[Merged] The Kariong Glyphs

[kmt_sesh]

Night Walker, if the Ray Johnson that Mr. Senff is referring to is W. Raymond Johnson, then he is very well qualified as an Egyptologist.

It is mentioned that W. Raymond Johnson has been with the Oriental Institute of University of Chicago, at the Epigraphical Survey at Luxor Temple, in Egypt.

Whether he did actually translate the text can be ascertained by asking kmt sesh, who is from Chicago and who is a docent at the Field Museum of Natural History and the Oriental Institute. He would be knowing this ray Johnson and could confirm whether the text was indeed translated by him, by correspondence.

edit to add :

Sorry. This Ray Johnson is not the Ray Johnson i wrote about. The W. Raymond Johnson i was speaking about.

From Mr. Sneff's own words

Source

I have searched the web for the book "Basic Hieroglyphia" , but couldn't get any reference to it. could anyone help?

The_Spartan, you would be correct in assuming that I am familiar with Ray Johnson of the Oriental Institute. I can't say that I "know" him but I attended a lecture of his and he was one of the O.I.'s Egyptologists who helped to train me and a number of others when we were studying to become docents some years ago. He is the director of the Chicago House in Luxor, Egypt, and due to his commitments there he spends most of his time in Egypt.

The Truth's Ray Johnson cannot be the same man. Granted, it's a common name, but as has been pointed out the Ray Johnson with whom I'm acquainted is still very much alive. And the Ray Johnson with whom I'm acquainted is very much a real Egyptologist and one of the world's leading figures in the field of Egyptological epigraphy (the study of Egyptian inscriptions, in this case primarily at Medinet Habu but also in the general region of Luxor). I am not familiar with the Ray Johnson about whom The Truth has written, nor am I familiar with an Egyptologist by that name from Australia.

I'd wager that The Truth's Ray Johnson was not really an Egyptologist. Some people with an interest in Egyptology have the misguided tendency to slap this label onto themselves as though it's appropriate to do so. It is not. Moreover, some of this things The Truth has written about Ray Johnson's beliefs in hieroglyphs (e.g., the number of hieroglyphs in the Egyptian repertoire) are far from accurate. The Dr. Ray Johnson from the Oriental Institute would never be guilty of such obvious mistakes, given the fact that he is an expert in the field of epigraphy. Someone like the O.I.'s Ray Johnson will forget more about hieroglyphs in the next few minutes than most of us have learned in our lifetimes.

I just want everyone to be absolutely clear on this, in the interests of avoiding misrepresentation: the Ray Johnson about whom The Truth has written is definitely not the Ray Johnson who directs the Chicago House in Luxor.

My only question for the moment is, why is this particular thread even operating? The Truth has an almost identical one running side by side with this one. It seems redundant.

[kmt_sesh]

Von Senff, I would caution extreme care on your part in moving forward. I just posted something and only then noticed something from cormac's previous post:

35. Johnson, W. R., Basic Hieroglyphia, Copyright Mrs. E. M. Rumble

36. Johnson, W. R., "Letter to Dia Abu-Ghazi", May 1994

37. Johnson, W. R., Oriental Institute of Chicago, USA

It does indeed at least seem like you're trying to pass of Dr. Ray Johnson from the Oriental Institute in Chicago as the Ray Johnson about whom you've written. In the very least your intentions in this regard are quite unclear. I understand Ray Johnson is a common name, but we all know your Ray Johnson is not the same as the Ray Johnson who works for the O.I. and runs the Chicago House in Luxor, Egypt.

I am very well acquainted with the O.I. and its research, as well as its proprietary protocols. It is very protective of its intellectual materials, as well as of its researchers and staff who produce these materials. You could find yourself in a world of hurt should the O.I. feel you're misrepresenting Dr. Johnson. And it's not a battle you could hope to win, I guarantee you. Tread very carefully. Make it crystal-clear in all your written material that your Ray Johnson is not the same as the O.I.'s Dr. Johnson, as well as the fact that nothing in the O.I.'s research efforts has any relevance to your materials.

[The_Spartan]

Von Senff, I would caution extreme care on your part in moving forward. I just posted something and only then noticed something from cormac's previous post:

It does indeed at least seem like you're trying to pass of Dr. Ray Johnson from the Oriental Institute in Chicago as the Ray Johnson about whom you've written. In the very least your intentions in this regard are quite unclear. I understand Ray Johnson is a common name, but we all know your Ray Johnson is not the same as the Ray Johnson who works for the O.I. and runs the Chicago House in Luxor, Egypt.

I am very well acquainted with the O.I. and its research, as well as its proprietary protocols. It is very protective of its intellectual materials, as well as of its researchers and staff who produce these materials. You could find yourself in a world of hurt should the O.I. feel you're misrepresenting Dr. Johnson. And it's not a battle you could hope to win, I guarantee you. Tread very carefully. Make it crystal-clear in all your written material that your Ray Johnson is not the same as the O.I.'s Dr. Johnson, as well as the fact that nothing in the O.I.'s research efforts has any relevance to your materials.

Kmt, that pdf which cormac had quoted from is not by Sneff, but by another pal of his Dr. Reinoud de Jonge, who though claiming to be an archaeologist is not one, but only a theoretical physical chemist

the link to his paper can be seen here

I have already email to Dr. W.Raymond Johnson, the link to the pdf and quoted the reference portion.

Please refer to the last page which gives W.Raymond Johnson in the list of references.

