Rethinking Ancient Egypt - On Cataclysms, Ancient Technology and Identity Theft

a reply to: Byrd

Byrd,

Thanks for the counter points.....As someone who believes in the possibility of a lost civilization you are always kinds a deflater....but in a good way.

Have you looked much into the Younger Dryas climate shift and the growing body of people that are coming around to it? One of the main point of contention with this philosophy is that the Sphinx was built when Leo was the north star. It makes for some compelling reading when you aren't an expert in the field.

What are you thoughts about that? I'm sure you have already debunked stuff about the Sphinx but it can be rough navigating around here

a reply to: Byrd Not the op's vid but the one I posted ,this one at 14:14

The reason I mentioned Mount Sinai is because some of the controversy of its true location .Oh btw the Bible says its in Saudi Arabia but tradition has put it in Egypt .

a reply to: Mardukdoes this info in any way effect the dating method in the link you provided ?

"We measured the 14C levels in the pine sample at three different laboratories in Japan, the US, and Switzerland, to ensure the reliability of our results," A. J. Timothy Jull of the University of Arizona says. "We found a change in 14C that was more abrupt than any found previously, except for cosmic ray events in AD 775 and AD 994, and our use of annual data rather than data for each decade allowed us to pinpoint exactly when this occurred." The team attempted to develop an explanation for the anomalous solar activity data by comparing the features of the 14C change with those of other solar events known to have occurred over the last couple of millennia. "Although this newly discovered event is more dramatic than others found to date, comparisons of the 14C data among them can help us to work out what happened to the sun at this time," Fusa Miyake of Nagoya University says. She adds, "We think that a change in the magnetic activity of the sun along with a series of strong solar bursts, or a very weak sun, may have caused the unusual tree ring data."

Link to the other thread www.abovetopsecret.com... thanks for the link you provided

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
a reply to: Byrd

Byrd,

Thanks for the counter points.....As someone who believes in the possibility of a lost civilization you are always kinds a deflater....but in a good way.

Have you looked much into the Younger Dryas climate shift and the growing body of people that are coming around to it?

I'm familiar with the Younger Dryas and as far as I know, the entire scientific world agrees that there was a climate shift in the Younger Dryas.

One of the main point of contention with this philosophy is that the Sphinx was built when Leo was the north star. It makes for some compelling reading when you aren't an expert in the field.

Hmm. I take it from this that someone's attached something else to the game?

Just from what little you mention, I can pull out two points that you might like to think about: nobody sees the same constellations that we do nowadays. We're looking at a chart that was given to us by the Greeks. The big round Dendera (Egypt) start chart is actually something done in the time of the Ptolemys so in a sense we're seeing the "skies for Greek Tourists" version. There are older versions but they're done in a strip and don't have good proportions so most of the time we can't completely be sure of an identification.

The stars that we call Leo weren't a lion to the Egyptians (and Orion was actually TWO constellations to them.)

No star in the modern constellation Leo has ever been the north star... our planet hasn't rolled over that far.

What are you thoughts about that? I'm sure you have already debunked stuff about the Sphinx but it canThbe rough navigating around here

The real history of the Sphinx is really neat. Giza was never as important as the Abydos necropolis, so it was just left to sit and often got sanded up or almost completely covered up. It would occasionally get uncovered and the area around the pyramids cleaned but this was never a prime importance to anyone and its name was actually forgotten. Its name changed to "the father of terror" sometime after 100 AD. Napoleon's soldiers helped uncover it and his scientists produced the first good and thorough documentation of it and other Egyptian temples and artifacts (we still use these drawings today... time and tourists have not been kind to the monuments.) And Bellini tried to blow off the poor Sphinx's head with dynamite!

When the Giza area finally came under government control (in the 1800's) they began licensing digs to stem the flow of antiquities out of the country and only scientific digs were allowed there. Howard Carter and Flinders Petrie were the two Egyptologists who set the example on how to do this.

