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

What a ridiculous statement. I don't mind you trying to stick up for your little friend, but do try to choose the time and place and not embarrass yourself. You don't have a clue who could and couldn't write in 2500BC. Anyway, I didn't say it was the foreman who wrote it, did I? Do try to think before you bash angrily away at your keyboard.

You've been getting away with this type of nonsense on here for way too long. You're dealing with Alcibiades now, unfortunately. And you are out of your depth, believe me.

Right, so you will tell us how many people were capable of reading and writing around 2500 BC in Egypt with sources? Especially among the peasants recruited to do menial work?

Ehm, right....

Now try your ridicule on yourself. Bet you can't do that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. It was meant to be. Hopefully the elves are busy working on a sense of humour for you.

And as for Vyse's graffiti in the relieving chambers, well... the jury is still out on that one. You need to read the full story of Howard Vyse and his race to somehow link the GP to Khufu to get a meaured view of this. Even if the graffiti is genuine, "Khufu's gang" (as it is often translated) doesn't mean a damn thing. Khufu could have been the foreman of a work group... you know, Khufu, good boss, firm but fair, liked his beer. And out of the whole, massive structure of the GP this is the only written reference we have to who it is supposedly built for? Nope. No way. Get a grip Cormac.

Kilroy was here. But was Khufu?

Apparently you're behind the times. The jury's done gone home after failing to show it's a forgery.

Not with his name written within a cartouche, which was only the prerogative of the pharaoh.

I have a grip. Apparently your is slipping.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you're behind the times. The jury's done gone home after failing to show it's a forgery.

Not with his name written within a cartouche, which was only the prerogative of the pharaoh.

I have a grip. Apparently your is slipping.

cormac

Do you also have the impression that the factual knowledge of some around here is inverse proportional to the strength of their opinions?

Edited by questionmark
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so you will tell us how many people were capable of reading and writing around 2500 BC in Egypt with sources? Especially among the peasants recruited to do menial work?

No, you are the one who made the statement, so you tell us how many people were not capable of reading and writing around 2500BC in Egypt. You back up what you said. Put up or shut up.

Edited by Alcibiades9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you're behind the times. The jury's done gone home after failing to show it's a forgery.

Not with his name written within a cartouche, which was only the prerogative of the pharaoh.

I have a grip. Apparently your is slipping.

cormac

I see you grew a bit of a backbone when your friend showed up. So, according to you, it was the Pharoah himself, or someone with his personal express authority alone who scribbled in red ochre on the stone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are the one who made the statement, so you tell us how many people were not capable of reading and writing around 2500BC in Egypt. You back up what you said. Put up or shut up.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2801598?uid=3738128&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101586684317

quite easy mate, quite easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you also have the impression that the factual knowledge of some around here is inverse proportional to the strength of their opinions?

The only impression you need to be aware of is that the days of the likes of you and cormac getting away with throwing what little weight you have around is now gone. Your uncle Alcibiades is here now, and neither of you pass muster with me. Little schoolyard bullies who have suddenly met a much bigger boy. Changed times.

I suspect on Christmas eve three spirits will visit you. And each one will tell you to stop being such a tadger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.jstor.org...=21101586684317

quite easy mate, quite easy.

This does not state the oft repeated assumption that most Egyptians were illiterate.

Frankly I suspect most Egyptians in the great pyramid building age could read and

write but most did so at a basic level. Each individuals writing would be highly indiv-

idual and not closely follow the proper rules. My guess is that pper was extrtemely

expensive so very little was written on it. Most writing would be on very temporary

surfaces such as chalk boards or on the ground.

Of course much of this is mostly supposition based on thbe fact that there were few

words and simple grammar. It is based on scanty evidence somewhat like orthodox

beliefs.

Everything that survives from before the 5th dynasty could be written by one man in

a few hours. Are we suppose then that one man wrote everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.jstor.org...=21101586684317

quite easy mate, quite easy.

http://www.jstor.org...=21101586684317

quite easy mate, quite easy.

Yes... and the English lower classes couldn't read or write either, and knew nothing about science. Oh but then there was Michael Faraday....

Don't make silly generalisations. Don't tell me who couldn't read or write. Don't tell me who didn't know what. Don't project your own ignorance onto others. :-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you grew a bit of a backbone when your friend showed up. So, according to you, it was the Pharoah himself, or someone with his personal express authority alone who scribbled in red ochre on the stone?