Dr. Johnson should immediately ask these folks to cease and desist from using his name in such articles which paint a very wrong picture about him.

[kmt_sesh]

Kmt, that pdf which cormac had quoted from is not by Sneff, but by another pal of his Dr. Reinoud de Jonge, who though claiming to be an archaeologist is not one, but only a theoretical physical chemist

the link to his paper can be seen here

I have already email to Dr. W.Raymond Johnson, the link to the pdf and quoted the reference portion.

Please refer to the last page which gives W.Raymond Johnson in the list of references.

Dr. Johnson should immediately ask these folks to cease and desist from using his name in such articles which paint a very wrong picture about him.

Thanks for straightening that out, Spartan. I had thought it was Sneff.

Keep us apprised on any response you might get from Dr. Johnson. In the very least it's really confusing to determine how he's being referenced in this "slideshow." It's not real-world research and will have no effect on academia, but no serious researcher like Dr. Johnson likes to be misrepresented.

People can pretend all they want that they're archaeologists or Egyptologists. We've all seen it here at UM many times. What they post shows themselves not to be well versed in most any subject related to archaeology or Egyptology, so in the end they're only showing themselves to be pretenders.

What I don't understand is that in a disproportional share of examples, the people doing this seem to be Australians. What's up with that? I think Puzzler should get out there and start kicking some butt.

[questionmark]

What I don't understand is that in a disproportional share of examples, the people doing this seem to be Australians. What's up with that? I think Puzzler should get out there and start kicking some butt.

Must be the good old "If ya ain't got none pyramids ya gotta paint yerself some" syndrome.

[kmt_sesh]

Must be the good old "If ya ain't got none pyramids ya gotta paint yerself some" syndrome.

Exactly what I'm wondering. Something like that takes a hell of a lot of paint, but in the end it still can't really cover the fantasy on which it's based.

[kmt_sesh]

On the subject of Ray Johnson from the University of Chicago, I did a search for him on the O.I.'s website and came up with this page:

Oriental Institute Publications

This was the work of two minutes and I have no idea how much else might be out there in other databases, like JSTOR. In any case the hits on the above web page allow you to read research conducted by the O.I.'s Ray Johnson. I didn't notice anything about Australia.

[kmt_sesh]

I finally have a moment to jump in and post, which I've been meaning to do for a couple of days. This argument is nothing new but bears comment, if for no other reason than to provide a balance for others who might happen across the discussion. I'd like to begin by responding to some inconsistencies or factual errors I noticed in the post below, much of which has been trimmed away so I could keep it to relevant historical matters.

...

Let me try to explain what I mean. You do not find archaeological artefacts, without them coming from somewhere. Rex Gilroy wrote about the Phonecians, but they only existed some 1500 years B.C. However, the Egyptians build temples in some cities, like Byblos or Amrit and Tyros about 3100 to 2900 years before Christ; hence these cities where Egyptian Colonies (In order to secure a permanent timber supply) which some thousand years later became Phonecian cities.

It's my understanding that Rex Gilroy also believes in UFOs and Bigfoot, so he cannot be regarded as credible to begin with. However, in point of fact, the Egyptians didn't build temples in Byblos or other Syro-Palestinian cities. They maintained garrisons in the Levant, on and off, and probably the garrisons erected shrines for their own use, but the Egyptians did not colonize the Levant. The exception might be small towns established by the Egyptians in southern Palestine roughly in the period leading into state formation, but this sort of Egyptian presence was short-lived and does not appear to have lasted much or at all beyond the earliest stages of the Early Dynastic Period (Dynasty 1-3). Byblos itself had a close diplomatic and trading relationship with Egypt from the very beginning and was clearly influenced by Egyptian culture and architecture, but Egyptian-style monuments in Byblos were built by people from Byblos.

Egypt did not colonize Syro-Palestine, in other words. The only region they clearly colonized and maintained a permanent presence was Kush (ancient Nubia, today's northern Sudan). The Egyptians were not interested in colonization, nor were they explorers or adventurers. If they sought an interest in a territory not their own, it was only because that territory possessed natural resources the Egyptians lacked. They did not even care to sail the open ocean. The extent of their sailing, distance-wise, was south down the western Red Sea coast to Punt or north up the Levantine coast to Byblos and adjacent areas. And it was strictly for purposes of trade or war.

About the Glyphs. Ray Johnson, whose Basic Hieroglypia I use by permission of the copyright holder, contains altogether 2.877 Glyphs,which is nearly 4 times the amount that Gardiner, Witthuhn, Budge or Betro uses in their various encyclopeadias, hence I

(being a linguist) have no problem to use them, by a constant cross reference among all Grammars in order to arrive at the correct transliteration.

I have to stress in no uncertain terms to any and all reading this that this is not the Dr. Ray Johnson from the University of Chicago, Oriental Institute. Ray Johnson of the O.I. is an eminent researcher and a leading expert in Egyptian epigraphy. The two must not be mistaken as the same person in any manner.

For example, anyone well trained in Egyptian hieroglyphs would know there were not almost 3,000 different hieroglyphs at any point in pharaonic history. The peak was reached early in the Early Dynastic Period, at around 1,000 different glyphs. This repertoire was significantly trimmed even by early in the Old Kingdom. For most of the 3,000-plus years of pharaonic history, hieroglyphs came and went but numbered something over 700. Whoever your Ray Johnson was, Hans-Dieter, if he truly believed there were 2,877 different glyphs, he was wildly off track. The only explanation I can think of is that he was counting the many subtle variants of many glyphs as different glyphs onto themselves, but this would be an obvious mistake.

