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 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

1,651 posts in this topic

The research of George Dodwell clearly demonstrates a disturbance of the Earth's axis in the early historical period.

Speaking as someone who was apparently "lynched", I ask is this the Dodwell in the link below? some biblical literalist/creationist fool. By the way, in your book there is a chapter "Through the Veil", should this not be "Smoke and Mirrors"

http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap11.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I ask is this the Dodwell in the link below? some biblical literalist/creationist fool....

SC: Shame on you. What has a person's religious views got to do with their science? Their science is what matters and it is their science that can be tested, not their religious views. I couldn't give a hee-haw if Dodwell's faith was Jedi - I am interested *only* in his science. Deplorable and utterly shameful that you should stoop to such low depths to try and win a point. So we are now to ignore any modern scientist who attends church, are we?

If you can't beat the science, beat the scientist. Contemptible.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: But that was NOT the point you were trying to make. You employed a completely different pole shift model ECD with all the inherent problems and contradictions that model has in an attempt to debunk an entirely different model. You misrepresented what was being said in order to build a strawman argument that you could simply knock over. The theory under consideration is Rapid True Polar Wander. When this is combined with fluctuation of the axis (ECD maintains a fixed axis) then it is *not* necessarily the case that the North and South poles would gain more solar insolation since the change in axial tilt can be offset by the change in the geographical relocation of the pole itself. Combined axial tilt and RTPW can result in the the poles being relocated but with little difference in overall temperatures in these regions whilst other areas might experience considerable change; precisely the kind of sudden, rapid climate change that is now being posited by scientists to explain the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt and other Near East cultures in the early historical period.

SC: Once again you misrepresent the actual facts. The research of George Dodwell clearly demonstrates a disturbance of the Earth's axis in the early historical period. Deal with the FACTS.

SC

You have the same problem in either case, whether you use the ECT or RTPW. The evidence does not support your conclusion.

Dodwell's conclusions are not currently shared by anyone with a background in geodynamics or related areas. But I can see why you had to find someone from 50+ years ago. Because no one today takes you or him seriously.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have the same problem in either case, whether you use the ECT or RTPW.

SC: Nonsense. ECD keeps the axis fixed, RTPW causes the axis to fluctuate (and change location). Different dynamic, different model, different results.

CMA: The evidence does not support your conclusion.

SC: Well, you would say that. The facts, however, support my position. Like the fact that the Old Kingdom and other Near East cultures collapsed in the early historical period as a result of sudden, dramatic climate change.

CMA: Dodwell's conclusions are not currently shared by anyone with a background in geodynamics or related areas. But I can see why you had to find someone from 50+ years ago. Because no one today takes you or him seriously.

SC: And the only reason why Dodwell's research was not considered more fully by his peers at the time was because he died before completing it, and 50 years ago it was the general view of science that it would take a body about the size of the Earth itself to knock it off its axis and such an impact would vaporise every living thing on the planet. Since that had not (obviously) occurred, it was believed that Dodwell's research was flawed. But this long-held view of the Earth's axis being tipped only by a massive planetary collision is no longer the view and, as such, Dodwell's data should be reconsidered in light of this modern research which presents various models that show how the Earth's axis and its geographic position can be changed relatively easily and rapidly without it resulting in an Extinction Level Event.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Nonsense. ECD keeps the axis fixed, RTPW causes the axis to fluctuate (and change location). Different dynamic, different model, different results.

SC: Well, you would say that. The facts, however, support my position. Like the fact that the Old Kingdom and other Near East cultures collapsed in the early historical period as a result of sudden, dramatic climate change.

SC: And the only reason why Dodwell's research was not considered more fully by his peers at the time was because he died before completing it, and 50 years ago it was the general view of science that it would take a body about the size of the Earth itself to knock it off its axis and such an impact would vaporise every living thing on the planet. Since that had not (obviously) occurred, it was believed that Dodwell's research was flawed. But this long-held view of the Earth's axis being tipped only by a massive planetary collision is no longer the view and, as such, Dodwell's data should be reconsidered in light of this modern research which presents various models that show how the Earth's axis and its geographic position can be changed rapidly without it resulting in an Extinction Level Event.

