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 -

Scientists reveal hidden corridor in Great Pyramid of Giza


Recommended Posts

On 3/7/2023 at 11:19 PM, cormac mac airt said:

Not much of a legend though IMO if it originates as Medieval lore separated from the time of Khufu by some 3000+ years. It’d be just as pointless as claiming to know what one’s 200th Great Grandfather thought about someone he knew. 

I don’t think you’ve quite got my point, Cormac.

The legend is real: you can read it in the Akhbar al Zaman.

It refers to a Muslim legend about the philosopher Sūrīd, who was believed to be a priest in Egypt before the Great Flood. It describes how Sūrīd built the first pyramids in Egypt, 300 years before the flood, but received a divine message about the coming catastrophe; the story, told and re-told by dozens of medieval Muslim writers, goes on to describe Sūrīd's dream, in which he saw the earth being overturned and the stars falling and clashing against each other. (Source).

But none of this is real: none of it is historic fact. The legend has conflated and jumbled all sorts of other tales and accounts (including the granaries myth) circulating in Egypt in the mediaeval era; consequently, the legends, colourful as they are, owe far more to imagination than fact, and it would clearly be a huge mistake to treat them as reliable historical sources.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WVK said:

This seems to compliment this:

Proposed Pyramid Construction Techniques

 

They'll just never give up on ramps.  No matter how much evidence accumulates that there were no ramps Egyptologists see them everywhere. 

There is no logical reason to use ramps to build a stepped pyramid and every ramp proposal hinges not on evidence but on the concept that there was no other means ancient people had to build pyramids other than the brutal and savage concept of ramps.  Meanwhile the steps of which all great pyramids are composed shows they pulled stones up the easy way; from above and one step at a time.  So even with the evidence for how they were built AND the evidence they did not use ramps people cling to them like they are a life preserve in the rising water.

Meanwhile this passage I predicted to exist could have been used to convey ballast to the exterior of the pyramid so that their weight could be used to pull stones up one step at a time.  

It's very interesting that there is sand in it.  I'd be curious to know if there are trace amounts of vaterite in it like there is in the queens passage which aligns with this one.  I would predict that the chemical and physical structure of this sand is nearly identical to the other sand already sampled.  It will merely be a little finer and more heavily contaminated with small amounts of small particulate matter and organic chemicals.  It might light up in the ultraviolet a little bit.  

 

It's a shame the powers that be will not do testing systematically and report it.  

 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

It's a shame the powers that be will not do testing systematically and report it.  

 

Hypocrite. They are all waiting for YOU to publish your research and data especially the experiments you did. 17 years and still counting.....

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

I don’t think you’ve quite got my point, Cormac.

The legend is real: you can read it in the Akhbar al Zaman.

It refers to a Muslim legend about the philosopher Sūrīd, who was believed to be a priest in Egypt before the Great Flood. It describes how Sūrīd built the first pyramids in Egypt, 300 years before the flood, but received a divine message about the coming catastrophe; the story, told and re-told by dozens of medieval Muslim writers, goes on to describe Sūrīd's dream, in which he saw the earth being overturned and the stars falling and clashing against each other. (Source).

But none of this is real: none of it is historic fact. The legend has conflated and jumbled all sorts of other tales and accounts (including the granaries myth) circulating in Egypt in the mediaeval era; consequently, the legends, colourful as they are, owe far more to imagination than fact, and it would clearly be a huge mistake to treat them as reliable historical sources.

And my point is that the legend, which isn’t ancient, is useless as it has no bearing on ancient history. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

And my point is that the legend, which isn’t ancient, is useless as it has no bearing on ancient history. 
 

Well: no one knows who the author was, but it's believed to have been written ca. 950-1000 AD (from a lost original dating to ca. 900 AD).

It's important because of its place in the corpus of pyramid legends: so, from that point of view, it could be described as very useful.

But, as you imply, no serious historian would give it credence as an historical source.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

But, as you imply, no serious historian would give it credence as an historical source.

Unless they suffered from an incurable case of ipsedixitism.

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

“Assuming that these heads are from decapitated ka statues placed in the GG, apart from why this was done, why were the heads placed in the burial chambers of seperate mastabas, not all at Giza, and where are the headless ka statues.