You refer to yourself as a linguist, Hans-Dieter, so I must inquire as to your linguistic training and your specialty. It's obviously not ancient Egyptian. Your argument as presented cannot fit into any observable framework of Egyptological linguistics. I'm hoping to find the time to respond in depth to your PDF, which I've downloaded and read, because those in our group not acquainted with the ancient Egyptian scripts might be interested to know of the errors one can find in your PDF.

For example, on Page 140 of the PDF I noticed your comment that "Early Egyptian in most cases never had any vowels," after which you postulated on the different ways a certain set of glyphs might be pronounced ("...thus it could be read as 'AF' or as 'Fa'"). In point of fact, as with some scripts of other ancient Near Eastern peoples, at no point in time did ancient Egyptian scripts represent clear and formal vowel sounds; the closest one gets are the weak consonants. The first time the Egyptians employed true vowels in their writing was in Coptic, a mix of demotic and Greek, but that would not be classified as ancient Egyptian.

For another example, you argue that the Kariong glyphs represent a form of "proto-Egyptian." I am not familiar with this term in the lexicon of Egyptological linguistics, although I suppose it might be applied to the earliest known hieroglyphs. These were recovered by Günter Dreyer and his team at Abydos, in tomb Uj which dates to around 3320 BCE. However, nothing on the walls of the Kariong site even marginally resembles the forms and styles of the early hieroglyphs Dreyer discovered. The examples you cite on Page 13 of your PDF are definitely not in this category. What's seen at Kariong are clumsily etched attempts at Old or Middle Egyptian glyphs.

As a final example, you seem to be arguing that these Egyptians who landed in Australia came from the Old Kingdom and about the time of Khufu, and yet they were inscribing stuff in the oldest version of hieroglyphs. That alone is not realistic. By Sneferu's time hieroglyphs were already pretty much fixed as to form and style, as were linear glyphs and even hieratic. There would be no reason for Egyptians of this time to be writing in an extinct version of their own script. They would not have been trained in such writing--and nowhere is this evidenced in parallel at contemporary Egyptian sites. Moreover, the Kariong glyphs follow no orthography or style as relevant to Old Kingdom writing. There is no observable context. They're little more than a bunch of glyphs scattered about. No grammatical structure is evident. In other words, as is obvious to anyone who's actually been trained in Egyptian hieroglyphs, the glyphs etched into those Australian rock faces were put there by someone who perhaps read a book or two on Egyptian hieroglyphs but didn't really know anything substantial or meaningful about the ancient language itself.

[Swede]

Swede. The Glyph were some 4.500 years old, until re-carved by Sydney University Archaeology Students in 1964.The reason why the whole story is misunderstood, because it is written like a normal story, like Sinuhe, hence it does not contain any reference whatsoever, to the formal religious text, as is contained in the "Book of the Dead", WHICH IS THE NORMAL CULTURAL FARE OF Ancient Egyptian Burial. The reason for this is, it was the Priest, who was bitten by the snake and died. Incidently, if you go to a funeral, whether in the US of A or Australia, it could be a modern rendition, which only became accepted in Australia, after the A.O.G. introduced it here in the 1950's.

As regards to Manetho, I am firmly convinced that he is correct and the Christian commentators, in order to fit his King List into the Jewish (Christian) Creation Story, divided the some 25.000 years by Twelve, in order to make it fit.

But what does that mean? It means that the River Nile flooded 12 times a year, or, that a woman was pregnant for 21 days, before giving birth or, that the Harvest was done at least once a month. Clearly an imposibility. But the Christian commentators want you to believe it. Sorry, but I don't. The fact that Egypt was settled some 700.000 years before Christ is clearly established in Hoffmans: "Egypt before the Pharaohs" printed in the U.S.of A. but dont ask me for the date nor the publisher, as I am on the works computer.

But thanks for the commentary and the questions.

Hans.

So you then acknowledge that your claims regarding olivine bearing basalt are inaccurate? Good.

Now, as previously mentioned, by what manner of geological weathering studies have you confirmed that the "glyphs" date to circa 4500 BP? You would appear to utilizing a circular reasoning.

As has been pointed out by cormac, in no conceivable manner, based upon current research, was Egypt "settled" some 700,000 BP. Unless you would consider the possible habitation by the likes of H. erectus/heidelbergensis to constitute "settlement".

Kindly (and specifically) quote material by Hoffman that would support your less than credible speculation in regards to this matter.

As to your "chamber", it should be remembered that the specific formation in question is of a sedimentary/sandstone nature, and thus inclined to natural cleavage planes as per any exterior photographs of the immediate area.

.

[The Puzzler]

Well, considering neither the Ancient Egyptians nor the Ancient Sumerians were reknowned as explorers and/or were not considered particularly expansionist and that they didn't, actually, discover Australia, I'd say it's reasonable to state the likelihood of Ancient Egyptian (or proto-AE) or Ancient Sumerian (or proto-AS) glyphs being found in Australia as 'impossible'.

Unless they are of modern origin.

We do know Australia was not as isolated as we might think.

Dingoes arrived on Australian mainland thousands of years ago, not when original Aboriginals entered.

How did the dingoes get here and who bought them here?

The Australian Dingo is a free-roaming wild dog unique to the continent of Australia, mainly found in the outback. Its original ancestors are thought to have arrived with humans from southeast Asia thousands of years ago, when dogs were still relatively undomesticated and closer to their wild Asian grey wolf parent species, Canis lupus.

