Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

[Scott Creighton]

KMT: You can carry on at length with your misrepresentation of evidence and lack of understanding of research,

SC: I misrepresent nothing. I give the good folks here at UM the FULL facts, not just the filtered version you proffer.

KMT: ...but I've asked you once not to reply to my posts.

SC: Hate to break it to you but UM is a web site that serves to promote discussion among people with diverse views on various subjects. I do not recall reading anywhere where it says I cannot respond to a post made by another poster. If you do not wish someone (myself or anyone else) to reply to a post that you make, then do not make the post. Simple. Ever heard of Freedom of Speech? You are permitted to say what you wish (within the Code of Conduct and RoE of the Board) and anyone is likewise entitled to respond. Or is it the case that you simply wish to sit upon high and simply dictate to everyone without any ripost? You're not in a dictatorship here.

KMT: Instead, now, you're carrying on with inappropriate and childish personal insults against me. This is against forum policy, as I'm sure you must know.

SC: As I have said to you before. If I were to personally insult you (which I have not) you and everyone else here on UM would most certainly not mistake such and I would most certainly be banned from UM.

KMT: Please cease this behavior.

SC: What behaviour? Presenting you with evidence that your own understanding cannot deal with? Tough! Deal with it. Debate is good.

KMT: My only recourse next is to report you to the Admin.

SC: Go right ahead and do what you feel you have to. You obviously mistake me for someone who gives a hee-haw.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Swede]

SC: You are effectively asking me to prove a negative - a logical fallacy. Whilst it is possible to disprove a positive, I do not believe Egyptology has presented sufficient evidence to prove its hypothesis in the positive and it is the responsibility of Egyptology to prove the positive assertion i.e. its own case, not for me to disprove what hasn't yet been proven. It is the responsibility also of Egyptology to provide the test(s) whereby its hypothesis can be falsified. What test(s) has Egyptology presented that allows us to falsify their hypothesis?

Best wishes,

SC

Am unsure of your rationale. Two of the basic tenets of research are repeatability and the capacity for falsification. Any research paper is thus open to critique and further assessment of the methodology/results. Should you find specific (and demonstrable) errors in the current research, it then falls upon your shoulders to present a qualified paper refuting the topic with which you take issue. This involves a great deal more than utilizing internet sources.

You will then need to present this paper for review by a qualified journal, and be prepared (as Reader has attempted) to support your research.

Until such point as you have accomplished the above, your personal opinions (i.e. I do not believe Egyptology has presented sufficient evidence to prove its hypothesis in the positive...) will carry little weight.

As to the studies of Reader, it should also be kept in mind the he is quite aware of the lack of support for his position. He also acknowledges the need for further research (Archaeometry Vol. 43, No. 1). It should also be noted that the bulk of his publications have been presented in less than the most critical of venues. The "New Chronology" oriented (and now deceased) on-line publication source Journal of Ancient Chronology (which includes contributors such as David Rohl (!) ) would be but one example. Another example would be your recently cited PalArch on-line publication. This source is another version of the "pay-to-publish" genre (as per their own guidelines).

Edit: Addendum.

.

.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Swede

[kmt_sesh]

SC: I misrepresent nothing. I give the good folks here at UM the FULL facts, not just the filtered version you proffer.

SC: Hate to break it to you but UM is a web site that serves to promote discussion among people with diverse views on various subjects. I do not recall reading anywhere where it says I cannot respond to a post made by another poster. If you do not wish someone (myself or anyone else) to reply to a post that you make, then do not make the post. Simple. Ever heard of Freedom of Speech? You are permitted to say what you wish (within the Code of Conduct and RoE of the Board) and anyone is likewise entitled to respond. Or is it the case that you simply wish to sit upon high and simply dictate to everyone without any repost? You're not in a dictatorship here.

SC: As I have said to you before. If I were to personally insult you (which I have not) you and everyone else here on UM would most certainly not mistake such and I would most certainly be banned from UM.

SC: What behaviour? Presenting you with evidence that your own understanding cannot deal with? Tough! Deal with it. Debate is good.

SC: Go right ahead and do what you feel you have to. You obviously mistake me for someone who gives a hee-haw.

Best wishes,

SC

You should give a "hee-haw" for the integrity of UM and for the respect you ought to show other posters. As I've said before, I don't mind debating you or anyone, but I will not put up with personal insults and slights. If you cannot stay on topic but instead must ridicule me, your wasting my time, your time, and everyone else's time.

