftentimes these are not the best sources to which a writer should turn. We have learned so much about Egypt and its monuments from modern science and research that many fringe writers don't even realize how out of date and obsolete their arguments are.

Quote

Some interesting points he makes. The sphinx was originally not a lion but a dog or jackal (Annubis). Most folks would agree that the head now on the sphinx looks totally out of proportion.

There's really no evidence to corroborate the Anubis angle, as popular as it has become in some alternative circles. And in fact, it would've been practically impossible for the builders to have fashioned the long snout and tall ears of the typical Anubis appearance. Much of the limestone from which the Sphinx was carved is friable, and something like a long snout or tall ears probably would've broken off before the carvers were done with the job. The head is rather small for the overall proportions probably because that's all the carvers had to work with in the first place. In total, however, the Sphinx does closely resemble many leonine statues carved in pharaonic history. The lion with a king's head was a common ideological motif.

Quote

The pharoah head on the sphinx is a mid-kingdom guy not old kingdom guy. (his argument is that the Sphinx got vandalized between kingdoms and this guy cleaned up what was left).

As I said, on stylistic grounds this can be argued only for the false beard the Sphinx once sported (the largest remains of which are in the British Museum and the Egyptian Museum in Cairo). Nothing else about the form and plan is atypical of the Old Kingdom. Were Temple's research more complete he would know that Giza in general seems to have been neglected through most of the Middle Kingdom. It experienced a resurgence in royal attention in Dynasty 18 when Egypt won empire status and was turning to the grandeur of "olden times" as it refined the ideology of the state. We can definitely see the attention paid to it by Tuthmosis IV and later by Khaemwaset, son of Ramesses II, but there is no evidence that these royal persons drastically altered the appearance of the Sphinx.

Quote

Lastly, and maybe most importantly he argues that the sphinx pre-dates the pyramids but not by thousands of years but perhaps hundreds. This in part based on the fact that the causeways to the great pyramids seem to have been built to avoid it.

The painstaking excavations and research of the Giza Plateau Mapping Project have settled this matter. This is a very good example of how fringe literature is out of touch with the latest research. Headed by Mark Lehner, the GPMP has demonstrated that the Sphinx dates to the time orthodox scholars have long proposed: Dynasty 4, and almost certainly to the reign of Khafre.

A mistake fringe writers frequently make is removing a monument from its context, as though it has no place in the larger picture of the overall historical site. The GPMP has shown that the pyramid of Khafre, his causeway, valley temple, Sphinx, and Sphinx temple are a unit. Simply noticing that the causeway of Khafre takes a jog to avoid a feature is not a solid basis for argument. The Bent Pyramid, Great Pyramid, and the pyramids of Djedefre, Userkaf, Niuserre, Djedkare-Isesi, and Pepi I are just a few examples of complexes that included causeways which jogged or angled or in some other way ran askew of the pyramid proper.

Based on archaeology and architectural layouts, the findings of the GPMP have established, in fact, that Khafre's valley temple was built first, followed by the Sphinx and its temple. The GPMP has even been able to demonstrate that the causeway was built prior to the cutting of the Sphinx enclosure. The findings may be reviewed in the summary on this page from the GPMP's website.

Quote

One other theory which I find fascinating is that the signs of water erosion on the sphinx are due to it being in a pit which was water-filled in ancient times! It does appear to be sitting in a hole.

The only geologist who argues in favor of water erosion is Robert Schoch. His findings have been dismissed by every other geologist of whom I'm aware who has studied the Sphinx. Schoch focuses his entire argument on one possibility to explain erosion, but ignores a plethora of other evidence germane to the socio-historical development of the Plateau and its monuments. The erosion can just as easily be explained by natural desert forces, as nearly all geologists concur. Further, as I wrote in the above paragraphs, the work of the GPMP has settled the matter about the date of the Sphinx (Schoch argues for some 10,000 years ago, which is quite obviously preposterous).

Moreover, there is no evidence that water ever stood to any depth in the Sphinx enclosure. Note the features on this wikimapia page. The Sphinx is tightly enclosed only on the west and south sides; to the east and north is mostly open ground (excepting architectural constructs like the Sphinx temple). The enclosure was never water tight.