Edgar Cayce's "predictions" excited people about Egypt and the "mysteries of Egypt." The Sphinx has been penetrated and probed and we know there are small cavities under certain parts of it but they're not much larger than a breadbox. Work continues on and around the pyramids, with the most exciting finds coming from the old harbor and the workmen's and supervisors' (nobles') houses and burial areas. I saw some of the areas from afar when I visited... Although Egypt is only about as hot as West Texas, it's still kind of a difficult place to do a dig in the afternoon when the temperature creeps over 100 Fahrenheit.

When you're standing next to it, it's actually very easy to see all the repairs that have been done (if you look carefully.)

It's a wonderful old thing and I would love to go see it again. Friends are traveling to Egypt this week and I can't wait to hear about their adventures!

a reply to: Byrd

So this is the part where I say I have read a couple of books by Graham Hancock.

Your information about the stars was very insightful. When I read the stuff about the Sphinx and Leo being the North Star 14000 years ago or so it made so much sense. Definitely more evidence that sometimes things sound plausible because you aren't an expert.

Forgetting the Hancock rabbit hole (I do like reading up on the places he has visited and seeing his pictures)....the part about the Sphinx being buried brings to mind Gobleki Tepe. Is it a common thing for a people to build something and then bury it?

I try not to get to caught up in the theories.....but the Sphinx being built when the climate was more temperate just sung to me lol

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Byrd Not the op's vid but the one I posted ,this one at 14:14

Ah. I don't watch videos because it takes forever to find the piece you want and then the pronunciation may be so bad that you can't figure out how to spell it.

In this case, it's the Ipuwer papyrus. Wikipedia at this link

As you can see from the Wikipedia article, it's nothing at all like any book of the Bible and the connection to the plagues comes from one phrase that they say is the same as in the Bible ("river of blood") which, as the article points out, could be metaphor or any of a thousand other things.

To get a better picture of Egypt and Israel think of two modern countries: the US and Cuba. Israel is Cuba, the US is Egypt with all its resources and armies. Our history books for grade school almost never mention Cuba and when we do, the facts are far out of date. It's possible to get some of the names wrong of the major players. This happened when the Hebrews wrote about Egypt - the language was so different that they misspelled the pharaohs' names so badly and we can't figure out if these are real pharaohs or not. Things that the Hebrews write seem to be stories handed down over many generations and are the typical "we showed up and showed them who was boss" tall tale (propaganda.) Some of the exocanonical books like Joseph and Aseneth are clearly fables and many points where it's obvious this is not historical Egypt (names of people are not Egyptian names, the get the number of Vizirs wrong, and cities were badly planned so there was no chariot riding in the streets... etc, etc.)

Biblical Scholars and Egyptologists don't use each others' materials to date or confirm things as a rule because the two peoples really focused on their own lands and treated the other as enemy and put up propaganda about them.

The reason I mentioned Mount Sinai is because some of the controversy of its true location .Oh btw the Bible says its in Saudi Arabia but tradition has put it in Egypt .

That's what I understood... but this is why I leave that to Biblical scholars! Ancient Egypt wasn't that interested in Mount Sinai (though they liked the turquoise mines of the area.)

I can look up stuff on Biblical archaeology, but I'm absolutely no expert there and haven't taken a university-level class on the Bible in almost 50 years now so I'm wayyyyyyy out of date there.

originally posted by: atlantiswatusi
a reply to: Byrd

Your information about the stars was very insightful. When I read the stuff about the Sphinx and Leo being the North Star 14000 years ago or so it made so much sense. Definitely more evidence that sometimes things sound plausible because you aren't an expert.

When I was young, I absolutely believed all this stuff and I believed in Cayce, too. And then I started reading reports on what people were doing and what they found... and slowly quit believing as I started looking to confirm what they were saying.

Forgetting the Hancock rabbit hole (I do like reading up on the places he has visited and seeing his pictures)....the part about the Sphinx being buried brings to mind Gobleki Tepe. Is it a common thing for a people to build something and then bury it?

Relatively uncommon. In my (limited) experience the ones I know like that are usually barrows and graves such as the "Chinese Pyramids" which are large hills erected over the graves of their emperors. and mounds erected over the graves of the chiefs of some of the Mississippian culture groups here in the US. When there's a change of regime or a change of territory, monuments can be destroyed or buried (in Egypt, Akhenaten took down or destroyed a lot of the temples to Aten. After his death, his city was used as a limestone quarry.) And the Sphinx was simply covered because it's on the edge of the desert and sand can bury the area easily enough.

