Update on Scan Pyramid project Oct 2016

[Jarocal]

4 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Why specifically, I don't know. But as I'm sure you know, the crested ibis (Ax) was a common way to designate the part of the soul that dwelled in the Duat. There's no real translation for it but it's often rendered "transfigure spirit."

Would not "transfigured spirit" correlate back to the previously posted glyph that also could contain the meaning "feminine soul". Maybe Cladking is correct when he asserts that Orthodox Egyptologists have not correctly translated the writngs left behind.

[Hanslune]

42 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

Maybe Cladking is correct when he asserts that Orthodox Egyptologists have not correctly translated the writngs left behind.

He is basing his opinions on English translation. He doesn't look at or even consider the symbols themselves.

[Hanslune]

59 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

KS here. South is south of north, and north is north of south. Is that what you're looking for?

Er no : } I thought that the AE viewed the world - not in a S to N orientation as do Europeans but instead from N to S - upside down to us northernly oriented forlks?

[Jarocal]

10 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

He is basing his opinions on English translation. He doesn't look at or even consider the symbols themselves.

I commend you on the nice deflection (in typical orthodox academic fashion) away how the glyphs can have alternative meanings which may correlate to one another yet apparently the current consensus must be protected possibly at the expense of the true intended meaning of the writings left by the AE.

As Egypt was a colony of the British Empire beginning before Khufu, English translation of the writings are perfectly appropriate.

[Kenemet]

15 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Er no : } I thought that the AE viewed the world - not in a S to N orientation as do Europeans but instead from N to S - upside down to us northernly oriented forlks?

I believe that this is correct.  I read it in some source that I found reliable but can't find it now.  Soooo.... take with grain of salt.  I do know they used Upstream and Downstream.

[Hanslune]

11 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I believe that this is correct.  I read it in some source that I found reliable but can't find it now.  Soooo.... take with grain of salt.  I do know they used Upstream and Downstream.

I saw it once too long ago something to do perhaps with the argument over the Orion orientation of Giza  or something.

Anyway if we could trace down if that is correct that would call in question a  G-normous picture which from the AE perspective was up side down.

 

 

[Kenemet]

16 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

See my post here and here.The AEs would have a pretty good idea of their own history, including the order the pyramids were constructed. They may even have had a plan of the locations relative to each other hand down to them from the builders, a plan that quite literally, over time, grew arms and legs into what we observe today as Osiris.

Again, that means they had a map somewhere.  You can't simply put up random points and say "Oh look!  Osiris."  And furthermore, your unfinished pyramids seem quite problematical.  It took trained archaeologists to find them because they were buried under the sands.  By the 19th Dynasty, even the Sphinx had been mostly buried by desert sands. 

What evidence do you have that they even knew where these unfinished pyramids were located?

Quote

Will we ever find an ancient plan that plots just these first pyramids? Probably not. Perhaps it was lost along with the construction plans for the pyramids?

You will have to raise some sort of textual evidence.  Otherwise, it's just coincidence and pareidolia.

Quote

Kenemet: So you'll have to turn up a map to prove this.

SC: No, I don't. It's a hypothesis. Egyptology has still to turn up an original, in-situ mummified king from these pyramids. They have declared these structures as tombs without that primary evidence. I will not be held to a higher standard of proof than Egyptology however much you may wish to impose that bar upon me.

In that case, you will need to have a better grasp of the language and come up with some textual and inscriptional evidence for each site to support your idea if you want to hold to the same standards as the Egyptologists. 

[Hanslune]

4 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

In that case, you will need to have a better grasp of the language and come up with some textual and inscriptional evidence for each site to support your idea if you want to hold to the same standards as the Egyptologists. 

Standards

Additionally Egyptologist have the standard of having their material published within the peer review system while SC is not. That is far far harder standard. They are unable to use his slipshot methods and poor technique - This idea of his wouldn't make it though even the weakness of PR.

Additionally could we see other examples of this making stuff to make pictures of maps? Was it only a one time effort?

What magical value was gained or merit obtained from making dots on a 'map' I wonder?

Edited November 25, 2017 by Hanslune

[kmt_sesh]

8 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I saw it once too long ago something to do perhaps with the argument over the Orion orientation of Giza  or something.