Bear in mind that the quarrying operations of Khufu, while the Great Pyramid was being built, first encroached on the site that would become the Sphinx. Prior to Khufu it's likely that the Sphinx was nothing but a limestone knob protruding from the Plateau (the knob would become the head, of course). The work of the GPMP alone shows that it was almost certainly Khafre who is responsible for the Sphinx.

Quote

The only satisfaction I can take is that I viewed the mummy of Rameses the Great before he did! It was exhibited in a dirty old museum in Niagara Falls Canada (mis-identified as an Egyptian general) until the museum closed and they did DNA testing and found out who he really was! How about that for some strange stuff.

The mummy you saw wasn't that of Ramesses II (a.k.a., Ramesses the Great). This was the putative mummy of Ramesses I, grandfather of "the Great." Many argue that the Niagara mummy was not in fact Ramesses I, and some have built a very strong argument against it, but many historians seem content that the identification is valid. The mummy in question was later purchased by the Michael C. Carlos Museum in Atlanta, and was subsequently returned to Egypt. Here's an article about it. Nevertheless, that must have been pretty interesting. I wish I could've seen the mummy before it was sent back to its native land.

[Qoais]

kmt - I think people are trying to point out, that some things have been hidden or glossed over or actually lied about and having the old pictures and notes helps to show what actually was known and what's been hidden ever since.

Of course I can't prove it, but I personally believe the Sphinx was a woman's head. We can assume anything we want, but unless we actually have an ancient writing that says "I pharaoh so and so make this monument in the honor of blah blah in his/her image (or whatever it is they use to depict the image of the god/ess they are honoring), we won't really know for sure if it was Annubis or anything/anyone else.

[cladking]

Moreover, there is no evidence that water ever stood to any depth in the Sphinx enclosure. Note the features on this wikimapia page. The Sphinx is tightly enclosed only on the west and south sides; to the east and north is mostly open ground (excepting architectural constructs like the Sphinx temple). The enclosure was never water tight."

There is no way to know this. It would be very easy to
have channeled water in and out of this enclosure. There's
no doubt really that there was water at the pyramid base
since there is water erosion in canals leading away from
it so there's no reason to believe the purpose of the en-
closure was not to hold water.

There's water erosion all around and even under the Great
Pyramid. Water was used tpo level the base. There are caves
formed by moving water all through the plateau. Why should
we simply dismiss the fact that the enclosure might have held
water when it's the lowest point on the entire plateau. Even
the Nile river came to within mere feet of this level during
larger floods.

[kmt_sesh]

Qoais, on 06 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

kmt - I think people are trying to point out, that some things have been hidden or glossed over or actually lied about and having the old pictures and notes helps to show what actually was known and what's been hidden ever since.

I've seen the same old photos most people have and I can't say anything in them would lead one logically to suspect that some nebulous conspiracy existed or exists to hide anything. Something glossed over? Certainly more possible, but consider that modern archaeology at the Plateau is several universes more advanced than it was in the time of, say, Petrie. In fact, moder archaeologists like Mark Lehner, David O'Connor, Steve Harvey, and others with whom I'm familiar are spending considerable amounts of time re-excavating sites because diggers of long-gone days tended to miss a hell of a lot. This is even true, to an extent, for Petrie at Abydos. By and large, we know an awful lot more about sites today than excavators did 100 years ago.

Quote

Of course I can't prove it, but I personally believe the Sphinx was a woman's head. We can assume anything we want, but unless we actually have an ancient writing that says "I pharaoh so and so make this monument in the honor of blah blah in his/her image (or whatever it is they use to depict the image of the god/ess they are honoring), we won't really know for sure if it was Annubis or anything/anyone else.

Putting in a bid for women's lib, eh? What leads you to suspect that, if I might ask? Certainly there were important royal women in the early years, going as far back as Queen Merneith in Dynasty 1, but I don't know of any royal women's monuments that approached a colossal scale. In fact, that really wouldn't happen till Dynasty 18 in the reign of one of my own favorites, the female king Hatshepsut.