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

It's only a question to consider the possibility that cultural contacts were being made from Asia, maybe even India and Harappa, which had contact with Sumeria - to Australia.

If people from South East Asia were travelling to Australia thousands of years ago, it makes one wonder, who else was.

[kmt_sesh]

We do know Australia was not as isolated as we might think.

Dingoes arrived on Australian mainland thousands of years ago, not when original Aboriginals entered.

How did the dingoes get here and who bought them here?

The Australian Dingo is a free-roaming wild dog unique to the continent of Australia, mainly found in the outback. Its original ancestors are thought to have arrived with humans from southeast Asia thousands of years ago, when dogs were still relatively undomesticated and closer to their wild Asian grey wolf parent species, Canis lupus.

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

It's only a question to consider the possibility that cultural contacts were being made from Asia, maybe even India and Harappa, which had contact with Sumeria - to Australia.

If people from South East Asia were travelling to Australia thousands of years ago, it makes one wonder, who else was.

Southeast Asia is right there, practically next door. Ancient travelers from Southeast Asia would not be surprising, especially given the fact that much of the trip to Australia would've been island-hopping. It's quite unlikely these travelers from Southeast Asia were deliberately looking for Australia in the first place but made their way there, bit by bit, through the centuries and millennia, inhabiting and occupying islands as they went. Eventually reaching Australia would've just happened.

Traveling all the way from the Middle East is quite another matter. Questionmark posted that map of ocean currents in the ridiculous thread started by feraldan and it's clear the ocean currents would've made an accidental voyage all the way to Australia considerably unlikely. Therefore travel would've had to be deliberate--but that alone is unrealistic. Leonardo is correct in stating neither Sumerians nor Egyptians were travelers for the sake of exploring. The Sumerians were not even equipped to do so and the Egyptians, with some expertise in sialing vessels by that point, would not have had any inclination or desire to do so. Moreover, the glyphs about which Hans-Dieter is writing in the Australian site are "supposed to" date to Dynasty 4. That was the early Old Kingdom in Egypt. The Egyptians did not travel far in those days, nor did they care to. They would not even become expansionists for another millennia.

It all boils down to the simple and unavoidable fact that all of this is just plain unrealistic on all fronts.

[The Puzzler]

It's my understanding that Rex Gilroy also believes in UFOs and Bigfoot, so he cannot be regarded as credible to begin with.

I don't think that those reasons should deny him credibility. Many people believe in UFO's, some claim to have seen them, they might be real, not that I do, just saying, it's a bit like saying so and so has no credibility because they believe in God... imo.

Second, Australia might have some kind of Bigfoot creature, it was certainly home to giant megafauna in it's day and if Bigfoot will be anywhere, he'll be hiding out in that inhospitable outback where no-one goes.

"and no-one goes out-back that's that". Midnight Oil

[The Puzzler]

Southeast Asia is right there, practically next door. Ancient travelers from Southeast Asia would not be surprising, especially given the fact that much of the trip to Australia would've been island-hopping. It's quite unlikely these travelers from Southeast Asia were deliberately looking for Australia in the first place but made their way there, bit by bit, through the centuries and millennia, inhabiting and occupying islands as they went. Eventually reaching Australia would've just happened.

Traveling all the way from the Middle East is quite another matter. Questionmark posted that map of ocean currents in the ridiculous thread started by feraldan and it's clear the ocean currents would've made an accidental voyage all the way to Australia considerably unlikely. Therefore travel would've had to be deliberate--but that alone is unrealistic. Leonardo is correct in stating neither Sumerians nor Egyptians were travelers for the sake of exploring. The Sumerians were not even equipped to do so and the Egyptians, with some expertise in sialing vessels by that point, would not have had any inclination or desire to do so. Moreover, the glyphs about which Hans-Dieter is writing in the Australian site are "supposed to" date to Dynasty 4. That was the early Old Kingdom in Egypt. The Egyptians did not travel far in those days, nor did they care to. They would not even become expansionists for another millennia.

It all boils down to the simple and unavoidable fact that all of this is just plain unrealistic on all fronts.

I do hear you kmt.

[kmt_sesh]

Swede. The Glyph were some 4.500 years old, until re-carved by Sydney University Archaeology Students in 1964.The reason why the whole story is misunderstood, because it is written like a normal story, like Sinuhe, hence it does not contain any reference whatsoever, to the formal religious text, as is contained in the "Book of the Dead", WHICH IS THE NORMAL CULTURAL FARE OF Ancient Egyptian Burial. The reason for this is, it was the Priest, who was bitten by the snake and died. Incidently, if you go to a funeral, whether in the US of A or Australia, it could be a modern rendition, which only became accepted in Australia, after the A.O.G. introduced it here in the 1950's.

The tale of Sinuhe dates to no earlier than Dynasty 12. Well, I guess that's obvious, considering the tale takes place then. In any case it's not a good example for you to use. For one thing all of those wonderful Egyptian legends and stories and myths (many of which happened to be written around Dynasty 12) were not originally written in hieroglyphs. They were written in hieratic. The only reason one often sees them in hieroglyphs today is that modern researchers have transposed them from the hieratic and into hieroglyphs to make them more accessible to modern students--most of whom study hieroglyphs, not hieratic (look into the reading exercises created by A. De Buck as an example). I can use myself as an example. I have taken a lot of training in hieroglyphs but no formal training in hieratic, so I have a very tough time trying to read many if not most hieratic texts I've seen.