I'm saying it was during the time of the reigning pharaoh, in this case Khufu, that the GP can be attributed. And since the name was written within a cartouche it was NOT just some person named 'Khufu'. But then I see as well you've had nothing reliable to say on the matter while, with your Post #1553, coming across as a bit perverted IMO as well as intellectually stunted. Which suggests no further reason to take what you say seriously.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. It was meant to be. Hopefully the elves are busy working on a sense of humour for you.

And as for Vyse's graffiti in the relieving chambers, well... the jury is still out on that one. You need to read the full story of Howard Vyse and his race to somehow link the GP to Khufu to get a meaured view of this. Even if the graffiti is genuine, "Khufu's gang" (as it is often translated) doesn't mean a damn thing. Khufu could have been the foreman of a work group... you know, Khufu, good boss, firm but fair, liked his beer. And out of the whole, massive structure of the GP this is the only written reference we have to who it is supposedly built for? Nope. No way. Get a grip Cormac.

Kilroy was here. But was Khufu?

Here's an example of where an understanding of hieroglyphs, as well as an understanding of the modern development of our ability to translate and interpret them, is critical to the situation.

It's altogether possible quite a few men of that time were named Khufu. It's even possible one of the foremen was named Khufu. It was a common custom for men to name their sons after the reigning king, and even in numerous instances to change their own names to that of the king.

But in all of Egypt there was only one man who could have the name Khufu in a cartouche, and that was the king. The cartouche was a royal seal and was for royalty alone. No common man named Khufu would've dared put his own name inside a cartouche, much less a common worker at the site of the king's pyramid.

The graffiti in the relieving chambers is actually quite complex. It's written in a very linear form of hieroglyphs that would've been the common "handwriting" of the day. The graffiti is considerably more than just Khufu's name splashed here and there. His name exists within sentences following the syntax of the ancient language. Also, although the informal name Khufu is to be found in the graffiti, so is the formal name Khnum-Khuf (or Khnum-Khufu) and his Horus name, Medjedu. This clarifies beyond question that the man identified was King Khufu.

That said, as adventurous and colorful as Howard Vyse was, there was simply no way he could've "faked" the graffiti. Those who have studied the graffiti are certain beyond doubt that it's authentic. To that end I would recommend Ann Macy Roth's excellent book on workmen's graffiti of the Old Kingdom. It's the best source I can cite for this situation.

Bear in mind, when Vyse blasted his way into the relieving chambers, only fifteen years had passed since Champollion had deciphered hieroglyphs. Very few people in the world could yet translate a simple sentence in hieroglyphs. What the graffiti represents is something well beyond the ability of someone like Vyse to comprehend, much less fake.

The jury is not out when it comes to people who study and research ancient Egypt. No one who fits this description doubts the graffiti's authenticity. The charge of fraud, as best as I can reconstruct, was begun by Zecharia Sitchin thirty years ago, in one of his early fringe books on alien intervention—and it has only compiled and snowballed in the fringe camp since that time. Sitchin's argument of fraud was laughably inept and is simple to disprove, so I for one would not recommend following the train of thought of someone such as he.

A few years ago I began a thread to establish the orthodox view on the graffiti and to show why Sitchin was so obviously wrong. If you or anyone else is interested in digesting more details, that discussion can be found here.

Lastly, the graffiti is hardly unique to the Great Pyramid. Similar graffiti has been found in and on the other Giza pyramids, as well as on one or more of Sneferu's pyramids. Graffiti is actually very important to the establishing of historical facts, as well as to linguistic studies.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be very early start as Rozhdestvo is not for 16 days, and this eggnog, I googled and see it is some sort of drink for women, that? :)

You're not familiar with eggnog? Goodness, you're missing out! Trust me, it's not a drink for only women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little schoolyard bullies who have suddenly met a much bigger boy

As you have attacked me and held me in arrogant contempt, then I will join and say that though I care nothing for whoever else you attack, it is clear it is you who are a bully and a hypocrite. That we all now tremble in fear at the thought of the great Alcibiades descending on us to enforce "correct thinking"? You complain that others, on both sides of debate, expect perfection in any answers, yet you ask the same from all. You make some childish threat against other posters that you will now beat them, yet you cannot beat me, and I am here alone. I said before that I only act the fool at times because it is my conceit to do so, yet you seem to be a real fool. Your posts are inconsistent and have contradictions. You seem to have real knowledge yet you behave like any other boring troll. Perhaps you should explain yourself, or be seen as a troll.

edit to say I begin to think you are visitor from the fantasy forum, perhaps you are even one of the arch pyramidiots here to cause some disruption. You say you do not believe in the alien theories, yet people tell lies, and your overbearing manner suggests telling lies is nothing to you.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said before that I only act the fool at times because it is my conceit to do so....