Anyway if we could trace down if that is correct that would call in question a  G-normous picture which from the AE perspective was up side down.

 

 

I'm pretty sure was from an old thread with Scott right here. I kinda-sorta remember it. I don't recall the details but seem to remember that some good information was presented that, yes, the ancient Egyptians viewed things south to north. But like Kenemet said, take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't think I've come across this argument in the professional literature.

[kmt_sesh]

Say, wasn't this thread about the muography of the ScanPyramids project? We can continue debating Scott's argument, but for a moment I'd like to take us back to the topic. I'm posting a video from ScanPyramids that might've been posted earlier in this thread or in one of the others. It's an excellent video and really gives a sense of the voids the team has been finding:

The source is from this page from the HIP site, which includes some other videos. Watching this again got me intrigued all the more about the voids.

Meanwhile, at the ScanPyramids website they've posted a new article about the latest findings (see here). Unfortunately it's been published in Nature and all they;re providing here is an abstract, so there's a damn paywall. I might consider renting the article, since it's only $5, but if anyone has read it, please feel free to share the info.

[Kenemet]

17 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: The pyramids selected are all among the first pyramids built by the AEs - 16 finished and 3 unfinished. As far as I am aware, none of these pyramids have any PTs as they are all either 3rd or 4th dynasty. The PTs only began appearing in pyramids from the 5th dynasty. What we see today as unfinished might not have been the case in ancient times. But even if these three were unfinished in ancient times there could have been any number of reasons. The point is, these pyramid would have been part of the overall plan as per my hypothesis. ).

Okay... now wait.  You're changing your hypothesis again.  First it was a plan by the 19th dynasty, suddenly discovered.  Now you're saying that it's all the early pyramids including some that were buried by the sand before the 19th dynasty and were not recognizable as pyramids.  "That lump is Osiris' knee" doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.  They put up temples to Osiris in places where his body parts were found.  Designating a "lump" without putting a temple or something on the spot is contrary to their practices.

Since you say you're doing this with the same standards as Egyptologists, what evidence are you using to prove that the unfinished pyramids are part of this?  Egyptologists would use names, foundation deposits, temple remains, archaeological material, tomb inscriptions, etc, etc.

Other than "SC believes this" what evidence do you have?  Not "well you haven't found a body in a pyramid" (which is not true, by the way) - no negatives.  What POSITIVE evidence do you have?

At this point, all you've shown us is "SC believes this."

Quote

That the myth of Isis and Osiris tells us that the body of Osiris was cut into 14 pieces (Diodorus states 16 pieces) may simply be a recognition that three of the original plan for 19 pyramids were never completed, hence 16 pyramids being cited by Diodorus. The difference between 14 and 16 may be a recognition that two of the pyramids at Giza (the so-called 'cult pyramids' of Khafre and Khufu) had no internal chambers and, as such, were not considered as storage vaults (they did have a function - but that's another story

You, yourself cited the multiple partitionings of his body varied greatly in number.  Now you come up with 14/16 because it suits you design and you cite an author who is NOT Egyptian and is writing some 1,000 to 2,000 years after the event.  You say that you will hold yourself to the same standards as Egyptologists, so show us the translations (current to the 5th dynasty when they were built or the 19th dynasty when you are saying that someone came up with the "Osiris plan" that shows they had labeled these places as being part of the body of Osiris.

Quote

 Kenemet: * Osiris is wearing the Atef crown, there.  That wasn't something they had during the Old Kingdom.  And he wasn't an important national deity until late in the 5th Dynasty.

SC: The PTs of the 5th dynasty state that Isis was a goddess and Osiris a god. Deification doesn't occur overnight. But in any case, go back and read what I said earlier. I am not arguing that the builders in implementing this plan were knowingly creating an image of the god Osiris on the ground. For all we know the plan for the construction of these 16/19 pyramids could have been drawn up by the AE equivalent of 'Minister for Agriculture & Regeneration'. His name might even have been Osiris. He would likely have been an ordinary person who, nevertheless, had an important role in ensuring the Pyramid Plan (the 'Project Osiris') was carefully drawn up and implemented. He certainly would not have been a god when the plan was first devised.  This would only occur in much later dynasties as religious ideas around the pyramids as 'instruments of rebirth' (initially for the kingdom) developed and would later become the 'instrument of rebirth' for the king himself - imv. So, given the plan (i.e. just the locations of the first 16/19 pyramids), someone, perhaps even as late as the 19th dynasty when this type of Atef crown is attested, saw how these pyramid sites formed the outline of a person and quite literally the outline grew arms and legs. I am NOT saying the plan started as Osiris. The original plan, over many dynasties, GREW TO BECOME the classic Osiris figure we now recognise.

