Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
angelmaghazy

mysteries of pyramids

1,030 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

CT2010

Pyramids, as I know were built by kings for their 'after life' . It took like almost 20 yrs  to build one an dthey were well planned. Poepl of those days must have been physically bigger and stronger than us so moving a 100 KG stone by a single person must not have been a big deal.

Also, the kings or their fmailes , after their death were buried and are considered to be spending their after life. Thats one reason why there was a lot of opposition by locals when westeners archaeologists tried to enter them. Drilling them is a stupid thing to do. I guess they do within certain well defined rules. They really cant break one to see what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

But most of all Osiris' efflux is I[].t-wt.t.

The only possible translation for this word is CO2 (yeast gas).

What kind of God drips yeast gas.

I think I see the connection.

Bread puffs up with gas from the action of added yeast. Bodies puff up with gas from the action of bacteria.

Some bright soul must've noted the similarity of the two occurrences and made the obvious descriptive association.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

Perhaps my point got lost in the verbiage;

Oh okay, I get it now. The point, was that since it's your theory, it won't be a bad thing which impedes progress like the current meanies in orthodoxy. And your theory will be impossible to fundamentally disprove either. Well, I guess that's not a bad point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

Oh okay, I get it now. The point, was that since it's your theory, it won't be a bad thing which impedes progress like the current meanies in orthodoxy. And your theory will be impossible to fundamentally disprove either. Well, I guess that's not a bad point.

Where in the hell did I say that.

Orthodoxy will be just as entrenched and just as resistant to progress

when they believe in geysers as when they believed in ramps. If they accepted

geysers with absolutely no evidence whatsoever as they accepted ramps then

they could be equally likely to be wrong even on the fundamentals. I was

merely assuming they wouldn't switch to geysers until the proof were rammed

down their throat since they've already built a massive structure on the as-

sumption of ramps.

You really need to read it again and stop trying to read between the lines.

I didn't write anything between the lines and anything you find there is

either your imagination or uniontentional. There's nothing in this post

between the lines either. Try the words one at a time and see if that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

Where in the hell did I say that.

Well, I'm just taking the literal meaning of your words, ya know? Just like those pesky PT. You're obviously not a sun-addled lunatic, so I'm just taking what you're saying literally.

See how this works?

Orthodoxy will be just as entrenched and just as resistant to progress

when they believe in geysers as when they believed in ramps. If they accepted

geysers with absolutely no evidence whatsoever as they accepted ramps then

they could be equally likely to be wrong even on the fundamentals. I was

merely assuming they wouldn't switch to geysers until the proof were rammed

down their throat since they've already built a massive structure on the as-

sumption of ramps.

If you truly believed this, then you wouldn't be promoting your theory with all your might. You obviously believe it is better.

You really need to read it again and stop trying to read between the lines.

I didn't write anything between the lines and anything you find there is

either your imagination or uniontentional. There's nothing in this post

between the lines either. Try the words one at a time and see if that helps.

Hmm I'm just seeing some curious parallels between me discussing your posts, and you discussing the Pyramid Texts :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

But most of all Osiris' efflux is I[].t-wt.t.

The only possible translation for this word is CO2 (yeast gas).

What kind of God drips yeast gas.

This lands you in as dubious territory as trying to see dwAt as "geyser." I've explained this before but it bears repeating, if but for the benefit of others reading your post.

Indeed, "yeast gas" cannot be any sort of translation for the Egyptian word ixt wtt. Here again you're trying to take advantage of words Mercer didn't translate to try to pull a fast one on people who might not know the difference. I know the difference.

You cannot invent translations unless you can prove on solid linguistic grounds that the hieroglyphs spelling ixt wtt somehow means "yeast gas." Anything short of succeeding in doing so on these grounds, simply cannot stand as a working argument.

I remember showing this to you a long time ago in some other discussion, but for others reading this, please click on this page. I'm using Spell 436:791a as an example of the word ixt wtt. You will see ixt wtt in the box designated at the right as 791a. These are the glyphs as recorded by Kurt Sethe for Spell 436 as found in the Pyramid Texts of three different kings, whose initials appear along the left side of the box (P=Pepi I, M=Merenre, and N=Pepi II).