SC

Which is not evidence of an axial tilt, regardless of what theory you want to use to explain it.

Right, models by two other people who aren't taken seriously by the scientific community. There's a continuing pattern of irrelevancy in your sources.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is not evidence of an axial tilt, regardless of what theory you want to use to explain it.

SC: Well I expect you to say that. Dodwell's data, however, bears the lie to your comment.

CMA: Right, models by two other people who aren't taken seriously by the scientific community. There's a continuing pattern of irrelevancy in your sources.

SC: Which doesn't actually make them wrong. But if that is what you are trying to say, then present a paper from another scientist that point-by-point debunks their paper(s). Let's see it.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are now to ignore any modern scientist who attends church, are we?

Religion clouds the mind, belief in some supernatural fantasy is incompatible with fully understanding the physical world. I beleive there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Mengele's science, he conducted his experiments is a proper scientific manner, should I not then criticise Herr Doktor Mengele? Honestly, you English eat too many prunes as they wither your minds and destroy all sense of humour and the ridiculous. The smell of starch in this forum is very strong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion clouds the mind, belief in some supernatural fantasy is incompatible with fully understanding the physical world. I beleive there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Mengele's science, he conducted his experiments is a proper scientific manner, should I not then criticise Herr Doktor Mengele?

SC: Strawman.

AP: Honestly, you English ...

SC: I'm not English.

AP: The smell of starch in this forum is very strong...

SC: Time then to wash your mouth out with soap.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Strawman.

Ridiculous comment. You certainly sat on a thistle haven't you, English

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion clouds the mind, belief in some supernatural fantasy is incompatible with fully understanding the physical world.

A statement like this made perfect sense to me only a few years ago. I could have

made it myself.

At least religion contains a lot of truth while science tends to dispense only technol-

ogy with its comforts and a false sense of understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should write in Russian so that all may make their own translation of what I say....

In my words "Religion clouds the mind, belief in some supernatural fantasy is incompatible with fully understanding the physical world" is not attack on religion. Yet this is not understood, or deliberately misunderstood by the Englishman who thinks the first intermediate period lasted two thousand years or more. It is in his book, chapter four "Lost Time of the Gods". I think I lost valuable time in reading such tendentious rubbish....

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harte, I have never said that the pyramids pre-date the AE's. What I am asking for is a reasonable explanation for the vertical erosion on the Sphinx. If you can provide a picture of Mr. Hawass breaking off a 'chunk' of repair stone I'd like to see it. (where its located and how old it is estimated to be would help). it's obvious that this (erosion on repair blocks) is not common to most or all of the blocks since if it was we'd surely have lots of pictures.

I know you didn't claim this, but look at the thread title.

Re. Hawass, I told you where I saw it. I can't view youtube at work and in any case I'm not inclined to search youtube.

The fact remains that erosion of this type, whether this happened when the Sphinx was exposed or buried, should be relatively uniform and dependent on the age of the block or stone at the time when it was cut or placed.

Please keep in mind what I said about the broad variations in limestone, even from the same bed. Parts of the sphinx body (for example, the head) are far less eroded than other parts (for example, the parts level with or below the lip of the enclosure.) Many times here the drawing (from Lehner, IIRC) showing the various different layers of limestone within the sphinx has been posted here. The layers included in the head are quite a bit harder than some of the lower layers. Do you have information concerning which layers the casing stones came from, or if they even came from the enclosure at all? Even within the same layer of the same bed, limestone hardness can vary widely.

Awhile back our New York State 'experts' declared that if the limestone blocks from the Western Terminus of the Erie Canal were exposed to air they "might explode". Our idiot leadership took this at face value until one local professor declared it to be rubbish. The terminus has now been excavated and we have a bit of American history. I find the attempt to place the reason for this vertical erosion on "dew" to be almost as preposterous.

The fact that you might consider this preposterous doesn't deter people that try to preserve stone monuments from recognizing the existence of this pervasive type of erosion:

FLAKING:

This is an early stage of peeling, exfoliation, delamination or

spalling evidenced by the detachment of small flat thin pieces of

the outer layers of stone from a larger piece of stone. Flaking is

usually caused by capillary moisture or freeze-thaw cycles which

occur within the masonry.

