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 -
Hanslune

Update on Scan Pyramid project Oct 2016

1,561 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

mstower
19 minutes ago, mstower said:

A little boid tells me -ty for the feminine, so 3ḫty (as Vygus and Gardiner).

M.

Gardiner has it as 3ḫt(ı͗).  I have come to understand that there is not one uniform transliteration scheme, which is annoying.  More like several mutually intelligible dialects.

M.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
11 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

An actual overlay image just to see how badly Creighton's image matches the pyramids on the ground:

5a2c78ad6e973_Overlayimage.thumb.jpg.1c75bed78e39b7af8f14429fd69e7906.jpg

cormac

Could he claim topological and not topographical?  Or is it worse than that?

Likely expanding his vocabulary.

M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
1 hour ago, mstower said:

Da boid is on da wing.

M.

Wlla wella wella

Everybody's hoid about the boid...

Harte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
12 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

 

 

CMA: So, first you were wrong. Then you were wrong with your correction.

SC: A few misplaced labels, however much you would prefer it to be so, does not make the hypothesis wrong. Sorry, but no.

CMA: Now you're not even relevant to the layout as given in the original Osiris image:

SC: First of all, I have never claimed this to be a point-for-point perfectly scaled correlation. I have claimed only that a rudimentary outline  (stickman) of Osiris can be envisaged. And that, imv, is perfectly correct - however much you may disagree.

5JO1TD1.jpg

Zn8wb8I.jpg

ZXzx5xu.jpg

z8AvdOj.jpg

Secondly, as I have said repeatedly, this rudimentary Osiris shape formed by these first pyramids may well be purely coincidental - I have accepted that. But it is NOT what I base the idea of the first 16 (or so) pyramids representing the allegorical 'body of Osiris' upon. That idea is based on the fact that the Pyramid Texts tell us that the pyramid is Osiris... the construction [of the pyramid] is Osiris. I then took that basic concept from the PTs and with Plutarch's myth of Osiris which tells us his body was cut into 14 pieces (Diodorus says 16) and scattered across the land then I am saying that the first 16 (or so) pyramids were regarded by the AEs as the god Osiris. (Later historians would state the body of Osiris was cut into 26 pieces and then 42 pieces. Which, as each new pyramid was built, would, naturally, increase the number of body parts). I don't need these first pyramids to actually form a rudimentary Osiris image to draw that conclusion - I have come to that conclusion based upon the texts that have come down to us. At least, it is my interpretation of those texts.

But that a rudimentary Osiris outline can be formed from the first pyramids built by the AEs I think is intriguing nevertheless and I suggest this rudimentary outline may have formed the basis of the much later classic Osiris figurine with Atef Crown, Crook & Flail. Can I prove it? No.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
8 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I haven't thought about that in a very long time, but I remember the first time I looked through Budge's two-volume dictionary (I still have the set), it seemed to me everything he didn't know how to translate, he figured to be deities:rolleyes:

Isn't that the default Orthodox Academic Cabal position?

Something to the effect of "Superstitious little stinkyfooted bumpkins that dragged Stone blocks up ramps, they must be drawing their gods here."...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
8 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Voids? What voids? I actually tried to get us back on to that subject several pages back...and it didn't survive beyond my post.

If Egypt's SCA would quit playing a "mini-me" version of the Smithsonian and not hide the evidence whicj has been gathered then appropriate discussion would be able to occur.

Then again actually releasing the data may show that the paradigm they have been foisting on the world about the AE is nothing more than a house of cards.

Edited by Jarocal
Yea tho I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of furballs I will fear no feline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
21 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: A few misplaced labels, however much you would prefer it to be so, does not make the hypothesis wrong. Sorry, but no.

Sorry, but no?  You think you’re entitled to arbitrate on this?

So, Scott, what does make a hypothesis wrong?  Seeing as how we’ve seen that, for you, erroneous formulation doesn’t count and failing to fit the data doesn’t count.  Sorry, but, for the rest of us, these things do count.

All we’re getting from you is sense of entitlement and dogmatism—not a rational argument, not a scientific argument.

M.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton
13 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

 

Kmt_Sesh"...the bird in your plaque is not crested..."

From here.

Kmt_Sesh: "... The hieroglyphs on the touristy wall plaque Scott found are all genuine... so we have the crested ibis (which shouldn't be on a standard)"

From here.

SC: Okay - so you now accept the disputed bird on the standard in the modern plaque is the crested ibis. Fine. You also accept the signs on this modern plaque "are all genuine" AE hieroglyphs.

