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

Wait a minute. I need to specialize in every facet of Egyptology in order to be an Egyptologist? Are you serious?

No, you don't need to specialize in every facet. But if you honestly consider yourself an Egyptologist, you need to be very familiar with all of the basics. I'm home right now but my posts from earlier today were composed during breaks at work, which means I was just drawing from memory. I had no access to my library. Still, I've been able to post about New Kingdom tombs and the socio-politics of that period because they are very basic facts. I am not an expert and I am not an Egyptologist, but pulling basic facts from memory is hardly a challenge. If you don't have a grasp of such basics, refrain from calling yourself an Egyptologist. You're only going to hurt yourself.

As I understand academics as a scholar, a person normally goes to college and gets a degree in Near Eastern. Very general. Then that person gets a masters which focuses on a certain facet of Egyptology. A doctorate is the same thing. You focus on one thing.

This is essentially what I wrote in an earlier post, aside from your comments about doctoral studies. A doctorate is not the same as a masters.

So, at what point does an Egyptologist acquire all this extensive knowledge about everything else in Egyptology? Do I need to understand diseases in mummies too?

Pretty much everything I have written about pharaonic Egypt would be familiar to students pursuing an undergraduate degree in Near Eastern studies. But you don't need to hear this from me. This web page with its peripheral links will show you the educational program students encounter at the University of Chicago, as one example. However, a properly trained Egyptologist would in fact have a good understanding of diseases found in mummies. That's a given. Does it mean every Egyptologist would be an expert in the subject? No, which is why Egyptologists turn to paleopathologists. An Egyptologist needs to understand not only the monuments people built but the people who built them, which includes their language, culture, religion, lives, and things that affected lives such as diet and common pathologies. I've never met an Egyptologist who wasn't well grounded in such topics.

Do you know any Egyptologist that has mastered all the various areas of the field?

No, of course I don't know Egyptologists who have mastered everything. You're right that Egyptologists will go into specialties such as death and burial, linguistics, socio-politics, religion, and the like, but all of them have to have a very well-rounded education and be very well versed in the basics. I personally know several Egyptologists and of these I have become a close acquaintance with a couple, but I have worked closely with all of them whom I know. I'm saying this only to express the fact that any of these Egyptologists I know happen to know more about pharaonic Egypt than you and I combined (several times over) and could spin circles around the two of us.

This is why I react so strongly to people who call themselves Egyptologists but who actually have no such training or degree. You have not earned the right to call yourself that. Nor have I.

I assure you, my friend, that I could study the New Kingdom my entire life and I will never be able to know everything about it. There is the inherent fault in your logic. I don't like you. Normally, I would not speak to someone so unreasonable and short sited...

This is becoming less productive and useful the more you and I bang heads. You don't like me? Who cares? I'm not here for you to like me. I have no dislike for you, but I'm not at UM to be your buddy. I am here to defend orthodox scholarship. You keep returning to personal slights and subtle insults, and I don't understand why. I can't imagine you're enjoying yourself so I have to ask, why are you still here? This is just an internet forum. If you don't enjoy any of this, you don't have to keep at it. You can leave and not post anymore. If you wish to stay and continue to engage us, then that's good. Just stop it with the personal slights and subtle insults. They're tedious and unproductive to debate.

At this point there's no reason for me to go on replying to the rest of your post, so I am going to try to turn the conversation back to the merits of useful debate. I have some questions I'd like you to answer, based on your rain-catchment theme.

  • You argue that all of the pyramids were rain-catchment systems, working in union with their mortuary temples, causeways, and valley temples. Yet not all pyramids have all of these features in every case. Between Djoser's pyramid in Dynasty 3 and Ahmose I's in Dynasty 18, pyramid complexes took on a variety of forms. How do you explain the pyramid complexes that don't really fit your model?
  • In previous posts I and others have brought up the decoration plans of mortuary temples, causeways, valley temples, and later pyramids inscribed with Pyramid Texts. These decoration plans are strictly funerary in nature, showing the deceased kings in the attendance of mortuary deities and in various contexts of receiving offerings. Your answer is that these complexes may have been cenotaphs. That's an intelligent answer but not a complete answer. Why would the Egyptians have built such costly state projects to serve as both rain catchments and cenotaphs? Based on the full breadth of pharaonic culture, the two entities have no observable relationship.
  • In previous posts I and at least one other poster have pointed out that cenotaphs are not actually known until the Middle Kingdom, and specifically to the reign of Senusret III. I'm not saying an earlier model of cenotaphs is impossible, but what evidence can you offer to support your claim? Nearly all of the pyramids (albeit not all of them) can be directly attributed to specific kings between Dynasty 3 and Dynasty 18. So why has not even a single other tomb been found for any of these kings if all of their pyramids were cenotaphs?

