The Sphinx Origins and a Final Link to Pre-Dynastic Egypt

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Now, Anubis was the guardian of the Earth and the Underworld and the protector of Osiris. The Pyramid Texts state that the pyramid represents Osiris (Utterance 600), so it would make a lot of sense if the Sphinx was originally a dog or jackal.

The Pyramid Texts, Utterance 600:

Utterance 600.

1652a. To say: O Atum-Khepri, when thou didst mount as a hill,

1652b. and didst shine as bnw of the ben (or, benben) in the temple of the "phoenix" in Heliopolis,

1652c. and didst spew out as Shu, and did spit out as Tefnut,

1653a. (then) thou didst put thine arms about them, as the arm(s) of a ka, that thy ka might be in them.

1653b. Atum, so put thine arms about N.,

1653c. about this temple, about this pyramid, as the arm (s) of a ka,

1653d. that the ka of N. may be in it, enduring for ever and ever.

1654a. O Atum, put thy protection upon N.,

1654b. upon this his pyramid, (upon) this temple of N.;

1654c. prevent any evil thing happening to him for ever and ever;

1654d. just as thy protection was put upon Shu and Tefnut.

1655a. O Great Ennead who are in Heliopolis,

1655b. Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set, Nephthys,

1655c. children of Atum--his heart is broad (glad) because of his children, in your name of "Nine [Bows]."

Source: Sacred Texts

Sorry. Not seeing it.
It's asking for the protection of Atum, just like he protects Osiris et al.

Harte

reply to post by Havick007
In respect to the Sphinx, there are two clues which give an idea to it's antiquity.

The first comes from a book called "The Origin Map, Discovery of a prehistoric, megalithic, Astrophysical Map and sculpture of the Universe" by the author Thomas G. Brophy, Ph.D. This was discovered out in the Egyptian dessert in place called Nabta Playa, some 120-miles or so west from the Nile. There are truly staggering implications in what was found there. The site itself has been covered in deep sands since well before the floods. Among other incredible findings, there is a map of the Galaxy as was totally unknown to any prehistoric people except those which survived the sinking of Atlantis. Other findings show the alignment of all the stars in the Orion Nebula and constellation as they were some 72,000- years ago. not only there positions, but also the relative movements away from and approach from each of the Stars in this Orion constellation in relation to Earth. This is confirmed by current astrophysics studies. Truly amazing science by people which were considered "primitive."

The second is an ancient statue found on the Greek island of Ios 40-miles south east from Athens. There on that island there is a large stone statue (some 12-meters in length) of a Lion-headed Sphinx with the head orientated towards Egypt. The Statue is very ancient, and none of the local inhabitants have any knowledge of it's history.

I HIGHLY recommend the "Origin Map" book for all interested Archeo-astronomy written by a true scientist with no preconceptions or any "ax-to-grind."

This challenges the conventional thinking that the Sphinx was constructed by any historical Pharaoh, and pushes the Pyramids and Sphinx way further back in pre-history.

Originally posted by Havick007
I have long felt there is more to the Great Sphinx, it's links to the Pyramids and the time it was built, it has only been recently that i have found some interesting links to the pre 1 st dynasty of Egypt. I started to think that we have been looking in wrong places all this time... yes we know it has water damage and erosion and that it is out of place completly. There is no written record of it's construction, only it's repair by Kefre in the palette of the pyramids.

I agree with you on Khafre being only a person that repaired Giza 2 and the Sphinx... that it is older than Khafre. I too looked into possibly brother-sister pairs in Egyptian religion to see who might have been Giza 2 and the Sphinx's original builders...but I came up with Queen Tefnut & Pharoah Shu.

Clearly they had to be human beings at one point and "deified" by later Egyptians maybe in part because of Egyptian ancestor worship. But they are one of the few that would fit a pre-Khafre brother-sister ruling that was written down in many, many Egyptian texts.