In any case I've already brought the downward spiral of this discussion to the attention of the Admin. It's only going to get worse, so I thought Saru should know. I myself have no desire to be involved in this sort of bicker-fest and am removing myself from the discussion until such time that cooler heads prevail. I shall defer to Saru. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but at present I see no need to be a part of this thread right now.

[Scott Creighton]

Swede: Until such point as you have accomplished the above, your personal opinions (i.e. I do not believe Egyptology has presented sufficient evidence to prove its hypothesis in the positive...) will carry little weight.

SC: Then present to me the evidence I have been asking for on this Forum for a number of years now that proves the mainstream theory that the early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs of AE kings of the period. Present the evidence that will prove your case.

Swede: As to the studies of Reader, it should also be kept in mind the he is quite aware of the lack of support for his position. He also acknowledges the need for further research (Archaeometry Vol. 43, No. 1).

SC: Which is precisely the view mainsteam Egyptology should also be taking. But no - it asserts these early, giant pyramids were built as tombs, that Rachaf crafted the Sphinx, blah, blah, blah. It picks and chooses its evidence in order to massage a particular narrative whilst brazenly ignoring/dismissing all evidence that contradicts its assertions.

How convenient, how expedient.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

KMT: You should give a "hee-haw" for the integrity of UM

SC: I have great respect for UM and love what it does.

KMT: ...and for the respect you ought to show other posters.

SC: Well, with respect but I do hope you will respect my absolute right to disrespect the opinions of mainstream Egyptology.

KMT: As I've said before, I don't mind debating you or anyone, but I will not put up with personal insults and slights.

SC: Good for you.

KMT: If you cannot stay on topic but instead must ridicule me, your wasting my time, your time, and everyone else's time.

SC: I do believe I have probably now made more on-topic posts in this thread than you have. Could be wrong but I doubt it. Why not go away and do a count for us just to check?

KMT: In any case I've already brought the downward spiral of this discussion to the attention of the Admin. It's only going to get worse, so I thought Saru should know.

SC: Jings! Crivens! Help-ma-boab!

KMT: I myself have no desire to be involved in this sort of bicker-fest and am removing myself from the discussion until such time that cooler heads prevail.

SC: Probably not a bad idea. I've a cool head - you're the one who has already openly admitted you lost yours.

KMT: I shall defer to Saru. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but at present I see no need to be a part of this thread right now.

SC: Ah well. Haste ye back.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[kmt_sesh]

I await Saru's attention, or that of a Mod acting on behalf of him. If Saru or one of the Mods feels I've overreacted, so be it. I'll apologize for that. For the moment I apologize to the group for the negative tone some of my own posts have taken in this discussion. It's not usually how I care to conduct myself, and I know I am capable of better.

[Time Spy]

Respectfully to both Kmt and Scott. You guys please get back to the debate and don't make it a quarell. Like you said Kmt. There is no use in seeing a good thread get locked up because of an off topic aggravation. This is a good thread, so was the Nephilim pyramid one for example.

Likewise don't either of you just 'go away', and PLEASE don't ignore each other. That ruins it for everyone. Harte is a good example of not hearing anything from anyone he doesn't agree with. He has said so himself, that ignoring is his choice. That is really too bad, because his input was appreciated by myself, agree or disagree, which is the purpose of the debate, to discuss.

[Saru]

The key point here is to avoid making things personal - attack the points being presented, not the person who has made those points. Furthermore if you believe someone else is acting inappropriately then the best thing to do is ignore them and hit the 'report' button, don't engage them with more of the same.

Let's try to keep this discussion civil and on topic please.

Thank you.

[Sensible Logic]

HEY SS,

Thank you for your input.....it really help the thread move forword in a positive drection.....

are you part of the cabal.....if so bite me ......are you part of the unpreductive dead wood on this forum .......

So how does your post, particularly the part in bold move this thread forward in a positive direction?

[Leonardo]

Reader responds to Vandecruys:

Within the geological community, this particular debate is far from over. Fact of the matter remains, Reader's opinion of an earlier Sphinx is supported and corroborated by what the AEs themselves have written in the Inventory Stele (believed to have been based on a much more ancient and original text).

Best wishes,

SC

Who believes this, Scott?

From what I have read about the Inventory Stela, it is essentially a 26th Dynasty view/perspective of the 4th Dynasty, and has no 'ancient source' attributable to it's creation.

So, what indeed are the "facts of the matter", in this case?