Source: Historic Preservation - Technical Procedures

Also:

The erosional circumstances of the Sphinx today were explored by the team of Egyptologists and geologists in the 1980s. The phenomenon of overnight condensation and absorption by capillary action was noted, with evaporation in the morning sun that leads to crystallization of salts within the rock's pores and spalling off of surface flakes as a result of the expansion of the crystals. It was also noted that condensation on the bedrock of the Sphinx and its enclosure could take place beneath a sand cover, leading to a situation in which the sand might he perfectly dry at the surface but wet through only a few centimeters beneath, while the rock itself could be soaked in water at some depth underneath the wet sand. This circumstance was judged to encourage the migration of salts from the depths of the bedrock towards the surface.

From: Tour Egypt

As you can see (hopefully,) the situation I described is certainly not unusual.

Re. the "exploding" limestone, I'm not sure where they got that. They may, however have been referring to normal weathering of limestone which is caused by exposure to air, not water, which is the sort of weathering that Robert Schoch based his early date for the sphinx on:

Subsurface weathering is essentially a mineralogical and petrological change in the rocks that proceeds once the rock surface is exposed to the air or atmosphere (such as occurred when the core body of the Sphinx was excavated), no matter what the climate is like. Loose porous sand piled up in the Sphinx enclosure will not significantly protect the bedrock from this type of weathering. This type of weathering is certainly not caused primarily by rainfall collecting on the rock surface and seeping down. It could even be argued that in some cases a moister climate with periods of standing water on the rock that protects the surface from atmospheric exposure may actually result in a slower rate of this form of subsurface weathering than may occur under dryer conditions.

Source: COMMENTS By Robert M. Schoch

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere of a disagreement between Hawass and Lehner over whether PARTS of the Sphinx had been carved, or constructed, from it's creation.

Lehner thought carved in it's entirety and Hawass argued for partial construction.. As i recall , he dug into the side or guts somewhere and found no weathering, or evidence of carving anywhere below those casing blocks. Anyone hear of this?

.. Maybe the 'builders' had better sense than to bother with carving some portions which they knew would fairly quickly disintegrate and clad them with harder block from the start?¿?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it curious how the Egypt-apologists on this Board will disparage the texts of the Arab chroniclers who tell us the early, giant pyramids were built as ‘recovery vaults’ and yet are more than happy to accept the Arab chroniclers’ texts when they state that al-Mamun was the first to enter the Great Pyramid, forced open the sarcophagus and found decayed bones therein. Odd how when I refer to the Arab chroniclers’ texts it is regarded as ‘nonsense’ but is perfectly acceptable when they use these same sources for themselves. Completely reprehensible behaviour.

As I haven't seen the accounts from the arabs that indicate the pyramids to be recovery vaults can you point me in the general direction?

SC: I explained this earlier in this thread. The pyramid is built layer by layer, course by course. The granite plugs are set in place at the bottom of the Ascending Passage as the pyramid is being built layer by layer (and long before the upper storage chambers are built). As the pyramid rises in height, the chambers are then built, filled with recovery goods and sealed, Queen’s Chamber first. The AEs continue building up the pyramid, course by course. Before sealing the Ante Chamber, the King’s Chamber and Grand Gallery are also filled with recovery goods. When these chambers are filled the Ante Chamber roof is then sealed thus sealing the pyramid. The builders then continue to build up the pyramid, course by course, to completion with the recovery items already inside the sealed pyramid.

Yet it still requires breaking into the pyramid to retrieve the goods. Something they would not have done until after the catastrophe. Since the catastrophe never occurred, they would have had no reason to remove the goods. If the pyramid was known to be a recovery vault, Grave Robbers/Bandits would have had no reason to break in as it would have been far easier to steal food from others with less time and effort. The only reason for them to break in would have been if they believed it to be the burial chamber of the king with all his possessions.

This article here presents compelling evidence that the granite plugs were built in-situ. So, how did they get a dead king’s body into a pyramid that is already sealed?

If I were to hazzard a guess and I admit I havent looked into this so can't say how plausible it might be. Once the pyramid was completed but before the front entrance was sealed up, The kings body could have been taken down the descending passage, up the well shaft, then placed within the sarcophagus which would have been closed and sealed. Then the workers go down the well shaft sealing it behind them, perhaps with the granite slab found in the grotto before finally exiting the pyramid and the entrance is sealed.