The real key to knowing that it was not Khafre who built Giza 2-- and that he was just a later caretaker of someone else's tomb is carbon dating. And then figuring out which carbon dating is accurate and which carbon dating methods have to be disregarded.

For example...the carbon dating of the bricks at Giza would be an inaccurate way to date the age of a pyramid. When the mud-bricks are dug in a field, the first bricks layed down would be dug from the top of the field. So when carbon-dating the material in them-- they would be younger. But as a pyramid is built, the brick digging field goes deeper. And the deeper it goes, the older the bricks appear to be as you a digging deeper and deeper into the ground for the mud bricks. So in carbon dating them....they would have the appearance of being older. And those bricks would be placed at the top of the pyramid. So attempts to carbon-date the bricks of the pyramid would give false dates. You'd only be telling how deep a mud brick field was dug, rather than the date of the pyramid.

What I find reliable in carbon dating would be carbon dating the wooden beams at the base of the pyramid that hold up the entire structure...as those are always the originals. A person cannot remove those beams or the pyramid collapses. So to carbon date the wood of those beams gives an accurate date.

Now Southern Methodist University did both. They made the mistake of trying to carbon date mudbricks, which doesn't say the age of a pyramid-- it only gives the age of how deep the mud brick field was dug. AND Southern Methodist University carbon dated the base wooden beams of each Giza pyramid. So one has to disregard the mudbrick carbon dating as inaccurate, BUT, the dates of the wooden beams of each pyramid would be accurate.

In that case:
Giza 1's wooden beams carbon date to c. 2853 B.C.E.
Giza 2's wooden beams carbon date to c. 2550 B.C.E.
Giza 3's wooden beams carbon date to c. 2505 B.C.E.

That means Giza 1's wooden beams are 300 years older than Giza 2. Giza 2 and Giza 3 would be sequential. The pyramid that turns out to be sequential to Giza 1 is the Red Pyramid of Dahshur (similar base dimensions to Giza 1) and the Red Pyramid's wooden beams carbon date to 2850 B.C.E. That means Giza 1 and the Red Pyramid had the same architect-- Pharoah Ptah.

Since Giza 2 wasn't built until 300 years after Giza 1, it's not possible for Khufu and Khafre (brothers) to have built them as both men would have had to live for 300 years to construct the both of them. Just impossible for the 2 brothers to be 300 years old.

So I'll stick with Pharaoh Ptah building Giza 1 and the Red Pyramid, Ptah aka. "the Great Architect" who was most likely entombed in a mastaba at the Red Pyramid-Dahshur complex. Ptah is always depicted as a partially unwrapped mummy-- meaning he was human and his mummy was unwrapped-- thus his mastaba disturbed. There was a 4th dynasty cult that formed at the Red Pyramid-Dahshur complex for Ptah who claimed to try and bring back Ptah to ask him how he built the Great Pyramid. So his mummy was probably there when unwrapped.

And I still think it's Queen Tefnut & Pharoah Shu, a very loved Queen & Pharoah who are the most likely candidates for Giza 2. Pharoah Shu IS ALWAYS depicted like a Sphinx in Egyptian texts anyway.

Originally posted by MapMistress

For example...the carbon dating of the bricks at Giza would be an inaccurate way to date the age of a pyramid. When the mud-bricks are dug in a field, the first bricks layed down would be dug from the top of the field. So when carbon-dating the material in them-- they would be younger. But as a pyramid is built, the brick digging field goes deeper. And the deeper it goes, the older the bricks appear to be as you a digging deeper and deeper into the ground for the mud bricks. So in carbon dating them....they would have the appearance of being older. And those bricks would be placed at the top of the pyramid. So attempts to carbon-date the bricks of the pyramid would give false dates. You'd only be telling how deep a mud brick field was dug, rather than the date of the pyramid.

There are no mud bricks in the Great Pyramid. Even if there were, you can't date mud brick with C14.

Originally posted by MapMistressWhat I find reliable in carbon dating would be carbon dating the wooden beams at the base of the pyramid that hold up the entire structure...as those are always the originals. A person cannot remove those beams or the pyramid collapses. So to carbon date the wood of those beams gives an accurate date.