I get that you say Thoth (on the standard perch) is symbolised by G26 but this crested ibis sign isn't G25 either because it is clearly perched on the standard indicating a deity.

Given that these signs "are all genuine" then why don't we see this crested ibis on a standard in Gardiner's sign list? Did the creator of this undocumented sign simply make it up? While that's entirely possible, I would simply ask why they would do that when they are trying to make this piece as authentic-looking as possible.  Why make up their own sign that would easily be seen as inauthentic. And why do such with just this one sign? If your intention is to make a modern piece look as authentically ancient Egyptian as possible, then you find your source of genuine AE signs and you copy ALL the signs you see from your source. Making up a sign would be entirely self-defeating to the objective.

So, the question is, how has the creator of this modern piece managed to come across a sign(assuming they must have used a source of authentic AE signs) that has not been attested in the standard AE dictionaries?

But back to the GP Void: Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh"...the bird in your plaque is not crested..."

From here.

Kmt_Sesh: "... The hieroglyphs on the touristy wall plaque Scott found are all genuine... so we have the crested ibis (which shouldn't be on a standard)"

From here.

SC: Okay - so you now accept the disputed bird on the standard in the modern plaque is the crested ibis. Fine. You also accept the signs on this modern plaque "are all genuine" AE hieroglyphs.

I get that you say Thoth (on the standard perch) is symbolised by G26 but this crested ibis sign isn't G25 either because it is clearly perched on the standard indicating a deity.

Given that these signs "are all genuine" then why don't we see this crested ibis on a standard in Gardiner's sign list? Did the creator of this undocumented sign simply make it up? While that's entirely possible, I would simply ask why they would do that when they are trying to make this piece as authentic-looking as possible.  Why make up their own sign that would easily be seen as inauthentic. And why do such with just this one sign? If your intention is to make a modern piece look as authentically ancient Egyptian as possible, then you find your source of genuine AE signs and you copy ALL the signs you see from your source. Making up a sign would be entirely self-defeating to the objective.

So, the question is, how has the creator of this modern piece managed to come across a sign(assuming they must have used a source of authentic AE signs) that has not been attested in the standard AE dictionaries?

But back to the GP Void: Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

For me, the modern reproduction only need appear "authentic" enough to sell as a trinket. The artistic license taken in adding a glyph which does not appear in the catalogue of known ancient glyphs may even have been intentional in the part of the artist to differentiate it from actual artifacts. A subtle demarcation which would not hinder its sale to tourists but would easily send a "this is a modern replica" flag up to any serious researcher the piece was given to in an effort to find provenance. This is of course, pure conjecture on my part, but no more so than linking the position of the first 16 pyramids with a stick figure outline of a glyph that said stick figure does not accurately correlate to.

Edited by Jarocal
I sold Vyse the red paint
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh"...the bird in your plaque is not crested..."

From here.

Kmt_Sesh: "... The hieroglyphs on the touristy wall plaque Scott found are all genuine... so we have the crested ibis (which shouldn't be on a standard)"

From here.

SC: Okay - so you now accept the disputed bird on the standard in the modern plaque is the crested ibis. Fine. You also accept the signs on this modern plaque "are all genuine" AE hieroglyphs.

I get that you say Thoth (on the standard perch) is symbolised by G26 but this crested ibis sign isn't G25 either because it is clearly perched on the standard indicating a deity.

Given that these signs "are all genuine" then why don't we see this crested ibis on a standard in Gardiner's sign list? Did the creator of this undocumented sign simply make it up? While that's entirely possible, I would simply ask why they would do that when they are trying to make this piece as authentic-looking as possible.  Why make up their own sign that would easily be seen as inauthentic. And why do such with just this one sign? If your intention is to make a modern piece look as authentically ancient Egyptian as possible, then you find your source of genuine AE signs and you copy ALL the signs you see from your source. Making up a sign would be entirely self-defeating to the objective.

So, the question is, how has the creator of this modern piece managed to come across a sign(assuming they must have used a source of authentic AE signs) that has not been attested in the standard AE dictionaries?

But back to the GP Void: Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

Give it a rest, Scott.  You will not talk your bogus “evidence” into validity by nitpicking and evasion.

‘Given that these signs "are all genuine" then why don't we see this crested ibis on a standard in Gardiner's sign list?’  Seriously?  The logic is very simple.  There is no attested ancient example of crested-ibis-on-standard.  Not one.  If there were, then it would appear in Gardiner’s list (or Gardiner’s list as extended by others).