Certainly not that the Inventory Stela adds any credibility to Reader's thesis. That thesis will gain credibility if it shows it's claims are more supported by the evidence (archaeology) than the orthodoxy. To date, that has not been the case and the only debate ongoing is concerning that thesis - orthodoxy stills stands as the best fit for the available evidence.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Leonardo

[questionmark]

Blaming recent pollution for the apparent weathering of the Sphinx is quite a stretch; please see Robert Temple's book about the mysterious origins of the temple of Anubis... He makes some pretty strange claims but the collection of very old photographs in the book attest to the erosion and also to the fact that the sphinx has been modified to the point where you loose sight of the original. His previous books were short on research but on this one he seems to have done his homework. Particularly when it comes to examining the head of the sphinx to find out who best fits the look. He suggests that its Amenhotep(?) from something like the 17th dynasty based on facial similarities and the fact that the nemes headress fits the 17th dynasty. No way that that was a pharoah from the 4th dynasty!! So was it originally Anubis? (a dog!!) Tough to tell but that would make a perfect guardian for a necropolis. He also suggests that the weathering is due to the enclosure being flooded periodically for ceremonies which might please you folks who cannot stomach 10,000 BC as a date. Since you cannot accurately date stone and the amount of stone quarried out of the enclosure was minimal compared to what was used on the pyramids, I'd say that the actual date of its creation is still very much in doubt. More research is needed...

Certainly not in the pollution deterioration of sandstone, this gargoyle was restored 5y ears ago:

They could have saved their money.

[Eldorado]

Any word on the search for his nose? Tis a damned disgrace, stealing a God's nose.

[Scott Creighton]

Leo: Who believes this, Scott?

SC: Anyone with a brain who can apply critical thinking. In the words of good old John Anthony West:

"...To dismiss it [the Inventory Stele] because of its Late Kingdom date is like having only a 20th Century translation of the Bible available and concluding from that, that the Bible is a 20th century document because of the language.

The Inventory Stela is a suggestive piece to the puzzle, no more than that, and we have never claimed otherwise. Without it, the geologiy would still be the geology. Until ***an and the Ma'at pack of attack Chihuahuas find a way to explain away the differential weathering to the Sphinx enclosure wall (along with the other extensive marshaled array of geological evidence) the geology stands and refutes the argument from archeological context." – from here.

Leo: From what I have read about the Inventory Stela, it is essentially a 26th Dynasty view/perspective of the 4th Dynasty, and has no 'ancient source' attributable to it's creation.

SC: Oh sure. We find repair work on the back of the head of particular dimensions that is described almost in the same fashion as on the Inventory Stele. We find a sycamore tree growing close to the Sphinx – just as stated in the Inventory Stele. We find paint on the side of the Sphinx’s head – just as stated in the Inventory Stele. We have a pyramid attributed to Khufu – just as stated in the Inventory Stele.

So what do we have then? We have a stone record that makes at least four specific statements that have been checked and are verifiable facts that cannot be denied (although some will argue that it was not Khufu’s pyramid that is being referred to in the Stele). If this cannot have been made up what must this all be to you, then? Oh, let me guess – it begins with the letter ‘c’. Oh yes, ‘coincidence’. Coincidence - the last refuge of the bankrupt argument. You are perfectly happy to accept all these verifiable facts stated on the stele (you don’t really have a choice) but just not the part where it states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx and only because that one piece of information upsets the cosy, we-got-it-all-figured-out world of Egypt-apology.

So there you go folks – another example of wanting their cake and eating it; cherry-picking at its absolute finest.

Leo: So, what indeed are the "facts of the matter", in this case?

Certainly not that the Inventory Stela adds any credibility to Reader's thesis.

SC: No one said the Inventory Stele gave credibility to Reader’s thesis (or vice-versa). These are two independent pieces of evidence from entirely different sources (fields of study) that essentially say the same thing – the Sphinx predates Khufu, ergo, could not have been crafted by Rachaf. Whether you like it or not, accept it or not or even acknowledge it or not (I don’t expect that you ever will but that’s not the point) – these two independent sources state in their own way that the Sphinx predates Khufu (ergo Rachaf) thus they independently corroborate this statement; two different witnesses testifying to the same central truth. The 'sum of the parts' and all that.

