Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
cladking

A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

799 posts in this topic

Most scholars are in agreement that the human remains found in the burial chamber of the Step Pyramid are those of Djoser

No!

They are not even in agreement on the sex of the very fragmentary

piece they have.

The Pyramid Texts were inscribed and addressed to each royal specifically and thus were made unique for each. Their funerary nature, many references to the place of burial, the burial chamber, burial equipment, and standard royal burial rituals of that period leave no doubt as to their intent and purpose. I would suggest consulting the translations conducted by Raymond Faulkner and especially those published by James Allen.

A simple book he wrote is Mountains of the Pharaohs (2006) but I like it because the book contains more details than most other written material on the nature of the relief carvings and inscriptions of Khufu's temple structures. These reliefs and inscriptions are strictly funerary in nature, and make it clear the entire complex existed for the cult of the dead king.

Where you see funerary, I don't. The PT speaks far more about living

than dying. This is pretty surprising when it was obviously written

about a recently deceased king.

I have no doubt that if I saw these relief carvings which are currently

associated with G1 "temples" that I wouldn't agree that they are funerary

in nature. But even if they are I can't see how they might prove all of

the orthodox ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battle of the geniuses happening right before our eyes. LOL that was a bit sarcastic I apologize.

Lime stone is mostly stone I read up there somewhere.... LOL OK... I'm even going to risk making my next few statements from memory because I feel pretty confident in the basic nature of the material we are speaking about.

OK you have a sea.

You have things living on the sea floor. Coral and such which will undoubtedly filter salt water...

Break apart limestone and you will find shell and other fossils .... I find them all the time at 6000 feet above sea level in thehigh desert of Arizona!!! Tons of salt too... so much that my shoes get a white layer on them from walking around. How silly of an idea to find so much salt in an ancient sea bed... have any of you seen limestone or is it just a concept in your mind? Its no big deal if its just a concept as there are a lot of things conceptual in my mind I just happen to have hands on experience with limestone and old sea beds because of where I live... I wanted to share that experience with you all.

Good day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On top of the fact that you continue to use the PT in an anachronistic fashion as some sort of construction manual for the GP, you've effectively shot yourself in the foot with this passage. Particularly as the people buried in adjacent tombs contemporary to those of the pyramids would have to have been dead quite some time before they would have been considered "Ancients". Also, according to your interpretation of this passage the inundation would have to have occurred AFTER they were dead and buried. Meaning that anything they may or may not have done while alive happened BEFORE an inundation.

298c. and will let loose an inundation over the Ancients;

No I haven't. The whole theory is built up around and in conjunction

with the literal meaning of the words of the builders. Unless someone can

show a more likely literal meaning the words can't hurt me.

People dying and being born was a continuing thing. The evolution of the

Pyramid Texts was a continuing thing from before the invention of writing

to the book of gates. Rain water was a continuing thing until circa 2200 BC.

Water spraying from under the ground was a continuing thing until around

2400 BC.

But "all" the ancients were "always" buried on high ground. Officials and

various dignitaries were awarded choice spots high on the cliffs over the

valley. Any inundation that would be let loose on them had to come from

above.

If anything this is the one line in the PT that can stand alone as proof of

a water source high up on the plateau. Of course there is the even more

direct proof that is these words;

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

The w3g-festival was held on the specific uplands known as Giza and an inun-

dation named Osiris came to it.

This is just plain English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole theory is built up around and in conjunction

with the literal meaning of the words of the builders.

No it's not, unless you can provide literary evidence of what the builders, meaning those of the time of Khufu, actually said. Now, once and for all, DO YOU HAVE SUCH EVIDENCE?

Rain water was a continuing thing until circa 2200 BC.

Water spraying from under the ground was a continuing thing until around

2400 BC.

Not to any significant degree, and by that I mean anything over 2 inches per year. If you have evidence to the contrary then cite it.

But "all" the ancients were "always" buried on high ground.

