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 5
Harsh86_Patel

Great Pyramids VS Egyptian Pyramids

580 posts in this topic

@Harsh

You stray way off the point with some nonsense about "legendary" kings, and non sequiters, for what purpose?

As for Armarna, well, clearly you are an expert on this period of AE and can show anatomical proof that the representations, in various forms of art, are exact likenesses to the bodies we have. Please show an Armarna head with a bound skull, elongated neck or absurdly wide hips. You will of course need to show these deformaties in the existing bodies of Queen Tye, Yuya and Thuya and I think also Thutmosis IV who is well preserved. I await this evidence of these deformaties in real life.

But that is what i am saying, that the mummies we identify or the busts that we identify are not matching up, our understanding is faulted. So many foreign rulers occupied dynastic egypt during the end, did they change things as they were? Are the busts belonging to the kings/queens that we are trying to relate them to? or they different people that we are wrongly trying to identify as someone else.

Narmer and Menes

The almost complete absence of any mention of Menes in the archaeological record,[4] and the comparative wealth of evidence of Narmer, a protodynastic figure credited by posterity and in the archaeological record with a firm claim[2] to the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, has given rise to a theory identifying Menes with Narmer.

The chief archaeological reference to Menes is an ivory label from Naqada which shows the royal Horus-name Aha (the pharaoh Hor-Aha) next to a building, within which is the royal nebty-name mn,[10]generally taken to be Menes.[4][11] From this, various theories on the nature of the building (a funerary booth or a shrine), the meaning of the word mn (a name or the verb endures) and the relationship between Hor-Aha and Menes (as one person or as successive pharaohs) have arisen.[1]

The Turin and Abydos king lists, generally accepted to be correct,[1] list the nebty-names of the pharaohs, not their Horus-names,[2] and are vital to the potential reconciliation of the various records: the nebty-names of the king lists, the Horus-names of the archaeological record and the number of pharaohs in Dynasty I according to Manetho and other historical sources.[2]

Petrie first attempted this task,[2] associating Iti with Djer as the third pharaoh of Dynasty I, Teti (Turin) (or another Iti (Abydos)) with Hor-Aha as second pharaoh, and Menes (a nebty-name) with Narmer (a Horus-name) as first pharaoh of Dynasty I.[1][2] Lloyd (1994) finds this succession "extremely probable",[2] and Cervelló-Autuori (2003) categorically states that "Menes is Narmer and the First Dynasty begins with him".[3] However, Seidlmayer (2004) states that it is "a fairly safe inference" that Menes was Hor-Aha.[6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have to wait some hours yet for an answer from him. But I can answer this point now. There is only one depiction of Tutankhamun with an elongated head, and that is the famous wooden nefertem bust. But this is typical Armarna art style with elongated and wrinkly neck. All other depictions show him with a normal head. And of course we see that his actual head, and that of his relatives, is normal.

neck-rings-cropped_large.jpg

The head of the relatives can be normal or un bound. Tuts head might have been bound as a child.

Or maybe the amarna bust is not tut. Maybe the mummy in Tut's tomb is not the actual mummy of tut, but of a different person.

So many foreign pharoans had control over Egypt, they could have messed with a lot of things.

Anyways Manetho's list seems more like a myth. And if such ancient documents were found elsewhere, they would have definitely be dismissed as Myths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that is what i am saying, that the mummies we identify or the busts that we identify are not matching up, our understanding is faulted. So many foreign rulers occupied dynastic egypt during the end, did they change things as they were? Are the busts belonging to the kings/queens that we are trying to relate them to? or they different people that we are wrongly trying to identify as someone else.

I think you completely fail to understand the Armarna period, or perhaps you simply pretend for your own purposes....

It is unique in all AE history for it's weird depictions of the human form. To even suggest that the nefertem head or the mummy in KV62 are not Tutankhamun is ridiculous. Nobody believes they are not. If you want to believe different to the rest of the world, well so be it, but don't expect anything except howls of laughter. Do you seriously suggest that the bodies we have are not those of people depicted in Armarna art? Do you seriously think that they are other, and presumably unknown people, and that the mummies of the people depicted in Armarna art are yet to be discovered? And what is the purpose of posting yet another photo of a Bantu with a bound head?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think you completely fail to understand the Armarna period, or perhaps you simply pretend for your own purposes....