More to the point, I am not acquainted with known narratives of the Australian type which date to Dynasty 4. This is well before it was common to transmit stories and legends in lasting forms. What we have in abundance from Dynasty 4 and its immediate time period are the prayers and spells and litanies of deities in offering chapels, as well as names and titles on private monuments. Your example of the Book of the Dead did not exist in the Old Kingdom. The very earliest version of this corpus dates to Dynasty 13, but it didn't become common till Dynasty 17, and at that time only to royals. It entered the private sphere only later in Dynasty 18. From the end of the Old Kingdom we have the Pyramid Texts, but no known form of them dates to Dynasty 4. The closest parallel to your story are the tomb biographies of a handful of noblemen from Dynasty 6.

Simply stated, a lot of what you're trying to argue about these Australian glyphs and the story they supposedly tell represents something that would not really be seen in Egypt for well more than a century after the time of Khufu.

As regards to Manetho, I am firmly convinced that he is correct and the Christian commentators, in order to fit his King List into the Jewish (Christian) Creation Story, divided the some 25.000 years by Twelve, in order to make it fit.

But what does that mean? It means that the River Nile flooded 12 times a year, or, that a woman was pregnant for 21 days, before giving birth or, that the Harvest was done at least once a month. Clearly an imposibility. But the Christian commentators want you to believe it. Sorry, but I don't. The fact that Egypt was settled some 700.000 years before Christ is clearly established in Hoffmans: "Egypt before the Pharaohs" printed in the U.S.of A. but dont ask me for the date nor the publisher, as I am on the works computer.

Manetho is not really a reliable source. This is widely understood. It is no secret that Herodotus and Manetho and Diodorus and Josephus, et al, did not understand history as we do today and that they were not above embellishing and in other instances simply inventing accounts to bolster their work.

Others have commented on your "700,000 years" so all I'll say is, I hope it was only a typo.

I read Michael Hoffman's book and recall not being terribly impressed by it. For more polished studies authored by more seasoned and solid researchers, I would suggest Toby Wilkinson's Genesis of the Pharaohs as well as his Early Dynastic Egypt, and of course David Wengrow's The Archaeology of Early Egypt.

[Sensible Logic]

As these glyphs are heavily eroded,hence untouched by the hands of the Archaeological Students of Sydney University, who re-carved the main site back in 1964, they are an original inscription, unseen by lay persons and Egyptologist. The same applies to the Glyphs found by Jake Cassar on a higher level. Hence both inscriptions prove the fact that the original Proto-Egyptian glyphs impliedly denied by the Hoaxers still exist and are no hoax.

The glyphs were discovered in 1975 so they couldn't have been re-carved in 1964. The first entry of this site talks about the glyphs http://www.donsmaps.com/hoax.html

[The Puzzler]

Southeast Asia is right there, practically next door. Ancient travelers from Southeast Asia would not be surprising, especially given the fact that much of the trip to Australia would've been island-hopping. It's quite unlikely these travelers from Southeast Asia were deliberately looking for Australia in the first place but made their way there, bit by bit, through the centuries and millennia, inhabiting and occupying islands as they went. Eventually reaching Australia would've just happened.

Traveling all the way from the Middle East is quite another matter.

I don't think it is. If they could sail from Sumeria to India, which they did, I see no difference in people from the Middle East being able to access South East Asia, whether deliberately or not.

This comes to mind, the mysterious Sesostris, and with some shades of Atlantis in the description...

Therefore passing these by I will make mention of the king who came after these, whose name is Sesostris. He (the priests said) first of all set out with ships of war from the Arabian gulf and subdued those who dwelt by the shores of the Erythraian Sea, until as he sailed he came to a sea which could no further be navigated by reason of shoals: then secondly, after he had returned to Egypt, according to the report of the priests he took a great army and marched over the continent, subduing every nation which stood in his way: and those of them whom he found valiant and fighting desperately for their freedom,

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/sesostris.htm

---------------------------------------------------

Just to add also, in Dynasty 4:

Surviving from this era are the earliest-known records of Egyptian contact with her neighbors. They are recorded on the Palermo stone. Information carved on the stone predates and antedates this dynasty. Although some portions of the stone are lost, one remaining portion contains notations about the arrival of forty ships laden with timber from an unnamed foreign land purchased during the reign of Sneferu.

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

Someone was sailing big ships and had contact with Egypt, there is no reason to think Egyptian influence did not go out with these visiting ships, possibly by priests or others who were literate.

Edited April 4, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Artemis Flow]

oh where will I start ?

Firstly I had to join this discussion as my name is being bandied about yet again by Mr Von Senff and once again he is misquoting me and just plain lying about my research.

I am a local history researcher based in Woy Woy NSW Australia , a short distance from the " Gosford / Kariong Glyphs " which I have devoted a fair bit of time investigating , I first met Hans when he left some comment on my blog page " All Things Woy "

Sine then he has followed me around the web posting his dubious theory in any un moderated areas he can find .

I see that this forum has some quite knowledgeable members who haven't swallowed Hans' theory as well and applaud you all for voraciously disecting his work , which is quite easy to do !