I can think of more questions but this is enough for now. Hopefully this can get us back on track and help to dial down the acrimony building between you and me. Believe it or not, I don't want to bicker and I don't enjoy the hostility between us. I'd rather debate the evidence. ;)

Editing to add: What I did not express well at all in the above paragraph is that I apologize for the acrimony I have caused. I am at fault, too. I would rather talk ancient Egypt. If we both descend into bickering again, I'll probably back out of the conversation for a time.

Edited by kmt_sesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi kmt,

please allow me to interject myself here with just a few points:

No, you don't need to specialize in every facet. But if you honestly consider yourself an Egyptologist, you need to be very familiar with all of the basics. I'm home right now but my posts from earlier today were composed during breaks at work, which means I was just drawing from memory. I had no access to my library. Still, I've been able to post about New Kingdom tombs and the socio-politics of that period because they are very basic facts. I am not an expert and I am not an Egyptologist, but pulling basic facts from memory is hardly a challenge. If you don't have a grasp of such basics, refrain from calling yourself an Egyptologist. You're only going to hurt yourself.

If one doesn't knows the basics of the field one is doing research in, there is a huge chance that one will (read: one will almost certainly) invalidate one's research as one cannot not constantly rely on the so important background information and compare one's findings to those basics. It essentially corresponds to confirmation bias. One doesn't really care about the basics, even if it makes the proponent look rather silly, it is just a need to promote the "theory" (the word theory used in the loosest sense of the word possible).

This is essentially what I wrote in an earlier post, aside from your comments about doctoral studies. A doctorate is not the same as a masters.

Indeed. Especially in the US there is a huge difference between a masters and a doctorate, not so much in Europe (or Northern Europe, at least). Yet, it is still there and for a good reason.

Pretty much everything I have written about pharaonic Egypt would be familiar to students pursuing an undergraduate degree in Near Eastern studies. But you don't need to hear this from me. This web page with its peripheral links will show you the educational program students encounter at the University of Chicago, as one example. However, a properly trained Egyptologist would in fact have a good understanding of diseases found in mummies. That's a given. Does it mean every Egyptologist would be an expert in the subject? No, which is why Egyptologists turn to paleopathologists. An Egyptologist needs to understand not only the monuments people built but the people who built them, which includes their language, culture, religion, lives, and things that affected lives such as diet and common pathologies. I've never met an Egyptologist who wasn't well grounded in such topics.

<snip>

Admittedly, I know nothing of this field, but I find the arguments put forth rather interesting and it is not that hard to distinguish those that can argue their case from those that cannot. Even without basic knowledge in Egyptology :P Merely knowledge of science works.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that one got to about 6 or 7 feet, due mainly to there being a funneling pipe there that raises it 4 feet. So it probably would naturally be only 3 feet high. Somewhat less then 80 feet.

It doesn't work that way.

The extent to which a 80 foot geyser would have to be operating would likely need a tremendous amount of CO2. Maybe enough to cover the area in a layer of it and kill all the workers?

Yes. They handled the CO2 and spoke about it extensively. This was known

as the efflux of Osiris and they collected four jugs of it and buried it here

for future scientists.

There was a tiny ridge in the Upper Eye of Horus through which CO2 was forced

by the water pressure and degassing water through a tube to a point under the

fire-pan which could keep it afloat and signaling water movement indefinitely.

The Upper Eye was coated with a mixture of grease, natron, and musilagenous myhhr.

The grease wasa to bind the mixture and prevent its immediate dissolution. The

Natron caused the water to degas and the myhhr added an odor to the water so work-

ers would know it was safe. This entire area was enclosed by the Mehet Weret cow

and the "ram portals that hold people back". The children of Khenti-irty oversaw

this entire region from the djed to the ram portals. Since it was the "enlosed

place" the CO2 would collect in the bottom. This CO2 was sucked out by the "bil-

lows of the winding watercourse" marked at the point in the water catchment de-

vice where two inlets fed the canals leading to the cliff face counterweights. Air

was srawn in through the "air shafts" which they called an "air siphon". This air

was probably pushed in from the outside as well by small "sails" but I've not found

evidence for this yet.

The CO2, exhaled air, and sulphur dioxide were all sucked down the covered canal

and harmlessly released down the cliff face.

Read your PT. It's all in there. They aren't telling you to tiptoe through Osiris'

efflux so you can slow down and enjoy the corpse drippings. Thjey are telling you

to tiptoe because CO2 puddles in low lying areas and if you don't you'll die.

These were not stinky footed bumpkins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Skepticism, nice to meet you. Yes, I was aware that the mummies were used for medicine in Europe. I think they even used them for entertainment and display in fine mansions. Weird, but true. Yes, this where a lot of the mummies of the New Kingdom ended up. I shudder to think what was lost.

black"

Hi Mr Giles. I wasn't specific as to which mummies were used for mummiea. I was adding support as to why few mummies have been found. That's all. Thank you for responding to my post though. Its appreciated. Would you agree that quite a few mummies were lost forever due to ground up mummy being used as a medicine in Europe?