It is unique in all AE history for it's weird depictions of the human form. To even suggest that the nefertem head or the mummy in KV62 are not Tutankhamun is ridiculous. Nobody believes they are not. If you want to believe different to the rest of the world, well so be it, but don't expect anything except howls of laughter. Do you seriously suggest that the bodies we have are not those of people depicted in Armarna art? Do you seriously think that they are other, and presumably unknown people, and that the mummies of the people depicted in Armarna art are yet to be discovered? And what is the purpose of posting yet another photo of a Bantu with a bound head?

The picture was posted to illustrate that a long neck can also be acheived easily, neck elongation was again a practice in the African tribes.

Hope i don't need to post pictures for a a wide Hip...lol.

Regarding Amarna art: if you are so convinced of the mummy found in tut's tomb actually being tut then maybe the amarna bust is showing a different person. In my opinion it could swing either ways.

I can understand the stylization argument if the busts portrayed totally inhuman fantastical features, but then all the features observed are commonplace and examples can be found even now.

Like i said, there were so many rulers in ancient egypt, there were ample number of foreign pharoans, who had forcefully conquered egypt numerous times. They could have done a lot of mixing up. Am just being skeptical of consensus Egyptology, i am saying there is a possibility that we are wrong about many things.

The al-mammun expedition of the great pyramid is a classical example of a myth being propounded as a fact....had linked a good article from smithsonians where this is discussed. According to the article, Al Mammun may have never entered the great pyramids.

Also you are ignoring the amount of possible modern contortions of AE history, i.e by the people who made the initial finds. Most of these finds were made in prior to 1940's when we did not have a very good surveillance technology to videograph all the finds and claims.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This proves that both the temples used materials curved out of the Sphinx. But does that prove that both the temples were built immediately after Sphinx? What if you kept the spared materials and later Khafre used that?

You can't "prove" anything about the past, or even the present.

The limestone removed to create the sphinx and its enclosure was used in the Valley Temple and in the Sphinx temple.

If you want to pretend that these materials were stored somewhere for however long, to be used later by Kaphre, well, that's just you pretending that this happened.

There are several quarries all around the three pyramids at Giza. Yet the sphinx enclosure materials were used in these two temples. As Cormac quoted:

The Sphinx Temple builders probably cut the large limestone blocks for the core of the temple walls (so-called “core blocks”) from the lowest layers of Member II of the Sphinx quarry. We can identify the bedrock layers from where specific temple blocks were cut.

This indicates that the Sphinx and the Sphinx Temple were created at the same time. As we demonstrate in another article, the Sphinx Temple was built after the Khafre Valley Temple, making the lower parts of the Sphinx and its quarry younger than the Valley Temple.

Do you understand the implications of the above? The Valley temple used materials from the upper part of the enclosure, the sphinx temple used material from the lower part. In what way would this indicate that these materials were stored (for some reason that makes no sense) and later used for these two temples?

Ok, it is known and accepted by everyone. What do you try to convey? Does it prove anything?

Nothing can be "proven," again.

However, the sphinx was created by the removal of materials that were used elsewhere. Can you provide any evidence at all that these materials were "stored" to be used later? Why should such a thing be true, other than in your own imaginatuion?

Please correct yourself, I have come here after studying in details about Sphinx. I am debating about Sphinx in the forum where Pyramid is discussed. Unfortunately I got dragged into it. Please don't assume that I am proposing AA theories here.

Thank you for that. If I was out of line for thinking you were assuming the sphinx was "built," then I apologize.

It's not that AA theorists are all fool.

Quite right. Many of them are quite clever scam artists. But those are the liars. The fools are simply ignorant, and may mean no real harm with their idiotic claims.

they have pointed out some interesting points in some cases that need attention.

In fact, they have not done this. What they have done is take advantage of their reader's ignorance, and they have assumed (correctly, for the most part,) that their readers will not check the claims they have made against the facts that are known about antiquity.

But the problem with Egyptologist is that they will just point out the some specific points and will neglect other valid points. And inmost cases they will not even bother to read others opinion, but remember that actually broadens your real knowledge. So, please go back and try to read some other's points too, apart from Lehner, Hawass, my humble request.

There are no fringe claims that I am unaware of, unless they have appeared in the last month or two. If there is anything at all that I could be considered "expert" on, it is the claims of the fringe with respect to the ancient past.

You might have a "problem with Egyptologists." If so, this is because you are ignorant of Egyptology and the foundations for the various legitimate Egyptological hypotheses. Any leaning toward the pseudoarchaeological that you may have is the result of this same sort of ignorance.

