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

...And your opinion of the meaning of the translation is irrelevant according to many

people because only Egyptologists are qualified to read English!!!

Yes, apparently only "Egyptologists" are only allowed to give translations of hieroglyphs on the forum. Heaven forbid anyone else giving an opinion on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, apparently only "Egyptologists" are only allowed to give translations of hieroglyphs on the forum. Heaven forbid anyone else giving an opinion on the matter.

You didn't offer a translation...only a diatribe on how the prevailing translation was incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To your question about the bible, well, i have seen Egyptologists when being interviewed they will conflate the issue of biblical stories with their so called academic discipline that they refer to as "Egyptology" the latter of which is only a theory not definitive scientific truth in my opinion. I am also not going to bother searching the web for such interviews, but i frequently hear Egyptologists conflate the bible with their so called research, i am sure that i am not the only one who has noticed it.

This is the problem I'm having with you here, and I'm speaking as a Moderator at this moment. You continue to make allegations about what you've "seen" or "heard" but seem to refuse to back up your claims. I could cite countless instances in which Biblical lore has been the subject of Egyptological research, but in almost every case the Egyptologist is showing how a Biblical tale cannot be evidenced in the real world. This extends to the research of biblically oriented archaeologists like William Dever and Israel Finkelstein. The body of professional literature on this topic is considerable.

More than a couple of us have now asked you to support your claims, but you refuse to do so. Look at it this way: if you're about to write something controversial but are not at all willing to contribute corroborative material to support your claim, then don't write it in the first place. It contributes nothing to this discussion and is only irritating people.

Egyptology was established as an academic discipline through the research of Emmanuel de Rougé in France, Samuel Birch in England, and Heinrich Brugsch in Germany. In 1880, Flinders Petrie, another British Egyptologist, revolutionized the field of archaeology through controlled and scientifically recorded excavations. Petrie's work determined that Egyptian culture dated back as early as 4500 BCE. The British Egypt Exploration Fund founded in 1882 and other Egyptologists promoted Petrie’s methods. Other scholars worked on producing a hieroglyphic dictionary, developing a Demotic lexicon, and establishing an outline of ancient Egyptian history.

Petrie's study is not definitive proof of anything in my opinion. As he has not lived thousands of years ago, his assumptions is only a conclusion stemming from his own research and guess.

He is not the only one who researches the pyramids and the region of afar.

Parading around in the cloak of legitimate academic research that is heavily funded by institutions and private donations is not going to win you kudo's in my opinion. You'l have to try harder than that.

The first paragraph is a brief albeit sufficient mini-summary of the origins of Egyptology. A common fringe tactic is to avoid almost all current research. What of the past century of research? Are you the least aware of Egyptological methodology?

So you disagree with Petrie. In what way, exactly? In what specific case or protocol or theory contributed by Petrie do you believe he was wrong? Write something specific, for goodness sake. You seem to be going in the direction of claiming Petrie's theories about the pyramids are wrong. And yet, as anyone familiar with Petrie knows, aside from his land surveys of Giza and its monuments, pyramids were not the focus of Petrie's larger body of work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, apparently only "Egyptologists" are only allowed to give translations of hieroglyphs on the forum. Heaven forbid anyone else giving an opinion on the matter.

You're misrepresenting me again. I suggest you do so no longer. I am not an Egyptologist.

Yes, I can translate hieroglyphs, but only because of my interest in the ancient language and the many years of hard work (and some expense) I've put into it. You could do the same. This is what irritates me. You can have whatever opinion you want, but when it's demonstrably incorrect, you can reasonably expect to be called on it.

Or perhaps I should just invite you to show how my earlier translation was wrong. Please feel free to do so, but leave "opinions" at the door.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL "Flexible fact theories," I like that description. I might have to steal it.

Its yours for the using, Sesh. Make good use of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I can translate hieroglyphs

I don't believe you can, nor do i believe "Egyptologists" can. But thats only an opinion. If it irritates you, then thats not my problem. Not everyone will think you as a poster and "Egyptologists" are the end all and be all of the study of the pyramids.

You're not the only ones who study it.