SC: It is far from conclusive that al-Mamun was the first to enter the Great Pyramid; even Lehner concedes this:

There is no mention in the Arab chronicles of al-Mamun having to remove the blocking stone to the Queen’s Chamber or indeed, the three granite portcullis slabs blocking entry to the KC, indicating that they had, by this time, already been removed as Lehner suggests.

After some research I agree it could have been breached sooner and could be the reason there was no mummy or treasure within when the arabs entered in 820. I have seen conflicting accounts of the entry in 820. Some saying the arabs opening the sarcophagus and some saying it was already open. If the former, the sarcophagus may have been opened and reclosed by those who first entered the tomb.

The decayed bones supposedly found in the stone box of G1 do not tell us if they were human bones or otherwise. When Belzoni first entered into Khafre’s pyramid, having struggled for weeks trying to find where the entrance might be, all that he found in the stone box therein was dry earth and the bones of a bull. (This discovery, incidentally, is entirely consistent with the RVT). Another of the Arab chronicles states that the only thing found in the stone box of the King’s Chamber of the GP was a dark pitch-like substance. Again, this is entirely consistent with the RVT.

Neither the Arabs in 1820 nor Belzoni indicate that the bones were those of a bull. That is something determined after Belzoni. Since neither described finding pitch, It may have been pitch from those that used pitch soaked cloth for torches while investigating the pyramid.

Bull bones do not support the recovery vault theory since they would not have needed the entire bull, just the meat. They would have salted and dried the meat and sealed it in containers. Since the bull was sacred in Egypt, it may have been there as paret of some ritual or religious ceremony to Osiris

SC: This is one of those little facts that the tomb-theory peddlers like not to inform people of. The AEs actually created wooden or stone boxes, filled them with earth and seed and buried them in the ground under a mound of earth. There were no physical bodies in these boxes. In later times these would become known as ‘Osiris Bricks’ and later still, 'Osiris Beds' but there is some evidence that this practice occurred prior to the 4th dynasty. The stone boxes in the early, giant pyramids were *not* sarcophagi but the forerunner or archetype of the later ‘Osiris Bed’. Again this practice is consistent with the RVT.

SC

Archeologically, Osiris Beds can only be traced back to the new kingdom as far as I can find. If you have links to information that suggests otherwise I would like to read the material. The concept of the sarcophagus in the kings chamber being an Osiris bed is invalid because of the presence of the bull bones. The Osiris Bed contained dirt and barley seeds only, no animal parts.

Of note is that there evidently was a sarcophagus in the queens chamber as well. The more you look at what information and evidence is available the more likely it is that the Great Pyramid was a tomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more you look at what information and evidence is available the more likely it is that the Great Pyramid was a tomb.

I couldn't disagree more.

A cursory look certainly suggests they were tombs but then as you look deeper you'll

see massive holes in the assumption. The biggest hole is the utter lack of any direct

evidence from the time they were built to support the assumption. There is no writing,

no drawings, and no direct evidence.

If they were tombs then why didn't the builders call them tombs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't disagree more.

A cursory look certainly suggests they were tombs but then as you look deeper you'll

see massive holes in the assumption. The biggest hole is the utter lack of any direct

evidence from the time they were built to support the assumption. There is no writing,

no drawings, and no direct evidence.

If they were tombs then why didn't the builders call them tombs?

Since there are no extant texts from the IVth Dynasty, we don't know what the builders called them. So that's not a point in your favor.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there are no extant texts from the IVth Dynasty, we don't know what the builders called them. So that's not a point in your favor.

cormac

And we needn't fuss too much over the texts from later in the Old Kingdom, either. The Pyramid Texts are replete with references that make it clear the priests who maintained this corpus clearly regarded the pyramids as tombs. The Pyramid Texts are the very language of funerary ritual.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SC: I find it curious how the Egypt-apologists on this Board will disparage the texts of the Arab chroniclers who tell us the early, giant pyramids were built as ‘recovery vaults’ and yet are more than happy to accept the Arab chroniclers’ texts when they state that al-Mamun was the first to enter the Great Pyramid, forced open the sarcophagus and found decayed bones therein. Odd how when I refer to the Arab chroniclers’ texts it is regarded as ‘nonsense’ but is perfectly acceptable when they use these same sources for themselves. Completely reprehensible behaviour.