However, there is a cure for ignorance.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever artistic explanations you may give, it makes no sense that ancient artiste/sculptors would deliberately distort Busts of nobility so that it would be difficult to recognise to whom the busts belong. Similarly for the Sphinx, it makes no sense that an ancient egyptian Pharoan would carve the sphinx head to not look like him or his father etc.

It would make more sense for egyptologists to accept that they have ****ed up regarding many things including identifying the ancient Egyptian Nobility, they have relied so much on the Manetho's kings list and have gone about trying to find each Pharoan mentioned in there and associate him/her with a tomb and a pyramid/temple etc.There has been arbitary classifications of old dynasty and new dynasty etc. What about the legendary dynasty?

What this states very clearly is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have this odd idea that art should always be a clearly and accurate representation of the world. It's not. When you post "it makes no sense" you are clearly telling me and probably everyone else that it makes no sense to you. In other words, you don't understand art. That's ok. You can learn.

If we followed your line of reasoning we'd all be claiming that the world in ancient Egypt was 2D and the proof is in the art which shows a flat world. To paraphrase you, it makes no sense that the artist would have painted a world without depth if it was there.

Posted byAtentutankh-pasheri

The armarna art style is important because it deliberately distorts the human figure, for reasons we struggle to understand.

The question is art is why the artist chooses to represent objects as they do. Here Atentutank-pasheri has told you that the reason is not known. We know that the art exhibits features not part of the original subject. The question is why was that done? You pretend that artists faithfully represent what they saw. That's not the case. No 3 horned antelope have ever been found, yet they appear in petroglyphs. Artists seem to have chosen to express themselves in ways that are not reality for a long time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Regarding Amarna art: if you are so convinced of the mummy found in tut's tomb actually being tut then maybe the amarna bust is showing a different person. In my opinion it could swing either ways.

On this one statement of yours the whole of reality hangs in the balance. This is so contra-factual and contra-reality that it is impossible to answer. Either we live in a real world, or everything is a fantasy, everything can be anything anybody wants it to be. Perhaps you should start a thread "The mummy in KV62 is not Tutankhamun" or similar. It will very interesting what evidence you can provide. Nobody doubts there is room for other explanations about Armarna as so much is still behind a mist to us, and probably will remain so for ever. But some things are known 100%. It is surprising you have banged your head against one of the known elements when there is so much that is unknown. You could chose, for instance, who my avatar is, who is the body in KV55 etc etc. But there are other threads about them.

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that Tut's sarcophagus contained the boy-king, but the shiny golden front piece was originally made for someone else... I thought it was the mainstream concept too... I could be wrong.

Just wanted to point something out.

You can study Egyptology at universities here in the UK and France. There is a thousand years of Egyptian history that is taught in France, but not the UK, because the vast number of discoveries from the alleged period were made by French discoverers. So 2 people can be educated in this subject to a degree level, and disagree not just on specifics, but the actual existence of 1000 years of history.

Menes was arbitrarily chosen as the first 'real' pharaoh, the king lists go back a long, long way before him, but obviously, the people investigating did not want to acknowledge Osiris' reign of thousands of years as historical...

I don't believe anyone can say for certain, and conjecture and more research is a good thing. There is no agreement as to who built the Great Pyramids, or exactly when or even how...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The head of the relatives can be normal or un bound. Tuts head might have been bound as a child.

Or maybe the amarna bust is not tut. Maybe the mummy in Tut's tomb is not the actual mummy of tut, but of a different person.

So many foreign pharoans had control over Egypt, they could have messed with a lot of things.

Anyways Manetho's list seems more like a myth. And if such ancient documents were found elsewhere, they would have definitely be dismissed as Myths.

You seem ready to throw everything away just to save your failed notion that artists always represented the world accurately. You need to learn a little bit about art instead of desperately clinging to your obviously failed notion that artists don't employ artistic license.

The picture was posted to illustrate that a long neck can also be acheived easily, neck elongation was again a practice in the African tribes.

The neck is not elongated. The neck does change length. What happens is that the shoulder is depressed making the neck appear longer. I know it is a trivial point, but thought you might be interested. It is easy to detect the use of these metal rings because of the deformation it causes to the shoulders. It is also easy to detect skull deformations from bindings. Yet the remains show no such deformation as already pointed out.

Edited by stereologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have read it but later realized that it is written by Reader. So you have vowed not to get deluded by keeping your logical mind aside?