SC: Perhaps the mastaba owner wanted a god-king with them who had the power to bring about rebirth? Is it so different to what many people do today by having figurines of Christ (the saviour/redeemer) or a crucifix in their coffin or mausoleum?

SC

There's no evidence that I know of that indicates they thought the king had this kind of power.  Do you have a citation for this?

Quote

But look – you are putting way too much emphasis here on the reserve heads that have been found. My opinion on them is simply that they may have once been attached to a full-bodied statue – the shearing of the ears and the gouges in the back of the head of some of them suggest force was used to break them free from whatever mounting there was, which itself suggests a full-bodied statue.

If you've ever done any sculpting, you will know that you can't just chop off heads from statues and expect them to stand up properly on their own.  One thing to notice is how unusually thick the necks are - thicker than the artistic conventions of the time.  This is so that the weight will be distributed properly and the sculpt isn't readily knocked over.  Romans and others took care of this problem by attaching the head to a partial bust, to make sure the piece was stable.

This is how we know they were not attached to statues.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Unless they suffered from an incurable case of ipsedixitism.

Oh ....

 

Surely not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 2:40 PM, Scott Creighton said:

Look.  We can debate until eternity the root origins/inspiration behind the AEs ‘reserved heads’. But you simply cannot deny that it remains entirely possible that they were cut from Ka statues that once stood in the Grand Gallery.  The ‘mutilation marks’ on these heads may well bear witness to the fact that they had been prised away from a wall mounting.

Of course we can. What an absurd thing to say. Its one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. I would more easily believe G1 was built to shoot microwaves into outer space to power spaceships than the reserve heads once being KA statues in the GG representing the previous 27 kings. 

head.jpg 

All the other nonsense aside, where are the nemes? The White crown? The Red crown? 

Khasekhemwy:

7a7e574e640bf1b74a67829cc2026973.jpg

Djoser:

Djoser-Facts.jpg

Sneferu:

c16be62ca6abf3c8f0bae33561caa5a9.jpg

Or how about after these 27 kings:

Khafre:

26598985805_700730baed.jpg

Menkaure:

8ee933cb8c993ccc42408458a9894858.jpg

Gadzooks Scott. And look at the craftsmanship and materials used in these royal statues-the reserve heads are absolute crap by comparison. Is this really the stuff of kings? 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

But look – you are putting way too much emphasis here on the reserve heads that have been found.

 

Well, you brought the subject up, perhaps in view of the replies you are getting a bit unwisely.

I'll add to Kenemet's post in stating that your suggestion that non royals had these, in your opinion, decapitated royal reserve heads, in their tombs serving the function we may use a crucifix for, or to aid in their resurrection, would be alien to them at all points in their history. Resurrection never came from the king, or from artifacts representing the king. In fact the king, with one exception in their history, to the best of my knowledge, had no place at all in any tomb other than his own. The exception being the depictions of Akhenaten and his family in the nobles tombs at Amarna, and this was because they could not use the imagery of the gods that they used to use, Akhenaten and his family now filling that role.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Well, you brought the subject up, perhaps in view of the replies you are getting a bit unwisely.

SC: Not at all.  I stand by my view that the so-called ‘mutilation’ of the ears and the gouging of the back of the head (of some) of these artefacts is consistent with levers of some kind being used to force the head away from a mounting of some kind and damaging them in the process.  Which further suggests these heads were once attached to a full torso – you’d hardly need such force on just a head.

Why do we find them in mastaba tombs of non-royals? I offered up one suggestion. I’m sure there are plenty of others.

Reserved heads or not, imo, statues once stood in the Grand Gallery – 27 (x2) Ka statues for the 27 kings (and queens) that were likely relocated to the Big Void. Whether the reserved heads once belonged to these 27 statues is immaterial to my hypothesis – they may or they may not; it really doesn’t affect the hypothesis.

But when Hawass and Co finally get a glimpse into the Big Void, I'm fairly certain they'll get the shock of their lives and totally not what they expect. And this aspect of the Saurid (ahem) 'legend' will be verified. 

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 8:51 AM, Scott Creighton said:

But look – you are putting way too much emphasis here on the reserve heads that have been found.

What the fart? We wouldn't even be talking about it if not for you Scott. You put quite a bit of "emphasis" on it going so far as making the effort to copy and paste an entire excerpt from your book entirely devoted to it. But now that its blowing up in your face you blame others for putting "too much emphasis" on it? 