Q: As I haven't seen the accounts from the arabs that indicate the pyramids to be recovery vaults can you point me in the general direction?

SC: Perhaps start with Murtadi, Saurid.

SC: I explained this earlier in this thread. The pyramid is built layer by layer, course by course. The granite plugs are set in place at the bottom of the Ascending Passage as the pyramid is being built layer by layer (and long before the upper storage chambers are built). As the pyramid rises in height, the chambers are then built, filled with recovery goods and sealed, Queen’s Chamber first. The AEs continue building up the pyramid, course by course. Before sealing the Ante Chamber, the King’s Chamber and Grand Gallery are also filled with recovery goods. When these chambers are filled the Ante Chamber roof is then sealed thus sealing the pyramid. The builders then continue to build up the pyramid, course by course, to completion with the recovery items already inside the sealed pyramid.

Q: Yet it still requires breaking into the pyramid to retrieve the goods. Something they would not have done until after the catastrophe. Since the catastrophe never occurred, they would have had no reason to remove the goods.

SC: But catastrophe *did* occur. The Old Kingdom collapsed and it is becoming clearer that this resulted from sudden and dramatic climate change. The pyramids were breached and what had been contained therein was removed. The AEs tell us they did this in their own words.

Q: If the pyramid was known to be a recovery vault, Grave Robbers/Bandits would have had no reason to break in as it would have been far easier to steal food from others with less time and effort. The only reason for them to break in would have been if they believed it to be the burial chamber of the king with all his possessions.

SC: Nope. When the kingdom collapsed along with the rest of the Near East cultures, the pyramid contents would become vital. Why do you think that these other cultures faded from history after this collapse and yet the AEs were able to revivicate their civilisation and continue, not as the identical kingdom, but very close to what had been before the collapse? What did the AE do differently from their neighbours that allowed them to restart their civilisation after the catastrophic collapse?

SC: This article here presents compelling evidence that the granite plugs were built in-situ. So, how did they get a dead king’s body into a pyramid that is already sealed?

Q: If I were to hazzard a guess and I admit I havent looked into this so can't say how plausible it might be. Once the pyramid was completed but before the front entrance was sealed up, The kings body could have been taken down the descending passage, up the well shaft, then placed within the sarcophagus which would have been closed and sealed. Then the workers go down the well shaft sealing it behind them, perhaps with the granite slab found in the grotto before finally exiting the pyramid and the entrance is sealed.

SC: In which case, why bother with the Ascending Passage and why bother plug it with three granite blocks? The point here is that re-entry was needed and anticipated in the RVT but *not* the tomb theory. If you were hauling the king’s body up the Well Shaft there was no need to create the AP or to plug it.

SC: The decayed bones supposedly found in the stone box of G1 do not tell us if they were human bones or otherwise. When Belzoni first entered into Khafre’s pyramid, having struggled for weeks trying to find where the entrance might be, all that he found in the stone box therein was dry earth and the bones of a bull. (This discovery, incidentally, is entirely consistent with the RVT). Another of the Arab chronicles states that the only thing found in the stone box of the King’s Chamber of the GP was a dark pitch-like substance. Again, this is entirely consistent with the RVT.

Q: Neither the Arabs in 1820 nor Belzoni indicate that the bones were those of a bull. That is something determined after Belzoni. Since neither described finding pitch, It may have been pitch from those that used pitch soaked cloth for torches while investigating the pyramid.

SC: Okay, I think something has gone awry here. The bull bones were found by Belzoni in the stone box of G2, not in G1. Belzoni sent them to London to be checked. Some Arab legends describe a dark pitch-like substance having been all that was found in the granite box in the KC of the GP. When earth, grain and water are mixed and left for decades/centuries/millennia, the grain will decay into the earth, turning into a dark pitch-like substance thus suggesting that the granite box did indeed serve as an archetype ‘Osiris Bed’.