I think we have completely deviated from the point here. I agree King Tut may not be a cone head, but do all his representations by ancient artists show him as cone headed? Or is it that some of them are cone headed and some not? It is important to conclude whether the same king had various artistic forms or singular form. If there was only a singluar form , then the face of Khafre's statue and face of Sphinx shouldn't differ much. So, have you got my point? You may need to help me in this regard!

Also if you observe, the artists in AE always tried to portray an attractive face. Do you think sphinx has an attractive face of a king?

Nope, I knew it was from Reader to begin with. I just thought you were more competent than that. It appears I was wrong.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I knew it was from Reader to begin with. I just thought you were more competent than that. It appears I was wrong.

cormac

Using some of my old tricks, eh? :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have to wait some hours yet for an answer from him. But I can answer this point now. There is only one depiction of Tutankhamun with an elongated head, and that is the famous wooden nefertem bust. But this is typical Armarna art style with elongated and wrinkly neck. All other depictions show him with a normal head. And of course we see that his actual head, and that of his relatives, is normal.

You nailed it. Evidently he didn't get it the first time when I said depictions vary widely. Yet they are all of the same person. Apparently it went over his head.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this states very clearly is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have this odd idea that art should always be a clearly and accurate representation of the world. It's not. When you post "it makes no sense" you are clearly telling me and probably everyone else that it makes no sense to you. In other words, you don't understand art. That's ok. You can learn.

If we followed your line of reasoning we'd all be claiming that the world in ancient Egypt was 2D and the proof is in the art which shows a flat world. To paraphrase you, it makes no sense that the artist would have painted a world without depth if it was there.

Posted byAtentutankh-pasheri

The question is art is why the artist chooses to represent objects as they do. Here Atentutank-pasheri has told you that the reason is not known. We know that the art exhibits features not part of the original subject. The question is why was that done? You pretend that artists faithfully represent what they saw. That's not the case. No 3 horned antelope have ever been found, yet they appear in petroglyphs. Artists seem to have chosen to express themselves in ways that are not reality for a long time.

Don't go debating abstract art with me, am very well aware of it. But you have to be literally a fool to commision a sculptor to scuplt a bust of you and tell him to give it completely different features and make it unrecognizable but still keep it human (yes you can request the artiste to make you look prettier), mind you that it was a bust of a supposed King, not some abstract artistic concept.

Again i said before that if the busts had some fantastical non-human traits like the head of a wolf or three horns on the head etc then you can dismiss it as an abstract representation, why would i pay someone to make a bust of me but to make it look like some other person.

What you are suggesting makes no sense.You cannot compare it with the wall paintings where some humans are shown as gaints and others are shown as dwarfs, which i guess will be the next example you would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that Tut's sarcophagus contained the boy-king, but the shiny golden front piece was originally made for someone else... I thought it was the mainstream concept too... I could be wrong.

Not wrong. His burial equipment is a mix of his own and that of at least one, and perhaps two others before him. Even the famous mask was not originaly his, the face had to be replaced with his. About who exactly some of the equipment belonged to originally is the area for debate, but the mummy is that of Tutankhamun 100%

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using some of my old tricks, eh? :yes:

What can I say. It amazes me at times how the ignorant don't even realize just how ignorant they are. But pat themselves on the back for it anyway.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem ready to throw everything away just to save your failed notion that artists always represented the world accurately. You need to learn a little bit about art instead of desperately clinging to your obviously failed notion that artists don't employ artistic license.

The neck is not elongated. The neck does change length. What happens is that the shoulder is depressed making the neck appear longer. I know it is a trivial point, but thought you might be interested. It is easy to detect the use of these metal rings because of the deformation it causes to the shoulders. It is also easy to detect skull deformations from bindings. Yet the remains show no such deformation as already pointed out.

Again you misrepresent me......I never claimed that artiste always depict the world as it is literally, but it does depend on what activity they are performing.

I wouldn't pay an artiste who i have commisioned to make a bust of me, if he makes it look like a human but a different person.

Artiste also represent the world literally in many instances especially when it comes to Potraits and Busts meant to depict reality.

The shoulders being depressed will result in elongation of the neck, obviously they were not implanting additional cervical vertebrae in the neck to elongate it. But thanks again captain obvious.

And since the facts don't add up either the mummies are different people who have displaced the original mummies in the tombs by later foreign pharaohs or may be the busts are depicting other people.

Or maybe the modern day discoverers of the mummies in the tombs messed around and added mummies from different locations just to make their finds more impressive, there are many possibilities.