Edit to delete dust from a sentence as it was redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have already provided two links that prove rainfall was sufficient to support an ecosystem like a savanna, and you have ignored it. Here is how you find the data. Go to ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVE OF CHICAGO, GO TO RESEARCH PROJECTS, GO TO GIZA MAPPING PROJECT, 2000-2001 annual report by Mark Lehner, scroll down to WADI WASH AND READ IT OUT LOUD TO THE WHOLE CLASS. You are a menace to this forum, and I wish you would leave it entirely. We can do it without you. I have studied all the major pyramids, and I can assure you that there are about 27. Who's Lehner? Just kidding? You must be referring to the smaller satellite pyramids. As for which ones were surrounded by walls--all of them. You should know that if you've read Verner. As to who accepts my theory. Everyone I have spoken to about it who has enough information agrees with the theory. I regret that I ever communicated with you because now I have to clean that crap out of my head. Thanksandgoodbye.

In regards to precipitation, will yet again provide the following reference:

http://onlinelibrary...2/gea.10065/pdf

The following lay-oriented reference regarding modern precipitation levels may also worth a brief perusal:

"Moving southward, the amount of precipitation decreases suddenly. Cairo receives a little more than one centimeter of precipitation each year".

http://www.touregypt.net/climate.htm

It should be noted that the precipitation belts have shifted N > S over time. Further documentation can be provided. However, it is well established that precipitation in the area of focus has been quite limited for an extended period of time (beginning circa 5200 BP).

Thus, the one inch factor utilized in the calculations is not at all unreasonable for even a heavy rainfall given the time period and locus of concern.

You would also appear to incorrect in your estimation of major pyramids. The number is considered to be something more in the range of 36 (Lehner 1999:17). And how many of these have enclosure walls? Not to mention that they are spread over some 13 distinct site areas and cover a building span of some 10 Dynasties. To attempt to demonstrate that such a personally contrived "system" of water management was the intended motivation behind the construction efforts becomes more than questionable.

In addition to not addressing the basic mathematical issues, you have also assiduously avoided addressing the economic viability of your proposition. Primers on economic theory (be they biological or cultural) can be provided.

As to what happened during the rare incidence of abnormally heavy rainfall on the Giza Plateau? May it be speculated that the population involved merely dealt with such incidences much as can be observed today?

Re: "My theory is already accepted by so many." (PG # 560). As previously demonstrated, the term theory would hardly be applicable. And who are the "so many"? Hard numbers?

Lastly, it may be construed that you are operating under the premise that it is up to legitimate science to demonstrate the numerous flaws in your presentation. This is, of course, not the case. It lies upon your research to definitively demonstrate the mathematical, economic, cultural, and archaeological validity of such claims. This would not appear to be the case.

Edit:Typo.

Edited by patrickgiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the Old Kingdom pyramids were used for rain catchment except for the ones I have already mentioned such as Menkaura which was never finished in stone. When the rains ended completely, they stopped building this type of pyramid complex. After the Intermediate Period, they began building them again to imitate their predecessors, but they were not built to catch rainwater. They were built as tombs. I have studied their floor plans, and concluded that they could not be used to catch rainwater. I am also drawing on my memory. I have no problem remembering what I wrote for seven years. What is the difference between a doctorate and a masters? I', being serious this time. I don't know. Do they teach or something? Thank you for you civility. I regret that it reached such a fevered pitch, but I am not one to back down from an argument if I truly believe I am right. The reliefs are not strictly funerary. There were depictions of the marsh, farmers picking crops, boats sailing on the rivers, and kings spearing hippos. Please tell me which ones were funerary? You say it was not worth the effort to build a pyramid to catch rainwater for sseveral hundreds years? But is was worth it to build a tomb? That's crazy talk. With respect, and my full name, Patrick Thomas Giles

No, you don't need to specialize in every facet. But if you honestly consider yourself an Egyptologist, you need to be very familiar with all of the basics. I'm home right now but my posts from earlier today were composed during breaks at work, which means I was just drawing from memory. I had no access to my library. Still, I've been able to post about New Kingdom tombs and the socio-politics of that period because they are very basic facts. I am not an expert and I am not an Egyptologist, but pulling basic facts from memory is hardly a challenge. If you don't have a grasp of such basics, refrain from calling yourself an Egyptologist. You're only going to hurt yourself.

This is essentially what I wrote in an earlier post, aside from your comments about doctoral studies. A doctorate is not the same as a masters.

Pretty much everything I have written about pharaonic Egypt would be familiar to students pursuing an undergraduate degree in Near Eastern studies. But you don't need to hear this from me. This web page with its peripheral links will show you the educational program students encounter at the University of Chicago, as one example. However, a properly trained Egyptologist would in fact have a good understanding of diseases found in mummies. That's a given. Does it mean every Egyptologist would be an expert in the subject? No, which is why Egyptologists turn to paleopathologists. An Egyptologist needs to understand not only the monuments people built but the people who built them, which includes their language, culture, religion, lives, and things that affected lives such as diet and common pathologies. I've never met an Egyptologist who wasn't well grounded in such topics.