This word ixt wtt is at the end of each line in box 791a and begins with the reed leaf (Pepi II's version of the spell omits the leaf glyph). Most important to note is the determinative at the end of each line: a cobra perched above a basket glyph. Determinatives were vital in hieroglyphs for helping to clarify the nature and meaning of a word, and they are vital to our understanding of translating such words correctly. They cannot be ignored or dismissed. The cobra and basket represent a strictly divine and royal nature to the word ixt wtt. The proper translation for ixt wtt is "Firstborn's Thing." It is well understood that this meant the designation of the king's crown as a goddess (Allen 2005: 430), in the manner that royal iconography often takes on the personifications of deities.

It has nothing to do with yeast gas. Or CO2.

To be perfectly honest I've never come across a word preserved in ancient Egyptian that can be translated as yeast gas. This is something else that you, cladking, would need to establish on purely linguistic grounds in the hieroglyphs. But in point of fact there were many words in Egyptian having to do with odors and emissions, and they were generally marked by a determinative shaped as a pustule. The word ixt wtt is not marked with a pustule hieroglyph, so we can dismiss the idea that it represents an odor or emission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DigitalSentinal

"Well, if YOU ARE the source, how do YOU support your ideas? That is a circular argument that does not survive scrutiny. I demonstrated in my post the flaws of the arguments in your video, so I was hoping you could do more in response. With respect, DS, you did not address a single point in my post; you merely avoided all of my points."

I support my ideas by illustrating them via a website, illustrations within my free E-Book, on video, and in many radio interviews performed online. In regards to the Bible, I have a special page on the site which explicitly shows how the Great Pyramid is incorporated into scripture (here is the link). I'm not really interested in defending my views to so few people at once - I prefer to do so on radio so more people are involved. Also, I'm coming up to my three line maximum response here so - [aw crap].

Edited by DigitalSentinal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

"Well, if YOU ARE the source, how do YOU support your ideas? That is a circular argument that does not survive scrutiny. I demonstrated in my post the flaws of the arguments in your video, so I was hoping you could do more in response. With respect, DS, you did not address a single point in my post; you merely avoided all of my points."

I support my ideas by illustrating them via a website, illustrations within my free E-Book, on video, and in many radio interviews performed online. In regards to the Bible, I have a special page on the site which explicitly shows how the Great Pyramid is incorporated into scripture (here is the link). I'm not really interested in defending my views to so few people at once - I prefer to do so on radio so more people are involved. Also, I'm coming up to my three line maximum response here so - [aw crap].

Your self-imposed three lines are not useful, DigitalSentinal. I am not sure why you are even here if you're not interested in debate. The only thing I can see is that you're deliberately promoting your own website and literature. This is strictly against forum rules (review here). Essentially you are spamming. I'm surprised the Mods haven't noticed this before. If you do not wish to engage us in useful debate, then maybe you should not post at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DigitalSentinal

Your self-imposed three lines are not useful, DigitalSentinal. I am not sure why you are even here if you're not interested in debate. The only thing I can see is that you're deliberately promoting your own website and literature. This is strictly against forum rules (review here). Essentially you are spamming. I'm surprised the Mods haven't noticed this before. If you do not wish to engage us in useful debate, then maybe you should not post at all.

I do debate, but I like to keep it short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Your self-imposed three lines are not useful, DigitalSentinal. I am not sure why you are even here if you're not interested in debate. The only thing I can see is that you're deliberately promoting your own website and literature. This is strictly against forum rules (review here). Essentially you are spamming. I'm surprised the Mods haven't noticed this before. If you do not wish to engage us in useful debate, then maybe you should not post at all.

This looks like an accurate assessment to me. And if you take the time to watch the longer version of his ideas, you might even come to a conclusion that there is some small possibility that his ultimate goal is the creation of his very own New Age religion. I don't know enough yet to confirm that, but based on my review of his video in combination with recent posts here on UM, I wouldn't classify this possibility as "unlikely."