That would really work well. Except there are no wodden beams anywhere in the Great Pyramid.

Originally posted by MapMistress
Giza 1's wooden beams carbon date to c. 2853 B.C.E.
Giza 2's wooden beams carbon date to c. 2550 B.C.E.
Giza 3's wooden beams carbon date to c. 2505 B.C.E.

That means Giza 1's wooden beams are 300 years older than Giza 2. Giza 2 and Giza 3 would be sequential. The pyramid that turns out to be sequential to Giza 1 is the Red Pyramid of Dahshur (similar base dimensions to Giza 1) and the Red Pyramid's wooden beams carbon date to 2850 B.C.E. That means Giza 1 and the Red Pyramid had the same architect-- Pharoah Ptah.

Since Giza 2 wasn't built until 300 years after Giza 1, it's not possible for Khufu and Khafre (brothers) to have built them as both men would have had to live for 300 years to construct the both of them. Just impossible for the 2 brothers to be 300 years old.

Since your stated dates are incorrect, so are the conclusions you arrived at using them.

Harte

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Parta
reply to post by Harte

 

harte.
did you try thinking about how mudbricks are made for even Moderator edit for rudeness

So, Parta, please show us the C14 dates for the mudbricks that make up the Great Pyramid.
Also, did you not note the remark that C14 dating on mudbrick only indicates the date they were dug up?

Please.

Originally posted by Parta
they have found wood in the great pyramid. charcoal in the gypsum mortar and wooden bits of the tools of the builders. mark lehner. [coincidently his carbon dates came out almost 400 years older than they should have and they were doing it again as i recall. don't know what happened. don't care.]

But I do care. The second round of C14 testing considerably narrowed the date range. I'm certain the paper has been linked here several times. If you can't find it, I'll look for it. Oh, but you don't care anyway so...

And, as you know (but don't care to mention,) C14 can only date the wood, not the pyramid. Charcoal in the mortar comes from wood that was burned to create lime. Much of this burned wood in Egypt was no doubt old, useless wood. No telling how much older than the Great Pyramid the wood remains in the mortar is. This is called the "old wood problem."


Now, please link to C14 results on the wooden beams that support the entire Great Pyramid's structure, as was mentioned in a previous post.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Well as the conversation has drifted to the Pyramid for the time being i wanted to ask a question.

In regard to the recent find of more heiroglyphs or 'grafiti' in the Pyramid, could the red ocre paint being carbon dated (C14) or TL (Thermoluminescence) dated?

Other options for dating the paint could also include - OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) and AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry) which have been used in more recent times to assist in dating of cave paintings etc.

Shown to the world last month, when the first report of a robot exploration of the Great Pyramid was published in the Annales du Service Des Antiquities de l’Egypte (ASAE), the images revealed features that have not been seen by human eyes since the construction of the monument.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/443a4d559e9e.jpg[/atsimg]

Researchers were particularly intrigued by three red ochre figures painted on the floor of a hidden chamber at the end of a tunnel deep inside the pyramid.

"There are many unanswered questions that these images raise," Rob Richardson, the engineer who designed the robot at the University of Leeds, told Discovery News. "Why is there writing in this space? What does the writing say? There appears to be a masonry cutting mark next to the figures: why was it not cut along this line?" Richardson wondered.


Full Article

Although i am more interested in the Sphinx, this might put some questions to rest about the date of the Pyramid as opposed to continued speculation by conspiracy theorists etc.

In regard to the wooden beams, obviously wood would have been used in construction but i have also not heard about any 'wooden beams' being dated there has been wood dated. If you want an exact date then the 'old wood' would cause problems but in terms of rough dating it is ok - there maybe a century more or less of difference but trees don't last that long unless treated and retained.