You seem to be taking your idea back again .  Your original statement confidently proposed this idea.  You also stated firmly that the Pyramid Texts contained the story of Osiris... and I pointed out that they didn't.  Now it's "If" and "suppose" and "maybe" and "if" and "If" and "If".

Either you have a firm hypothesis statement or you're just noodling around with an idea.  Which is it?

Quote

What I also find curious is that the Giza pyramids, in my proposition, represent the Atef crown of Osiris with G2 symbolising the Hedjet and G1 & G3 representing the two red ostrich feathers. Is it just a coincidence that G3 has red granite casing on its lower courses and the lower courses of G1 is also known to have once been painted red (reported by Pochan and Vyse).

We have no idea and until we find confirmation or texts from the AE that comment on this, any idea is just a wild speculation and not really worthy of scholarly examination as it lacks any real evidence. 

Now, I'm aware that this isn't the way the Internet works.  However, it's the way that scholars work.  If I'd written something and hadn't provided evidence (citations) from a work written at that time period, my paper would have been handed an "F" by my professors.

Quote

Kenemet: * In the Pyramid Texts there is no mention of Osiris being cut up.  On the other hand, in  Pepi's pyramid it actually says "Osiris Pepi, I have gotten for you the one who killed you, cut up in three pieces" - in other words, the murderer was the one cut into pieces. SC: The PTs tell us that "...The Pyramid is Osiris..." and "...the construction [of the pyramids] is Osiris..." I have connected this to Plutarch's myth of Isis and Osiris where we are told Osiris was drowned and cut into 14/16 pieces. That is the myth Plutarch relates in Moralia and is the basis for the proposition I am making. I simply connected these two disparate pieces of information. And given that, over time, the number of pyramids in ancient Egypt increased so we find also that the dismembered pieces of Osiris increases from 14/16 pieces to 26 pieces and then to 42 pieces.

And now we come full circle.

Plutarch doesn't know this for sure.  He's being told this.  He's being told this by someone living at the same time he is.  He might be getting it fourth hand.  He's certainly getting it from someone with a Greek heritage.  This is contemporaneous with the Pythagoreans, who held that numbers had special powers, including 14 (an "evenly odd" number) and 16 (a square of the "perfect number" 4 - see http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta16.htm)

How do you know these numbers of pieces aren't a stretch made by a Pythagorean to make a numerical point?

And - after saying that in the 19th dynasty they came up with this Osiris Map... how can you say that "as the number of pyramids increased so we find the dismembered pieces of Osiris increases?  They had quit building pyramids before the 19th dynasty.

Quote

 

Kenemet: * In the Pyramid Texts, only the pyramid  texts of Teti mentions Osiris' limbs being gathered and rejoined.  The number of pieces are not given -AND- in the Pyramid Texts, it's Horus... not Isis... who gathers up the limbs.  This is a major departure from the Herodotus version where it's Isis gathering the limbs and fabricating a phallus.  So believing that Herodotus had the version that was unchanged from the beginning is clearly false.

SC: With respect, given the great age of these 'myths', I do not think anyone can make categorical statements declaring what is true and what is false. And yes, I include myself in that. I present merely a proposition and totally accept that I am way off mainstream views here and that my proposition could be entirely wrong.

 

I quoted the Pyramid Texts and told you in which pyramid it said specifically (and you can read the text for yourself.. or at least make out some of the words) and confirm it.  Now you are trying to tell me that "this is really old" and "you can't tell if it's true or not" (may I remind you that in this case it IS written in stone and is right there for anyone to examine).  