Mummies were easily available in Egypt, they were so common that they were apparently used as train feul. We do not have any video evidence that the Mummies reported by these modern day adventurers were found as reported in the tombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wrong. His burial equipment is a mix of his own and that of at least one, and perhaps two others before him. Even the famous mask was not originaly his, the face had to be replaced with his. About who exactly some of the equipment belonged to originally is the area for debate, but the mummy is that of Tutankhamun 100%

Why and how are you so convinced that the mummy is tut, when you know how these ancients recycled stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why and how are you so convinced that the mummy is tut, when you know how these ancients recycled stuff?

Where I come back to the theme I had before: knowledge of the history of ancient Egypt, where tomb raids to increase the own future life equipment are well documented. That is how we know that items were recycled and have an explanation why others were modified... sometimes centuries after they were made.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why and how are you so convinced that the mummy is tut, when you know how these ancients recycled stuff?

Prove it isn't....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And since the facts don't add up either the mummies are different people who have displaced the original mummies in the tombs by later foreign pharaohs or may be the busts are depicting other people.

Or maybe the modern day discoverers of the mummies in the tombs messed around and added mummies from different locations just to make their finds more impressive, there are many possibilities.

Has it been mentioned in this thread yet that Carnavon himself may well have found the tomb before he officially found it, and had moved and rearranged various things, perhaps even moving everything to a different, smaller tomb...

Edited by Spinebreaker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't go debating abstract art with me, am very well aware of it. But you have to be literally a fool to commision a sculptor to scuplt a bust of you and tell him to give it completely different features and make it unrecognizable but still keep it human (yes you can request the artiste to make you look prettier), mind you that it was a bust of a supposed King, not some abstract artistic concept.

Again i said before that if the busts had some fantastical non-human traits like the head of a wolf or three horns on the head etc then you can dismiss it as an abstract representation, why would i pay someone to make a bust of me but to make it look like some other person.

What you are suggesting makes no sense.You cannot compare it with the wall paintings where some humans are shown as gaints and others are shown as dwarfs, which i guess will be the next example you would suggest.

Here you toss in your personal opinion that someone is a fool if they obtain a piece of art that is to their choosing and contains desired features which are not a realistic representation.

Then you repeat your opinion that the object depicts something that the person commissioning the art did not want.

Your personal requirements for art is not the same as other people's requirements for art. That is the issue plain and simple. You may not like having that pointed out to you but that is the way things are. For reasons we do not understand the art has traits which were considered desirable. It is not limited just to what you might consider "pretty."

BTW, all of your arguments here are what is known as arguments from incredulity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again you misrepresent me......I never claimed that artiste always depict the world as it is literally, but it does depend on what activity they are performing.

I wouldn't pay an artiste who i have commisioned to make a bust of me, if he makes it look like a human but a different person.

Artiste also represent the world literally in many instances especially when it comes to Potraits and Busts meant to depict reality.

No. You are the one misrepresenting ancient art in terms of your personal preferences. You are imposing your personal preferences onto the wants and likes of someone else.

But thanks again captain obvious.

As long as we are on correcting your errors, it is not necessary to add cervical vertebrae. The issue is elongation of the bones, which does not happen. So please spare me the snotty remarks and do a little thinking.

And since the facts don't add up either the mummies are different people who have displaced the original mummies in the tombs by later foreign pharaohs or may be the busts are depicting other people.

Or maybe the modern day discoverers of the mummies in the tombs messed around and added mummies from different locations just to make their finds more impressive, there are many possibilities.

More unfounded musings in an attempt to support your obviously failed notion that art should be as you want it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used a simple example to illustrate that events leave traces. In the case of settlements, the lack of old settlements is that people were not creating them. Your Damascus example was not clear. Are you trying to say that Damascus would not be det4ectable in the future? Are you serious?

Probably you didn't understand the problem statement of continuous habitation.

I posted a link a short while ago explaining the archaeological evidence.

Thanks a lot, yet to search and read it. Will let you know my feedback.

There is the crux. You think that the geology is clear. That is not the case. Where do you get the idea that the geology is clear? There are differing points of view. A very tiny minority suggests it one way while the rest state that the geology supports the archaeological evidence.

I am talking about water erosion pattern on the western enclosure wall of Sphinx. This can be one of the theoretical example for geologists for rain water erosion on limestone. But what Lal Gauri, etc assume that the timeline decided by Egyptologists is absolute. So, now you need to fit your geology into this timeline. So, some up with all possible scenarios. Please try to study "salt Exfoliation" which is the explanation in answer to rain erosion, see some text book example of that.