I see that links to my research have already been posted on this forum and thanks , the idea was to try and create an up to date and credible account of the Glyphs mystery , my work so far :

The original story on my main site www.woy-woy.com is a bit out of date and needs a rework but the gist all it all is here The Kariong Hieroglyphs

My blog page and timeline - The Gosford Glyphs

Details of a phone conversation that I had with the first person documented to find the glyphs , Alan Dash - and ex Gosford Council surveyor here - Alan Dash speaks about the Gosford Glyphs

Photographic proof that the glyphs had been added to after 1983 - Mythbusting

and finally a YouTube video as I found a lot of people just won't read stuff " :|

Now lets clear some things up

If you are indeed intested in the truth, and how the so-called scientific academe, perverted the research, whether ascribing it to U.F.O sightings as claimed by the Editor (an Egyptologist)of an Archaeological Journal, or the claims of the Author Steven Spillard (another Egyptologis), that a certain glyph was a dog-bone. However, the glyph he was refering to, is the glypht for Inheritance, (Gardiner) while another one, which he called a Bell is in fact the Symbol for a woodcarving chisel.

Firstly I am not an Egyptologist and I have made no claims about a dog - bone glyph . in fact I have rarely debated what he actual glyphs mean , they are fake and require no further research.

I did do a quick Google search when looking at Hans theories because I suspected t would be full of holes and it is indeed a leaky ship , as forum member Spartan has discovered when looking up the names of Khufu's sons....

You may also like to Google Nefer Ti Ru and discover that it is in fact the name of a female ......

Nefertiru (fl. 15th century b.c.e.)

Royal woman of the Eighteenth Dynasty

A daughter of Tuthmosis iii (r. 1479-1425 b.c.e.), Nefer-tiru died young. she was commemorated in her father’s tomb in the valley of the kings on the western shore of thebes.

Webpage here

and if you Google Nefer-Dejeseb you will be led to the wonderous world of Rex Gilroy and pages already infected by Von Senff - nuff said it seems he didn't exist at all.

The Problem, Peter, is the following: When Steve Spillard wrote in an certain American book: "The Encyclopaedia of dubious Archaeology"

he relied on his own sloppy research and claimed about U.F.O visits, The Dogbone, Gardiners glyph for inheritage as well as a Bell,

which according to Betro and Budge represents a wood chisel. Out of these little things he created the basis for the Hoax story, that has bedevilled the Kariong Hieroglyphs ever since. You probably get a partial download on Google Books, it is somewhere around page 120.

Firstly I did not write or publish the Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology , I was approached by the author to supply site photos and information in regard to his entry on the glyphs and I have not researched or commented on U.F.O visits, The Dogbone, Gardiners glyph for inheritage as well as a Bell,which according to Betro and Budge represents a wood chisel ever !

I base my findings on checkable and reliable reports online and locally at Gosford Library , and have spoke to a lot people over the years , the challenge is for Hans to prove otherwise scientifically.

I'll be back .......

Edited April 4, 2012 by Artemis Flow

[The Truth hurts]

oh where will I start ?

Firstly I had to join this discussion as my name is being bandied about yet again by Mr Von Senff and once again he is misquoting me and just plain lying about my research.

I am a local history researcher based in Woy Woy NSW Australia , a short distance from the " Gosford / Kariong Glyphs " which I have devoted a fair bit of time investigating , I first met Hans when he left some comment on my blog page " All Things Woy "

Sine then he has followed me around the web posting his dubious theory in any un moderated areas he can find .

I see that this forum has some quite knowledgeable members who haven't swallowed Hans' theory as well and applaud you all for voraciously disecting his work , which is quite easy to do !

I see that links to my research have already been posted on this forum and thanks , the idea was to try and create an up to date and credible account of the Glyphs mystery , my work so far :

The original story on my main site www.woy-woy.com is a bit out of date and needs a rework but the gist all it all is here The Kariong Hieroglyphs

My blog page and timeline - The Gosford Glyphs

Details of a phone conversation that I had with the first person documented to find the glyphs , Alan Dash - and ex Gosford Council surveyor here - Alan Dash speaks about the Gosford Glyphs

Photographic proof that the glyphs had been added to after 1983 - Mythbusting

and finally a YouTube video as I found a lot of people just won't read stuff " :|

Now lets clear some things up

Firstly I am not an Egyptologist and I have made no claims about a dog - bone glyph . in fact I have rarely debated what he actual glyphs mean , they are fake and require no further research.

I did do a quick Google search when looking at Hans theories because I suspected t would be full of holes and it is indeed a leaky ship , as forum member Spartan has discovered when looking up the names of Khufu's sons....

You may also like to Google Nefer Ti Ru and discover that it is in fact the name of a female ......

Webpage here

and if you Google Nefer-Dejeseb you will be led to the wonderous world of Rex Gilroy and pages already infected by Von Senff - nuff said it seems he didn't exist at all.

Firstly I did not write or publish the Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology , I was approached by the author to supply site photos and information in regard to his entry on the glyphs and I have not researched or commented on U.F.O visits, The Dogbone, Gardiners glyph for inheritage as well as a Bell,which according to Betro and Budge represents a wood chisel ever !

I base my findings on checkable and reliable reports online and locally at Gosford Library , and have spoke to a lot people over the years , the challenge is for Hans to prove otherwise scientifically.

I'll be back .......

Thank you Artemis Flow, I have wondered for years whether you were in fact Steven Spillard or not. All I ask you, Steve, review what you have been writing in "Encyclopadia of Dubious Archaeology" years ago and doublecheck in Gardiner's "Egyptian Grammar" about the Dogbone, it is around p. 449, I think and check at the same time the Bell glyph in Budge's and find out what they really mean. Further check your claim about U.F. O's at Kariong and check your statement about "The Gosford Glyphs are a hoax."