Your original statement was about how the reading of the myth of Osiris and Isis in the Pyramid Texts somehow supported your new ideas.  I pointed out that it wasn't in the Pyramid Texts.  You then switched to Herodotus to prove your point and I countered with "Isis doesn't gather his limbs in the PT's; Horus does."

And now you're saying "given the great age of these myths I do not think anyone can make categorical statements declaring what is true and what is false" -- and you're actually rejecting what they wrote in the Pyramid Texts after having cited it.

This is extremely contradictory.

Personally, I believe that if the PT says that Horus gathered the limbs then at that time this is what was believed and the idea that Isis picks up the pieces comes much later.  And the texts support my statement.

[Kenemet]

8 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Say, wasn't this thread about the muography of the ScanPyramids project? We can continue debating Scott's argument, but for a moment I'd like to take us back to the topic. I'm posting a video from ScanPyramids that might've been posted earlier in this thread or in one of the others. It's an excellent video and really gives a sense of the voids the team has been finding:

The source is from this page from the HIP site, which includes some other videos. Watching this again got me intrigued all the more about the voids.

Meanwhile, at the ScanPyramids website they've posted a new article about the latest findings (see here). Unfortunately it's been published in Nature and all they;re providing here is an abstract, so there's a damn paywall. I might consider renting the article, since it's only $5, but if anyone has read it, please feel free to share the info.

OH, now that's interesting!  I like that the void was confirmed by multiple means... and I'm intrigued by the " scintillator hodoscopes" mention.  I have no idea what that is, but it sounds SPARKLY! (yes, I'm kind of making a word play joke there)

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

OH, now that's interesting!  I like that the void was confirmed by multiple means... and I'm intrigued by the " scintillator hodoscopes" mention.  I have no idea what that is, but it sounds SPARKLY! (yes, I'm kind of making a word play joke there)

Scintillator Hodoscopes....sounds like something Mr Houdini would order from the back page of an indifferent magazine.

[kmt_sesh]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

OH, now that's interesting!  I like that the void was confirmed by multiple means... and I'm intrigued by the " scintillator hodoscopes" mention.  I have no idea what that is, but it sounds SPARKLY! (yes, I'm kind of making a word play joke there)

The science is pretty straight forward. The scintillator hodoscope is a scope for measuring scintillating hodos. So obviously I have no idea, either. I really understand only the basics of muohraphy and, frankly, much of it is over my head. The one who seems really to understand it is stereologist, but he hasn't put in an appearance in this thread for ages.

[SHaYap]

5 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I believe that this is correct.  I read it in some source that I found reliable but can't find it now.  Soooo.... take with grain of salt.  I do know they used Upstream and Downstream.

I remember something in regards to 'Up' and 'Down'

One looks 'Up' to the Gods as in from 'Toe to Head' instead of 'Down' at the Gods as in from 'Head to Toe'

~

[Windowpane]

6 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I don't recall the details but seem to remember that some good information was presented that, yes, the ancient Egyptians viewed things south to north. But like Kenemet said, take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't think I've come across this argument in the professional literature.

 

 

Quote

Why are Djoser's and Sekhemkhet's pyramids and these mysterious empty rectangles so far out into the desert? If we look at the map of Saqqara with the south at the top as the ancient Egyptians viewed their world, we see that the Abusir Wadi is a natural causeway connecting the floodplain below the northern point of the Saqqara Plateau to the front of the Djoser and Sekhemkhet enclosures, and the two anonymous royal rectangles. At the mouth of the wadi there may have been a lake, perhaps forming a harbour just beside the early settlement at the foot of the escarpment.  (Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, p. 82)

 

This came up during the whole (Bauval) Pyramids-as-Orion question from a few years back.  (A long article on this by Krupp).

Older mapmakers did not always put north at the top of a map.  Some mediaeval maps of European/Middle Eastern locations, for example, put east at the top. 

[Scott Creighton]

8 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I believe that this is correct.  I read it in some source that I found reliable but can't find it now.  Soooo.... take with grain of salt.  I do know they used Upstream and Downstream.

Lehner writes:

Quote

”…If we look at the map of Saqqara with south at the top as the ancient Egyptians viewed their world….” - Dr Mark Lehner, TCP, p.82

So the dismembered body parts of Osiris (i.e. the first 16/19 pyramids) are scattered along the banks of the Nile. The head/crown lies to the north of the land thus the feet to the south.