Mapmistress; this link has some good summaries about dating attempts over the past 100 years or so if you want to have read


Dating the Pyramids - (Archaeology.org)


In saying that, i don't totally disagree your comments about the age of the Pyramid but i havent really done enough research or reading to coment properly.

I will say that i have read articles and theories about the age and that before the white casing stones were removed there were water marks half way up the Pyramid as if the area had been flooded and the water level rested half way up and must have stayed that way for some time for the water to dosclolour the casing stones below the water line.

There was also talk about the casing stones being completly covered in writing or heiroglyphs. Although in regard to the both of these theories i have found no evidence but makes for an interesting story and worth lookiing into in my opinion - I know Harte probably won't agree on that


It's just a pity the casing stones were salvaged from the Pyramid after the 12th century and used for other buildings in Cairo. Not so much for the age thoery but because it would have looked amazing to the see the Pyramid with all the stones still in place.

I would love to see a restoration job planned

Originally posted by Havick007
I will say that i have read articles and theories about the age and that before the white casing stones were removed there were water marks half way up the Pyramid as if the area had been flooded and the water level rested half way up and must have stayed that way for some time for the water to dosclolour the casing stones below the water line.

Have you never wondered exactly how this can possibly be known?

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Now, Anubis was the guardian of the Earth and the Underworld and the protector of Osiris. The Pyramid Texts state that the pyramid represents Osiris (Utterance 600), so it would make a lot of sense if the Sphinx was originally a dog or jackal.

The Pyramid Texts, Utterance 600:

Utterance 600.

1652a. To say: O Atum-Khepri, when thou didst mount as a hill,

1652b. and didst shine as bnw of the ben (or, benben) in the temple of the "phoenix" in Heliopolis,

1652c. and didst spew out as Shu, and did spit out as Tefnut,

1653a. (then) thou didst put thine arms about them, as the arm(s) of a ka, that thy ka might be in them.

1653b. Atum, so put thine arms about N.,

1653c. about this temple, about this pyramid, as the arm (s) of a ka,

1653d. that the ka of N. may be in it, enduring for ever and ever.

1654a. O Atum, put thy protection upon N.,

1654b. upon this his pyramid, (upon) this temple of N.;

1654c. prevent any evil thing happening to him for ever and ever;

1654d. just as thy protection was put upon Shu and Tefnut.

1655a. O Great Ennead who are in Heliopolis,

1655b. Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set, Nephthys,

1655c. children of Atum--his heart is broad (glad) because of his children, in your name of "Nine [Bows]."

Source: Sacred Texts

Sorry. Not seeing it.
It's asking for the protection of Atum, just like he protects Osiris et al.

Harte

Well, whatever. You don't have to agree and that's fine. I didn't say it was a jackal, only that it could be.

Originally posted by Havick007
In regard to the wooden beams, obviously wood would have been used in construction but i have also not heard about any 'wooden beams' being dated there has been wood dated. If you want an exact date then the 'old wood' would cause problems but in terms of rough dating it is ok - there maybe a century more or less of difference but trees don't last that long unless treated and retained.

Mapmistress; this link has some good summaries about dating attempts over the past 100 years or so if you want to have read

Dating the Pyramids - (Archaeology.org)

In saying that, i don't totally disagree your comments about the age of the Pyramid but i havent really done enough research or reading to coment properly.

The article that I'm talking about was --THE--- controversial article on "dating the pyramids." It was the first 10 listings in every search engine back in 2004...the article where the Edgar Cayce Foundation had a huge funding project to re-date the pyramids. And they hired Southern Methodist University to do their carbon dating.

When the results came back, they had tried to carbon date the mudbricks and in result they had claimed that the "pyramids were built from the top down" and that the bricks at the top of the pyramid were "10,000 years old" while the bricks at the bottom of the pyramid were far younger.