Some years ago, you declined my invitation to look at the Air Shaft found by Paul White, you declined to investigate the through, when asked by Bob Clutton and again you declined to investigate the "Ges", the Underground chamber two meters below the East Wall, the Entry to which has now been filled in. I don't ask you to acknoledge any of this, but for your own sake, investigate it, please with an open mind.

Hans-Dieter von Senff Ph.D.

[Artemis Flow]

Deary me .....

If you had of done some more clicking Hans you would have found my details on both my blog and website and you call me a sloppy researcher

And let me state clearly again , because you obviously didn't read my last post

I DID NOT WRITE ANYTHING FOR THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DUBIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY , IT IS NOT MY WORK ONLY THE PHOTO IS ACCREDITED TO ME , THE AUTHOR USED INFORMATION FROM SEVERAL SITES FOR HIS ENTRY ON THE GLYPHS - THANK YOU

Re the " air shaft " , as I have previously stated I have visited the site on many occasions and entered the opening you call the tomb on 3 occasions , I am an experienced caver and only went in as far as sensible so there was no need for me to conduct a specific mission to look at it again , please be reminded that the NPWS have documented evidence of the creation of the underground chambers by persons in 2001 , including photos of material stockpiled on site

You may have seen this letter from the NPWS before .......please read it - Full size here

I don't acknowledge any of your work and that of Mr Strong , please feel free to contact Rex Gilroy because you don't convince me in any way whatsoever , one always has an open mind when dealing with psuedo archaeologists like yourself

[Artemis Flow]

I spoke at length on the phone to the ex Gosford Council employee who discovered the glyphs and possibly the culprit in 1975 a year or so back you can read about it here

The rumour that Sydney Uni students carved or re carved is just that - an unsupported story mentioned in a letter by Ray Johnson

It is feasible that some of the glyphs were created in the 60's by local students , there is a lot of reliable hearsay from unconnected sources in my enquiries so far to date , the bulk of them seem to have appeared around the late 70's / early 80's and from witness reports some of them looked like they had been done by someone using a Dremel type electric tool.

The Anubis figure and cartouches seem to be the last of the additions around 1983/4 , I have photographic evidence of the fine details on Anubis's ear being added to after being photgraphed by the NPWS in 1983 , something only the artist would notice and return to finish - see report here

One should also note that nearby Aboriginal carvings are dated at around 250 years old and are badly eroded , they will fade away in the next 200 years , how on earth does one explain these glyphs surviving 4,500 years in this area comprising of Hawkesbury Sandstone , a local geologist suggested that the cleft that contains the glyphs may have not even been formed at this period in time.

One could go on and may probably have to *sigh*

Sorry about this post it got merged

Edited April 4, 2012 by Artemis Flow

[Night Walker]

Love your work, Artemis...

I would also like to pick your brain some day about the various characters involved in these shenanigans. I get the impression that such pseudo-archaeology is a booming subculture in Australia partly fueled by local alternate publications like Nexus and New Dawn.

Good to have you on UM.

[questionmark]

I spoke at length on the phone to the ex Gosford Council employee who discovered the glyphs and possibly the culprit in 1975 a year or so back you can read about it here

The rumour that Sydney Uni students carved or re carved is just that - an unsupported story mentioned in a letter by Ray Johnson

It is feasible that some of the glyphs were created in the 60's by local students , there is a lot of reliable hearsay from unconnected sources in my enquiries so far to date , the bulk of them seem to have appeared around the late 70's / early 80's and from witness reports some of them looked like they had been done by someone using a Dremel type electric tool.

The Anubis figure and cartouches seem to be the last of the additions around 1983/4 , I have photographic evidence of the fine details on Anubis's ear being added to after being photgraphed by the NPWS in 1983 , something only the artist would notice and return to finish - see report here

One should also note that nearby Aboriginal carvings are dated at around 250 years old and are badly eroded , they will fade away in the next 200 years , how on earth does one explain these glyphs surviving 4,500 years in this area comprising of Hawkesbury Sandstone , a local geologist suggested that the cleft that contains the glyphs may have not even been formed at this period in time.

One could go on and may probably have to *sigh*

Sorry about this post it got merged

In any case, thanks for clearing that up and I hope that this finally puts the whole thingy (and the 10 threads we have here about it by evidently the same person under just as many names) to rest.

[kmt_sesh]

I spoke at length on the phone to the ex Gosford Council employee who discovered the glyphs and possibly the culprit in 1975 a year or so back you can read about it here

The rumour that Sydney Uni students carved or re carved is just that - an unsupported story mentioned in a letter by Ray Johnson

It is feasible that some of the glyphs were created in the 60's by local students , there is a lot of reliable hearsay from unconnected sources in my enquiries so far to date , the bulk of them seem to have appeared around the late 70's / early 80's and from witness reports some of them looked like they had been done by someone using a Dremel type electric tool.

The Anubis figure and cartouches seem to be the last of the additions around 1983/4 , I have photographic evidence of the fine details on Anubis's ear being added to after being photgraphed by the NPWS in 1983 , something only the artist would notice and return to finish - see report here

One should also note that nearby Aboriginal carvings are dated at around 250 years old and are badly eroded , they will fade away in the next 200 years , how on earth does one explain these glyphs surviving 4,500 years in this area comprising of Hawkesbury Sandstone , a local geologist suggested that the cleft that contains the glyphs may have not even been formed at this period in time.