Wrong again, in part, the Valley of the Kings being an example. And yet, the Giza Plateau was a necropolis AND on high ground. Kind of works against you, doesn't it?

This is just plain English.

No, this is just plain made-up on your part.

So, you need the following:

1) Literary evidence from the actual builders c.2500 to substantiate your claims as to what they said.

2) Citation for any studies showing a significant (2+ inches per year) rainfall between 3500 and 2200 BC.

3) Geological/hydrological evidence for pressurized water on the Giza Plateau, at any point in AE history but more specifically prior to 2400 BC.

Am anxiously awaiting your verifiable evidence and/or citations.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cormac;

You are essentially seeking verifiable proof from me while holding

Egyptology to no standard at all except the "proof by consensus". If

I had verifiable proof of everything there would be no reason to discuss

the evidence at all. Why does Egyptology get a pass on saying they must-

ta used ramps despite the fact the evidence strongly is against them but

you can't agree that the evidence supports the idea that stones moved

straight up the side.

By refusing to give in on even the worst supported aspects of Egyptological

assumption you are either suggesting that Egyptology is an integrated thing

that can't be distilled and mustn't be wrong in any part or that the evidence

is in your opinion so strong that they can't be wrong in any part.

I believe if you look inside you will find that it's the former; that Egyp-

tology is a whole thing that can't exist without the assumptions. If you

remove ramps the whole thing tumbles down. Remove tombs and there's no rea-

son for Egyptology to exist. Remove the assumptions and all that's left are

a very few very disjointed facts. There are no words fronm the great pyra-

mid builsding age that are an intelligible and complete thought. All that

survives is; "He who makes in Gods that can not be erased". How can ramps

or tombs be deduced from such a thing. Ironically enough even this tends to

support my theory better than it supports orthodox beliefs.

How can the evidence for ramps be so strong when virtually no evidence for ramps

exists? How can ramps be the only possible means to build when it's obvious

even to a child that stones could be pulled straight up the side from men on

the top? Why should anyone believe in ramps when there are no ramp builders

and no stone draggers anywhere in evidence?

Why can't people cast off ramps?

Why are ramps part and parcel of the way Egyptology sees the people?

Even if it were true that anything that can't be proved to be concurrent with

great pyramid building why should it become irrelevant? Just because we don't

know the exact date "he, he is the pyramid, he protects." was written why can't

it apply to the Great Pyramid? If it applies to Unas' Pyramid does this mean

only Unas' Pyramid wasn't a tomb? Why can't it mean that at the time it was wri-

tten no pyramid was a tomb?

I think if you answer these questions honestly you'll conclude that the bottom

line is that Egyptology has not proven their contentions nor incorporated most

of the physical evidence into their theory. I think you are holding them to no

standard at all while expecting me to present conclusive proof of geysers.

In the concrete world it is most probably impossible for me to find and present

such proof from this place at this time. But I can and have shown solid evid-

ence for nearly every aspect of the theory and have cast grave doubt on most as-

pects of orthodoxy. Ramps are essentially debunked and when this finally gets

factored into Egyptology it's going to leave a mark. They have been impaled on

ramps. This is fait accompli. It's a done deal. That they don't yet see or

admit it is to their detriment.

Nearly equally well established are the rain catchments around the great pyramids.

(possibly others)(I've not looked at others). When the question of how and why

the pyramids were built without the assumption of ramps and with catchments added

in then we have to at least consider the possibility they used water. Add in the

fact that stones moved up the side and something (apparently) moved "down" the

opposite side and water filled counterweights become a very real possibility.

I know these words are likely to tick people off but I believe every one of them

is true. I believe they'll tick people off because they don't want to believe

them and they have the ring of truth. It really is not and never has been my re-

sponsibility to prove this. It is merely my job to solve the question and then

orthodoxy's job to prove me right or wrong. There are a million ways to show

this and I've suggested dozens. Here's one; show these devices under consideration

couldn't channel water. My whole argument collapses in a cloud of dust without

a means to catch and channel the water at at least two points. Why can I show a

water collectiuon device but Egyptology can't show a ramp OR disprove water col-

lection? It always comes down to the best fit argument and tombs built with ramps

is not even a good fit far less a best fit. The beuty of finding the actual ans-

wer though is it's usually testable just like mine is.