No, of course I don't know Egyptologists who have mastered everything. You're right that Egyptologists will go into specialties such as death and burial, linguistics, socio-politics, religion, and the like, but all of them have to have a very well-rounded education and be very well versed in the basics. I personally know several Egyptologists and of these I have become a close acquaintance with a couple, but I have worked closely with all of them whom I know. I'm saying this only to express the fact that any of these Egyptologists I know happen to know more about pharaonic Egypt than you and I combined (several times over) and could spin circles around the two of us.

This is why I react so strongly to people who call themselves Egyptologists but who actually have no such training or degree. You have not earned the right to call yourself that. Nor have I.

This is becoming less productive and useful the more you and I bang heads. You don't like me? Who cares? I'm not here for you to like me. I have no dislike for you, but I'm not at UM to be your buddy. I am here to defend orthodox scholarship. You keep returning to personal slights and subtle insults, and I don't understand why. I can't imagine you're enjoying yourself so I have to ask, why are you still here? This is just an internet forum. If you don't enjoy any of this, you don't have to keep at it. You can leave and not post anymore. If you wish to stay and continue to engage us, then that's good. Just stop it with the personal slights and subtle insults. They're tedious and unproductive to debate.

At this point there's no reason for me to go on replying to the rest of your post, so I am going to try to turn the conversation back to the merits of useful debate. I have some questions I'd like you to answer, based on your rain-catchment theme.

  • You argue that all of the pyramids were rain-catchment systems, working in union with their mortuary temples, causeways, and valley temples. Yet not all pyramids have all of these features in every case. Between Djoser's pyramid in Dynasty 3 and Ahmose I's in Dynasty 18, pyramid complexes took on a variety of forms. How do you explain the pyramid complexes that don't really fit your model?
  • In previous posts I and others have brought up the decoration plans of mortuary temples, causeways, valley temples, and later pyramids inscribed with Pyramid Texts. These decoration plans are strictly funerary in nature, showing the deceased kings in the attendance of mortuary deities and in various contexts of receiving offerings. Your answer is that these complexes may have been cenotaphs. That's an intelligent answer but not a complete answer. Why would the Egyptians have built such costly state projects to serve as both rain catchments and cenotaphs? Based on the full breadth of pharaonic culture, the two entities have no observable relationship.
  • In previous posts I and at least one other poster have pointed out that cenotaphs are not actually known until the Middle Kingdom, and specifically to the reign of Senusret III. I'm not saying an earlier model of cenotaphs is impossible, but what evidence can you offer to support your claim? Nearly all of the pyramids (albeit not all of them) can be directly attributed to specific kings between Dynasty 3 and Dynasty 18. So why has not even a single other tomb been found for any of these kings if all of their pyramids were cenotaphs?

I can think of more questions but this is enough for now. Hopefully this can get us back on track and help to dial down the acrimony building between you and me. Believe it or not, I don't want to bicker and I don't enjoy the hostility between us. I'd rather debate the evidence. ;)

Editing to add: What I did not express well at all in the above paragraph is that I apologize for the acrimony I have caused. I am at fault, too. I would rather talk ancient Egypt. If we both descend into bickering again, I'll probably back out of the conversation for a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure there is a book somewhere entitled ''How To Make Friends and Influence People''

I need say no more :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL they know me as Aus but my friends call me that phone Guy or Mr skepticism. Good to meet you too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the Old Kingdom pyramids were used for rain catchment except for the ones I have already mentioned such as Menkaura which was never finished in stone. When the rains ended completely, they stopped building this type of pyramid complex. After the Intermediate Period, they began building them again to imitate their predecessors, but they were not built to catch rainwater. They were built as tombs. I have studied their floor plans, and concluded that they could not be used to catch rainwater. I am also drawing on my memory. I have no problem remembering what I wrote for seven years. What is the difference between a doctorate and a masters? I', being serious this time. I don't know. Do they teach or something? Thank you for you civility. I regret that it reached such a fevered pitch, but I am not one to back down from an argument if I truly believe I am right. The reliefs are not strictly funerary. There were depictions of the marsh, farmers picking crops, boats sailing on the rivers, and kings spearing hippos. Please tell me which ones were funerary? You say it was not worth the effort to build a pyramid to catch rainwater for sseveral hundreds years? But is was worth it to build a tomb? That's crazy talk. With respect, and my full name, Patrick Thomas Giles

Right, and because you need a civic engineer to calculate the feasibility of it you are elevating it to a faith dogma. Long live the Pope of the Rain Catcher Cult.

All I can deduce is that you have never been to Egypt if we exclude the "Here on your left, one mile away, is the Great Pyramid, the bus leaves in fifteen minutes" tour.