Gobekli Tepe is an unusual case, though. At this point, a relatively small area has been excavated. I think we will know more in 25 years if the area remains politically stable.

I try not to get to caught up in the theories.....but the Sphinx being built when the climate was more temperate just sung to me lol

Ha! You just haven't seen the Egyptians at work - or Texans (New Mexicans, Southern Californians), for that matter! A hundred degrees ain't that much to us. 104 degrees is 'nice weather for jogging.' (on the other hand, when it hits 65 degrees I want a fire and warm cocoa and coats and hats!)

a reply to: Byrd

What is your opinion of David Rohl's work ?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Byrd

What is your opinion of David Rohl's work ?

I would tend to reject it - BUT - having said that, I do it on the basis that my instructors reject it and they know more about it than I do. It looks like someone is trying to shoehorn the Bible onto a culture where there isn't any evidence. However, having said that, we've got an appointment with a financial adviser in an hour and so I'm going to trot off for that. I'll look at it later and give you some better thoughts on it, however.

a reply to: Byrd

having said that, we've got an appointment with a financial adviser in an hour and so I'm going to trot off for that.

In that case then best to not rock the boat . I hear it can be career damaging if you go against the status quo .

a reply to: Byrd

The video indeed fails to point out in detail what Egyptology has to say about these artifacts, tool marks and structures. But that's something that can be discussed in this thread.

When you say that the Serapeum is from ca. 300 BC, I assume this is derived from C14 dates of gypsum mortar and other datable (organic) material found in that area?

Obviously that method can't be applied to the granite boxes themselves. Do you happen to know what the official textbook story says about their origin and how the glyphs can be explained? Do egyptologists believe that the boxes are older than the graffiti?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Byrd

having said that, we've got an appointment with a financial adviser in an hour and so I'm going to trot off for that.

In that case then best to not rock the boat . I hear it can be career damaging if you go against the status quo .

(chuckle)

We are *EXPECTED* to rock the status quo. Otherwise you just get "fire, advanced fire, fire with different sticks, fire with trees, fire with dark trees..." etc as your "advances" instead of "fire, pottery kilns, forges, furnaces, blast furnaces, plasma torches-and-other-cool-stuff." But there's a difference between the "fire-to-plasma-torches" line of technology and "fire-to-WandsMadeOutOfGlaciers." While (technically) a wand made out of a glacier is thinking out of the box it's a pretty wrong idea in the arena of fire technology.

You can't get accepted to present a conference paper unless you've "upped the game." And no journal (of Egyptology or anything else) will print you rehashing the same old thing.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1. I hear it can be career damaging if you go against the status quo .

Wow did you hear wrong,
We know the name Leonard Woolley because he developed stratification a new method of exploring, we heard of Howard Carter because he insisted an unknown tomb still remained in the valley of the kings, we heard of Zahi Hawass because he went against the status quo, did you even know he worked for the A.R.E. Have you heard the name "Heinrich Schliemann", if so its because he went against his current paradigm and proved Troy wasn't just mythology, etc etc etc

The claim that going against the status quo wrecks academic careers is wholly made up by pseudohistorians so they can create a gap of the gods argument. That's where you pretend that a mystery has no answers so that you can push your agenda through the gap, "The academics won't tell you the truth, but you can buy it from me here"
Its nonsense and demonstrably so.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Byrd

The video indeed fails to point out in detail what Egyptology has to say about these artifacts, tool marks and structures. But that's something that can be discussed in this thread.

When you say that the Serapeum is from ca. 300 BC, I assume this is derived from C14 dates of gypsum mortar and other datable (organic) material found in that area?

Nope. It's dated by inscriptions and royal decrees.

I had the newer one in mind (the temple in Alexandria) when I responded, not the underground burials of the Apis bulls in Saqqara. But that one's also dated by inscriptions and royal decrees.