This will be my last post on this thread. I believe i have made valuable contributions to the topic, albeit controversial ones that some posters do not agree with it. But thats the nature of an "Alternative History And Ancient Mystery Forum" Not everyone will agree with alternative history and mysteries that are different from the garbage that the mainstream likes to entertain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe you can, nor do i believe "Egyptologists" can. But thats only an opinion. If it irritates you, then thats not my problem. Not everyone will think you as a poster and "Egyptologists" are the end all and be all of the study of the pyramids.

You're not the only ones who study it.

This will be my last post on this thread. I believe i have made valuable contributions to the topic, albeit controversial ones that some posters do not agree with it. But thats the nature of an "Alternative History And Ancient Mystery Forum" Not everyone will agree with alternative history and mysteries that are different from the garbage that the mainstream likes to entertain.

Your beliefs are irrelevant. Prove them wrong.

Obviously you've failed in that regard.

I feel another "Hava Nagila" moment coming on. :tu:

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it doesn't, whatever floats your boat Cormac. You still are not convincing enough to change my opinion. I have heard countless mainstream Egyptologists talk about the bible as if it was all true. They base their history around the bible and frequently cite from it when they talk in interviews and documentaries.

My ignorance must be very terrible to you.

You sound like you're hurting from alternative views being expressed. I can feel your pain.

I entertain the idea that the translation of the rosetta stone is all subjective, its only an opinion. I am not going to accept it as truth, because i don't believe Egyptologists are qualified enough to translate Hieroglyphics efficiently and truthfully. I also entertain the idea that they did not make that stone, therefore their assumptions are wild guesses full of holes.

They could not possibly understand ancient Hieroglyphics. I also entertain the idea that the rosetta stone could in fact be a farce, a fake etc and has a dubious origin. It certainly looks quite dubious, given that greek is on it. The stone is seen to be the key to the modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Note, i don't agree with the term Egyptian hieroglyphs, therefore i shall reconstruct the sentence to my liking.

The rosetta stone is seen to be the key to the modern understanding of hieroglyphs engraved in the north african region. I entertain the idea that that such a stone is not a 100% real genuine artifact from the region of the pyramids. I am leaning towards the idea that the rosetta stone is a fake designed by organisations promoting false history, but i would have to see the stone close up to be 100% sure. Certainly from the photographs it looks like a genuine fake. Thats my opinion.

A faked language needs to be both internally and externally consistent. Literally anyone can learn hieroglyphs and apply them to any existing inscription in them anywhere and get a coherent readable result. This simply is not possible if the language were made up, even if the creators knew the real language beforehand. Most of what you tried to read would be gibberish. The cross-over with Coptic and thus the wealth of existing Coptic documents would also not produce results.

It does not look to be of an ancient construction, it looks like quite a recent construction, perhaps a few hundreds years old or so. The name of the stone is also dubious and suggests promotion of deceit. The whole look of the stone looks fake and certainly not as real as real genuine tangible artifacts like the hammurabi code.

The hammurabi code looks more majestic and tangible looking evidence of an ancient world. The Rosetta stone looks fake compared to the hammurabi.

The Hammurabi stele is in one piece, while the Rosetta stele is badly damaged. They're about a close a match as a crocodile and a dinosaur. Oh, wait...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe you can, nor do i believe "Egyptologists" can. But thats only an opinion. If it irritates you, then thats not my problem. Not everyone will think you as a poster and "Egyptologists" are the end all and be all of the study of the pyramids.

You're not the only ones who study it.

This will be my last post on this thread. I believe i have made valuable contributions to the topic, albeit controversial ones that some posters do not agree with it. But thats the nature of an "Alternative History And Ancient Mystery Forum" Not everyone will agree with alternative history and mysteries that are different from the garbage that the mainstream likes to entertain.

Guess what? Nobody really cares what you believe, what you can demonstrate is what counts around here. And believe me, kmt has demonstrated his ability to translate hieroglyphs more than once around here...or at least he can do it better than anybody else on this board.