This is how, just as in rural areas everywhere in Egypt to this day, water was sourced:

4813bw25nilewashing.jpg

Until the midst of last century there was the profession of the water carrier (here a hand coloredphoto from 1900):

%21B6s-oTwBGk%7E$%28KGrHqUOKm4Ey2UtWhbuBMyTfDPRN%21%7E%7E-1_35.JPG

whose job consisted in going to the river, or a well near the river as seen in this illustration:

k43.jpg

and surprise, surprise, we have the same people represented in figurines of the ancient kingdom:

sriimg20091022_11389348_3.jpg

There was no need for any water catching facilities because the Nile supplied (and still supplies) all the water needs of Egypt. So you have a non-starter there too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no need for any water catching facilities because the Nile supplied (and still supplies) all the water needs of Egypt. So you have a non-starter there too.

So your contention is that the Nile never dried up there was always

warm muddy water in it so they never had need for clean water that

didn't need to be lifted up from the river.

This would explain why the Khentkawes Town cistern couldn't be filled

in rain events but it doesn't explain why they could channel the water

from rains in order to fill it.

We have jet planes and rocket travel today yet some people still use

horses, canoes, and dog sled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your contention is that the Nile never dried up there was always

warm muddy water in it so they never had need for clean water that

didn't need to be lifted up from the river.

This would explain why the Khentkawes Town cistern couldn't be filled

in rain events but it doesn't explain why they could channel the water

from rains in order to fill it.

We have jet planes and rocket travel today yet some people still use

horses, canoes, and dog sled.

Yes, there is no historical mention of the Nile ever drying up to the point that water could not be sourced there. If that were the case most of Africa would have to have had a dry spell as most of the Nile water comes from there, of which there is certainly no evidence. In fact, the Nile valley was center of the civilization because of the Nile after the surroundings dried out, which happened about 10,000 years before any pyramid was build.

As I said before, check the facts before trying to sell us some weird theory based on the drugged rantings of some priest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is no historical mention of the Nile ever drying up to the point that water could not be sourced there. If that were the case most of Africa would have to have had a dry spell as most of the Nile water comes from there, of which there is certainly no evidence. In fact, the Nile valley was center of the civilization because of the Nile after the surroundings dried out, which happened about 10,000 years before any pyramid was build.

As I said before, check the facts before trying to sell us some weird theory based on the drugged rantings of some priest.

I didn't suggest the Nile dried up.

As an aside the Nile did have numerous backwaters that did dry up and

these would become fetid swamps and muddy bogs. Getting to the river

in these areas would be very difficult for people. But, no, the Nile

has probably not ceased it's flow even momentarily since man has inhab-

ited the planet. The real problem is that the flow used to be many times

greater and the valley was nearly full of the river but this was a few

thousand years before the time in question. There was also a northern

branch of the river that was just north of G1 but, this was likely dry

by the time construction began.

But the existence of the Nile doesn't prove any specific individual ever

drank out of it. It doesn't prove that anyone ever drank out of it. It

is well established that people drank out of it but your pictures prove

nothing at all. If I found a shot of someone drinking a Perrier while

gazing over the Nile at Cairo would that prove that Thutmoses drank bot-

tled water? The quality of your evidence is exceedingly poor. It virtu-

ally isn't evidence at all. Quality evidence points in a single direction

and is well established.

The contention is that there is a watercatchment device around G1. This

is shown beyond much real doubt. It is fact. Patrick Giles believes the

water was rain water used by the ancients. I agree except I believe that

most of the water was seltzer water and that besides making a handy liba-

tion for the pyramid builders it also was used to lift the stones before

being used for irrigation and "bottling". The water from the Eye of Horus

was divided up for various purposes but 1/ 64th was "lost" it was the "re-

mainder" that was drunk by the builders and those to whom the "water like

wine" was shipped.

It's all in the PT if you just read it.

You can't make an ommelete without breaking a few eggs but people look at

the mountain of egg shells and pronounce it sand. They look at the giant

ommelete and call it a religion.

Look at it again. It is a rain catchment device and to deny it is to use a

blindfold. Call it a sacred rain catchment device if it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The water from the Eye of Horus was divided up for various purposes but 1/ 64th

was "lost" it was the "remainder" that was drunk by the builders and those to whom

the "water like wine" was shipped.

To be more exact it's likely that 1/ 32nd was what was drunk and 1/ 64th is

what seeped into and between the stones but I was trying to maintain the "flow"

of the thought and didn't want to complicate it with more complex ideas. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't suggest the Nile dried up.

As an aside the Nile did have numerous backwaters that did dry up and

these would become fetid swamps and muddy bogs. Getting to the river

in these areas would be very difficult for people. But, no, the Nile

has probably not ceased it's flow even momentarily since man has inhab-

ited the planet. The real problem is that the flow used to be many times

greater and the valley was nearly full of the river but this was a few

thousand years before the time in question. There was also a northern

branch of the river that was just north of G1 but, this was likely dry

by the time construction began.