Leo: That thesis will gain credibility if it shows it's claims are more supported by the evidence (archaeology) than the orthodoxy. To date, that has not been the case and the only debate ongoing is concerning that thesis –

SC: Let me remind you of what you said earlier:

"...Ancient Egyptian history and archaeology is not one of the subjects I know an awful lot about." – Leonardo from post #53 here.

Your quote (above) really sums it up for you. Best leave such matters to the professionals and let them argue it out.

Leo: …orthodoxy stills stands as the best fit for the available evidence.

SC: But you WOULD say that, wouldn’t you. I would hardly expect an Egypt-apologist to say anything else. I do not see that you are here to learn anything new and have it change your mind since your mind was made up long ago and already has all the answers. Let me paraphrase your above statement for you:

“Orthodoxy still stands as the best fit for the available evidence that we choose to consider as evidence. Any piece of evidence that does not fit our paradigm we simply ignore.”

He who believes he has all the answers hasn't been asked all the questions - Confucius

Best wishes,

SC

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[kmt_sesh]

Who believes this, Scott?

From what I have read about the Inventory Stela, it is essentially a 26th Dynasty view/perspective of the 4th Dynasty, and has no 'ancient source' attributable to it's creation.

So, what indeed are the "facts of the matter", in this case?

Certainly not that the Inventory Stela adds any credibility to Reader's thesis. That thesis will gain credibility if it shows it's claims are more supported by the evidence (archaeology) than the orthodoxy. To date, that has not been the case and the only debate ongoing is concerning that thesis - orthodoxy stills stands as the best fit for the available evidence.

An astute observation. Many people make the mistake of taking the Inventory Stela at face value—especially in fringe circles, where the Great Pyramid and adjacent monuments are envisioned as something otherworldly or apart from the norm. The language of the stela and some of the deities mentioned obviously postdate Dynasty 4 by a great length of time.

I am not aware of any evidence, on or apart from the stela, suggesting its inscription comes from an earlier record. Rather, it fits well within Dynasty 26, the Saite Period, when Giza experienced a resurgence. The people of Dynasty 26 would not have had much practical understanding of peoples and events from more than 1,800 years before their own time.

The Inventory Stela is no more an historical record than is the Famine Stela, which is another oft-misunderstood monument.

[Scott Creighton]

KMT: An astute observation.

SC: No – the same old, tired Egypt-apologist objection.

KMT: Many people make the mistake of taking the Inventory Stela at face value—

SC: Just as the Egypt-apologists take the Dream Stele at face value. “Oh looky! It mentions ‘Chaf’. Oh my! That means Rachaf musta built it!” Where, of course, it says no such thing. But the Egypt-apologists just take it at “face value”.

KMT: …especially in fringe circles…

SC: Oh, the “fringe”. I keep telling you – it’s a really great place to be. You get a great perspective from here. You should take some time off, spend some quality time here.

KMT: …where the Great Pyramid and adjacent monuments are envisioned as something otherworldly or apart from the norm.

SC: “Otherworldly”? No. “Apart from the norm”? Well, how many Great Pyramids are there in the world? Wasn’t really a “norm” thing to do by any stretch of the imagination, fringe or otherwise.

KMT: The language of the stela and some of the deities mentioned obviously postdate Dynasty 4 by a great length of time.

SC: I guess the Bible I have here must be a 21^st century document then?

KMT: I am not aware of any evidence, on or apart from the stela, suggesting its inscription comes from an earlier record. Rather, it fits well within Dynasty 26, the Saite Period, when Giza experienced a resurgence. The people of Dynasty 26 would not have had much practical understanding of peoples and events from more than 1,800 years before their own time.

SC: But those of only 1,000 years before their own time would?

KMT: The Inventory Stela is no more an historical record than is the Famine Stela, which is another oft-misunderstood monument.

SC: Except that the Inventory Stele makes (at least) four statements of verifiable fact which, were that all it said, it would most probably be accepted into the Kirk of Egyptology. But it won’t ever be because it says that one thing that debars it – Khufu repaired the Sphinx! Jings, crivens, help-ma-boab! How is this heresy possible?

Answer – we’ll just ignore it and carry on regardless. If the heresy is not spoken of, it'll be forgotten. Out of sight, out of mind and all that.

How so very convenient, how so very expedient.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[kmt_sesh]

SC: Anyone with a brain who can apply critical thinking. In the words of good old John Anthony West:

SC: Oh sure. We find repair work on the back of the head of particular dimensions that is described almost in the same fashion as on the Inventory Stele. We find a sycamore tree growing close to the Sphinx – just as stated in the Inventory Stele. We find paint on the side of the Sphinx’s head – just as stated in the Inventory Stele. We have a pyramid attributed to Khufu – just as stated in the Inventory Stele.