So kmt_sesh was wrong in saying that ‘[t]he hieroglyphs on the touristy wall plaque Scott found are all genuine’—that or you’ve understood him in a way he didn’t intend.  He should perhaps have spelt it out as ‘the components of the hieroglyphs are all genuine’—which, as far as I can tell, they are.  We know what the standard (it’s not a perch) looks like from other examples and a version of it is found as a separate hieroglyph (Gardiner R12)—and of course the crested ibis is a separate hieroglyph, always so, in real inscriptions.

‘I would simply ask why they would do that when they are trying to make this piece as authentic-looking as possible.’

Would you⸮  The answer is simple.  “They” were not trying to do that—and you’ve been given the several reasons which make it quite plain that they were not.  Kenemet identified the original.  Ancient Treasures based two decorative plaques on it.  The smaller might qualify as an imperfect reproduction: the larger is even further from the original.  You have nowhere to go with this.

You pretend that you’re meeting the standards of Egyptology.  An Egyptologist who cited that plaque in evidence would be laughed out of the profession.

Meanwhile this combination is attested:

a4Sj9a.png

I suggest you deal with it.

M.

 

Edited by mstower
for reasons of pedantry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

CMA: So, first you were wrong. Then you were wrong with your correction.

SC: A few misplaced labels, however much you would prefer it to be so, does not make the hypothesis wrong. Sorry, but no.

CMA: Now you're not even relevant to the layout as given in the original Osiris image:

SC: First of all, I have never claimed this to be a point-for-point perfectly scaled correlation. I have claimed only that a rudimentary outline  (stickman) of Osiris can be envisaged. And that, imv, is perfectly correct - however much you may disagree.

5JO1TD1.jpg

Zn8wb8I.jpg

ZXzx5xu.jpg

z8AvdOj.jpg

Secondly, as I have said repeatedly, this rudimentary Osiris shape formed by these first pyramids may well be purely coincidental - I have accepted that. But it is NOT what I base the idea of the first 16 (or so) pyramids representing the allegorical 'body of Osiris' upon. That idea is based on the fact that the Pyramid Texts tell us that the pyramid is Osiris... the construction [of the pyramid] is Osiris. I then took that basic concept from the PTs and with Plutarch's myth of Osiris which tells us his body was cut into 14 pieces (Diodorus says 16) and scattered across the land then I am saying that the first 16 (or so) pyramids were regarded by the AEs as the god Osiris. (Later historians would state the body of Osiris was cut into 26 pieces and then 42 pieces. Which, as each new pyramid was built, would, naturally, increase the number of body parts). I don't need these first pyramids to actually form a rudimentary Osiris image to draw that conclusion - I have come to that conclusion based upon the texts that have come down to us. At least, it is my interpretation of those texts.

But that a rudimentary Osiris outline can be formed from the first pyramids built by the AEs I think is intriguing nevertheless and I suggest this rudimentary outline may have formed the basis of the much later classic Osiris figurine with Atef Crown, Crook & Flail. Can I prove it? No.

SC

I don't know man but when I looked at this while I was in the spirit world, it looks like Myth Woo the famous exotic dancer.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

As far as the dot go, this is a contrived choice of dots as I pointed out earlier. The choice makes zero sense in terms of the image of the standing Osiris. This selection of dots makes more sense in that it captures the major points of the image.

On the one hand is a map. On the other hand is an image. If people were to choose dots for either then the map offers a choice of dots. It also offers numerous ways that the dots can be connected. The same is true of the image although a choice of dots is less obvious. Connecting the chosen dots is constrained by the connectivity of the object from which the dots are chosen.

The contrived choice of dots in the image was done knowing the choice of dots on the map. The connections between the dots on the map is just as contrived and is based knowing the image.

 

osiris dots - pale osiris.jpg

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
Quote

SC: First of all, I have never claimed this to be a point-for-point perfectly scaled correlation. I have claimed only that a rudimentary outline  (stickman) of Osiris can be envisaged. And that, imv, is perfectly correct - however much you may disagree.

Point-for-point perfectly scaled? Hell, you're not even close. A blind man could be just as relevant. You suffer from pareidolia apparently as the second picture alone invalidates your claim. You don't get to arbitrarily change direction of the line from the Red Pyramid to Khaba and still claim relevancy to your Osiris layout fantasy. 

Secondly, it's just as valid to suggest that the line goes from the Red Pyramid to Sekhemkhet's pyramid to Khaba's with an offshoot from Sekhemkhet's to Djosers; or from the Red Pyramid to Djoser's Pyramid to Khaba's with a short offshoot from Djoser's to Sekhemkhet's Pyramid.