And that's because you can't carbon date mud bricks. If you try, then you are only telling the age of the field and how deep the mudbrick field was dug. The article became an embarassment, in fact the Edgar Cayce Foundation no longer has the article up on the internet anymore on their own website (or at least they didn't the last several times I looked). And the original article isn't really found anymore on the internet, but you will find all sorts of websites referring to the data. So when you see a website claiming "Pyramids are 10,000 years old" or a website claiming that the "pyramids were built from the top down". That's what they are referring to... the carbon dating project funded by the Edgar Cayce Foundation where the samples were sent to Southern Methodist University.

HOWEVER... back when the article used to be up on the internet in 2004, the website I looked at had a JPG up, and within the jpg for each pyramid they ALSO carbon dated wood from each pyramid. And although the carbon dating of mudbrick is a pretty embarassing mistake... the carbon dates of wood samples from each pyramid are adequate. I still have a copy of that JPG with wood dates for each pyramid site on disk (just not the original article) and I kept a paper copy for each pyramid in a folder of carbon dates. Mind you...this was 2004-2005 research.

When it comes to websites with information on Egypt... so many of them disappear within even just a couple of years. Very few sites stay up on the net for any length of time. I'm just letting you know this because if you collect information on the internet about Egypt---SAVE A COPY of the webpages and burn them on disk...because 2 years from now, those websites might not be there anymore to cite. And back then, people used to post all kinds of photos of the insides of pyramids up on the net, which apparently can't always be done anymore with all the special permits that people have to obtain just to take photos in Egypt. So if you see a website with photos of the inside of pyramids, or walls, or stela--- SAVE A COPY and burn them on disk...because 2 years from now, those photos may not be on the net anymore. Trust me on this one. You won't regret it.

Anyhow, it was the Edgar Cayce funded expedition with Southern Methodist University doing the carbon dating that placed the WOOD in Egypt at the following (these are the 2004 notes, and the original article is no longer on the net as it was an embarassment since they tried to carbon date mudbricks too):
Giza 1 wood: 2853 B.C.E.
Giza 2 wood: 2550 B.C.E.
Giza 3 wood: 2505 B.C.E.
Red Pyramid wood: 2850 B.C.E.
Meidum pyramid wood (cedar): 2669 B.C.E.
Step Pyramid of Saqqara wood: 2648 B.C.E.

Other than that...there were a couple of people posting in here that didn't believe that there was any wood, nor mudbricks in the pyramids...odd. Here's a couple of sites talking about wood in each pyramid and all the other materials inside the pyramids too.

The cores of earlier pyramids appear to have been built with less prepared gypsum and more tafla mortar--calcareous desert clay. Nonetheless, bits of wood and reed can be found embedded in the corework.

from the Giza Plateau Mapping project
Pyramids Radiocarbon Dating Project section

Now this guy is quoting from the original Edgar Cayce Foundation/Southern Methodist University article...but he has slightly different ages then I have down in my notes, so I'm wondering if he used an additional site/study for information. Anyhow...he starts off with the whole speeel... of the "10,000 years old" which was the carbon date that came from the attempt to date the mudbricks. Which I explained before...you can't do. It's going to give you inadequate dates. But later in his webpage, he starts also quoting some research with wood carbon dates in it too.

First: The history of building the pyramids by using radiant carbon (C14).

The radiant carbon laboratory in the Southern Methodist University financed by (U.S National Science Foundation), and (Eidgenossiche Technische Hochschule) laboratory financed by (Swiss Institute for Nuclear Research and Swiss National Science Foundation) to study the history of Giza region where (the Pyramids and the Sphinx ) are in the eighties of 20th century by using the radiant carbon.

They have extracted the following results as they were mentioned in original report which was issued by the American Research Center in Egypt and published in a conference held in the Capital of France "Paris" specially for this (purpose).

Only wood and carbonized sample belongs to the great Pyramid of Cheops and returns to 3809 B.C. It was discovered at the South West corner, the round 198 in the Pyramid.

Another thirteen samples belongs to nearer rounds (3090-2853) B.C.

Wood and carbonized samples from Chephren Pyramid belongs to the period 3196 to 2733 B.C.

Wood and carbonized sample from Mykrinos pyramid belongs to the period 3076-2067 B.C.