Quote

My opinion on them is simply that they may have once been attached to a full-bodied statue – the shearing of the ears and the gouges in the back of the head of some of them suggest force was used to break them free from whatever mounting there was, which itself suggests a full-bodied statue.

Note how Scott ignores everything that clearly proves this had nothing to do with being connected to a full bodied statue, even his own sources, and just keeps repeating it anyways. Again:

"Almost all of the heads show some form of damage or mutilation that may or may not have been deliberately inflicted upon them before they were placed in the tomb. One of the most common features is for their ears to be broken off or seemingly chiseled away[6] At least one scholar disputes that the damage to the ears was deliberate, pointing out cases where detached ears have been found in perfect condition, and that the damage may be due more to rough handling by tomb robbers.[7] Of the many reserve heads only one has wholly intact ears; in others they have been scraped off close to the surface, whereas other or more crudely hacked or broken away.[8] One example contained dowel holes for the attachment of external ears which were not found with the head,[6] and another, smaller group of reserve heads were not made with any ears at all.[8]"

And this would be what Scott says are the "gouges in the back of the head", which he claims were a result of "force used to break them free" of whatever:

"Another common feature has been called the "cranial groove", a careful and deliberate cut that typically starts from the top of the cranium and extends to the back of the neck.[9]"

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 

 

“What the fart? We wouldn't even be talking about it if not for you Scott. You put quite a bit of "emphasis" on it going so far as making the effort to copy and paste an entire excerpt from your book entirely devoted to it. But now that its blowing up in your face you blame others for putting "too much emphasis" on it?”

SC: Calm down Lee – you’ll give yourself a hernia. 

“Quote

My opinion on them is simply that they may have once been attached to a full-bodied statue – the shearing of the ears and the gouges in the back of the head of some of them suggest force was used to break them free from whatever mounting there was, which itself suggests a full-bodied statue.

Note how Scott ignores everything that clearly proves this had nothing to do with being connected to a full bodied statue, even his own sources, and just keeps repeating it anyways.”

SC: Lee - just because mainstream Egyptology does not consider that these reserve heads once belonged to a full statue is just their opinion , and nothing more.  I think it should have dawned on you by now that I don’t accept their opinion. The one thing they really struggle with these reserve heads is to present a reasonable and cogent explanation for their so-called ‘deliberate mutilation’.  I consider my explanation for that damage to be just as good, if not better, than the other explanations put forward (and there have been a few).

Lee: Again:

"Almost all of the heads show some form of damage or mutilation that may or may not have been deliberately inflicted upon them before they were placed in the tomb. One of the most common features is for their ears to be broken off or seemingly chiseled away[6] At least one scholar disputes that the damage to the ears was deliberate, pointing out cases where detached ears have been found in perfect condition, and that the damage may be due more to rough handling by tomb robbers.[7] Of the many reserve heads only one has wholly intact ears; in others they have been scraped off close to the surface, whereas other or more crudely hacked or broken away.[8] One example contained dowel holes for the attachment of external ears which were not found with the head,[6] and another, smaller group of reserve heads were not made with any ears at all.[8]"

SC: Try this source, Lee: https://www.almendron.com/artehistoria/arte/culturas/egyptian-art-in-age-of-the-pyramids/reserve-heads-an-enigma-of-old-kingdom-sculpture/

(BTW the above link is one of the sources I used while researching my book). Yes, you’ll find there’s no mention here either of these heads having originally being attached to statues but still the explanations offered for the ‘mutilation’ struggle and, imo, are unconvincing. I still consider my own explanation more likely.

Lee: And this would be what Scott says are the "gouges in the back of the head", which he claims were a result of "force used to break them free" of whatever:

"Another common feature has been called the "cranial groove", a careful and deliberate cut that typically starts from the top of the cranium and extends to the back of the neck.[9]"

SC: You’re confusing sculptors’ guidelines with gouges, Lee. Here, from the article (link above):

 

Quote

 

“A much simpler explanation of the damage found on reserve heads was recently presented by Peter Lacovara, who hypothesizes that the grooves and a number of other marks they display are sculptors' guidelines, comparable to the incised guidelines seen on the so-called trial pieces of the Ptolemaic Period.43 However, the guidelines on the Ptolemaic objects are always finely and precisely carved on an unfinished flat surface, not gouged or hacked into a finished one like most of the grooves on reserve heads.