So why aren't they testing it?

Why do I so rarely get answers to any of my question when I always try to answer

every question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again, in part, the Valley of the Kings being an example.

Yeah, it's a shame they ever buried people here. This is why

I put all and always in quotes. But there's still the quotation

that says an inundation comes to Giza as Osiris. The PT still

says that Osiris was a cool effervescent column of water that

tossed.

2) Citation for any studies showing a significant (2+ inches per year) rainfall between 3500 and 2200 BC.

Did you notice even Kmt_Sesh said there was higher precipitation

until 2200 BC a couple pages back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not, unless you can provide literary evidence of what the builders, meaning those of the time of Khufu, actually said. Now, once and for all, DO YOU HAVE SUCH EVIDENCE?

I'm of the opinion that EVERYONE interested in the great pyramids or their

builders study the Pyramid Texts. (and the Coffin Texts to a lesser degree)

I strongly recommend the following tools and resources for this job. Start

by learning the alphabet.

http://renfield.physics.utah.edu/wiki/images/archive/d/d1/20090301012840!Pdf_dictionary.pdf

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/

http://books.google.com/books?id=6VBJeCoDdTUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=James+Allen%27s+Pyramid+Texts&source=bl&ots=mr_S59GARA&sig=l22IL_e65lTU8pvEei_HZtBc-fw&hl=en&ei=moFaS8TKBoWGNNXw2IcP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=tomb+utterance++++%22+Sacred+Texts++Egypt++Index++Previous++Next%22

http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/translation.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7ACEW_en&q=tomb+utterance++++%22Sacred+Texts++Egypt++Index++Previous++Next%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.sofiatopia.org/maat/wenis12.htm

http://www.the-book-of-thoth.com/content-157.html

http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=unbound.welcome

Just start at the top. You might never need the last few.

The PT has a literal meaning and that meaning is coherent.

I wish I had a list like this when I started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's a shame they ever buried people here. This is why

I put all and always in quotes. But there's still the quotation

that says an inundation comes to Giza as Osiris. The PT still

says that Osiris was a cool effervescent column of water that

tossed.

Did you notice even Kmt_Sesh said there was higher precipitation

until 2200 BC a couple pages back?

Not enough to convert into an actual economic factor, see here, so there might have been 2.5 inches instead of 2, the water still was sourced from the Nile.

And the Pyramid texts reflect all kinds of things, but certainly not the reality... if it would be reality you would not be interested...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are essentially seeking verifiable proof from me while holding

Egyptology to no standard at all except the "proof by consensus".

Egyptology has 200 years of archaeological, linguistic, religious and cultural finds behind them, while you have 5 years of "Nuh uh" behind you. I think I'll stick with Egyptology.

Even if it were true that anything that can't be proved to be concurrent with

great pyramid building why should it become irrelevant?

In the case of the Pyramid Texts because they, as written in the tomb of Unis, are addressed specifically to Unis. Not to Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure or any other 4th Dynasty king. But to Unis ONLY.

If it applies to Unas' Pyramid does this mean

only Unas' Pyramid wasn't a tomb?

Definitely not, because we know that Unis' tomb was a tomb.

I think you are holding them to no standard at all while expecting me to present conclusive proof of geysers.

Nope, I'm holding them to 200 years of archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence whereas all you've shown in 5 years is "because I said so". :rolleyes:

Nearly equally well established are the rain catchments around the great pyramids.

(possibly others)(I've not looked at others).

You've not shown evidence that they were ever "rain catchment devices". Hell, you've not even shown that there was a significant amount of rain at that time. And I've asked you to support that claim several times now. Thusfar, you've failed.