Third, one can't even reasonably squeeze the line from the Red Pyramid between Sekhemkhet's and Djoser's Pyramids as shown, aimed toward Khaba's. An actual line between the Red Pyramid and Khaba's would look like the following blue line:

5a2d577de6fbf_LayoutfromRedPyramidtoKhabasPyramid.thumb.jpg.3c4b90563358b4b0dc6721c02725b08a.jpg

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The contrived nature of SC's dot pattern on the image can be seen in the choice of the placements of the dots.

1. The dots by the hands are not on the hands. They are placed above the hands.

2. The dot below the neck is at the jugular notch of the sternum, not on the neck

3. The dots above the head are all placed on the head adornment at artificially chosen spots.

If the dots are supposed to represent some sort of dismemberment of Osiris, then why are the dots not suggestive of a dismemberment? Five of the dots appear above the body.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The contrived nature of SC's dot pattern on the image can be seen in the choice of the placements of the dots.

1. The dots by the hands are not on the hands. They are placed above the hands.

2. The dot below the neck is at the jugular notch of the sternum, not on the neck

Perhaps intended to mark a pressure point.  Various vulnerable points appear to be marked: temple (near enough), solar plexus, groin.  Then the scheme begins to break down (or at least becomes more arguable), but surely this is as good as anything Scott has suggested.

16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

3. The dots above the head are all placed on the head adornment at artificially chosen spots.

If the dots are supposed to represent some sort of dismemberment of Osiris, then why are the dots not suggestive of a dismemberment? Five of the dots appear above the body.

Exactly.  Crown not part of the body.

M.

Edited by mstower
to add something.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 minutes ago, mstower said:

Perhaps intended to mark a pressure point.  Various vulnerable points appear to be marked: temple (near enough), solar plexus, groin.  Then the scheme begins to break down, but surely this is as good as anything Scott has suggested.

Exactly.  Crown not part of the body.

M.

If we were to mark pressure points then we would also mark the throat, arm pits, elbows, instep and other vulnerable places.

The selection of points is a contrived collection of points based on the map. Even then it is a poor selection.

I have chosen a different manner in which to connect the dots on the map. I like it better. It uses a consistent manner in which dots are connected.

 

choose connections on the map.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

I amuse myself with contriving a crook-and-flail art.

The crook would deflect the thrust of a pole weapon (staff or spear) and capture the weapon, allowing one to step into flail range and counterattack.

What do you mean, off-topic?

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott Creighton

Usually we see the crested ibis together with the 'Feather of Ma'at' (symbolising Thoth). Granted, the image below is far from clear and yes, I do accept that this may be a simple trick of light.

Is this a crested ibis with the Feather of Ma'at?

qh39K86.jpg

hVcjGoQ.jpg

Q6KXFnM.jpg

I'd be grateful if anyone had and could post a better quality image of this.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
9 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Usually we see the crested ibis together with the 'Feather of Ma'at' (symbolising Thoth). Granted, the image below is far from clear and yes, I do accept that this may be a simple trick of light.

Is this a crested ibis with the Feather of Ma'at?

qh39K86.jpg

hVcjGoQ.jpg

Q6KXFnM.jpg

I'd be grateful if anyone had and could post a better quality image of this.

SC

Ibis (non-crested) on standard:

c80782b366f1047a166070df4961e2c5.jpg

M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

tumblr_ocsnqrG7qz1vu27r3o1_1280.jpg

M.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I wondered how difficult it would be to place my contrived dot pattern, not SC's contrived dot pattern on another image. Took very little time.

Using the same sort of forced connections I was able to do this in a matter of 10 minutes. I was able to use pressure points of the forehead, the throat, the sternum and the feet.

This might suggest that the pyramids were constructed as gifts for the coming of a new religious figure. They just might be the holy grail.

contrived dot pattern.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower
27 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Usually we see the crested ibis together with the 'Feather of Ma'at' (symbolising Thoth). . . .

Where did this factoid come from?

M.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mstower

Compare:

575px-Inlay_depicting_Thoth_as_the_ibis_

M.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh"...the bird in your plaque is not crested..."

From here.

Kmt_Sesh: "... The hieroglyphs on the touristy wall plaque Scott found are all genuine... so we have the crested ibis (which shouldn't be on a standard)"

From here.

SC: Okay - so you now accept the disputed bird on the standard in the modern plaque is the crested ibis. Fine. You also accept the signs on this modern plaque "are all genuine" AE hieroglyphs.