In fact, the gouging of lines and damage to ears are inflicted too inconsistently to constitute conclusive evidence of ritual mutilation performed to protect the dead. Yet these forms of mutilation occur far too frequently to allow them to be discounted as accidental, and the gouges are too haphazardly and/or violently executed to be sculptors' guidelines. It seems only marginally more likely that these types of damage were intentionally inflicted when the tombs were robbed…”

 

SC: So yes, Lee – hacked gouges, violently executed.  I stand my premise, Lee. In my view these reserve heads could just as easily have been cut from full statues after they had been violently prised away from their mountings with the use of crude levers placed first behind the ears and then between the wall and the back of the statue’s head.  Once the statue is lowered, a simple saw-cut to remove the head. And further, Lee – regardless of your lame attempt to somehow show that ancient Egyptian people had no necks or, at least, long necks:

image.png.300cb8c8567506b162ae2171ebb6b5bd.png

Have a good evening.

SC


 [SC1]

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Not at all.  I stand by my view that the so-called ‘mutilation’ of the ears and the gouging of the back of the head (of some) of these artefacts is consistent with levers of some kind being used to force the head away from a mounting of some kind and damaging them in the process.  Which further suggests these heads were once attached to a full torso – you’d hardly need such force on just a head.

Why do we find them in mastaba tombs of non-royals? I offered up one suggestion. I’m sure there are plenty of others.

Reserved heads or not, imo, statues once stood in the Grand Gallery – 27 (x2) Ka statues for the 27 kings (and queens) that were likely relocated to the Big Void. Whether the reserved heads once belonged to these 27 statues is immaterial to my hypothesis – they may or they may not; it really doesn’t affect the hypothesis.

But when Hawass and Co finally get a glimpse into the Big Void, I'm fairly certain they'll get the shock of their lives and totally not what they expect. And this aspect of the Saurid (ahem) 'legend' will be verified. 

SC

Whether a statue, any statue that was a complete 3D representation of a person, as ka statues were, and not just a frontal and side representation like the statues of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel, and was either stood on a plinth, in a niche or against a wall, I cannot think of a single reason to need to fix the head to whatever was behind it. You say that the heads were sawn off, acknowledging that they were in fact, on your thinking, fully a part of the statue, and therefore hardly needing to be supported separately from the rest of the body, and the diameter of the necks of these heads show that if the had been part of the a body, they were quite solidly attached. It is simply beyond belief that these heads, if on the body of a statue, needed to be levered off of a mounting. Can you show any evidence for any other 3D statue in all of Egypt where the head had to be seperately secured to whatever was behind it.

Your suggestion that these heads, if from a royal ka statue, were placed in the tombs of nobles so they could be close to the king and or, be resurrected by this head, defies everything we know about their beliefs, and not only that, it is again simply unbelievable that they would ever do such a thing. It's one thing to speculate, but even speculation needs some factual basis for it, not totaly unevidenced guessing in order to make an attempt to show there were ka statues in the GG.

However, as you say, it is immaterial to your hypothesis, yet not so unimportant that you continue to bang on about them.

How do these 27 ka statues fit with what is known about their function and position in a tomb. They, as you well know, magically take in the offerings left for them at the tomb chapel, an area left open. Khufu's ka statue would have been in his mortuary chapel, outside the pyramid, as would the ka statue of anybody else buried in the pyramid. So what are they doing in the GG, and why, if there at all, would they need to be relocated to the big void, even further away from offerings. If you want to suggest anything about a flood, then the ka statue does not need to be located in any void in the pyramid, presumably with the mummy of the person they represent. The king, or anybody else, does not need the the ka statue right with them as the coffin itself can act a repository for the ka, and indeed the ka can still reside in the mummy. As I pointed out before, any image of a deceased person, no matter how far from their body, can hold a manifestation of their ka, or ba for that matter. Some of their names have the element "kheperu", which means many manifestations. A deceased king, now a god, can have, just like one of the gods of their pantheon, millions of manifestations, and it is a misconception that the ka statue was the only possible vessel for their soul. So, how do, in your opinion, these supposed ka statues in the GG fit in with anything we know about their beliefs. Can you provide any evidence to support your idea in any way, real evidence, not some tall tales that have no more relationship to real evidence as Plato writing about "Atlantis".