Perhaps he will refute this in a response, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
laffing1

This looks like an accurate assessment to me. And if you take the time to watch the longer version of his ideas, you might even come to a conclusion that there is some small possibility that his ultimate goal is the creation of his very own New Age religion. I don't know enough yet to confirm that, but based on my review of his video in combination with recent posts here on UM, I wouldn't classify this possibility as "unlikely."

Perhaps he will refute this in a response, who knows.

Probably not, you are too few people after all. Maybe if you got a radio? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Probably not, you are too few people after all. Maybe if you got a radio? :lol:

You might be right... although I find this to be a contradiction of his video and previous statements. After all, if we were to take his ideas to heart, I am the pyramid. And in such a belief, he and I are one. In fact, we are both born from the androgynous 22 which chose to experience physical reality here upon the earth which we constructed together.

Surely the pyramid is worthy of responding to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

This lands you in as dubious territory as trying to see dwAt as "geyser." I've explained this before but it bears repeating, if but for the benefit of others reading your post.

Indeed, "yeast gas" cannot be any sort of translation for the Egyptian word ixt wtt. Here again you're trying to take advantage of words Mercer didn't translate to try to pull a fast one on people who might not know the difference. I know the difference.

You cannot invent translations unless you can prove on solid linguistic grounds that the hieroglyphs spelling ixt wtt somehow means "yeast gas." Anything short of succeeding in doing so on these grounds, simply cannot stand as a working argument.

I remember showing this to you a long time ago in some other discussion, but for others reading this, please click on this page. I'm using Spell 436:791a as an example of the word ixt wtt. You will see ixt wtt in the box designated at the right as 791a. These are the glyphs as recorded by Kurt Sethe for Spell 436 as found in the Pyramid Texts of three different kings, whose initials appear along the left side of the box (P=Pepi I, M=Merenre, and N=Pepi II).

This word ixt wtt is at the end of each line in box 791a and begins with the reed leaf (Pepi II's version of the spell omits the leaf glyph). Most important to note is the determinative at the end of each line: a cobra perched above a basket glyph. Determinatives were vital in hieroglyphs for helping to clarify the nature and meaning of a word, and they are vital to our understanding of translating such words correctly. They cannot be ignored or dismissed. The cobra and basket represent a strictly divine and royal nature to the word ixt wtt. The proper translation for ixt wtt is "Firstborn's Thing." It is well understood that this meant the designation of the king's crown as a goddess (Allen 2005: 430), in the manner that royal iconography often takes on the personifications of deities.

It has nothing to do with yeast gas. Or CO2.

Works for me. If he insists on using that translation though I can still take apart his faulty logic from that angle.

To be perfectly honest I've never come across a word preserved in ancient Egyptian that can be translated as yeast gas. This is something else that you, cladking, would need to establish on purely linguistic grounds in the hieroglyphs. But in point of fact there were many words in Egyptian having to do with odors and emissions, and they were generally marked by a determinative shaped as a pustule. The word ixt wtt is not marked with a pustule hieroglyph, so we can dismiss the idea that it represents an odor or emission.

Well isn't that...um...interesting? :unsure2:

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

If you truly believed this, then you wouldn't be promoting your theory with all your might. You obviously believe it is better.

I'm not "promoting my theory". It doesn't matter one whit to me how they

built the pyramids I merely want to know what that means was.

I believe with about a 60% certainty that I have discovered that they pull-

ed the stone straight up the side of the pyramid with counterweights and

about 50% certain they used water from CO2 geysers as ballast.

I can't prove this from this computer terminal and need someone who cares how

they built the pyramid to actually look.

Hmm I'm just seeing some curious parallels between me discussing your posts, and you discussing the Pyramid Texts

You probably should see parallels. I'm a very literal person and it appears

the Egyptians were the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

This lands you in as dubious territory as trying to see dwAt as "geyser." I've explained this before but it bears repeating, if but for the benefit of others reading your post.

Indeed, "yeast gas" cannot be any sort of translation for the Egyptian word ixt wtt. Here again you're trying to take advantage of words Mercer didn't translate to try to pull a fast one on people who might not know the difference. I know the difference.