But there's still the quotation that says an inundation comes to Giza as Osiris.

And as I've already shown you, there is evidence that the Nile was much closer to the Plateau during the 4th dynasty, yet nothing to suggest that the Nile waters were EVER on the plateau itself.

Did you notice even Kmt_Sesh said there was higher precipitation

until 2200 BC a couple pages back?

Did YOU notice that Kmt_sesh NEVER said that that means precipitation significantly greater than 2 inches per year. Hmm, I'd have to wonder why he wouldn't say that, unless it wasn't true.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so you're suggesting that every single scrap and fragment, every tiny bead, every speck of gold, every fragment of pottery, and every other tiny bit of evidence has been carefully picked and removed by tomb robbers. Do you really think robbers take pottery? Not usually. How about pieces of wood. Not usually. Perhaps a forensic team came in and somehow vacuumed the floor. Keep in mind, that the cracks between the floors have also been analyzed, and nothing--nothing was found. You have to rethink your claim. They may have been cenotaphs, and I am willing to admit that. But I doubt that anything was ever placed in the sarcophagus.

Yes. I'm suggesting that over the almost 3000 years before modern archeology got to the site, that it was robbed over and over again. That even if there was pottery, shards or scraps of wood left in the pyramid, that after it was forced open, that every tiny thing was taken from inside. "Trash" (potshards, bits of wood, bits of cloth...) was not likely noted by the earliest archologists and thus with the rise of modern Egyptology every scrap was carried away by "tourists".

Go to the Petrified Forest in Arizona(?) all that is left is the giant boulders, every last tiny piece of petrified wood was carried off by tourists back in the 19th and 20th centuries.

All I see in you Opinion above is... well opinion. You "think" no one would take pottery, and "think" no one would take wood... Robbers are.... well, robbers. They doubtless carried light sources with them, but the light would be very bad, so they would grab everything. And gold would glitter and so be easy to see. And robbers would have knifes to get stuff from between stones. They did have 3000 years you know. They could have even torn up the inside floors, as it is beleived that later Dynasties renovated the GP and resealed the entrance in ancient times.

So... in short, I think my Common Sense answer is more logical then your common sense answer.

The rain catchments you are looking for were probably incorporated into the roofs of their houses. Lots of cultures did this. Polished limestone gets very cold at night, and it retains this temperature for a while. If the casing stones heated up in the day, a short rainfall would cool them down. Now imagine a hard rain. No evaporation once they are cooled.

Is there evidence of even one ancient or restored building having such a catchment? Surely if most buildings had a catchment, we'd have archeological evidence to support it.

Also why build it into a pyramid, or a house, when there was vast hillsides just waiting to be used to catch rain. The answer... there was never much rain.

Tomb robbers must have used a vacuum cleaner because there are no fragments of anything in the cracks of the stones. It couldn't have all disappeared. Come on. They were cenotaphs for the ba spirit probably.

Look at the Valley of the Kings. The tombs there that were robber are bare of artifacts as mole holes, yet the ones that were not robbed are full of good stuff. The robbers took every shard, bead, stick and bit of cloth. Doubtless these bits and pieces were discarded in the desert or into trash mounds back in town, but they were all carried off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Orthodoxy proposes that the largest ramp ever built by man

was somehow laid up against this pyramid and many millions of men dragged

stones up it and then walked back down. They are proposing this despite

the fact that there are no ramp builders known to have existed and not a

single man who dragged stone. Many of the jobs are known but not one in-

dicative of ramps or a muscle based system. Instead they leave the absense

of ramps as proof they mustta used ramps.

Clad, this has been shown to be Opinion on your part. Studies of bones of the workers do indicate dragging of heavy objects. The studies of the cemetaries and mastabas do not eliminate a title for ramp building. Not every laborers burial had a name and title assigned with it.

