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

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."

Which still is the case in many old alphabets, like in the Greek there is no B (no, that is not beta but wita) where a B is formed by the diphthong MP and it has no D (it is some kind of hard Z sound) and is formed by the diphthong NT. Neither B or D existed in real ancient Greek.

We could add Phoenician, Hebrew and last but not least Sumerian that did not know a C and where most vowels only existed in combination with consonants to that list (without a claim of completeness).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

”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

As strong an advocate of carbon dating as I am, there is something wrong with this. The form of mummification described for these human remains is strictly Old Kingdom in nature. That is, the reforming of the body into a kind of statue of itself by means of linen and plaster (including the careful molding of details, as mentioned in the quote). Placing these human remains a millennium after the time of Dynasty 3 or Dynasty 4 would drop them into the seventeenth century BCE, or thereabouts.

Mummification was nothing like that by those later periods. The practice of sculpting the body of the deceased was already going out of practice by the end of Dynasty 6 (see Ikram and Dodson's The Mummy in Ancient Egypt, 1998: 113-14). Not many mummies have survived from the turbulent First Intermediate Period, but of those which did survive, it's evident that the sculpting of the corpse had been abandoned by then.

So all in all, the carbon dating definitely does not conform to the style of mummification.

I have Aufderheide's book, by the way. It's terrific.

Edited by kmt_sesh
Spelling
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As strong an advocate of carbon dating as I am, there is something wrong with this. The form of mummification described for these human remains is strictly Old Kingdom in nature. That is, the reforming of the body into a kind of statue of itself by means of linen and plaster (including the careful molding of details, as mentioned in the quote). Placing these human remains a millennium after the time of Dynasty 3 or Dynasty 4 would drop them into the seventeenth century BCE, or thereabouts.

Mummification was nothing like that by those later periods. The practice of sculpting the body of the deceased was already going out of practice by the end of Dynasty 6 (see Ikram and Dodson's The Mummy in Ancient Egypt, 1998: 113-14). Not many mummies have survived from the turbulent First Intermediate Period, but of those which did survive, it's evident that the sculpting of the corpse had been abandoned by then.

So all in all, the carbon dating definitely does not conform to the style of mummification.

I have Aufderheide's book, by the way. It's terrific.

I didn't know about the bold portion above, but if this is the case it would question the validity of the radiocarbon dating protocols in use at the time the date of "1000 years later" was determined. I would also have to question just how stringent the measures were to eliminate any question of contamination of the tested samples. From that perspective, it isn't sounding anywhere near as definitive as one is lead to believe.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know about the bold portion above, but if this is the case it would question the validity of the radiocarbon dating protocols in use at the time the date of "1000 years later" was determined. I would also have to question just how stringent the measures were to eliminate any question of contamination of the tested samples. From that perspective, it isn't sounding anywhere near as definitive as one is lead to believe.

cormac

I've read about the C14 testing in numerous different books but had forgotten it involved the putative remains of Djoser. I had thought it concerned the remains of the young boy also found in the subterranean areas. That's my memory for you.

In any case, I don't recall ever reading particulars on the C14 testing. Aufderheide's book provides the citation and the name of the full paper in the References section, but I can't track it down. I just checked JSTOR and couldn't find anything satisfactory there. However, for a little light reading, my JSTOR queries brought up a paper called "Paleoparasitological Report on the Stool from a Medieval Child Mummy in Yangju, Korea." Doesn't that sound fun? :w00t:

I'm going to keep looking for the Strouhal paper but I'm out of time tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So all in all, the carbon dating definitely does not conform to the style of mummification.

SC: I rather suspect that if you look into the matter with even some cursory research you will find that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The science of C14 radiocarbon dating contradicts the chronology of consensus Egyptology all over the place.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: I rather suspect that if you look into the matter with even some cursory research you will find that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The science of C14 radiocarbon dating contradicts the chronology of consensus Egyptology all over the place.

SC

Scott, radio carbon dating is a 1960s technology which is slowly unravelling. Not accusing you personally, but I've noticed that BOTH orthodoxy and alternative thinkers either cite it or dismiss it to suit their particular needs at particular moments. I certainly wouldn't trust it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently I was wrong.

cormac

Good God, you admitting you were wrong Cormac? My helmet almost popped off when I read that... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good God, you admitting you were wrong Cormac? My helmet almost popped off when I read that... :lol:

Doesn't help Scott any. First he tries to use a source to claim the remains are 1000 years older and in the next breath he's complaining that radiocarbon dating isn't accurate. It doesn't work both ways, it's either one or the other. And no, radiocarbon dating isn't unravelling. But it has been refined greatly since its earlier days.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't help Scott any. First he tries to use a source to claim the remains are 1000 years older and in the next breath he's complaining that radiocarbon dating isn't accurate. It doesn't work both ways, it's either one or the other. And no, radiocarbon dating isn't unravelling. But it has been refined greatly since its earlier days.