You cannot invent translations unless you can prove on solid linguistic grounds that the hieroglyphs spelling ixt wtt somehow means "yeast gas." Anything short of succeeding in doing so on these grounds, simply cannot stand as a working argument.

This is absolutely untrue (not to mention insulting). Communication is

dependent on referents first and foremost. Modern people don't notice

this because we all share the same referents. Translation means nothing

unless the object or idea to which the English word applies is a known

quantity. "Ixt wtt" is used several times in the PT and each of these

usages provide a little more of the referent. There is only a single

concept that fits all of the usages.

It's certainly true that words take their meanings from context especially

in modern languages so it is within the realm of reason that this word had

a different meaning in each context. But if the meaning was the same then

thaty meaning was CO2.

I remember showing this to you a long time ago in some other discussion, but for others reading this, please click on this page. I'm using Spell 436:791a as an example of the word ixt wtt. You will see ixt wtt in the box designated at the right as 791a. These are the glyphs as recorded by Kurt Sethe for Spell 436 as found in the Pyramid Texts of three different kings, whose initials appear along the left side of the box (P=Pepi I, M=Merenre, and N=Pepi II).

This word ixt wtt is at the end of each line in box 791a and begins with the reed leaf (Pepi II's version of the spell omits the leaf glyph). Most important to note is the determinative at the end of each line: a cobra perched above a basket glyph. Determinatives were vital in hieroglyphs for helping to clarify the nature and meaning of a word, and they are vital to our understanding of translating such words correctly. They cannot be ignored or dismissed. The cobra and basket represent a strictly divine and royal nature to the word ixt wtt. The proper translation for ixt wtt is "Firstborn's Thing." It is well understood that this meant the designation of the king's crown as a goddess (Allen 2005: 430), in the manner that royal iconography often takes on the personifications of deities.

"Firstborn's thing" works in only one single context. You'll have to change

the definition of the word for other usages.

For those seeing this for the first time I'll list one of the usages for an

example;

2110b. ’I [];.t-wt.t, thou art not enveloped by the earth.

2110c. Thy fame is by day; thy fear is by night, as a god, lord of fear.

2113. O N., [the inundation comes 1, [the overflow hastens], Geb [groans].

2114a. Exult in the divine efflux which is in thee; let thy heart live;

Here they are talking about an eruption and saying that CO2 is no longer eveloped

by the earth. This gas is a topic of learned discussion by day and at night when

the wind slows it is feared. If you walk into a low lying area at night it would

be fatal. This is Osiris' divine efflux. It is driven off by the natron in the

Upper Eye of Horus. Natron is the same word as God. Natron made the Gods divine

because carbonatyed water erupts with the addition of natron. "His name lives on

on account of natron offerings".

You can't just substitute any word you want in the text.

To be perfectly honest I've never come across a word preserved in ancient Egyptian that can be translated as yeast gas. This is something else that you, cladking, would need to establish on purely linguistic grounds in the hieroglyphs. But in point of fact there were many words in Egyptian having to do with odors and emissions, and they were generally marked by a determinative shaped as a pustule. The word ixt wtt is not marked with a pustule hieroglyph, so we can dismiss the idea that it represents an odor or emission.

They would have been familiar with CO2. This is why I too looked up carbon dioxide

in the Egyptian grammar before I ever proposed that it meant yeast gas. It would

be an error to have two words for CO2 just as it would be an error to have no words

for CO2. Obviously it would be possible for this word not to have survived but I

have excellent reason to believe it did survive as I[].t-wt.t

Most people can't smell CO2 but it has a metallic odor to those who can. The geyser

would have a very distinctive odor especially after the addition of a mixture of mus-

ilagenous myhrr, grease, and natron that was applied to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DigitalSentinal

Well KMT, you are right. I am spamming the forum with my icon for my website - which by the way I was totally unaware of. LOL - didn't even read the Forum rules. Just figured that the standard "don't troll or insult others" thing was all they asked. Guess it means I'll have to purchase ad space so I can get my New Age religion started quicker ;)

Edited by DigitalSentinal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

131d. His nurse is ’iȝ.t;

131e. it is she who makes his life (through nourishment?); it is she who gave birth to N.