The original decree for its building is by Ramesses II, when he orders his son (who is famous (if you study Egyptology)) Khamwaset to build a burial place for the Apis bulls. This was more or less in continuous use up through the time of the Ptolemys

A stele by Ahmose gives an example of what some of these inscriptions say

(from Reshafim)
Year 23, first month of the third season (ninth month), day 15, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khnemibre (Amasis), given life forever.
The god was conducted in peace to the Beautiful West, to let him assume his place in the necropolis, in the place which his majesty made for him, the like of which never was made before; after there had been done for him all that is done in the pure house (i.e. the place of embalmment).
Low, his majesty had in remembrance how Horus did for his father, Osiris, and he made a great sarcophagus of granite.
...(etc)...
The majesty of this god went forth to heaven in the year 23, third month of the second season (seventh month), day 6. He was born in the year 5, first month of the first season, day 7. He was installed in the house of Ptah in the second month of the third season (tenth month), day 18. The beautiful lifetime of this god was 18 years, 1 month, 6 days.
Ahmose (II)-Sineit, given satisfying life forever, made (it) for him

So it's matched against kings lists and other written material.

Obviously that method can't be applied to the granite boxes themselves. Do you happen to know what the official textbook story says about their origin and how the glyphs can be explained? Do egyptologists believe that the boxes are older than the graffiti?

That was the most hysterically laughable bit, revealing just how little these people knew. No single person made the box and no single person made the hieroglyphs. They were done in workshops and there were dozens of people working on this. There would have been a chief scribe who wrote the inscriptions and people to carve them. This particular type of basalt is very hard and yes, it's hard to make inscriptions. However, the inscriptions are NOT graffiti (as anyone who's studied hieroglyphs can tell you) and are indeed perfectly readable. A photo of the end of that box shows the blank cartouche and underneath that the words "given life, power, and health" and followed by "Lord of"... and the photo cuts off the rest.

The pharaoh's name is blank, however.

Perfectly readable by any second year Egyptology student.

So these would be the roughs that would later be carved out and filled in.

The interior has been finished (and again this would have been done by many people doing the stonework and many engraving) and even without my dictionaries it's possible to see the goddess representing the West there in the bottom of the sarcophagus. The angle's bad, so I can only make out "words spoken by..." on the right column. On the wall, above the kneeling winged Nepthys is a long text (mirrored to some extent) that begins "words spoken by the king"... on the left it goes into "Son of Osiris." I would need my books and about a week to try the translation there. I recognize random bits such as "Lord of Everything" and "true of voice" (i.e., dead) and a lot of other phrases I know.

IF it had been finished, the outside would look like the inside.

Are the boxes "older than the graffiti", well, yes, the boxes were made first. But they are not repuprosed. The one they are looking at was, in fact, unused.

a reply to: Marduk

The claim that going against the status quo wrecks academic careers is wholly made up by pseudohistorians so they can create a gap of the gods argument. That's where you pretend that a mystery has no answers so that you can push your agenda through the gap, "The academics won't tell you the truth, but you can buy it from me here" Its nonsense and demonstrably so.

Maybe I should have used the word Orthodoxy instead . That was Byrd could have just labeled David Rohl a heretic .Oh and passed the blame for that onto his instructor who already told him what to think .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

The claim that going against the status quo wrecks academic careers is wholly made up by pseudohistorians so they can create a gap of the gods argument. That's where you pretend that a mystery has no answers so that you can push your agenda through the gap, "The academics won't tell you the truth, but you can buy it from me here" Its nonsense and demonstrably so.

Maybe I should have used the word Orthodoxy instead . That was Byrd could have just labeled David Rohl a heretic .Oh and passed the blame for that onto his instructor who already told him what to think .