The evidence that they did not use ramps is complete. Ramps could not have

left the vertical lines visible in the great pyramids. Ramps fly in the

face of common sense which dictates that the largest lifting project in hu-

man history should have used an efficient means of lifting the stone.

Again Opinion. I've yet to see anyone agree that the evidence says ramps were NOT used. Your fixation on the vertical lines does not proove anything. Those lines might have been for any purpose. Is there only one line going up the middle, right? Might that not actually be proof of a ramp? That the pressure of the solid ramp pushed in on the blocks and created a shallow valley, which can be seen as a line down the middle? It is at least as logical as your own idea.

Incredibly there isn't one single known usage of the word "ramp" from the

great pyramid building age that applies as a means to lift objects! Still

Egyptologists insist on ramps. They implying that these people were simply

too stupid to devise any other means of lifting than the most inefficient.

But there is mention of roads, and a ramp is just an elevated road. There was also officals in charge of roads, and you've admitted that you believe there was a God of Roads for the Egyptians.

The stones moved straight up the side and this is the only supported argu-

ment until someone gets out there and disproves it. This is a fact. It

doesn't matter that the support falls short of being conclusive because ramps

are supported by nothing but air. This isn't even an arguable point but I'd

be happy to lay out the extensive evidence that stones moved up the side or

the more extensive evidence that ramps never existed as a means to lift stone.

This battle has already been lost by orthodoxy whether they choose to admit

the fact or not. If they try to prove me wrong they'll end up only proving

I'm right.

I admit that what you propose with counterwieghts would work. But it is even less evidenced then ramps. As far as I know, you're the only one who supports your idea. I've yet to see even one person (Beyond the, "I'z totally AGreE with Youz", crowd.), here on UM that says you've blasted Orthodoxy wide open.

You've thrown out a few good physical bits, like pieces of rope and eyelets of stone. But to keep depending on the Pyramid Texts for your Heavy Lifting is making you look simply stubborn and Defensive of your pet theory, rather then open minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battle of the geniuses happening right before our eyes. LOL that was a bit sarcastic I apologize.

Lime stone is mostly stone I read up there somewhere.... LOL OK... I'm even going to risk making my next few statements from memory because I feel pretty confident in the basic nature of the material we are speaking about.

OK you have a sea.

You have things living on the sea floor. Coral and such which will undoubtedly filter salt water...

Break apart limestone and you will find shell and other fossils .... I find them all the time at 6000 feet above sea level in thehigh desert of Arizona!!! Tons of salt too... so much that my shoes get a white layer on them from walking around. How silly of an idea to find so much salt in an ancient sea bed... have any of you seen limestone or is it just a concept in your mind? Its no big deal if its just a concept as there are a lot of things conceptual in my mind I just happen to have hands on experience with limestone and old sea beds because of where I live... I wanted to share that experience with you all.

Good day

Aus - Your observations are quite correct. In addition, the presence of haline salts in the Mokattam formation is well documented as per the below:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54138397/04abdel-hafez-t

Additional related references:

http://www.palarch.nl/wp-content/vandecruys_g_the_sphinx_dramatising_data_and_dating_palarchs_journal_of_archaeology_of_egypt_egyptology_1_1_2006.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=wCnm0iyAkX4C&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=mokattam+formation+salt+content&source=bl&ots=tWJh4LkpXE&sig=Cj1y_uNkfmdT_QbJ2_uKl8waaPk&hl=en&ei=LXTJTtjMBJLksQLEt8gk&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=mokattam%20formation%20salt%20content&f=false

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=hp_theses&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dsalt%2520concentrations%2520limestone%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D23%26ved%3D0CCYQFjACOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Frepository.upenn.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1137%2526context%253Dhp_theses%26ei%3DEVPJTrHOBIWNsQLYloBC%26usg%3DAFQjCNENCKBAHOQYxJzF_EnVVY4W5fR_AQ#search=%22salt%20concentrations%20limestone%22

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clad, this has been shown to be Opinion on your part. Studies of bones of the workers do indicate dragging of heavy objects. The studies of the cemetaries and mastabas do not eliminate a title for ramp building. Not every laborers burial had a name and title assigned with it.