So what do we have then? We have a stone record that makes at least four specific statements that have been checked and are verifiable facts that cannot be denied (although some will argue that it was not Khufu’s pyramid that is being referred to in the Stele). If this cannot have been made up what must this all be to you, then? Oh, let me guess – it begins with the letter ‘c’. Oh yes, ‘coincidence’. Coincidence - the last refuge of the bankrupt argument. You are perfectly happy to accept all these verifiable facts stated on the stele (you don’t really have a choice) but just not the part where it states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx and only because that one piece of information upsets the cosy, we-got-it-all-figured-out world of Egypt-apology.

...

J.A. West is hardly the source you'd want to use. He's not an historian. West is far from the worst of the fringe sect, but he's not terribly well informed when it comes to the meat of historical facts. Actually, he probably is well informed, judging by his intelligence, but as with most fringe writers, he ignores facts where convenient and invents scenarios to fill in the blanks. The analogy of the Bible, for instance, is a clever one but not exactly realistic.

There are plenty of well-researched papers and books about the Inventory Stela written by professional historians who know what they're talking about, so it would certainly be sounder to turn to them than to West. Off the top of my head I would suggest the description of it by Christiane Zivie-Coche in her book Sphinx: History of a Monument. The relevant passage from the Inventory Stela is translated as such (Zivie-Coche 2002: 84):

Live the Horus Medjed, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cheops,

given life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramids, next to

the house of Haurun, northwest of the house of Osiris, Lord of Rasetau.

He (re)built the pyramid of the king's daughter Henutsen beside this

temple. He made an inventory, carved on a stela, for his mother Isis, the

mother of the god, Hathor, Mistress of the Sky. He restored for her the

divine offerings and (re)built her temple in stone, that which he found

in ruins being renewed, and the gods in their place.

For one thing, there is no evidence for a cult of Isis in Khufu's time. She does not enter the pharaonic historical record until late in the Old Kingdom, so there's a clear sign that the stela is not based on an earlier historical record but in fact dates to long after Khufu's time.

Next, "the house of Isis" refers to a temple that Khufu was supposed to have rebuilt. I've already established how Isis was not even a state deity in Dynasty 4, but "the house" refers to a temple for her at Giza. There was in fact a small temple to Isis at Giza, specifically at the site of the queen's pyramid designated G1c. But this little Isis temple cannot be dated to any earlier than Dynasty 21, early in the Third Intermediate Period—and a very long time after the Old Kingdom. The temple was built on what had been a small mortuary temple erected for the royal woman who had been buried in G1c. The Isis temple simply did not exist in Khufu's time, nor could it have.

The Inventory Stela describes G1c as "the king's daughter Henutsen," but there is no attestation of a woman by this name in the family of Khufu (Dodson and Hilton 2004: 52-53).

These are the sorts of things which prove the Inventory Stela is not based on an historical record. There's more than this, but this establishes the case well enough. J.A. West is ultimately pulling his argument from Zecharia Sitchin, who is the origin of so much uninformed fringe woo-woo, and I wrote a more detailed refutation of Sitchin's take on the Inventory Stela in the OP of this discussion.

[Sensible Logic]

SC: No – the same old, tired Egypt-apologist objection.

SC: Just as the Egypt-apologists take the Dream Stele at face value. “Oh looky! It mentions ‘Chaf’. Oh my! That means Rachaf musta built it!” Where, of course, it says no such thing. But the Egypt-apologists just take it at “face value”.

SC: Oh, the “fringe”. I keep telling you – it’s a really great place to be. You get a great perspective from here. You should take some time off, spend some quality time here.

SC: “Otherworldly”? No. “Apart from the norm”? Well, how many Great Pyramids are there in the world? Wasn’t really a “norm” thing to do by any stretch of the imagination, fringe or otherwise.

SC: I guess the Bible I have here must be a 21^st century document then?

SC: But those of only 1,000 years before their own time would?

SC: Except that the Inventory Stele makes (at least) four statements of verifiable fact which, were that all it said, it would most probably be accepted into the Kirk of Egyptology. But it won’t ever be because it says that one thing that debars it – Khufu repaired the Sphinx! Jings, crivens, help-ma-boab! How is this heresy possible?