And, calling 1+1=2 garbage is your right, but if I were not to give the intermission clown on this show I would refrain from doing it all too often... we already have enough of them and not enough intermissions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intermission? here is intermission :sk

0c09908bca62.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intermission? here is intermission :sk

0c09908bca62.jpg

Human beings are not intelligent. We believe progress is built on intelligence and knowledge

while it's actually based on language and observation. Man hasn't known this in thousands of

years. If there's such a thing as intelligent life anywhere they would find us disturbing at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LRW,

What in the world are you bumping your gums about? You come into this Forum claiming Egyptology is all wrong and present precisely NOTHING to back up what you claim. You do yourself a great disservice. That is NOT the way to debate. An unevidenced alternative view is just as bad as an unevidenced orthodox view. (And we have enough of them around here). Evidence, dear boy - EVIDENCE.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45cbcb53c56f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.

There's a little humour in the thread. It may not be deep but it's quite broad. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slide1.JPG

Slide2.JPG

Slide3.JPG

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true that Egyptian hieroglyph "R" can also phoneticly been read or ment as "L" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slide2.JPG

Dinner in pyramid? Or Bull cult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true that Egyptian hieroglyph "R" can also phoneticly been read or ment as "L" ?

Yes, but generally only in the spelling of foreign names or words. Linguists have posited that most or all dialects in the ancient Nile Valley did not possess an "L" in their language, so the Egyptians tended to use a handful of different glyphs to try to represent this sound. The "R" glyph (D21) was one of these. However, by far the most common to represent the "L" sound was the glyph depicting a recumbant lion (E23). See the hieroglyphic spellings for names like Ptolemy and Cleopatra.

When used to represent phonetic values within texts or inscriptions written by Egyptians for the sake of their own language, the "R" glyph did not stand for an "L."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~SNIP~

Slide3.JPG

The key part here of any relevance is this:

...underneath outer course linen, a finer linen had been used to model tendons and bones...

...recent radiocarbon dating shows them to be many centuries younger than Djoser.

So any radiocarbon dating only applies to the linen/finer linen modelled tendons and bones. There's nothing here to suggest that any actual bone was radiocarbon dated. And, as opposed to these modelled tendons and bones, Jean-Phillipe Lauer was said to have found pieces of skin, bone from a human left foot and an upper arm. None of which could be mistaken for the 'finer linen modelled tendons and bones' previously mentioned.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key part here of any relevance is this:

So any radiocarbon dating only applies to the linen/finer linen modelled tendons and bones. There's nothing here to suggest that any actual bone was radiocarbon dated. And, as opposed to these modelled tendons and bones, Jean-Phillipe Lauer was said to have found pieces of skin, bone from a human left foot and an upper arm. None of which could be mistaken for the 'finer linen modelled tendons and bones' previously mentioned.

cormac

And this is proof of what exactly? Intrusive burial certainly. Primary burial, most certainly not.. Perhaps now you will appreciate why Zahi Hawass considers C14 dating useless and its results "imaginery". Sorry - but you have to do better.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is proof of what exactly? Intrusive burial certainly. Primary burial, most certainly not. Perhaps now you will appreciate why Zahi Hawass considers C14 dating useless and its results "imaginery". Sorry - but you have to do better.

SC

You don't know that, nor has it ever been determined. Per the quote from Lehner's book, the parts radiocarbon tested were linen and modelled (false) tendons/bones made from same and not actual human bones. So the radiocarbon dating is irrelevant as far as the human remains Jean-Phillipe Lauerare found are concerned. And since we know that part of a girls hip as well as a boys body were also found within or under Djoser's pyramid and they are also NOT described as linen/linen modelled then the radiocarbon testing is irrelevant to them as well. And they have not been determined as intrusive.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMA: You don't know that, nor has it ever been determined. Per the quote from Lehner's book, the parts radiocarbon tested were linen and modelled (false) tendons/bones made from same and not actual human bones. So the radiocarbon dating is irrelevant as far as the human remains Jean-Phillipe Lauerare found are concerned.