I get that you say Thoth (on the standard perch) is symbolised by G26 but this crested ibis sign isn't G25 either because it is clearly perched on the standard indicating a deity.

Given that these signs "are all genuine" then why don't we see this crested ibis on a standard in Gardiner's sign list? Did the creator of this undocumented sign simply make it up? While that's entirely possible, I would simply ask why they would do that when they are trying to make this piece as authentic-looking as possible.  Why make up their own sign that would easily be seen as inauthentic. And why do such with just this one sign? If your intention is to make a modern piece look as authentically ancient Egyptian as possible, then you find your source of genuine AE signs and you copy ALL the signs you see from your source. Making up a sign would be entirely self-defeating to the objective.

So, the question is, how has the creator of this modern piece managed to come across a sign(assuming they must have used a source of authentic AE signs) that has not been attested in the standard AE dictionaries?

But back to the GP Void: Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

 

9 hours ago, mstower said:

Give it a rest, Scott.  You will not talk your bogus “evidence” into validity by nitpicking and evasion.

‘Given that these signs "are all genuine" then why don't we see this crested ibis on a standard in Gardiner's sign list?’  Seriously?  The logic is very simple.  There is no attested ancient example of crested-ibis-on-standard.  Not one.  If there were, then it would appear in Gardiner’s list (or Gardiner’s list as extended by others).

So kmt_sesh was wrong in saying that ‘[t]he hieroglyphs on the touristy wall plaque Scott found are all genuine’—that or you’ve understood him in a way he didn’t intend.  He should perhaps have spelt it out as ‘the components of the hieroglyphs are all genuine’—which, as far as I can tell, they are.  We know what the standard (it’s not a perch) looks like from other examples and a version of it is found as a separate hieroglyph (Gardiner R12)—and of course the crested ibis is a separate hieroglyph, always so, in real inscriptions.

‘I would simply ask why they would do that when they are trying to make this piece as authentic-looking as possible.’

Would you⸮  The answer is simple.  “They” were not trying to do that—and you’ve been given the several reasons which make it quite plain that they were not.  Kenemet identified the original.  Ancient Treasures based two decorative plaques on it.  The smaller might qualify as an imperfect reproduction: the larger is even further from the original.  You have nowhere to go with this.

You pretend that you’re meeting the standards of Egyptology.  An Egyptologist who cited that plaque in evidence would be laughed out of the profession.

Meanwhile this combination is attested:

a4Sj9a.png

I suggest you deal with it.

M.

 

LOL Now I regret being this pedantic but not expressing myself clearly enough. And it doesn't even have anything to do with the intended topic.

So let me say it another way, which mstower has helped me with:

With the exception of the crested ibis atop the standard (such an ibis on a divine standard would not be correct), all of the individual hieroglyphs I can see are authentic. They all exist as real hieroglyphs. But taken together on the wall plaque, they mean nothing. Almost none of it expresses words or concepts in the ancient Egyptian language. That's why in an earlier post (to someone, can't remember whom) I used the analogy of sprinkling a bunch of English letters just to show someone random letters (kquxodfhgnbpzas). Now, you can pull out those letters and collectively perhaps spell several words (I'm too lazt to try, although I enjoy a good word jumble game), but the random sprinkling of letters doesn't say anything. It's the same with the hieroglyphs on the wall plaque.

Now, as to the origin of the wall plaque? I haven't the slightest idea. Does anyone here know who the artist is, or why he made it? I can't say. And without knowing the source, it cannot be cited as valid. For all we know he made it up. That's what I think. This was some artist who knew a thing or two about ancient Egypt, but not enough to use hieroglyphs in the correct manner. Remember, I work at two museums with large Egypt exhibits, and I've seen countless nicknacks like the wall plaque in our gift shops. There is no attempt for hard-core pharaonic accuracy, there is merely an attempt to make it look somewhat real for the sake of a sale. There is certainly nothing difficult about finding a source to look at authentic hieroglyphs to add to a piece of tourist art. And for all I know, the artist in this case favored the crested ibis on the standard at upper-right on the plaque because it's prettier than the G26 ibis (which it is), but that doesn't make it accurate. So I'd call it artistic license, but I rather doubt the artist found a depiction of Thoth as a crested ibis on an actual relief or painting. If he did, it might be interesting to see the source, because it's always entertaining to find mistakes in inscriptions (the Egyptians made plenty of them). But I honestly don't think the explanation is that exotic. Artistic license. In the end we can't say either way because the wall plaque is not real and we can't identify anything of a source, so it cannot be academically referenced.

  • Like 5

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.