cormac

SC: Let us be quite clear here lest others be led astray by your twisting of the facts. I do not claim the remains are 1,000 years old (at least) – that’s the scientists doing that. And neither am I complaining that C14 science isn’t accurate – that’s other scientists doing that. I merely report these contradictory positions. It’s up to science to sort out its own contradictory mess, not I. As matters presently stand, however, the consensus Egyptological opinion holds that these remains cannot belong to Djoser because they apparently date to a later period. How much later seems to be anyone’s guess. But even if the C14 dating of these remains was found to be in error, it STILL doesn’t prove the remains belong to Djoser. That is the FACTS of these remains as they are presently understood. Little point in blaming the messenger, dear boy.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't help Scott any.

cormac

A very revealing comment....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Let us be quite clear here lest others be led astray by your twisting of the facts. I do not claim the remains are 1,000 years old (at least) – that’s the scientists doing that. And neither am I complaining that C14 science isn’t accurate – that’s other scientists doing that. I merely report these contradictory positions. It’s up to science to sort out their own contradictory mess, not I. As matters presently stand, however, the consensus Egyptological opinion holds that these remains cannot belong to Djoser because they apparently date to a later period. How much later seems to be anyone’s guess. But even if the C14 dating of these remains was found to be in error, it STILL doesn’t prove the remains belong to Djoser. That is the FACTS of these remains as they are presently understood. Little point in blaming the messenger, dear boy.

SC

There is no messenger if the one pretending to carry messages is doing it to push his agenda, that is moving the blame for own failures in his theory somewhere else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Let us be quite clear here lest others be led astray by your twisting of the facts. I do not claim the remains are 1,000 years old (at least) – that’s the scientists doing that. And neither am I complaining that C14 science isn’t accurate – that’s other scientists doing that. I merely report these contradictory positions. It’s up to science to sort out its own contradictory mess, not I. As matters presently stand, however, the consensus Egyptological opinion holds that these remains cannot belong to Djoser because they apparently date to a later period. How much later seems to be anyone’s guess. But even if the C14 dating of these remains was found to be in error, it STILL doesn’t prove the remains belong to Djoser. That is the FACTS of these remains as they are presently understood. Little point in blaming the messenger, dear boy.

SC

On the other hand it doesn't prove the remains aren't those of Djoser either, so they should not be summarily dismissed as supporting your negative conclusion. So it's you who needs to go back to the drawing board. Either prove they are definitively NOT part of the remains of Djoser, or shut up about it. As has already been mentioned the shafts under the east side of Djoser's tomb cannot be attributed, with any specificity, to Djoser's reign. Which further fails to support your RVT.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good God, you admitting you were wrong Cormac? My helmet almost popped off when I read that... :lol:

And when do YOU admit being wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's you who needs to go back to the drawing board. Either prove they are definitively NOT part of the remains of Djoser, or shut up about it.

SC: A logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with Egyptology to prove these remains belong to the king they attribute this pyramid to. As matters stand, and if C14 radiocarbon dating is to be accepted, then the evidence points away from these remains belonging to Djoser. Those are the facts.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no known mummies of kings from before the 5th dynasty (actually it's even later).

I believe this dovetails quite nicely with my contention that these mummies were cremated to

protect them forever exactly as the ancients actually said and repeatedly implied.

Remember;

"...I will set fire to him (the corpse) at the beginning of the great season".

These things don't go away just because Egyptologists don't want to see them.

I seem to recall that someone, I don't remember who, said they found dirt or something like that in the sarcophagus of the king's chamber in the Great Pyramid. If that is accurate and we'll say they did cremate Khufu, those may have been the ashes of the king, making the pyramid a tomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: A logical fallacy. You are asking me to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with Egyptology to prove these remains belong to the king they attribute this pyramid to. As matters stand, and if C14 radiocarbon dating is to be accepted, then the evidence points away from these remains belonging to Djoser. Those are the facts.

SC

Read: "While there's a disparity between the Old Kingdom style of mummification and some questionable radiocarbon dating results, I can pretend I know the truth".

Yes Scott, we know you like to pretend.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then ignore my views if you think i'm boring. Also, i find it strange as to why you would call someone a troll for expressing "alternative history and mystery opinions on an alternative history and ancient mystery discussion forum", you should know exactly it is you are.

I am also not on your site, am i? nor do i want to go there, with you as an administrator the place must be intolerant of alternative views being discussed.

I also see that you have not provided any video proof of Khufu building the pyramid? all you have is other peoples interpretations of dodgy artifacts and ancient heiroglpyhs, papyrus scibes, ornaments, monuments etc. Egyptologists theory is no better than the next persons theory. Their evidence is only an opinion, not a fact as far as i am concerned.

You might think its cool to silence alternative views being expressed, but i think its fun how hard you try to deride them, it just makes it feel that my theory is all the more believable given how your aggressive reaction is to it. You can not debate in a civil manner, you resort to calling people a "troll" if you do not agree with their opinions or back up your own theory.