Q: Bull bones do not support the recovery vault theory since they would not have needed the entire bull, just the meat. They would have salted and dried the meat and sealed it in containers.

SC: You are quite unfamiliar with the wider RVT. Bull bones found in the stone box of G2 do indeed support the RVT.

Q: Since the bull was sacred in Egypt, it may have been there as paret of some ritual or religious ceremony to Osiris.

SC: Exactly. You might want to have a read over this thread, The Birth of Osiris.

SC: This is one of those little facts that the tomb-theory peddlers like not to inform people of. The AEs actually created wooden or stone boxes, filled them with earth and seed and buried them in the ground under a mound of earth. There were no physical bodies in these boxes. In later times these would become known as ‘Osiris Bricks’ and later still, 'Osiris Beds' but there is some evidence that this practice occurred prior to the 4th dynasty. The stone boxes in the early, giant pyramids were *not* sarcophagi but the forerunner or archetype of the later ‘Osiris Bed’. Again this practice is consistent with the RVT.

Q: Archeologically, Osiris Beds can only be traced back to the new kingdom as far as I can find. If you have links to information that suggests otherwise I would like to read the material.

SC: It’s there. As I said before – better you do your own research than have me spoon-feed it to you.

Q: The concept of the sarcophagus in the kings chamber being an Osiris bed is invalid because of the presence of the bull bones. The Osiris Bed contained dirt and barley seeds only, no animal parts.

SC: The ‘Osiris Bed’ with seed and earth (stated in some legends to have been found in G1 by al-Mamun) contained the Ka of the ‘pyramid body’. As Cladking has oft told us – the Pyramid is the Ka of the King. The bull bones found within the granite box of G2 (another part of the dismembered ‘body of Osiris’) would have been placed there as the Ba within the ‘body of Osiris’ i.e. the pyramids. As the Pyramid Texts clearly state: ‘This pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris.’ The granite boxes within ‘the body of Osiris’ contained the soul aspects of Ka and Ba – imo.

Q: Of note is that there evidently was a sarcophagus in the queens chamber as well.

SC: I have no objection to another stone box being in the QC for the storage of important artefacts but it does present something of a problem to consensus Egyptology who now mainly regard this as a serdab chamber where there would be no sarcophagus.

Q: The more you look at what information and evidence is available the more likely it is that the Great Pyramid was a tomb.

SC: Alas, I have to disagree. 10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Archeologically, Osiris Beds can only be traced back to the new kingdom as far as I can find. If you have links to information that suggests otherwise I would like to read the material. The concept of the sarcophagus in the kings chamber being an Osiris bed is invalid because of the presence of the bull bones. The Osiris Bed contained dirt and barley seeds only, no animal parts.

To add to the information on Osiris beds, Dodson and Ikram's important book on ancient Egyptian mummification has some good information on this, as well as on the so-called corn mummies (1998: 120). The practice might date back to the Middle Kingdom during the reign of Senusret II, in his necropolis at Lahun, although in truth there is no observable connection yet with Osiris. In Senusret's time these were rectangular boxes, small in size, filled with soil and seeds on the cusp of germinating. The practice may have been inspired by Coffin Text 269, where the deceased is likened to barley growing from the body of Osiris. The bottom line is that Osiris was not only the ruler of the underworld but also a prominent fertility god, so in burial rites Osiris is often equated with his fertility aspects.

But you're correct that Osiris beds and corn mummies in the shape of Osiris are not evidenced prior to the New Kingdom (beginning c. 1550 BCE). This is when the Osiride form filled with soil and seeds first appears and takes off as an item of burial equipment. Theoretically, the rectangular, soil-filled boxes from Lahun are attached to Osiris because this was the point in time (Dynasty 12) when the cult of Osiris was beginning to flourish.

The corn mummies in the shape of Osiris seem to have supplanted the Osiris beds in function. They are specific to later periods and are rarely more than about 20 inches long, although exceptions exist. They served the same basic ritual function as the Osiris beds.