But the existence of the Nile doesn't prove any specific individual ever

drank out of it. It doesn't prove that anyone ever drank out of it. It

is well established that people drank out of it but your pictures prove

nothing at all. If I found a shot of someone drinking a Perrier while

gazing over the Nile at Cairo would that prove that Thutmoses drank bot-

tled water? The quality of your evidence is exceedingly poor. It virtu-

ally isn't evidence at all. Quality evidence points in a single direction

and is well established.

The contention is that there is a watercatchment device around G1. This

is shown beyond much real doubt. It is fact. Patrick Giles believes the

water was rain water used by the ancients. I agree except I believe that

most of the water was seltzer water and that besides making a handy liba-

tion for the pyramid builders it also was used to lift the stones before

being used for irrigation and "bottling". The water from the Eye of Horus

was divided up for various purposes but 1/ 64th was "lost" it was the "re-

mainder" that was drunk by the builders and those to whom the "water like

wine" was shipped.

It's all in the PT if you just read it.

You can't make an ommelete without breaking a few eggs but people look at

the mountain of egg shells and pronounce it sand. They look at the giant

ommelete and call it a religion.

Look at it again. It is a rain catchment device and to deny it is to use a

blindfold. Call it a sacred rain catchment device if it helps.

The Nile has been changing beds all through history, bud nobody built wells or rain catcher for hardly existing rain, they upped and moved the towns and villages back to the banks of the Nile. That is why we find most archaeological evidence a few miles away from the Nile instead of on its banks. Because right on its banks is where the newer towns are. In fact, towns finally moved inland after the introduction of canalization. Which for the case of Egypt was not until the times of Marc Antony and he was guiding Nile water to the towns, not building any futile rain catcher. By then the worms had eaten the remains of whomever build the pyramids.

It certainly surprises me that somebody who accuses the rest of the world to consider ancient Egyptians "barefoot bumpkins" puts forward theories that make them look like idiots.

Sorry, another unevidenced non-starter.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nile has been changing beds all through history, bud nobody built wells or rain catcher for hardly existing rain, they upped and moved the towns and villages back to the banks of the Nile. That is why we find most archaeological evidence a few miles away from the Nile instead of on its banks. Because right on its banks is where the newer towns are. In fact, towns finally moved inland after the introduction of canalization. Which for the case of Egypt was not until the times of Marc Antony and he was guiding Nile water to the towns, not building any futile rain catcher. By then the worms had eaten the remains of whomever build the pyramids.

It certainly surprises me that somebody who accuses the rest of the world to consider ancient Egyptians "barefoot bumpkins" puts forward theories that make them look like idiots.

Sorry, another unevidenced non-starter.

I frankly don't understand how my belief that drinking "cool effervescent water like wine"

would paint the ancients in a bad light. Building the water catchment devices was very easy

work as all it required was to level a small section of ground where the water came up. It

also had a pavement laid over it to prevent the water from leaking into cracks and fissures.

The enclosure at Sakkarae probably took no more than several thousand man hours of work and

according to the Palermo Stone provided some 100,000,000 gallons of crystal clear drinking

water each year.

Building the pyramid required a lot of extra work but it wasn't necessary to the operation.

Even if it really was a pump the fact remains it's irrelevant to the operation of the water

catchment. Yes, there is a finite possibility that the catchment was to collect water that

was pumped up by the pyramid but the evidence for this appears weak at this time.

Let's just pretend the function of the pyramid is wholly irrelevant. This shouldn't be very

hard to do since the catchment was built first. With this in mind consider that the pyramid

is only important in this equation if we assume that it took a lot of hard work to build. If

it was very easy to build... ...if the Gods actually lifted the stones as the men sat back

sipping cool water then the entire equation is rewritten. The pyramid becomes merely an ad-

junct of unknown usage to the water catchment device.

I certainly agree that dragging 6 1/2 million tons up ramps just to catch extra rain is highly

improbable. But the pyramid was built after the catchment so perhaps they needed rain water

in order to use in counterweights to lift stones. This isn't my belief either but it is more

in keeping with the evidence than that they used ramps to build a pyramid and the catchment is

incidental. A 37 acre water catchment device whose output was used to name the years is most

certainly not incidental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I frankly don't understand how my belief that drinking "cool effervescent water like wine"

would paint the ancients in a bad light. Building the water catchment devices was very easy

work as all it required was to level a small section of ground where the water came up. It

also had a pavement laid over it to prevent the water from leaking into cracks and fissures.

The enclosure at Sakkarae probably took no more than several thousand man hours of work and

according to the Palermo Stone provided some 100,000,000 gallons of crystal clear drinking

water each year.

Building the pyramid required a lot of extra work but it wasn't necessary to the operation.