Two wood and carbonized samples for the sphinx taken from the same site belongs to the period (2746-2985 B.C).

from Dr. Mosalam Shaltout's website
section on radiant carbon dating C14

His carbon dates on Giza 2 & Giza 3 might be different because he might have been adding in other samples to average the dates where I took ONLY the wood from the Edgar Cayce Foundation article/Southern Methodist University carbon dating. I won't take anything BUT wood and bone carbon dates. Anything else--- I ignore.

Thanks for the other link on Dating the Pyramids. I was going to link to it too. =)

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Harte

 

In regard to the recent find of more heiroglyphs or 'grafiti' in the Pyramid, could the red ocre paint being carbon dated (C14) or TL (Thermoluminescence) dated?

No.

The problem with thermoluminescence is that it can only be done on rock faces that aren't painted.

The "paint" is actually the stain left behind by the original ochre paint. While this would have been rock mixed with some sort of fat, the fat component (the only thing dateable) has long vanished or is in such minute traces that you can't measure this. They have the same problem trying to date Native American pictographs.

reply to post by MapMistress

I believe you are misrermembering.

There are no mudbricks in the Great Pyramid.

The C14 study was done on bits of charred wood found within the mortar used between the stone blocks that make up the Great Pyramid. No mudbricks, no wooden beams.

In conjunction with those tests, there may have been tests done on mudbrick that had been used at Giza, Abydos or elsewhere. But no mudbricks were used in construction the Great Pyramid, nor the opther two main Gizamids, IIRC.

As Parta mentioned, mudbricks usually are made by mixing clay mud with straw. Straw retrieved from mudbricks can usually be C14 dated (not the mud, though.)

Harte

reply to post by Byrd


What about AML?

Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is a technique for measuring long-lived radionuclides that occur naturally in our environment. AMS uses a particle accelerator in conjunction with ion sources, large magnets, and detectors to separate out interferences and count single atoms in the presence of 1x1015 (a thousand million million) stable atoms. At PRIME Lab we measure six different cosmogenic radionuclides. They are used for a wide variety of dating and tracing applications in the geological and planetary sciences, archaeology, and biomedicine.

Source

Just wanted to add that in regard to TL dating - the fat component isn't the only datable component and not all paints were created using fat -

Thermoluminescence (TL) dating is the determination by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose of the time elapsed since material containing crystalline minerals was either heated (lava, ceramics) or exposed to sunlight (sediments). As the material is heated during measurements, thermoluminescence, a weak light signal, is emitted, proportional to the radiation dose absorbed by the material.

 

When irradiated crystalline material is again heated or exposed to strong light, the trapped electrons are given sufficient energy to escape. In the process of recombining with a lattice ion, they lose energy and emit photons (light quanta), detectable in the laboratory.

Wiki

In this case it would depend on what the paint was made out of and how it was made.


Also i noticed you mention the paint itself was a stain - but in that enviroment with the absence of weathering surely there must be some original paint still present and considering the images were taken by a robot then how can you be 100% sure that there was no original paint or ocre residue present?

Unless you have some inside info

reply to post by Harte


Like many other things in world history - word of mouth or knowledge passed down.

I am not saying i beleive it 100% but i do think it is an interesting thoery or statement. I don't know where it originated but i am very keen on looking further into it. Also the 12-13th AD era isn't that long ago. That is the supposed time the casing stones were removed for other buildings in Cairo ( such as mosques and other buildings by the then rulers of the land - the Muslims)

I am skeptical of writing on the casing stones as the very top of the great pyramid is still intact with the exception of the cap stone. What does interest is the water level marks.

Moving to great flood myths, if there were such a great flood whether t be natural or not, it would make sence if true.

In regard to the Sphinx, depending on it's age the water erosion would also fit and then of course after the flood along with wind - being buried would have helped in the preservation but would still show some evidence of erosion before being buried.





Just want to add;


Why is your mood always: 'still appalled'

All the time...really?