Answer – we’ll just ignore it and carry on regardless. If the heresy is not spoken of, it'll be forgotten. Out of sight, out of mind and all that.

How so very convenient, how so very expedient.

Best wishes,

SC

You quite readily dismiss the work of people who have spent years and decades in the field studying Egypt and it's works. Perhaps you can tell me how much time you have spent there doing your own research?

[Scott Creighton]

KMT: J.A. West is hardly the source you'd want to use. He's not an historian.

SC: People can check for themselves West’s Credentials here. From what I’ve read of you:

”I state flat out that I am not a professional historian. I am not an Egyptologist or Assyriologist or anything else of the sort. I categorize myself as an amateur historian.”

SC: I think the above comparison says it all really. I know where I would place my money. Don’t misunderstand me here. I have read (and still read) many, many mainstream books on Egyptology. But I am not so snobbish as to limit my reading to some ‘approved list’ of authors. It’s my view that one can only ever get a full grasp of anything by looking at the subject matter (regardless of what it is) from every conceivable angle. In the case of Egyptology I read books from both sides of the argument since it is often the case that one side will mention something that the other has never before mentioned. That way, having considered all the competing evidence I can agree, disagree or indeed, form my own opinion.

KMT: West is far from the worst of the fringe sect, but he's not terribly well informed when it comes to the meat of historical facts.

SC: From the credentials presented, I rather suspect good old JAW would eat you as a light snack.

KMT: Actually, he probably is well informed, judging by his intelligence, but as with most fringe writers, he ignores facts where convenient and invents scenarios to fill in the blanks.

SC: The kettle, black, calling, the pot – rearrange into a well known phrase.

KMT: The analogy of the Bible, for instance, is a clever one but not exactly realistic.

SC: Not realistic? Prove it.

KMT: There are plenty of well-researched papers and books about the Inventory Stela written by professional historians who know what they're talking about, so it would certainly be sounder to turn to them than to West.

SC: I wasn’t quoting JAW as an authority on the Inventory Stele but rather for his clever “analogy of the Bible”.

KMT: Off the top of my head …

SC: Good to see that you’ve found your head again (after losing it).

KMT: I would suggest the description of it by Christiane Zivie-Coche in her book Sphinx: History of a Monument. The relevant passage from the Inventory Stela is translated as such (Zivie-Coche 2002: 84):

Live the Horus Medjed, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cheops,

given life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramids, next to

the house of Haurun, northwest of the house of Osiris, Lord of Rasetau.

He (re)built the pyramid of the king's daughter Henutsen beside this

temple. He made an inventory, carved on a stela, for his mother Isis, the

mother of the god, Hathor, Mistress of the Sky. He restored for her the

divine offerings and (re)built her temple in stone, that which he found

in ruins being renewed, and the gods in their place.

KMT: For one thing, there is no evidence for a cult of Isis in Khufu's time.

SC: Who said there existed a cult? The Stele merely makes reference to Isis as a goddess and Osiris as Lord. Cults die out but the god/goddesses names live on.

KMT: She does not enter the pharaonic historical record until late in the Old Kingdom,

SC: Not according to the Inventory Stele.

KMT:L …so there's a clear sign that the stela is not based on an earlier historical record but in fact dates to long after Khufu's time.

SC: How many times does it have to be said to you? No one is disputing the fact that the Inventory Stele dates to long after the 4^th Dynasty. So what! Just because my Bible is written in modern language does not mean it wasn’t based on much older, original texts. The Inventory Stele is inscribed with statements of verifiable fact. VERIFIABLE FACT. So why accept the verifiable facts but not that one fact that Khufu repaired the Sphinx? Tell us – why? Or do you just think the Saite priests of the 26^th dynasty knew about Khufu doing all these things at Giza but LIED about him repairing the Sphinx? What benefit would such a 'lie' have been to them? This statement of Khufu repairing the Sphinx is almost stated in passing, as if it didn't mean anything to the Saite priests because they knew it to be the truth - they knew the Sphinx predated Khufu. That simple truth of Khufu repairing the Sphinx was not in any way a problem to these priests as it is to modern Egyptology and its apologists. The priests simply stated fact - a simple fact that has become somewhat inconvenient to Egyptology and its apologists.

KMT: Next, "the house of Isis" refers to a temple that Khufu was supposed to have rebuilt. I've already established how Isis was not even a state deity in Dynasty 4, but "the house" refers to a temple for her at Giza.