Even if it really was a pump the fact remains it's irrelevant to the operation of the water

catchment. Yes, there is a finite possibility that the catchment was to collect water that

was pumped up by the pyramid but the evidence for this appears weak at this time.

Let's just pretend the function of the pyramid is wholly irrelevant. This shouldn't be very

hard to do since the catchment was built first. With this in mind consider that the pyramid

is only important in this equation if we assume that it took a lot of hard work to build. If

it was very easy to build... ...if the Gods actually lifted the stones as the men sat back

sipping cool water then the entire equation is rewritten. The pyramid becomes merely an ad-

junct of unknown usage to the water catchment device.

I certainly agree that dragging 6 1/2 million tons up ramps just to catch extra rain is highly

improbable. But the pyramid was built after the catchment so perhaps they needed rain water

in order to use in counterweights to lift stones. This isn't my belief either but it is more

in keeping with the evidence than that they used ramps to build a pyramid and the catchment is

incidental. A 37 acre water catchment device whose output was used to name the years is most

certainly not incidental.

Again, reality has nothing to do with the rantings of drugged priest and second, not all, like you would evidently, would build a rain catcher over 20 years because one year there was less water in the Nile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, reality has nothing to do with the rantings of drugged priest and second, not all, like you would evidently, would build a rain catcher over 20 years because one year there was less water in the Nile.

I don't think he even makes sense to himself anymore. But he will tell you its all logic...lmao keep up the exhausting good work questionmark.

To questionmark... yes

To cladking... NO!

LOL

Just some humor... good start to a new day folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, reality has nothing to do with the rantings of drugged priest and second, not all, like you would evidently, would build a rain catcher over 20 years because one year there was less water in the Nile.

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was always water in the Nile...................................................

It was a choice between slogging through mud and trekking down

to the river to get bad water or drinking "cool effervescent water

like wine".

If the only evidence were a few lines picked randomly out of the PT

there would be no reason to believe "the rantings of drugged priests".

But it's not a few isolated lines from the PT. The entire culture and

a coherent meaning in the PT fully support the physical evidence which

is consistent with these being water catchment devices.

There is simply no escaping these facts. Just because these particular

facts have never been looked at in this light before doesn't change their

status as facts. The watercatchment device exhibits proof it was used.

Certainly orthodoxy would claim these particular facts are incidental and

they are in close agreement with you about the builders but there is more

than one way to skin a cat and I believe the cats at Giza are in no danger

from orthodoxy. They misunderstand and misapprehend the builders and their

work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was always water in the Nile...................................................

It was a choice between slogging through mud and trekking down

to the river to get bad water or drinking "cool effervescent water

like wine".

If the only evidence were a few lines picked randomly out of the PT

there would be no reason to believe "the rantings of drugged priests".

But it's not a few isolated lines from the PT. The entire culture and

a coherent meaning in the PT fully support the physical evidence which

is consistent with these being water catchment devices.

There is simply no escaping these facts. Just because these particular

facts have never been looked at in this light before doesn't change their

status as facts. The watercatchment device exhibits proof it was used.

Certainly orthodoxy would claim these particular facts are incidental and

they are in close agreement with you about the builders but there is more

than one way to skin a cat and I believe the cats at Giza are in no danger

from orthodoxy. They misunderstand and misapprehend the builders and their

work.

and here we go again cladking, did you ever try to make sense?

And this has nothing to do with orthodoxy, it has something to do with the reality on the ground and that is that nobody ever bothered to build a rain catchment in Egypt...cause it does not rain enough to make it feasible and in the times when it rained enough there was no desert.... many thousand years before there were any pyramids.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and here we go again cladking, did you ever try to make sense?

And this has nothing to do with orthodoxy, it has something to do with the reality on the ground and that is that nobody ever bothered to build a rain catchment in Egypt...cause it does not rain enough to make it feasible and in the times when it rained enough there was no desert.... many thousand years before there were any pyramids.

Do you try to follow what people are saying?

There is a watercatchment and it was used. This is a fact.

Patrick Giles believes it primarily caught rain water.

I believe it primarily caught cool effervescent water like wine and secondarily

caught rain water. It also collected some condensation and the pyramid might have

been designed to maximize this condensate. However, it is not my contention that

they built the pyramid to make condensate nor to catch rain water. It is not even

my contention that it was needed to have cool effervescent water like wine. It is

my contention the cool effervescent water like wine was there so they made a catch-

ment.

The watercatchment was important for drinking water. It was important for growing

cash crops and specialty crops. It was instrumental and necessary to build the pyr-

amid. But this is not to say the pyramid was necessary to the water catchment; it

most probably was not. The catchment was built first and is necessary. The pyramid

was built second and at this point we don't really know why other than what the build-

ers said. They said it was the instrument of ascension and that the Gods built it. I

don't believe they were sun addled or drugged and that they spoke exactly what they

meant. I don't believe stinky footed bumpkins could build any sort of pyramid at all.