132a. N. was conceived in the night; N. was born in the night.

132b. He belongs, to the Followers of Rē‘, who are before the morning star.

132c. N. was conceived in Nun; he was born in Nun.

If Kmt_Sesh's translation is right then this says that the king's (geyser's)

life is made by "thing". This is totally illogical. The word is used over

and over and "firstborn's thing" simply doesn't fit. It's actually funny in

a few places. Yeast gas fits. ...in all places.

Of course gas doesn't make his life through nourishment (Mercer's idea) but

because it makes him stand on the Giza Plateau. It builds the ka of the king

that he might live eternally.

The geyser was concieved in darkness and born in darkness. "Nun" is the God

of water and the geyser was concieved in Nun and born in Nun. He is water.

Osiris/ N is the geyser. Atum was the natural geyser and his ka was the ben

ben or natural accretion around it; a conically shaped stone.

Everything fits and it does no good to deny it. It probably fits because they

had geysers and used them to build all the great pyramids.

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

The entire Pyramid Texts fits and it fits with the physical evidence. The

water collection device that surrounds the pyramid and funneled water to

the cliff face counterweights to be reused was called the "apron of Horus".

The vertical lines are where the ascenders and counterweights rode. The dm-

sceptre was the pulley and I still need to get around to writing that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Well KMT, you are right. I am spamming the forum with my icon for my website - which by the way I was totally unaware of. LOL - didn't even read the Forum rules. Just figured that the standard "don't troll or insult others" thing was all they asked. Guess it means I'll have to purchase ad space so I can get my New Age religion started quicker ;)

Apparently I'm unworthy of responding to so far. Is this post of yours an admission of creating your very own New Age religion? Or is it something else?

I'm honestly trying to understand the cryptic intention behind your videos and posts. Perhaps if you would help me, I could achieve this understanding?

Contemplate that, against the message embedded within your videos, as I drift off to sleep for a long day of work tomorrow.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

131d. His nurse is ’iȝ.t;

131e. it is she who makes his life (through nourishment?); it is she who gave birth to N.

132a. N. was conceived in the night; N. was born in the night.

132b. He belongs, to the Followers of Rē‘, who are before the morning star.

132c. N. was conceived in Nun; he was born in Nun.

If Kmt_Sesh's translation is right then this says that the king's (geyser's)

life is made by "thing". This is totally illogical. The word is used over

and over and "firstborn's thing" simply doesn't fit. It's actually funny in

a few places. Yeast gas fits. ...in all places.

Of course gas doesn't make his life through nourishment (Mercer's idea) but

because it makes him stand on the Giza Plateau. It builds the ka of the king

that he might live eternally.

The geyser was concieved in darkness and born in darkness. "Nun" is the God

of water and the geyser was concieved in Nun and born in Nun. He is water.

Osiris/ N is the geyser. Atum was the natural geyser and his ka was the ben

ben or natural accretion around it; a conically shaped stone.

Everything fits and it does no good to deny it. It probably fits because they

had geysers and used them to build all the great pyramids.

BS. The only reason it doesn't make sense any other way to you is because you don't want it to.

The whole thing is clearly coached in birth and creation terminology, Nun in particular being the primordial source from which all things came and must ultimately return. (compare to the biblical Face Of The Waters)

In your insistence on literalism, you're continually attempting to divorce it entirely from it's visible religious context, and you simply cannot do that. That context and thus it's interpretation is there and nothing you can say will change that. It does no good to deny it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cladking

BS. The only reason it doesn't make sense any other way to you is because you don't want it to.

This is the PT. I didn't write it. I didn't translate it. It says what it says and it's

up to the reader to make sense of it.

You can't possibly believe that "thing" works in the place of "’iȝ.t;". Do you really believe

the writers of this work thought "thing" made the life of the king?!? Of course not. It's ab-

surd. But this is what Allen is proposing.

"Firstborn's thing" doesn't work. It doesn't work because it's probably the wrong translation.

It's probably the wrong translation because they are effectively turning the PT into the earliest

version of the book of the dead.