Again, your post is quite vague. What do you want to know and why should I bother to post anything relative to Schoch?

Sorry, if I was not clear. I wanted to know names of four mainstream geologists who challenged Schoch and link to their research.

I guess you have almost no experience with dealing with scientific issues. You are latching onto this idea simply because it is contrary to the large amount of information collected on the subject. It is independent research as almost all scientific work should be. That does not make it right or wrong. It is good to challenge, but in the end the idea is accepted or rejected and so far the notion that the Sphinx is must older than the Giza complex is not panning out.

Lol! Science is what my profession is!

Also you need to understand that history is not science. History can't be compared with physics , chemistry. Also it's not mathematics. But for your kind information, geology is pure science. Egyptologists are histoirans and they are fully dependent upon physics, chemistry or geology when it comes to scientific approach to any solution. They are just lame without the science. Unfortunately, in Egypt they are more powerful than science.

That is the the claim made by very few people such as Schoch.

Then what is your claim about the special erosion pattern? You all people just parrot the ARCE project. You have already provided some links , but look into the geology link of the project

http://www.aeraweb.org/sphinx-project/geology-of-the-sphinx/

They never mentioned the western enclosure, because they never observed that in 80s. If it is special case of erosion which they knew in 80s they should have mentioned in their original study. But actually their observation power is low, that's why they had to defend themselves after decade with Schoch's observation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever artistic explanations you may give, it makes no sense that ancient artiste/sculptors would deliberately distort Busts of nobility so that it would be difficult to recognise to whom the busts belong. Similarly for the Sphinx, it makes no sense that an ancient egyptian Pharoan would carve the sphinx head to not look like him or his father etc.

It would make more sense for egyptologists to accept that they have ****ed up regarding many things including identifying the ancient Egyptian Nobility, they have relied so much on the Manetho's kings list and have gone about trying to find each Pharoan mentioned in there and associate him/her with a tomb and a pyramid/temple etc.There has been arbitary classifications of old dynasty and new dynasty etc. What about the legendary dynasty?

Legendary period

In the texts of the Palermo, Turin and Manetho king lists, there are different versions of names of eight god kings that ruled Egypt in the beginning.[citation needed] Turin King List Manetho

(Egyptian equivalent) Function Ptah Hephaistos

(Ptah) Craftsmen & Creation Ra Helios

(Ra) Sun - Sosis or Agathosdaimon (perhaps Sothis?)

(Shu) Air Geb Kronos

(Geb) Earth Osiris Osiris Afterlife Set Typhon

(Set) Chaos Horus Horus War Thoth Knowledge Ma'at Order

These god kings are followed by differing sets of semi-divine rulers. Turin King List Length Manetho Length Second dynasty of gods unknown Dynasty of Halfgods unknown 3 Achu-Dynasties unknown 30 Kings from Memphis 1790 years Dynasty of Disciples of Horus unknown 10 Kings from This 350 years

http://en.wikipedia....ist_of_pharaohs

Check the above link and see how many times the word could/maybe appears in the mainstream King's list. Also it is important to know that most of them had other names and titles with which they were addressed, this makes it highly probable for the Egyptoloigists to have been mistaken in identifying many of the AE kings correctly.

I don't think there is any controversy with the Photo i put up. People will debate who the original AE were and where they were from, until we have more definitive and believable answers based on empirical facts.

+1 . There are gaps, but the Egyptologists think that they know everything. Not knowing something doesn't mean that we will have to opt for AA theories. But it will be honest and scientific to accept the gap and open to everyone's thought!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About "Cone heads". I think there is a culture clash here. Cormac was clearly refering to the film where aliens have cone shaped heads where the cone is vertical and very obvious. abhijit_b perhaps is not familiar with this film and naturaly thinks about the tendency of Tutankhamun's family to be brachycephalic, and mistakes this for being a "conehead". In the context of the original mention of coneheads, Cormac was correct in his anology. We are looking at gross distortions here, not simply a "big head" within normal parameters for homosapiens.

edit to add for those unfamiliar with the term brachycephalic, it is having a wide skull, not elongated or stretched vertically (cone head). I know it is "shopped" but my avatar is an example of "extreme" brachycephalicism, but It is hardly visible unless you know what to look for.

:tu: ..Sorry I haven't watched that movie, neither I am a proponent of some weird species!

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 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.