SC: False tendons/bones? Here is what was actually found:

”The tomb of King Djoser, founder of Dynasty 3 which initiated the Old Kingdom, had been plundered in antiquity when it was opened in 1900. No complete body was present but scattered bones and body parts betrayed the presence of ancient looters. One of these was an isolated foot wrapped in linen bandages. Removal of the outer layer demonstrated that the foot was enveloped by a resin-impregnated linen cast. The superficial layer of the cast was covered with a resin layer thick enough to permit its creative artist to sculpt the tendons and other normal, superficial anatomical structures of the foot. However, recent radiocarbon dating suggests that the alleged remains of Djoser are actually at least a millennium more recent than Dynasty 4.” (Strouhal et al, 1995).-Arthur C. Aufderheide, The Scientific Study of Mummies p.225

SC: The model tendons and linen wrappings were part of the foot. And it dates to 1,000 years AFTER Djoser if C14 dating is to be believed. No wonder Hawass has a problem accepting C14 results. Back to the drawing board for you.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: False tendons/bones? Here is what was actually found:

SC: The model tendons and linen wrappings were part of the foot. And it dates to 1,000 years AFTER Djoser if C14 dating is to be believed. No wonder Hawass has a problem accepting C14 results. Back to the drawing board for you.

SC

So apparently I was wrong. It's apparent though that you didn't know this either prior to this post, since you tried to use Lehner's TCP to validate your contention and it never actually did. Hawass doesn't even enter into this discussion, except for you to have some boogey-man to blame for things. What would be of interest to me would be to see the actual radiocarbon dating study that the above is based on, to see what protocols, etc. were actually used.

Two other problems lend themselves to your RVT theory as well. The first is that there is also some indication the the pelvic remains of the teenage girl found in one of the shafts on the east side of Djoser's pyramid would appear to date to a few hundred years BEFORE his pyramid was constructed, with no evidence that any of the shafts are contemporary to said construction. The second is that the latest associated vessels found in the 6th and 7th shafts can be attributed to Hotepsekhemwy, but it is NOT an established fact that Djoser directly succeeded him. The possibility also exists that Sanakht may have reigned, at least briefly, between the two. Therefore there to is no way to attribute the storage of these vessels within the shafts, specifically, to Djoser's reign.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for being quite blunt, LRW, but I've been reading a number of your posts lately, and the more you post, the more scattered you seem. The above is a very good example. Please share with us the training you've undergone to transliterate and translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and to comprehend the ancient language.

Well, allow me to answer that: you have no training, and therefore your understanding of this topic is demonstrably weak.

The monument you found happens to be one of the best ones I've seen in some time for the spelling of one of the ancient names of Egypt. You see a bird, indeed, but do you know how it functions? I thought not. It is a monoliteral representing the "m" sound, in this instance. The hillock in front of it represents a "k" sound. The small bread loaf behind the owl represents a "t" sound. So, put them together in the proper order: k + m + t = kmt, an ancient name for the country of Egypt. The circle glyph behind the owl is a semantic determinative representing a physical place, land, or location, which reinforces the meaning behind kmt.

That is how one properly interprets this particular grouping of glyphs. I honestly don't understand what you're hoping to achieve with your fit over calling the pharaonic Egyptians "ancient Egyptians." Why do you think this term is used, considering "Egypt" is in fact not one of the names for the ancient country? How many laypeople are going to understand terms like Kemet, or Tawy, or Ta-mery, or rekhyt, or other terms the ancients themselves used to describe their nation and themselves? There's a reason a certain lexicon is employed. No reason, really, to throw a fit over it.

I come across as terse because I've grown weary of your presumptions that your opinions can match the level of knowledge represented by legitimate scientific and historical research. Your opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor does mine. What matters are the conclusions reached by peer-reviewed research. You go on and on with opinions and try to paint some ludicrous conspiracy theory lurking behind the world of academia, which really only shows you have very little understanding of how the world of academia functions.

I can see why you post the way you do. You clearly don't understand the methodology of research, so you toss aspersions at the academic community and hope they'll stick. They do no stick. They fall flat and reflect very poorly on you.

Goodness.

"Goodness has nothing to do with it"

- Mae West

:yes:

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.