SC: You’ve established absolutely NOTHING because you have established it ONLY through dismissing a critical piece of evidence that does not fit into your paradigm. When you allow for the Inventory Stele (which there is no reason NOT to since it speaks of verifiable facts) then your whole argument crumbles to dust and is seen for the bogus argument it really is. Use ALL the evidence, not just the parts that suit you. And don’t just dismiss evidence because you find them inconvenient.

KMT: There was in fact a small temple to Isis at Giza, specifically at the site of the queen's pyramid designated G1c. But this little Isis temple cannot be dated to any earlier than Dynasty 21, early in the Third Intermediate Period—and a very long time after the Old Kingdom. The temple was built on what had been a small mortuary temple erected for the royal woman who had been buried in G1c. The Isis temple simply did not exist in Khufu's time, nor could it have.

SC: Except the Inventory Stele tells us it did. Deal with it – without dismissing it.

KMT: The Inventory Stela describes G1c as "the king's daughter Henutsen," but there is no attestation of a woman by this name in the family of Khufu (Dodson and Hilton 2004: 52-53).

SC: And I am sure the Saite Priests were closer in time and had more records at their disposal that Dodson and Hilton. There’s no name of ‘Khufu’ in the Abydos King List either – how many authorities are you going to quote who say that there is?

KMT: These are the sorts of things which prove the Inventory Stela is not based on an historical record.

SC: Except the Inventory Stele disputes what you write because it has recorded events of verifiable fact. What – it’s all just a coincidence to you? Of course it is. Coincidence – the last refuge of the bankrupt argument.

KMT: There's more than this, but this establishes the case well enough.

SC: Only in ‘Planet John’.

KMT: [snip]

SC: Sitchin?? What the heck are you twittering about now? Wakey-wakey, McFly - we’re discussing the SPHINX. Stick to the topic.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

You quite readily dismiss the work of people who have spent years and decades in the field studying Egypt and it's works. Perhaps you can tell me how much time you have spent there doing your own research?

Have you seen how the Egypt-apologists on this Forum dismiss authorities such as Hawass and Lehner when it suits them. Go have a look. You'll find it enlightening.

Best wishes,

SC

[Leonardo]

SC: How many times does it have to be said to you? No one is disputing the fact that the Inventory Stele dates to long after the 4^th Dynasty. So what! Just because my Bible is written in modern language does not mean it wasn’t based on much older, original texts. The Inventory Stele is inscribed with statements of verifiable fact. VERIFIABLE FACT. So why accept the verifiable facts but not that one fact that Khufu repaired the Sphinx? Tell us – why? Or do you just think the Saite priests of the 26^th dynasty lied about Khufu doing all these other things at Giza but DIDN’T repair the Sphinx?

Why should a few veriable facts obscure that much of what was written on the Inventory Stela is supposition? Any good author/writer/scribe can build a novel/false history around a few verifiable facts, and that doesn't mean the rest of what was written is factual, or accurate.

Because the Stela is not completely reliable, what is accepted to be reliable has to be gleaned from other sources. Those other sources tell us the Sphinx post-dates Khufu, so the inscription stating Khufu repaired the Sphinx is held to be unreliable. Very reasonable and logical.

If the Sphinx can be reliably placed pre-Khafre, then I'm sure the Inventory Stela will get another look.

SC: Who said there existed a cult? The Stele merely makes reference to Isis as a goddess and Osiris as Lord. Cults die out but the god/goddesses names live on.

The Ancient Egyptians were clever, but they were also practical enough to only build temples when there were worshippers who would use them. I doubt they were so clever as to think "Hey, let's build a temple to Isis, even though no-one will use it, because it'll bamboozle people digging up ruins a few thousand years from now."

Where there is a temple, there is a cult.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Leonardo

[Scott Creighton]

Why should a few [sic]verifiable facts obscure that much of what was written on the Inventory Stela is supposition? Any good author/writer/scribe can build a novel/false history around a few verifiable facts, and that doesn't mean the rest of what was written is factual, or accurate.

SC: Are you serious? Are you for real? How many verifiable facts on the Dream Stele are there to suppose that Rachaf crafted it? Let me tell you although I'm sure you already know - ONE partial inscription of 'Chaf'. That's it! This is exactly what I mean about Egyptology and its apologists cherry-picking its facts to suit its own agenda, its own paradigm. There is a Stele that exists, the Inventory Stele, with more facts inscribed onto it that are verifiable than the Dream Stele. But no - Egyptology cannot take the stele with the MOST factual information - it opts for the stele with the LEAST factual information. Why? Because of a single inscription 'Chaf' that allows them to link it to Rachaf (and it doesn't even say Rachaf built the thing).