There is no job indicative of heavy labor. Prove me wrong.

Why do people who believe orthodoxy assume everything is already settled?

Again Opinion. I've yet to see anyone agree that the evidence says ramps were NOT used. Your fixation on the vertical lines does not proove anything. Those lines might have been for any purpose. Is there only one line going up the middle, right? Might that not actually be proof of a ramp? That the pressure of the solid ramp pushed in on the blocks and created a shallow valley, which can be seen as a line down the middle? It is at least as logical as your own idea.

"No" on all counts.

But there is mention of roads, and a ramp is just an elevated road. There was also officals in charge of roads, and you've admitted that you believe there was a God of Roads for the Egyptians.

There was a God of the desert in later times. He assisted lifting

stones in the great pyramid building age though. It was he who lifted

up his arm in the east and stood on a pedestal.

I admit that what you propose with counterwieghts would work. But it is even less evidenced then ramps. As far as I know, you're the only one who supports your idea. I've yet to see even one person (Beyond the, "I'z totally AGreE with Youz", crowd.), here on UM that says you've blasted Orthodoxy wide open.

I do not claim to have destroyed orthodoxy. I claim that I've destroyed

ramps and they won't admit it because they know deep down that ramps under-

pin orthodoxy. It may be a fine point but the fact they can't even bend

on ramps is very telling about exactly what orthodoxy is. The fact that

they can't say "well, maybe they really didn't use ramps" essentially proves

Egyptology is founded on assumptions and can't stand piecemeal.

You've thrown out a few good physical bits, like pieces of rope and eyelets of stone. But to keep depending on the Pyramid Texts for your Heavy Lifting is making you look simply stubborn and Defensive of your pet theory, rather then open minded.

I don't consider all the physical evidence to be important to how or why

the pyramids were built. But there is no physical evidence which contradicts

any part of my theory on how they were built. You're probably thinking about

the "sarcophagus" right now but whether or not the pyramid was a tomb doesn't

directly impact my theory of how it was built. I believe the builders meant

what they said and they said it wasn't a tomb so it is related but not dependent.

I believe the physical evidence alone is sufficient to show I'm right. The fact

that much of this physical evidence was discovered by reading the words of the

builders simply lends more weight to the evidence and their words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough to convert into an actual economic factor, see here, so there might have been 2.5 inches instead of 2, the water still was sourced from the Nile.

And the Pyramid texts reflect all kinds of things, but certainly not the reality... if it would be reality you would not be interested...

A water catchment device still channels water whether it falls

from the sky, condenses on the side, or flies up out of the ground.

We've seen no proof or supporting evidence that the Nile was the

only source of drinking water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough to convert into an actual economic factor, see here, so there might have been 2.5 inches instead of 2, the water still was sourced from the Nile.

And the Pyramid texts reflect all kinds of things, but certainly not the reality... if it would be reality you would not be interested...

I almost missed your link.

It contains everything you need to know about higher rainfall amounts

in ancient Egypt in the distant past;

...many of these desert fauna was hunted for sport by royalty and nobles...

If there were oryx and gazelles then there was grass. If there was grass then there was at least a few inches of rain every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no job indicative of heavy labor. Prove me wrong.

Why do people who believe orthodoxy assume everything is already settled?

"No" on all counts.

There was a God of the desert in later times. He assisted lifting

stones in the great pyramid building age though. It was he who lifted

up his arm in the east and stood on a pedestal.

I do not claim to have destroyed orthodoxy. I claim that I've destroyed

ramps and they won't admit it because they know deep down that ramps under-

pin orthodoxy. It may be a fine point but the fact they can't even bend

on ramps is very telling about exactly what orthodoxy is. The fact that

they can't say "well, maybe they really didn't use ramps" essentially proves

Egyptology is founded on assumptions and can't stand piecemeal.