Scott has made use of both Osiris beds and corn mummies in his work about recovery vaults, but almost without exception they are considerably smaller than all extant sarcophagi. Moreover, the containers that held these objects were almost exclusively made of wood, not stone. Also, there remains no evidence that Osiris was venerated prior to the end of Dynasty 5, and neither his image nor his name appears anywhere in Egypt in a Dynasty 4 context. This doesn't mean an earlier tradition didn't exist absent Osiris, such as with the rectangular soil beds of Lahun, but to date no example of which I'm aware predates Dynasty 12. Sarcophagi did not serve this purpose.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KMS: To add to the information on Osiris beds, Dodson and Ikram's important book on ancient Egyptian mummification has some good information on this, as well as on the so-called corn mummies (1998: 120). The practice might date back to the Middle Kingdom during the reign of Senusret II, in his necropolis at Lahun, although in truth there is no observable connection yet with Osiris.

SC: There is evidence of the practice in Dynasty 2. And a connection with Osiris at this time is not actually necessary.

KMS: In Senusret's time these were rectangular boxes, small in size, filled with soil and seeds on the cusp of germinating. The practice may have been inspired by Coffin Text 269, where the deceased is likened to barley growing from the body of Osiris.

SC: And I suggest that the Coffin Texts were ‘inspired’ by the actual act of placing large quantities of various seed type in, under and around the pyramids i.e. inside the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’. The 14 or so early, giant pyramids BECAME the dismembered Osiris (as per the Myth of Osiris). Osiris most likely was a fertility god in early dynastic Egypt but was not at that time associated with ‘Afterlife’ or ‘rebirth’. This association came into being when (for want of a better term) the ‘Osiris Project’ was set in motion i.e. the building of a number of Recovery Vaults into which all manner of recovery items would be placed, including but not limited to, all manner of seed types. In this way the ‘seed of Osiris’ was ensuring the rebirth of the kingdom. This is what the later rituals at, for example, the ‘Festival of Khoiak’ were commemorating. Festivals don’t just spring out of nowhere – they generally have roots in some actual, historical event.

KMS: The bottom line is that Osiris was not only the ruler of the underworld but also a prominent fertility god, so in burial rites Osiris is often equated with his fertility aspects.

SC: Osiris became the AE god of rebirth/regeneration because his ‘seed’ placed within the pyramid recovery vaults (his dismembered body) made rebirth (of the kingdom) possible. This is what the later ‘Osiris Bricks’, ‘Osiris Beds’ and ‘Corn Mummies’ were commemorating. Bottom line – the AEs were making wooden and stone boxes that had nothing to do with death and the burial of anyone but everything to do with ‘revivication of the land’ since they would bury these wood/stone boxes containing earth and seed in the ground under a small mound of earth, mimicking the original mound of creation, just as the pyramids did. The seed went INTO the pyramid and creation came OUT of it. Just as it was in the Sp Tpy (First Time of creation).

KMS: But you're correct that Osiris beds and corn mummies in the shape of Osiris are not evidenced prior to the New Kingdom (beginning c. 1550 BCE). This is when the Osiride form filled with soil and seeds first appears and takes off as an item of burial equipment.

SC: They may not have been known as ‘Osiris Beds’ prior to the 4th dynasty but there is evidence that the practice was taking place before the 4th dynasty.

KMS: Theoretically, the rectangular, soil-filled boxes from Lahun are attached to Osiris because this was the point in time (Dynasty 12) when the cult of Osiris was beginning to flourish.

SC: Osiris, as you know, was already revered as a god by the end of the 5th dynasty.

KMS: Scott has made use of both Osiris beds and corn mummies in his work about recovery vaults, but almost without exception they are considerably smaller than all extant sarcophagi.

SC: And in later times they built their pyramids much smaller too. But you miss the point here – these wood/stone boxes were made for the general populace in order that they could participate in the festival. You are not going to supply them with full sized versions of the original, archetype ‘Osiris Bed’. In Christian tradition, the Easter Egg is symbolic of the stone that was removed from the tomb of Christ. You are hardly going to buy someone an Easter egg the size of the original stone, are you?

KMS: Moreover, the containers that held these objects were almost exclusively made of wood, not stone.

SC: Quicker, easier and cheaper to make for the general populace at festivals.

KMS: Also, there remains no evidence that Osiris was venerated prior to the end of Dynasty 5, and neither his image nor his name appears anywhere in Egypt in a Dynasty 4 context.