Egyptologists when translating heiroglyphs are only expressing an opinion as am i, when i look at them.

You may wish to avoid comments like the one about video proof. It is troll like and can lead people to the wrong conclusion. Your theory, from what I have seen, is based as much in dismissing evidence and research as it is a belief in the mystical. I may have missed it but I do not believe you have posted anything to support your theory. If you have I apologize, If you haven't then your theory really can't be accepted as believable without some kind of support.

Your last sentence is false: If you an I were standing side by side, looking at writing from a language neither of us knew how to read then whatever we said about the writing would be opinions from both of us. If I had studied and could read the writing, what you said would be opinion but what I said would not be. It is the same with Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Rosetta Stone has showed us how to decipher them so those using that information have studied and know how to read them and what they indicate the hieroglyphs say is not opinion while yours is.

Making the statement you did based solely on what is IMO your inability to read and translate the glyphs, shows a lack of logic, and to me a lack of intelligence used when forming your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Actually only people who have studied and learned to read hieroglyphics can give an accurate translation of what they say. Yes he has his opinion but it is not based on his ability to read hieroglyphics. Further he indicates that those who translate hieroglyphics are giving nothing but opinions which we know is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read: "While there's a disparity between the Old Kingdom style of mummification and some questionable radiocarbon dating results, I can pretend I know the truth".

Yes Scott, we know you like to pretend.

cormac

SC: Alas for you, the evidence/citations I have presented to you are perfectly factual and verifiable. There is no pretense about them. None whatsoever. I do not, however, pretend to know what's going on in your mind.

The facts are the facts. Get over it.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

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.

kmt_sesh and Egyptologists are not the end all and be all of study of the pyramids especially in light that research and study is still ongoing. The important thing to remember is that they do study and research and use what they have learned to postulate what the most probable theory would be. Perhaps you should give it a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when do YOU admit being wrong?

A while back, I actually thought to myself "You know, that Abramelin is probably not as awful and abrasive as he at first seems".

I admit I was probably wrong there.

Happy now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happier now that you're on my ignore list.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happier now that you're on my ignore list.

Harte

Ah... your famous ignore list. The one you put everyone on, and then spend the rest of your life repeatedly telling them you are ignoring them, until you finally crack through being ignored yourself and then you get desperate and start all over again...

Who on earth are you anyway, that you think it matters to anyone that you are ignoring them? You are like some bizarre minor Gary Larson cartoon character. I barely knew you existed beyond your continual "I'm ignoring you" nonsense on here, so I won't miss you.

You can go raffle yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Then what do you say about this below. Could it be that Auriteans were in fact Auliteans? Atlanteans were foreigners to Egyptians.

Auriteans is the name given by the ancient writer Manetho to the first kings to rule over Egypt during the “reign of the gods”. R. Cedric Leonard comments on this on his website and in his books(a)[130][131].

“Plato described Atlantis as being ruled by ten kings before its demise. Egyptian king-lists going back thousands of years before Plato (we will look at one example here) establish four important facts, which we should note:

Egyptian tradition begins with the “reign of the gods”

In all there were ten of these so-called “god-kings”

They were said to have reigned in a foreign country

From all appearances they were called “Atlanteans”

This last statement will be challenged by scholars, so let’s take a closer look at the Egyptian king-lists. One noticeable fact is that Manetho (250 B.C.) calls the first series of kings who ruled during the “reign of the gods,” Auriteans. This seems to be nothing more than a corruption of the word “Atlantean”. Let me explain.

Egyptian hieroglyphics only approximate real sounds: for instance, a hieroglyphic “k” must be used to represent the hard “g” sound. The hieroglyph that Manetho transcribed as r can equally be transcribed as an l. Thus the “Auriteans” of Manetho’s king-lists could just as well be “Auliteans”: phonetically almost identical to “Atlanteans”. This idea obtains credible support from the fact that the ancient Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon (1193 BC) calls these very same kings “Aleteans” [714](B). Isn’t it likely that Aleteans=Atlanteans?”

In spite of this valiant attempt to equate the Egyptian king lists with the kings of Atlantis, it must be pointed out that the ten Atlantean kings noted by Plato were brothers and so reigned concurrently over different part of the empire, whereas the king lists cited by Leonard relate to kings that reigned successively.

http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/auriteans/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which still is the case in many old alphabets, like in the Greek there is no B (no, that is not beta but wita) where a B is formed by the diphthong MP and it has no D (it is some kind of hard Z sound) and is formed by the diphthong NT. Neither B or D existed in real ancient Greek.

We could add Phoenician, Hebrew and last but not least Sumerian that did not know a C and where most vowels only existed in combination with consonants to that list (without a claim of completeness).

Nevertheless it doesnt change fact that Auriteans could be Auliteans if I understood Kmt sesh corectly.

Ten Egyptian Gods are ten Atlantis kings from Poseidon temple?

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.