I don't consider all the physical evidence to be important to how or why

the pyramids were built. But there is no physical evidence which contradicts

any part of my theory on how they were built. You're probably thinking about

the "sarcophagus" right now but whether or not the pyramid was a tomb doesn't

directly impact my theory of how it was built. I believe the builders meant

what they said and they said it wasn't a tomb so it is related but not dependent.

I believe the physical evidence alone is sufficient to show I'm right. The fact

that much of this physical evidence was discovered by reading the words of the

builders simply lends more weight to the evidence and their words.

Re: Bolded above - Only that little factor known as osteological evidence. You have likely seen this lay-oriented reference numerous times. Further references can be provided.

"Based on the pottery, names, and titles found in association with the tombs, the cemetery was begun as early as the reign of Khufu in Dynasty 4 and continued through the end of Dynasty 5, from ca. 2551 to 2323 B.C. The cemetery probably extends across the escarpment above the low desert plain where we have found production and storage facilities. It seems to be an Old Kingdom version of the New Kingdom (ca.1500-1163 B.C.) cemetery at Deir el-Medineh, where workers who excavated and decorated the royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings were buried. We believe that so far we have found only 20 percent of the tombs buried under the sand along this slope.

None of the workers was mummified, a prerogative of royalty and nobility, but many tombs in this cemetery contained skeletal remains that tell us much about the lives of these people. Study of the remains by Azza Sarry el-Din and Fawziya Hussein of Egypt's National Research Center reveals that males and females were equally represented, mostly buried in fetal positions, with face to the east and head to the north. Many of the men died between age 30 and 35. Below the age of 30 a higher mortality was found in females than in males, a statistic undoubtedly reflecting the hazards of childbirth. Degenerative arthritis occurred in the vertebral column, particularly in the lumbar region, and in the knees. It was frequent and more severe than in the skeletons from the mastaba cemetery. Skeletons of both men and women, particularly those from the lower burials, show such signs of heavy labor.Simple and multiple limb fractures were found in skeletons from both the lower and upper burials. The most frequent were fractures of the ulna and radius, the bones of the upper arm, and of the fibula, the more delicate of the two lower leg bones. Most of the fractures had healed completely, with good realignment of the bone, indicating that the fractures had been set with a splint. We found two cases, both male, that suggested amputation - of a left leg and a right arm respectively. The healed ends of the bones indicate that the amputations were successful. Few other cases of amputation have been recorded in Egyptian archaeology".

(Emphasis added).

http://www.drhawass.com/events/cemetery-pyramid-builders

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of the Pyramid Texts because they, as written in the tomb of Unis, are addressed specifically to Unis. Not to Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure or any other 4th Dynasty king. But to Unis ONLY.

If this were true then the exact same so called grammatical errors could

not appear from one pyramid to the next. They do appear repeatedly so it

can't be true.

Nope, I'm holding them to 200 years of archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence whereas all you've shown in 5 years is "because I said so". :rolleyes:

Great!

So where is the evidence for ramps.

You've not shown evidence that they were ever "rain catchment devices". Hell, you've not even shown that there was a significant amount of rain at that time. And I've asked you to support that claim several times now. Thusfar, you've failed.

I've only found the two references. Then there's the one Kmt_Sesh found and now

Questionmark found one. This is well enough supported even in the absence of Pat-

rick Giles corroboration in my mind.

And as I've already shown you, there is evidence that the Nile was much closer to the Plateau during the 4th dynasty, yet nothing to suggest that the Nile waters were EVER on the plateau itself.

The Nile was never on the plateau but Osiris was.

Did YOU notice that Kmt_sesh NEVER said that that means precipitation significantly greater than 2 inches per year. Hmm, I'd have to wonder why he wouldn't say that, unless it wasn't true.

I don't know how much rain there was. I seriously doubt anyone really knows how

much rain there was. But I know the experts say there was more and my guts know

oryx and wildlife can't live on two inches a years even in more temperate climates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost missed your link.