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhoo, back to the voids. I hope, as Hamilton suggests in his paper, that the stones below the chevrons are removed to allow access. Then what, will they place muon dectors on the floor of this void, and will they use ground penetrating radar at the end of the void pointing in all directions. Have they ever used radar in the King's Chamber, specifically along the north wall ? should that be a priority as the big void is behind the north wall. Will they try to pry out the block by the sarcophagus? Will any chambers hold Khufu's burial goods, or Anubis, for those who have seen the film. Anubis would be cool, and scary, and more likely than electrical equipment for the power generators or whatever, and other hair brained schemes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 5:56 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Of course we can. What an absurd thing to say. Its one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. I would more easily believe G1 was built to shoot microwaves into outer space to power spaceships than the reserve heads once being KA statues in the GG representing the previous 27 kings. 

head.jpg 

 

 

ZuckerbergPharoh.jpg.f970e03019f79444bf19db86132b08b2.jpg

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

 

Whether a statue, any statue that was a complete 3D representation of a person, as ka statues were, and not just a frontal and side representation like the statues of Ramesses II at Abu Simbel, and was either stood on a plinth, in a niche or against a wall, I cannot think of a single reason to need to fix the head to whatever was behind it… Can you show any evidence for any other 3D statue in all of Egypt where the head had to be seperately secured to whatever was behind it.

SC: Oh FGS!!  No one is saying the actual head was fixed to the wall!  The statue was set upon a limestone plinth (part of the statue) which was then slotted into one of the pavement notches in the Grand Gallery. Near its base (at the back) the statue would have had a nub or boss which would have slotted into the counterpart wall inset hole thereby further securing the statue from any sideways/lateral tipping on the steep gallery incline (see image below):

 GG.jpg

Galleryof-Ancestors.jpg.a33e38a31c362d4cd9462650f09ebfae.jpg

 

So, the statue’s plinth is secured by the pavement notch and the statue further secured by the wall insets. The head itself is not fixed to the wall though probably resting against the wall.

To remove the head from the statue then it is easier to make a saw-cut if the statue is more horizontal than vertical. So, they place levers behind each ear to prise the statue forwards away from the wall. When there’s sufficient space between the head and the wall, they can then apply a more robust lever behind the head and the wall and pull.  Thus we have shearing of the ears and a gouge in the back of the head before the head is finally cut from the statue.  There would have been little need for such leverage were this simply a head on a plinth and we would certainly not have seen the damage that we do. We observe this damage precisely because these heads were almost certainly once affixed to a larger piece that required leverage to be used to free it from its mounting, i.e. a full statue.

However, as you say, it is immaterial to your hypothesis, yet not so unimportant that you continue to bang on about them.

Only because I believe they were cut from full statues. It then becomes possible that these were cut from the statues that we are told from some texts once stood in the Grand Gallery – statues that were likely serving as ka statues for the royal bodies I speculate were relocated to the Big Void. I may well be adding 2+2 and coming up with 5 but it’s not baseless speculation.

How do these 27 ka statues fit with what is known about their function and position in a tomb. They, as you well know, magically take in the offerings left for them at the tomb chapel, an area left open. Khufu's ka statue would have been in his mortuary chapel, outside the pyramid, as would the ka statue of anybody else buried in the pyramid. So what are they doing in the GG. . .

Let me answer that with your own words:

"The layout of G1 shows a serious eleboration of the theology, one which we cannot discern, only guess at." From here

And –

Why I singled out the internal structure of G1 as perhaps, as total speculation, something different and a potential to have a wider significance beyond Khufu, is precisely it's uniqueness. . . From here :

I agree, G1 is quite unique among these OK pyramids. It surprises us and continues to surprise us. My guess is that G1 was the ‘engine room’, the ‘beating heart’ of the builders’ grand recovery plan for the kingdom. Without the 27 ancestor kings and their queens being placed within the sanctuary of the Big Void (my speculation), then there could be no possible rebirth of the kingdom, none.  And if these kings/queens became too decayed and were no longer recognisable to their ka, then this could have meant disaster. Their contingency for this was to place 27 (x2) ka statues within the GG to be used as surrogates to guard against any such calamity.