Go back and look at the old translations. They all agreed. There'd be little differences but

the meaning of each line was nearly identical. Then Faulkner started changing it and now Allen

has made it unrecognizable. When you compare translations you can't even tell where you're at

because they don't agree.

Maybe tomorrow I'll show you just how funny Allen's translation is for this word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

131d. His nurse is ’iȝ.t;

131e. it is she who makes his life (through nourishment?); it is she who gave birth to N.

132a. N. was conceived in the night; N. was born in the night.

132b. He belongs, to the Followers of Rē‘, who are before the morning star.

132c. N. was conceived in Nun; he was born in Nun.

If Kmt_Sesh's translation is right then this says that the king's (geyser's)

life is made by "thing". This is totally illogical. The word is used over

and over and "firstborn's thing" simply doesn't fit. It's actually funny in

a few places. Yeast gas fits. ...in all places.

You're purposely getting hung up on the meaning "firstborn's thing". Kmt_sesh has alread said:

The proper translation for ixt wtt is "Firstborn's Thing." It is well understood that this meant the designation of the king's crown as a goddess (Allen 2005: 430), in the manner that royal iconography often takes on the personifications of deities.

Meaning, in essence that the king ruled by virtue of wearing the crown and therefore having the approval of the gods and goddesses. In this case the crown took on the aspect of a goddess in that, just as it was the goddess who would nurture the King, it was the King's duty to do much the same for his subjects. This, again, has absolutely nothing to do with geysers. Of course, I expect you to ignore or reinterpret this too.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DigitalSentinal

Apparently I'm unworthy of responding to so far. Is this post of yours an admission of creating your very own New Age religion? Or is it something else?

I'm honestly trying to understand the cryptic intention behind your videos and posts. Perhaps if you would help me, I could achieve this understanding?

Contemplate that, against the message embedded within your videos, as I drift off to sleep for a long day of work tomorrow.

Cheers.

I state my opinions with conviction rather than speculation. Am I starting a religion? LOL - Yeah sure, I'm starting a religion - the religion of common sense and logic. My ideas about the pyramid's purpose may not "fit" traditional Egyptology, but they're new and simple - AND none of them depend upon the Pyramid's size, age, or location or even its construction. Now, hurry up and sign up so you can get my movement's free t-shirt and coffee mug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

I state my opinions with conviction rather than speculation. Am I starting a religion? LOL - Yeah sure, I'm starting a religion - the religion of common sense and logic. My ideas about the pyramid's purpose may not "fit" traditional Egyptology, but they're new and simple - AND none of them depend upon the Pyramid's size, age, or location or even its construction. Now, hurry up and sign up so you can get my movement's free t-shirt and coffee mug.

I'm not quite sure how your ideas about the pyramid fit in with common sense and logic, and opinionated conviction rarely leads to factual historical confirmation. As appears to be the case with most fringe authors, you are attempting to tie unrelated things together in an effort to make sense of life and the universe. Although you claim that this isn't speculation, it most certainly appears to be. I don't knock the effort, but when the flaws in your opinionated conviction are brought to your attention as kmt_sesh has generously proffered, is it not prudent to reconsider some of the assumptions you've made and return to the drawing board? Or, at the very least, explain in detail why the points raised don't impact the truth of your message - if not for the readership here, for yourself?

Thank you for the response, by the way. I feel honored by the four entire sentences. Free t-shirt and coffee mug? Sign me up! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Pyramids, as I know were built by kings for their 'after life' . It took like almost 20 yrs to build one an dthey were well planned. Poepl of those days must have been physically bigger and stronger than us so moving a 100 KG stone by a single person must not have been a big deal.

Not really, they were mostly shorter than us, and not really any stronger. They had teams set up to move the stones.

Also, the kings or their fmailes , after their death were buried and are considered to be spending their after life. Thats one reason why there was a lot of opposition by locals when westeners archaeologists tried to enter them. Drilling them is a stupid thing to do. I guess they do within certain well defined rules. They really cant break one to see what it is.

That I recall, there wasn't a lot of opposition, the Egyptians themselves had been looting the tombs since antiquity, as well as various other groups over the years.

The Chinese however do practice this, for example the first emperors tomb has still not been opened.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.