Be happy and be positive



Although ATS can offer some differing opinions and ignorant comments, please be happy! If there is one thing i have learnt in this world, it is to be happy and positive and ignore negativity.

Cheer up Charley

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Harte

 

Like many other things in world history - word of mouth or knowledge passed down.

I am not saying i beleive it 100% but i do think it is an interesting thoery or statement. I don't know where it originated but i am very keen on looking further into it. Also the 12-13th AD era isn't that long ago. That is the supposed time the casing stones were removed for other buildings in Cairo ( such as mosques and other buildings by the then rulers of the land - the Muslims)

I've read befiore about these "water stains" as well.

I don't believe everything I read, though.

There's no evidence of it, and, like you, I've never found any reliable source - just the claim itself with no source.

Originally posted by Havick007
I am skeptical of writing on the casing stones as the very top of the great pyramid is still intact with the exception of the cap stone. What does interest is the water level marks.

The casing stones are all missing from the Great Pyramid. You're thinking of Khaphre's pyramid.
Regarding the paint,ochre is a mineral. If you date the ochre you'll be dating the mineral, not when it was applied. C14 dating only works on things that were once alive. That's why Byrd mentioned fat. Ochre clay can be mixed with fat to make paint, but water can also be used.

TL dating might work, however, in other areas of the G.P. The way I understand it, you need a sample of stone that has not been exposed to light since the pyramid was constructed.

Other forms of TL dating would, again, only show when the stone was formed, and not how long it has been in place.

I don't know if any TL methods have been employed at Giza. I also don't know enough about it to say if it would actually wok, as it may only work on certain types of stone - I just don't know.

Originally posted by Havick007
Why is your mood always: 'still appalled'

All the time...really?

Be happy and be positive

Although ATS can offer some differing opinions and ignorant comments, please be happy! If there is one thing i have learnt in this world, it is to be happy and positive and ignore negativity.

Cheer up Charley

LOL
I'm much happier than you think. Far happier than many of the posters here - they appall me. Obviously, you know the types I mean!

Anyway, it's just a joke, really. The blatant ignorance evidenced at this board no longer appalls me, I just like to say it does.

Thanks for caring anyway.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I gave you a star for the light hearted reply... good to see a smile


In regard to the ocre or 'red paint' in my opinion it would have to still be inconclusive as it was only last year it was discovered and if there had been further testing done on the paint itsepf it would have been published by now, even if the 'the rover' had gathered samples of the paint or 'stains'.

I am not talking about dating the rock itself, that would be a waste of time for obvious reasons, the limestone has been in existence for millions of not billions of years. I am talking about the paint and in recent times there has been other methods of dating introduced as per my original reply.

Not C14 or TL but other types of dating for specific types of paint or residue - especially in rock painting and similarr types of art or writing dating back over 40,000 years.



Also yes i apologose - ''Khaphre's'' pyramid is the correct pyramid that still has some of the original casing stones at the very top... as i said earlier i have a stronger interest in the Sphinx than the pyramids and in my opinion all 3 pyramids are ''great'' considering their allignment and configuation.

I also added exlplaination markes becuase i am still unconvinced abut the exact orgin of all 3 great pyramids but please don't get into a debate in this thread... it is supposed to about the Sphinx.

But thank you for correcting me on that

Originally posted by Harte

There are no mud bricks in the Great Pyramid. Even if there were, you can't date mud brick with C14.

That would really work well. Except there are no wodden beams anywhere in the Great Pyramid.

Since your stated dates are incorrect, so are the conclusions you arrived at using them.

Harte

I feel like I'm talking to a brickwall. Harte-- instead of just claiming of your own personal accord that there's no wood in the pyramids...why don't you quote some sources to back your claim. I have no intention of going just solely off your claim--when you seem to be the only person I've heard of that denies the existence of wood in the pyramids.

For the rest of us...let's look at a dozen sources talking about wood found in the pyramids.