No offense intended but this seems to be one the only things you do poorly.

Egg nog is just eggs, sugar, milk, and flavorings but this time of the year it's traditional to add whiskey

or some other alcoholic intoxicant.

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense intended but this seems to be one the only things you do poorly.

Egg nog is just eggs, sugar, milk, and flavorings but this time of the year it's traditional to add whiskey

or some other alcoholic intoxicant.

you mean I am poor at being a fool? well, now I am heartbroken, a sad clown :cry:

and this egg nog sounds like some terrible blasphemy and sacrilege :)

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KMS: ... To that end I would recommend Ann Macy Roth's excellent book on workmen's graffiti of the Old Kingdom. It's the best source I can cite for this situation....

QM: A foreman of an Egyptian work-team around 2500 BC could certainly NOT write.

SC: So - the workmen can apparently read/write graffiti but the foreman of the work-team "...could certainly NOT..."? Is it just me or does anyone else here see how these two Egypt-apologists contradict each other? Make up your minds.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is actually a difference between being able to write and being able to read.

Admittedly the later IS an important part of the former.

However, and here's me as a teacher speaking, we see the later being developed faster then the former. I've taught five year olds who read at a 10 year old level but whose writing vaguely resembles letters and words in so far as they're both squiggles on a page, even the kids struggle to read their own handwriting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's assumed that your a person with something relevant to say.

cormac

Speak for yourself. I've assumed exactly the opposite about him and thus only read his posts when you or others quote them.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean I am poor at being a fool? well, now I am heartbroken, a sad clown :cry:

and this egg nog sounds like some terrible blasphemy and sacrilege :)

You're absolutely right about that.

The next morning.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: So - the workmen can apparently read/write graffiti but the foreman of the work-team "...could certainly NOT..."? Is it just me or does anyone else here see how these two Egypt-apologists contradict each other? Make up your minds.

SC

I will go on record as stating that probably at least some of the higher-ranking foremen were literate, or at least passably so. The average grunt working in the quarries, hauling stone masonry, or placing blocks in the pyramid certainly was not literate. Literacy rates for the Old Kingdom are believed to have been between one and three percent. The average person—farmer, herdsman, brewer, baker, et cetera—would've had no practical reason to be literate, beyond the ability to write his name and perhaps some familiarity with numbers.

But bear in mind the bureaucracy of pharaonic Egypt. There is no doubt that a large number of scribes were on-site at all times. Scribes were often assigned to individual work gangs to help keep account of who showed up for work, and who were issued what tools and whether those tools were returned at the end of the work day.

We will never know for certain who wrote that graffiti. There are no personal names of which I'm aware, beyond Khufu's. It could have been a literate foreman or a scribe.

Your jab at QM and me is a tad disingenuous. You've read enough of the professional literature to know that professional historians are not always in agreement. Why should posters at UM be any different? For that matter, fringe writers are often working from competing ideas. They tend to get more bizarre and more divorced from reality as time goes by, but fringies disagree, too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed the general negative trend posts are taking between certain posters. I needn't name names—all of you know who you are.

This is not necessary and I ask that it cease. If posters do not get along and feel they must resort to ridicule when posting, then that's a good sign to avoid writing such posts. If necessary, ignore or avoid a poster who pushes your buttons.

Thank you.

kmt_sech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... and the English lower classes couldn't read or write either, and knew nothing about science. Oh but then there was Michael Faraday....

Don't make silly generalisations. Don't tell me who couldn't read or write. Don't tell me who didn't know what. Don't project your own ignorance onto others. :-*

Which leads your foreman theory at absurdum. Which is my point that would have gone unnoticed if you would keep your peace at certain posts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way to establish how old the Sphinx is, is to establish how old the Sphinx temple AKA Valley temple is, as it makes sense that the temple would be built AFTER the Sphinx was sculpted. Mark Lehner's done a vey small bit of carbon 14 dating of mortar of the temple and got two dates, about 2000 B.C and 2700 B.C. Not very conclusive. The temple supposed has quays (docks for ships) and even may have a drainage system (why would a drainange system be needed in a desert climate?) Docks would be needed to bring any substantial materials to the Giza site. They would be there before construction of the pyramids. There are supposedly amulets found at Abydos that show a partially buried Sphinx (Abydos is 1st dynasty I believe). There is stone repair work on the Sphinx that dates to the 4th dynasty. Why would a newly carved monument (if built in the 4th dynasty) need repairs? Clearly there is not enough evidence to date it to the 4th dynasty, but also clearly the other dates are similarly not good enough since they lack conclusive evidence.