. . . and why, if there at all, would they need to be relocated to the big void, even further away from offerings.

What?? I have never said the ka statues were relocated to the Big Void. All I have said is that the Big Void will, imo, be found to contain the actual mummified remains of Khufu’s 27 ancestor kings and their queens – one king and queen for each Ka statue that was once in the GG.

If you want to suggest anything about a flood, then the ka statue does not need to be located in any void in the pyramid, presumably with the mummy of the person they represent. The king, or anybody else, does not need the the ka statue right with them as the coffin itself can act a repository for the ka, and indeed the ka can still reside in the mummy. As I pointed out before, any image of a deceased person, no matter how far from their body, can hold a manifestation of their ka, or ba for that matter. Some of their names have the element "kheperu", which means many manifestations. A deceased king, now a god, can have, just like one of the gods of their pantheon, millions of manifestations, and it is a misconception that the ka statue was the only possible vessel for their soul. So, how do, in your opinion, these supposed ka statues in the GG fit in with anything we know about their beliefs. Can you provide any evidence to support your idea in any way, real evidence, not some tall tales that have no more relationship to real evidence as Plato writing about "Atlantis".

You just said yourself there – the ka statue does not need to be right beside the king’s coffin. It wasn’t. The ka statues were placed below in the GG (imo).

Atlantis?  You do like to set up little traps, don’t you. Let’s stick to the topic, eh.

SC

 

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Atlantis?  You do like to set up little traps, don’t you. Let’s stick to the topic, eh.

SC

 

I would have replied in detail, particularly when you quote me from another thread out of context. But because of what I have quoted above, no chance as I have zero interest in this bs from anybody.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

“What the fart? We wouldn't even be talking about it if not for you Scott. You put quite a bit of "emphasis" on it going so far as making the effort to copy and paste an entire excerpt from your book entirely devoted to it. But now that its blowing up in your face you blame others for putting "too much emphasis" on it?”

SC: Calm down Lee – you’ll give yourself a hernia. 


 [SC1]

The reader will note that once again rather than acknowledging and taking responsibility for his dishonest comments, clearly documented on this forum, Scott completely ignores it instead just slings ad hominem against the person reporting on it. We always hope some day you will be your better self better but you never are. 

Quote

“Quote

My opinion on them is simply that they may have once been attached to a full-bodied statue – the shearing of the ears and the gouges in the back of the head of some of them suggest force was used to break them free from whatever mounting there was, which itself suggests a full-bodied statue.

Note how Scott ignores everything that clearly proves this had nothing to do with being connected to a full bodied statue, even his own sources, and just keeps repeating it anyways.”

SC: Lee - just because mainstream Egyptology does not consider that these reserve heads once belonged to a full statue is just their opinion , and nothing more. 

This is not an opinion that would be limited to the dreaded go to boogeyman "mainstream Egyptology", but any one who examines them.  I am sure you know this full well, but still couch in this tired trope anyways. 

Quote

I think it should have dawned on you by now that I don’t accept their opinion.

What has "dawned on me", again well documented in our discussions over the years, is what you do not accept are any facts, logic, and/or common sense that contradicts the business of you promoting your nonsensical wildly intellectually dishonest ideas. 

Quote

The one thing they really struggle with these reserve heads is to present a reasonable and cogent explanation for their so-called ‘deliberate mutilation’. 

Such drama. So much so they cannot find reason or even rational thought. But of course just because we do not know for sure this means you can literally just make up whatever.

Quote

I consider my explanation for that damage to be just as good, if not better, than the other explanations put forward (and there have been a few). 

Just as good if not better as them being the heads of the 27 kings before Khufu placed in the Great Pyramid by an antediluvian lost civilization before the "Great Flood"?  That were originally part of their KA statues which for whatever reason these low level functionaries of the 4th Dynasty cut the heads off leaving the statues and in the process sometimes yes sometimes no deliberately damaged the ears and made marks on the back of the head? As noted, very poorly made statues bearing no known resemblance to any statuary of kings, a fact you ignore of course, instead portraying them no differently than the commoner's tombs they are found. 

This is crazy, even for you which I am certain you understand full well your idea is not only not as good, certainly not better, and by comparison just plain bonkers. And not just that, it is a dumb idea that I am surprised you even wen that route as it makes you look even more foolish and does nothing to help your "theories". 