SC: Christ wasn’t ‘officially’ venerated as the ‘Son of God’ until long after he died. Osiris doesn’t have to be venerated at the time the ‘Osiris Project’ was initiated. That the ‘Osiris Project’ enabled the kingdom to rise from the ashes of its collapse might, of course, bring Osiris to have been venerated and celebrated by later dynasties, hence the Festival of Khoiak etc.

KMS: This doesn't mean an earlier tradition didn't exist absent Osiris, such as with the rectangular soil beds of Lahun, but to date no example of which I'm aware predates Dynasty 12. Sarcophagi did not serve this purpose.

SC: And ‘Osiris Beds’ and their archetype are not sarcophagi.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere of a disagreement between Hawass and Lehner over whether PARTS of the Sphinx had been carved, or constructed, from it's creation.

Lehner thought carved in it's entirety and Hawass argued for partial construction.. As i recall , he dug into the side or guts somewhere and found no weathering, or evidence of carving anywhere below those casing blocks. Anyone hear of this?

.. Maybe the 'builders' had better sense than to bother with carving some portions which they knew would fairly quickly disintegrate and clad them with harder block from the start?¿?

Ok, i misremembered the story but here is some info to support the idea that the Sphinx may not have been entirely carved at it's creation but at least partially Constructed..( rough carving faced over with block ) Has Hawass changed his opinion on this? Has he been proven wrong?

http://www.davidpbillington.net/sphinx5.html

Zahi Hawass, The Secrets of the Sphinx: Restoration Past and Present (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1998), 34 pp.

In a 1998 booklet on the restoration history of the Sphinx, Dr. Hawass observed that his workers had found unweathered rock at the base of the Sphinx after removing a large facing block that had protected the stone for millennia:

"At the very base of the Sphinx," he wrote (page 10), "where we have been able to examine the mother rock closely, there are extremely large Tura-quality limestone blocks that cover the bedrock and form a casing. Since the hard part of the mother rock could not have weathered after the casing was applied, its rough surface underneath these large blocks must have been left as we see it by the original Sphinx builders."

Hawass did not identify or illustrate the location of this rock, although he seemed to refer to the Member I rock along a rear side of the monument. If concealed by the casing stone, the unweathered body rock would not have been visible to Lehner during his 1979 survey and would be evidence that the monument was at least partially faced at the time of its original carving. Hawass identified the facing stone as well as the body rock with the Old Kingdom

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_3.htm

Zahi Hawass, The Secrets of the Sphinx: Restoration Past and Present (American University in Cairo Press, 1998), 34 pp.

In his 1998 booklet, Dr. Hawass argues that the Sphinx was carved in the rough and that the oldest facing stones of better-quality Tura limestone were applied as part of the original monument and not as later repairs. The underlying rock was not suitable for fine modeling and was simply cut in a rough way and then faced with stone blocks. Only the head, neck, and beard were cut from the original rock and left exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Christian tradition, the Easter Egg is symbolic of the stone that was removed from the tomb of Christ

Typical Anglocentrism. The egg and the rabbit are stolen from Slavic paganism and have nothing to do with this jesus guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical Anglocentrism. The egg and the rabbit are stolen from Slavic paganism and have nothing to do with this jesus guy

Don't know what time you are talking about, but as fertility symbol it existed way before Slavic paganism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet in religion it is not possible to go back futher than paganism, because that was religion from its unknown beginnings in the mists of time. What was way before Slavic paganism that can be said to be origins of easter eggs and hares, and how can it be proved to be before Slavic paganism when the origins of all religion are hidden to us by time. The modern traditions are stongest in Eastern Europe, the eggs are painted in pagan symbols even today, and have been for very long time. Certainly it is obvious that eggs are fertility/life symbol and many cultures will see this, but what we see today as an easter egg is Slavic in origin, as with the hares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: But catastrophe *did* occur. The Old Kingdom collapsed and it is becoming clearer that this resulted from sudden and dramatic climate change. The pyramids were breached and what had been contained therein was removed. The AEs tell us they did this in their own words.

Care to try again? The Ancient Egyptians, meaning those of the 4th Dynasty who actually built the Giza Pyramids, tell us no such thing.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.