Does this not even suggest to you in the slightest that something is seriously wrong here? If it doesn't then it should.

Leo: Where there is a temple, there is a cult.

SC: And where there is a ruined temple with a long forgotten cult there is a new temple built on top. The AEs were good at doing things like that.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited June 4, 2012 by Scott Creighton

[Leonardo]

SC: Are you serious? Are you for real? How many verifiable facts on the Dream Stele are there to suppose that Rachaf crafted it? Let me tell you although I'm sure you already know - ONE partial inscription of 'Chaf'. That's it! This is exactly what I mean about Egyptology and its apologists cherry-picking its facts to suit its own agenda, its own paradigm. There is a Stele that exists, the Inventory Stele, with more facts inscribed onto it that are verifiable than the Dream Stele. But no - Egyptology cannot take the stele with the most factual information - it opts for the stele with the LEAST factual information. Wht? Because of a single inscription 'Chaf' that allows them to link it to Rachaf (and it doesn't even say Rachaf built the thing).

How many modern egyptologists can you quote who use the Dream Stela as evidence that Khafre had the Sphinx constructed, rather than use it's obvious alignment to Khafre's pyramid and mortuary temple complex (and other geological/archaeological evidences) as that evidence?

Because of the archaeological evidence for the Sphinx being a product of Khafre's rule, the inscription on the Dream Stela (as damaged as it is - and I acknowledge that) can be held to be reliable in this instance.

As for the expansion of 'chaf' to 'Rachaf', that would depend on how many Egyptian words/names ended in 'chaf'. If there is only one known - Rachaf - then the expansion is appropriate.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Leonardo

[Time Spy]

It seems many points of good reasoning keep seeming to be ignored. Isis predated the son Khufu. He remembered his mother, who had lived much longer than the those around at the time and thereafter, as a Goddess. So did the dynasites to follow. The inventory stele most definitely professed a record of time far before its creation in stone, just like the Hebrew Bible. Just because something is accurately (or inacccurately dated) while in its created inscription or writing of account, does not profess nor even attempt to proclaim that it wasn't an ancient well known remembrance written down to address something that should not be forgotten. THIS is not hard to understand so at least realize the more than ample possibillity, because such is so often so throughout the literature of cultures everywhere.

Kmt in all due respect PLEASE stop referring to everyone and everything that doesn't agree with you as 'fringe' that's just arrogant. Many times histroy has covered up the facts, and you no more than I can recall from experience.

[kmt_sesh]

...

Kmt in all due respect PLEASE stop referring to everyone and everything that doesn't agree with you as 'fringe' that's just arrogant. Many times histroy has covered up the facts, and you no more than I can recall from experience.

LOL It's quicker and easier than typing out "alternative history." It's no harsher than "cult archaeology" or "junk science" and other such terms. It just is what it is. And it doesn't matter whether someone agrees with me. The point of my being here to post at UM, as it has all along, is to represent orthodox, conventional historical research. If someone writes something that is not supported by or recognizable in the evidence as presented by orthodox history, it's out on the fringe. The word may sound kind of harsh but it is what it is.

Like it or not, the vast majority of people align with the orthodox approach and what it has taught us. Don't let UM fool you. By this I mean, I like a lot of the people here, both skeptic and fringe, but UM most definitely does not represent an average sampling of people.

[Time Spy]

LOL It's quicker and easier than typing out "alternative history." It's no harsher than "cult archaeology" or "junk science" and other such terms. It just is what it is. And it doesn't matter whether someone agrees with me. The point of my being here to post at UM, as it has all along, is to represent orthodox, conventional historical research. If someone writes something that is not supported by or recognizable in the evidence as presented by orthodox history, it's out on the fringe. The word may sound kind of harsh but it is what it is.

Like it or not, the vast majority of people align with the orthodox approach and what it has taught us. Don't let UM fool you. By this I mean, I like a lot of the people here, both skeptic and fringe, but UM most definitely does not represent an average sampling of people.

Touche, Kmt, good point. I just get a little irritated at being laughed at because I don't agree with the orthodox. You have the right to your view in opinion and I want to hear it as well as those who will agree notwithstanding. So keep on keepin on, stand for what you believe. I myself respect that overall.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Time Spy