I would think a good place to look for more evidence is at the Sphinx temple. Right now I'm going to suggest that the 2700 B.C. carbon dating of the mortar is a reasonable date for construction of the temple. Finding more evidence at the temple (or even a more detailed carbon dating of the mortar) would be a logical place to continue ito investingate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For that matter, fringe writers are often working from competing ideas. They tend to get more bizarre and more divorced from reality as time goes by, but fringies disagree, too.

SC: You digress. Any theory that is not supported by the extant evidence or which contradicts the extant evidence should be considered a "fringe" theory. The pyramid tomb theory, much beloved and promoted by consensus Egyptology and its apologists, falls squarely into this category and, as such, should be regarded as fringe as any other "out there" theory. Of course, if compelling empirical evidence can be presented in support of a particular theory then, naturally, this will bring the theory nearer to acceptance and further away from fringedom. Without such empirical evidence the theory is destined to languish in fringedom. When Joe Public comes to realise the extremely weak case presented by consensus Egyptology in support of its tomb paradigm with regard to the early, giant pyramids I have little doubt that they will themselves banish consensus Egyptology to the realm of fringedom where any unevidenced theory belongs.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way to establish how old the Sphinx is, is to establish how old the Sphinx temple AKA Valley temple is, as it makes sense that the temple would be built AFTER the Sphinx was sculpted. Mark Lehner's done a vey small bit of carbon 14 dating of mortar of the temple and got two dates, about 2000 B.C and 2700 B.C. Not very conclusive. The temple supposed has quays (docks for ships) and even may have a drainage system (why would a drainange system be needed in a desert climate?) Docks would be needed to bring any substantial materials to the Giza site. They would be there before construction of the pyramids. There are supposedly amulets found at Abydos that show a partially buried Sphinx (Abydos is 1st dynasty I believe). There is stone repair work on the Sphinx that dates to the 4th dynasty. Why would a newly carved monument (if built in the 4th dynasty) need repairs? Clearly there is not enough evidence to date it to the 4th dynasty, but also clearly the other dates are similarly not good enough since they lack conclusive evidence.

I would think a good place to look for more evidence is at the Sphinx temple. Right now I'm going to suggest that the 2700 B.C. carbon dating of the mortar is a reasonable date for construction of the temple. Finding more evidence at the temple (or even a more detailed carbon dating of the mortar) would be a logical place to continue ito investingate

This sort of work has already been done on archaeological grounds by the Giza Plateau Mapping Project (see the relevant pages here). Archaeologically, the Sphinx is an integral part of the pyramid complex of Khafre.

A range of dates between 2500 BCE and 2700 BCE is entirely possible for the Sphinx temple. Carbon dates produced from organic matter originating from the Early Bronze Age can vary by a couple of centuries. A date of 2000 BCE is definitely not correct. Were you viewing the calibrated dates? I'm away from home for the holidays and don't have access to that information in my library back in Chicago.

Rest assured, no expert in the field, and especially no expert who specializes in Old Kingdom Egypt, posits that repair work was performed on the Sphinx in Dynasty 4. I've seen this information on websites espousing alternative and revisionist history, but never in the relevant professional literature. That repair work was performed on the Sphinx in antiquity is certainly possible, but I know of no real evidence that would support such work in Dynasty 4.

The quays are there and some degree of archaeological work has been conducted on them, but it's unlikely they will ever be fully exposed and studied. The suburban crawl of modern Cairo has oozed right up to the foot of the Plateau. Just the same, the quays would've served multiple purposes. Initially, as you stated, they were convenient for bringing barges with materials from the Nile to the Plateau, for construction purposes. Thereafter, however, they were a principal means of access by priests and other officials to the temples and other monuments of the Plateau.

The drainage system was there for a reason. If the Nile flooded too high, the quays would as well. Some degree of drainage would've been needed for the temples that fronted the quays.

1 person likes this

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.