One could go on and may probably have to *sigh*

Sorry about this post it got merged

A most sincere welcome to UM, Artemis. We thank you for your contributions based on personal, first-hand experience in this matter. It's perfectly obvious from the start that the Kariong glyphs are a hoax, and not a very good one at that. I am not an Egyptologist but am trained in hieroglyphs, and what one sees at Kariong is, at best, amusing. I only wish we could put you on retainer--this stuff pops up every now and then. We recently had a discussion initiated by one Daniel Collins who claimed to have discovered an inscription in Australia at Pyramid Mountain that was inscribed with early Sumerian cuneiform, and as patently ridiculous as that discussion was, we at least could breathe a sigh of relief when the Mods locked it. But then Hans-Dieter comes along and resurrects the hoax of the Kariong glyphs, which no reputable historian of any training would take seriously. Understandably, many of us have openly wondered if Daniel and Hans-Dieter are the same person, although I have to admit Hans-Dieter seems to have a different and somewhat better writing style.

In any case, thanks for blowing this wide open. You are privy to information that is not at the disposal of many of us. Because of your posts here, whenever this silly business pops up again, we can simply link back to your posts and put an end to it. Please feel free to post more information if you care to. I for one appreciate and enjoy your information.

[kmt_sesh]

I don't think it is. If they could sail from Sumeria to India, which they did, I see no difference in people from the Middle East being able to access South East Asia, whether deliberately or not.

I can't think of any evidence that has the Sumerians sailing to India. You're attributing too much of an adventurous spirit to a people who didn't care much about the world beyond the sway of their own city-states and agricultural lands. No one would doubt possible trade between Sumer and India, but this would've been overland, through Central Asia. Intermediaries in Bactria, Sogdiana, and Iran would've been the connection, not open-ocean sailing ventures. The same phenomenon is observable all over the ancient Near East. The Egyptians, for example, prized lapis lazuli, which was traded through Levantine intermediaries from distant Afghanistan. The Egyptians themselves certainly didn't travel all the way to Afghanistan.

This comes to mind, the mysterious Sesostris, and with some shades of Atlantis in the description...

Therefore passing these by I will make mention of the king who came after these, whose name is Sesostris. He (the priests said) first of all set out with ships of war from the Arabian gulf and subdued those who dwelt by the shores of the Erythraian Sea, until as he sailed he came to a sea which could no further be navigated by reason of shoals: then secondly, after he had returned to Egypt, according to the report of the priests he took a great army and marched over the continent, subduing every nation which stood in his way: and those of them whom he found valiant and fighting desperately for their freedom,

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/herodotus/sesostris.htm

I myself like the reshafim site. It's one of the few out there on the internet that I'd classify as generally reliable. Very good information, and terrific translations of ancient texts.

I know how you dislike my stressing this point, but you're quoting Herodotus and Herodotus must not be taken at face value. The information on this reshafim page basically reinforces that. It's clear Herodotus himself didn't know who this "Sesostris" was, and modern scholars trying to make sense of it can only agree that Herodotus' Sesostris is a mixture of several Egyptian warrior kings, especially those who went by the name Senusret (a.k.a., Senwosret). But Herodotus had his Sesostris basically traipsing all over the eastern Mediterranean world, as far north as Thrace, and for certain no Egyptian army ever marched through there. While the Senusrets of Dynasty 12 were indeed warrior kings (Senusret III is my own favorite monarch of the Middle Kingdom), their sphere of influence did not really extend beyond Nubia to the south and Syro-Palestine to the north, as well as the Libyan Desert to the west. This is what we can tell from ancient monuments and records. What Herodotus records is myth.

---------------------------------------------------

Just to add also, in Dynasty 4:

Surviving from this era are the earliest-known records of Egyptian contact with her neighbors. They are recorded on the Palermo stone. Information carved on the stone predates and antedates this dynasty. Although some portions of the stone are lost, one remaining portion contains notations about the arrival of forty ships laden with timber from an unnamed foreign land purchased during the reign of Sneferu.

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

Someone was sailing big ships and had contact with Egypt, there is no reason to think Egyptian influence did not go out with these visiting ships, possibly by priests or others who were literate.

It is widely agreed that the "unnamed foreign land" mentioned on the Palermo Stone is ancient Byblos, in what's now Lebanon. It's the best and most logical fit given that this was Egypt's principal supplier of large timber from the very beginning. There is indirect evidence that Egypt may have been obtaining Lebanese cedar or spruce from at least Dynasty 1. Even in Sneferu's time it's easy to imagine the court sending out barges onto the Mediterranean Sea and sailing north along the Levantine coast to reach Byblos. As easy as it is to imagine trips to Byblos, picturing Egyptian vessels leaving their region and sailing out on the ocean all the way to Australia is simply not realistic.

[Harte]

In any case, thanks for clearing that up and I hope that this finally puts the whole thingy (and the 10 threads we have here about it by evidently the same person under just as many names) to rest.

But, of course, it won't and you know it.

We've been debunking these glyphs for years here. Once we've finished, it pops back up in another thread.

Just like all the other ridiculous claims.

I'll say, however, that this specific one is particularly saddening. It hurts me to think anyone could look at those glyphs and actually think they are real.

As cynical as I might seem at times, I really do have a lot of faith in people. This sort of thing makes that a hard position to maintain.

Harte