It contains everything you need to know about higher rainfall amounts

in ancient Egypt in the distant past;

...many of these desert fauna was hunted for sport by royalty and nobles...

If there were oryx and gazelles then there was grass. If there was grass then there was at least a few inches of rain every year.

...Except those animals also live today in places like the Namib desert. There are in fact still oryx and gazelle living in Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Degenerative arthritis occurred in the vertebral column, particularly in the lumbar region, and in the knees. It was frequent and more severe than in the skeletons from the mastaba cemetery. Skeletons of both men and women, particularly those from the lower burials, show such signs of heavy labor.

People used to work harder. Even when I was young people worked harder. In ancient

times all over the world people worked harder. Even the bones of many of the nobles

and dignitaries show signs of heavy labor. I've known doctors who engage in heavy

labor AND work out at the gym. If they had only several hundred men to assist the

Gods in building the pyramid they would have had to engage in heavy labor. Heavy

labor does not prove that anyone ever dragged a stone up a ramp. If you could find

me 30,000 men with evidence of heavy labor then you'd have something but this is a mere

handful and affects the women as well. Are you suggesting the women dragged stones

up ramps too.

This does not show that stones were dragged about. Find an overseer of stone draggers

or archetech of ramps... ..anything at all but there is nothing. All there is is the

endless supposition and the attempt to pound a square peg in a round hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this were true then the exact same so called grammatical errors could

not appear from one pyramid to the next. They do appear repeatedly so it

can't be true.

Great!

So where is the evidence for ramps.

I've only found the two references. Then there's the one Kmt_Sesh found and now

Questionmark found one. This is well enough supported even in the absence of Pat-

rick Giles corroboration in my mind.

The Nile was never on the plateau but Osiris was.

I don't know how much rain there was. I seriously doubt anyone really knows how

much rain there was. But I know the experts say there was more and my guts know

oryx and wildlife can't live on two inches a years even in more temperate climates.

Re: Bolded - Right... For starters:

http://jeb.biologist...3/2301.full.pdf

http://www.enhg.org/b/b11/11_24.htm

http://www.outtoafri...bestemming_id=1

.

Edited by Swede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Except those animals also live today in places like the Namib desert. There are in fact still oryx and gazelle living in Egypt.

Really?!? Where?

I'm sure you're wrong about oryx since they are extinct in the wild but I've never

heard of any fauna but reptiles and insects surviving in the deserts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People used to work harder. Even when I was young people worked harder. In ancient

times all over the world people worked harder. Even the bones of many of the nobles

and dignitaries show signs of heavy labor. I've known doctors who engage in heavy

labor AND work out at the gym. If they had only several hundred men to assist the

Gods in building the pyramid they would have had to engage in heavy labor. Heavy

labor does not prove that anyone ever dragged a stone up a ramp. If you could find

me 30,000 men with evidence of heavy labor then you'd have something but this is a mere

handful and affects the women as well. Are you suggesting the women dragged stones

up ramps too.

This does not show that stones were dragged about. Find an overseer of stone draggers

or archetech of ramps... ..anything at all but there is nothing. All there is is the

endless supposition and the attempt to pound a square peg in a round hole.

Your initial statement was:

"There is no job indicative of heavy labor. Prove me wrong". (ck #288). You have now been proven to be incorrect. Again.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?!? Where?

I'm sure you're wrong about oryx since they are extinct in the wild but I've never

heard of any fauna but reptiles and insects surviving in the deserts.

For the gazelle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorcas_Gazelle

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/507237

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006320787900279

You're right about oryx being extinct there now but they're reported as living in the Sinai as recently as the 19th century.

And you really need to bone up on your desert fauna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib_Desert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

http://www.fjexpeditions.com/frameset/florafauna.htm

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, cherish those words just before "about oryx". You're probably not going to see them directed at you around here again for a long, long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted post.

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.