Quote

"Many rituals in ancient Egypt manifest a preoccupation with the orientation of the body. The dead were often buried with the head towards the north."  - Egyptian Concepts on the \Orientation of the Human Body, Maarten J. Raven (from here.)

Were the AEs doing this because they knew the head of Osiris rested in the north?

SC

Edited November 25, 2017 by Scott Creighton

[Windowpane]

Scott Creighton:

Quote

Were the AEs doing this because they knew the head of Osiris rested in the north?

 

Seems unlikely.

From some research notes on Egyptian attitudes about direction and orientation:

 

Quote

.... the ancient Egyptians oriented themselves within their country from the direction of the Nile’s origin point (the south) [(Frankfort, Frankfort et al. 1977 <1946>: 43). ]

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Windowpane
Add quote.

[Jarocal]

8 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Again, that means they had a map somewhere.  You can't simply put up random points and say "Oh look!  Osiris."  And furthermore, your unfinished pyramids seem quite problematical.  It took trained archaeologists to find them because they were buried under the sands.  By the 19th Dynasty, even the Sphinx had been mostly buried by desert sands. 

What evidence do you have that they even knew where these unfinished pyramids were located?

You will have to raise some sort of textual evidence.  Otherwise, it's just coincidence and pareidolia.

In that case, you will need to have a better grasp of the language and come up with some textual and inscriptional evidence for each site to support your idea if you want to hold to the same standards as the Egyptologists. 

Again the hang up of wanting a map. I still see no reason a map is required (though admittedly would make information sharing easier) to plot out such an endeavour. The lack of completion for some structures and allowance of other ones to fall into disrepair or be covered with drifting sand is far more problematic.

Textual references would be beneficial to his conjecture, even if it were only a list mentioning the importance of these specific sites as a group.

[Windowpane]

9 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

Again the hang up of wanting a map.

 

Well ... there's the 20th Dynasty Wadi Hammamat map (scroll down).  But, obviously, it's very late: and also I find it difficult to understand.

[Scott Creighton]

8 hours ago, Kenemet said:

In that case, you will need to have a better grasp of the language and come up with some textual and inscriptional evidence for each site to support your idea if you want to hold to the same standards as the Egyptologists. 

"Oh Horus, these departed kings are Osiris, these pyramids of theirs are Osiris, these constructions of theirs are Osiris..." PT 1657.

"...Seth rediscovered the body of Osiris... and dismembered it, scattering the fragments... there may be an obscure reference to the dismemberment of Osiris in the Pyramid Texts (1981): "A libation for you is poured out by Isis, [Nephys has cleansed you , even your two] great and mighty sisters who gathered your flesh together, who raised up your members..." 

- Diodorus Siculus, Book 1: A Commentary, Anne burton, p.61

SC

 

[Scott Creighton]

39 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

Scott Creighton:

 

Seems unlikely.

From some research notes on Egyptian attitudes about direction and orientation:

 

 

And if you are lying on the ground, where would your head be best placed to observe the Nile's "origin point"? Where would your head be best placed to witness and worship Ra at his most powerful?

SC

[Scott Creighton]

7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Say, wasn't this thread about the muography of the ScanPyramids project? We can continue debating Scott's argument, but for a moment I'd like to take us back to the topic..

I apologise for my part in diverting the topic. In my defense, however, the hypothesis of mine presently being discussed  is tangentially related to the main topic of the thread in as much as it is related to my interpretation of the 'Void' in the GP:

Here it is for those who may have missed it:

'Hall of the Ancestors (Article)'

SC

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Scott Creighton said:

And if you are lying on the ground, where would your head be best placed to observe the Nile's "origin point"? Where would your head be best placed to witness and worship Ra at his most powerful?

SC

To observe the Nile's origin the head would be placed east or west.To observe Ra it would be east or west or north or south.

[Scott Creighton]

"Many rituals in ancient Egypt manifest a preoccupation with the orientation of the body. The dead were often buried with the head towards the north."  - Egyptian Concepts on the \Orientation of the Human Body, Maarten J. Raven (from here.)"

Were the AEs burying their dead upside-down?

SC