Quote

Lee: Again:

"Almost all of the heads show some form of damage or mutilation that may or may not have been deliberately inflicted upon them before they were placed in the tomb. One of the most common features is for their ears to be broken off or seemingly chiseled away[6] At least one scholar disputes that the damage to the ears was deliberate, pointing out cases where detached ears have been found in perfect condition, and that the damage may be due more to rough handling by tomb robbers.[7] Of the many reserve heads only one has wholly intact ears; in others they have been scraped off close to the surface, whereas other or more crudely hacked or broken away.[8] One example contained dowel holes for the attachment of external ears which were not found with the head,[6] and another, smaller group of reserve heads were not made with any ears at all.[8]"

SC: Try this source, Lee: https://www.almendron.com/artehistoria/arte/culturas/egyptian-art-in-age-of-the-pyramids/reserve-heads-an-enigma-of-old-kingdom-sculpture/

(BTW the above link is one of the sources I used while researching my book). Yes, you’ll find there’s no mention here either of these heads having originally being attached to statues but still the explanations offered for the ‘mutilation’ struggle and, imo, are unconvincing. I still consider my own explanation more likely.

If this was your source and was easily linkable then why did you use Wikipedia instead? 

Your explanation does not even qualify as "unconvincing". It just weird self serving gobbledygook that I have a really hard time accepting that even you honestly believe what you are saying.   

Quote

Lee: And this would be what Scott says are the "gouges in the back of the head", which he claims were a result of "force used to break them free" of whatever:

"Another common feature has been called the "cranial groove", a careful and deliberate cut that typically starts from the top of the cranium and extends to the back of the neck.[9]"

SC: You’re confusing sculptors’ guidelines with gouges, Lee. Here, from the article (link above):

No, I am not. From your source:

"Another type of mutilation suffered by a significant number of reserve heads is the single or double line that was scratched or more often gouged into the finished surface from the crown to the nape of the neck."

And also from your source, which  you quote, it is just an opinion of one guy these are "sculptor's guidelines" yet you say it as "fact". You can't even get that right. 

Quote

SC: So yes, Lee – hacked gouges, violently executed.  I stand my premise, Lee. In my view these reserve heads could just as easily have been cut from full statues after they had been violently prised away from their mountings with the use of crude levers placed first behind the ears and then between the wall and the back of the statue’s head.  Once the statue is lowered, a simple saw-cut to remove the head.

It is not "just as easily", which you know full well, and is undoubtedly one of the least likely scenarios one could imagine. What was the head mounted to let alone that it needed to be "prised" [sic] away? And the ears are damaged, sometime carefully done, because they put levers behind them first then behind the head and the wall....? 

Quote

 

And further, Lee – regardless of your lame attempt to somehow show that ancient Egyptian people had no necks or, at least, long necks:

image.png.300cb8c8567506b162ae2171ebb6b5bd.png

You are losing the last of your marbles. I said nothing about "long necks" and believe that was @Kenemet which you completely misrepresent what she said regardless. 

But since you have pictured a royal sculpture, why have you not responded to this post HERE

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I would have replied in detail, particularly when you quote me from another thread out of context. But because of what I have quoted above, no chance as I have zero interest in this bs from anybody.

At the start of his 'career' Scot produced a remarkably funny power point slideshow on Atlantis...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

The reader will note that once again rather than acknowledging and taking responsibility for his dishonest comments, clearly documented on this forum

"clearly documented" my big hairy erse, Lee. You see, Lee - this is precisely why I ignore the vast majority of your posts here. You just cannot help yourself, can you?

There's nothing, absolutely nothing, "dishonest" in my hypothesis which I back up with evidence.  You might disagree with what I regard as evidence to back up my hypohesis but that's just YOUR opinion, Lee and it does not make my interpretation of said evidence "dishonest" and never will.  I evidently take a different view from the vast majority who post on this forum. That doesn't make what I say "dishonest". So just put a sock in it. 

My hypothesis will stand or fall when the contents of the Big Void are known. 

Now away and clutch some pearls.

SC 

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

. . . I have zero interest in this bs from anybody.

When the contents of the Big Void are known and (if) it falsifies my hypothesis, then, and only then, can you call what I'm saying "BS".  But not a moment before then. 

Now - off you trot.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.