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you try to follow what people are saying?

There is a watercatchment and it was used. This is a fact.

Patrick Giles believes it primarily caught rain water.

I believe it primarily caught cool effervescent water like wine and secondarily

caught rain water. It also collected some condensation and the pyramid might have

been designed to maximize this condensate. However, it is not my contention that

they built the pyramid to make condensate nor to catch rain water. It is not even

my contention that it was needed to have cool effervescent water like wine.

The watercatchment was important for drinking water. It was important for growing

cash crops and specialty crops. It was instrumental and necessary to build the pyr-

amid. But this is not to say the pyramid was necessary to the water catchment; it

most probably was not. The catchment was built first and is necessary. The pyramid

was built second and at this point we don't really know why other than what the build-

ers said. They said it was the instrument of ascension and that the Gods built it. I

don't believe they were sun addled or drugged and that they spoke exactly what they

meant. I don't believe stinky bumpkins could build any sort of pyramid at all.

It does not matter how much you try to twist and/or ignore the facts until they fit your last interpretation of the pyramid texts: It never happened that way. You evidently do not know the most basic things about the agriculture in ancient Egypt else you would not ridicule yourself with the above intellectual diarrhea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not matter how much you try to twist and/or ignore the facts until they fit your last interpretation of the pyramid texts: It never happened that way. You evidently do not know the most basic things about the agriculture in ancient Egypt else you would not ridicule yourself with the above intellectual diarrhea.

The only single thing I said in the quoted text that isn't established

fact or derived from established fat is that there was water coming out

of the ground at Giza. Disregarding the fact that the builders said in

no uncertain terms that this was true it should be noted that Horapollo

confirmed this idea. He said the ancients believed water came out of

the ground. It's impossible for water to come out of the ground in the

valley and this leaves only the deserts along the route of the Nile. No

body in ancient times ever said they used ramps. This is a modern inven-

tion for the main part.

There you have it. Everything in the preceding post is either established

fact or supported by historical accounts and all you have is the modern

notion that they mustta used ramps. There is no support for ramps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only single thing I said in the quoted text that isn't established

fact or derived from established fat is that there was water coming out

of the ground at Giza. Disregarding the fact that the builders said in

no uncertain terms that this was true it should be noted that Horapollo

confirmed this idea. He said the ancients believed water came out of

the ground. It's impossible for water to come out of the ground in the

valley and this leaves only the deserts along the route of the Nile. No

body in ancient times ever said they used ramps. This is a modern inven-

tion for the main part.

There you have it. Everything in the preceding post is either established

fact or supported by historical accounts and all you have is the modern

notion that they mustta used ramps. There is no support for ramps.

Which is your way of saying: Sorry for trying to feed you a line of bullpoop, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only single thing I said in the quoted text that isn't established

fact or derived from established fat is that there was water coming out

of the ground at Giza. Disregarding the fact that the builders said in

no uncertain terms that this was true it should be noted that Horapollo

confirmed this idea. He said the ancients believed water came out of

the ground. It's impossible for water to come out of the ground in the

valley and this leaves only the deserts along the route of the Nile. No

body in ancient times ever said they used ramps. This is a modern inven-

tion for the main part.

There you have it. Everything in the preceding post is either established

fact or supported by historical accounts and all you have is the modern

notion that they mustta used ramps. There is no support for ramps.

If everything was established fact it would be orthodox... swallow that for a second.

A water catchment as described is a fallacy. And your twist even further outside the realm of reality. Your trying to say they struggled for water with the Nile right there. If they didn't need the Nile the would not build next to it. Every culture has an origin next to a water source. Not a water catchment source.

Again if it was established fact it would be orthodox... how does that make you feel cladking... dirty?

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If everything was established fact it would be orthodox... swallow that for a second.

It is orthodox.

Orthodoxy simply arranges the facts differently.

A water catchment as described is a fallacy.

You aren't paying attention to what the Egyptologists try to hide;

" From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement"

Don't pay any attention to the man in the booth or 92 word sentences.

Your trying to say they struggled for water with the Nile right there.

The Nile valley is more than ten miles wide in places. The Nile isn't

"right there".

If they didn't need the Nile the would not build next to it. Every culture has an origin next to a water source. Not a water catchment source.

:)

This region was settled before 5000 BC when almost the entire Nile Valley

was flooded year round. There's such a thing as too much water, too.

Again if it was established fact it would be orthodox... how does that make you feel cladking... dirty?

If it did I'd have cool effervescent water to shower in while all you get

is schistosomiasis.

Why should believing my ancestors didn't squish their toes around in corpse

drippings make me feel "dirty". Maybe it's you who should feel uncomfortable.

With the proclivity of the ancients to forever be washing their feet one might

think they believed clean feet to be associated with clean hands and a clean

mind. Sure doesn't sound like people who tiptoed through corpse drippings.

My ancestors were not stinky footed bumpkins.

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.