Academia, Orthodoxy, Status quo are all the same thing. I guarantee you that there is not an archaeologist alive today who wouldn't be running to the press immediately after digging up a spaceship (or some other high tech). The conspiracy of silence required to hide that truth would by necessity need to involve hundreds of people. From the archaeologists to the native diggers, to the on site press, the financiers, the museums responsible for the team, the museum staff, and their friends and relatives. A conspiracy on that scale which has been running for centuries of excavations is just not viable. And what would be the point, anyone involved in such a discovery would be made rich by it. So you're basically saying that there are extremely unscrupulous people out there who got involved in the first place to uncover the past, then immediately on qualifying started covering it up, who also, apart from being that unscrupulous don't want the money. The contradiction alone should tell you that the claim is nonsense. And as well as being nonsense, its a claim made on absolutely zero evidence, the cover up is that good, or the evidence doesn't exist for a much more believable reason....

Now take a look at this

This is Milan Cathedral, it is a hugely more complicated building than anything in Egypt, completely built out of a harder stone (Condoglian marble). Most of the construction was done starting in the 14th Century and completely without power tools
Do you think this structure which is far more complicated and impressive than anything at Giza was built by a lost advanced race. Of course not, that would be idiocy, the names of all the architects are well known. But you don't see the discrepancy for the claims you are making for pyramids versus the reality of mans ingenuity demonstrated in Milan Cathedral do you...

3 million years our species and ancestors were working stone and you don't think the Egyptians could have built them, despite every carbon date ever from Egyptian buildings coming back as in the Egyptian period. So either they built them, or they took them all apart brick by brick and then reapplied mortar and put them all back together. If that's true, then their level of knowledge was more advanced than your lost race of builders, but you still don't think they knew how to do it,
Wake up and smell the coffee. You don't have a clue what you're saying...

a reply to: Marduk

I am not convinced one way or the other about the tools used .My big issue is with dates and dating . If there was a civilization prior to Egypt then who were they and where did they go . How advanced they were is really not a issues because like you show man can do pretty intricate work with simple tools .

The dating thing ....Egyptology seems to hold their dates with dogmatic fervor with a sacrosanct position David Rohl work challenges that .You and others make the claim that he was trying yo fill the gaps of the gods but if you can believe him then its not true . The inadvertent reality to what he found actually does resolve that issue but instead of investigating deeper the establishment would sooner throw him under the bus and make him a outcast . ie. Byrd does not give his opinion but regurgitates his instructors kool-aid . And then has to rush off to secure funding ... The way the game goes is if you want us to pay then you got to play . Without asking or looking for that to be presented it naturally comes to the surface .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1.My big issue is with dates and dating

Not even close, your big issue is that you have unilaterally chosen to ignore scientific evidence like this, in favour of a belief without evidence and a belief without evidence is practically religion


And in case you hadn't realised, David Rohls new chronology involves the 19th to 25th dynasties. And on the whole attempts to link the Bible to Egyptian history. So he's not even relevant to this discussion

a reply to: Marduk

Not even close, your big issue is that you have unilaterally chosen to ignore scientific evidence like this,

So much so that I thanked you for the link and brought you a link about the same subject matter and asked you if it may actually matter with dating . I will take your lack of response to that simple question as you unilaterally choosing to ignore scientific evidence to maintain your sacrosanct position on the dates . David Rohl was strike two for you and is a part of the discussion that gives you strike three ,for telling me he doesn't belong when it comes to looking at dates for Egypt's history which is what this threads main point is . That is strike 4 and now we have moved into girley ball or T-ball .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

Not even close, your big issue is that you have unilaterally chosen to ignore scientific evidence like this,

So much so that I thanked you for the link and brought you a link about the same subject matter and asked you if it may actually matter with dating . I will take your lack of response to that simple question as you unilaterally choosing to ignore scientific evidence to maintain your sacrosanct position on the dates . David Rohl was strike two for you and is a part of the discussion that gives you strike three ,for telling me he doesn't belong when it comes to looking at dates for Egypt's history which is what this threads main point is . That is strike 4 and now we have moved into girley ball or T-ball .

You are using a straw man argument here with your claim of "sacrosanct" dates.
The timeline of Ancient Egypt hasn't been nailed down perfectly. Egyptologists recognize this fact. It's not wildly wrong, but there's plenty of wiggle room in the Old Kingdom dates, and some even later.
Pretending that all of Egyptology clings to a set, immutable, timeline is what powers your argument, but that's simply not the case at all.

Harte