SOURCES TALKING ABOUT WOOD AT GIZA

To get the stone, they chiseled holes in sandstone cliffs, then hammered wooden wedges into them and soaked the wedges with water. When the wood swelled, it split the stone. When each two to three-ton block was ready, they raised it with levers on a huge wooden sledge, and harnessed a team of men to it.

from Thinkquest.org

Another source....

As the stones forming the core of the pyramids were roughly cut, especially in the Great Pyramid, the material used to fill the gaps was another problem. Huge quantities of gypsum and rubble were needed.[5][6] The filling has almost no binding properties, but it was necessary to stabilize the construction. To make the gypsum mortar, it had to be dehydrated by heating which requires large quantities of wood. According to Egyptologists, the findings of both the 1984 and 1995 David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Projects[7][8] may suggest that Egypt had to strip its forest and scrap every bit of wood it had to build the pyramids of Giza and other even earlier 4th Dynasty pyramids.

from Egyptian Pyramid Construction Techniques: Wikipedia

A different source...

What he found were three objects:

1) A rough stone sphere
2) A small two pronged hook made out of some kind of metal
3) A 12 centimeter long piece of cedar wood with notches cut into it

from GizaPyramids.com

Another source talking about wood in the pyramids...

It was an odd sensation climbing over the Great Pyramid, looking for minute flecks of charcoal or other datable material, loaded down with cameras, scales, notebooks, and forms with entries for sample number, site, monument, area, feature, material (charcoal, reed, wood, etc.), matrix (gypsum mortar, mud brick, etc.), date, time, notes on details, extracted by, logged by, photograph numbers, and sketches.

from Archeology.org

And still another source...

A second dating in 1995 with new but similar material obtained dates ranging between one hundred to four hundred years earlier than those indicated by the historic record. This raised questions concerning the origin and date of the wood. Massive quantities of wood were used and burned, so to reconcile the earlier dates the authors of the study theorized that possibly "old wood" was used, assuming that wood was harvested from any source available, including old construction material from all over Egypt. It is also known, given the poor quality and relative scarcity of native Egyptian woods, that King Sneferu (and later Egyptian pharaohs) imported fine woods from Lebanon and other countries such as Nubia...

from Great Pyramid of Giza: New World Encyclopedia

A completely different source...

Fragments of wood and ash were found in each of these chambers, showing that even in this early period, the workers were able to obtain a good supply of precious and rare wood from a distant source.

from Ancient Egypt Online in the UK: Giza

Another source...

A German Engineer, Rudolf Gantenbrink, explored the shafts of the Queen's Chamber in the Great Pyramid in 1993 using a miniature robot fitted with a video camera. He discovered a long wooden rod whose shape and general appearance seemed identical to that of the shorter piece found by the Dixons in 1872 at the bottom of this shaft. The wood could, of course, be carbon-14 dated and provide further insight as to the age of the Great Pyramid. So far the wooden rod has not been retrieved by Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Director-General of the Giza monuments, in spite of the many requests for him to do so.

from the HalloftheGods.org

Another source...

The Great pyramid is believed to have been constructed over a 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. Although C14 radiocarbon dating has been done on samples taken from the interior of the pyramid the exact age of this masterpiece remains uncertain due to the fact that Egyptians re-used parts of wood.

from World Mysteries.com

SOURCES TALKING ABOUT WOOD AT MEIDUM

On your climb up, you will notice some huge beams of cedar wood that are 4600 years old.

from AskAladdin.com WITH PHOTOS

Another source...

The corbelled roof of the burial chamber projects above the bedrock in the masonry of the pyramid and looking up you can see the high corbelled walls, where there are still traces of an ancient wooden beam, perhaps intended to be used to facilitate lifting the sarcophagus.

from Egypt Sites Wordpress

As I said before, the Southern Methodist University in an expedition funded by the Edgar Cayce Foundation did C14 testing on those CEDAR BEAMS!!! And they carbon date to c. 2669 B.C.E. If you wish to argue...then argue about their methods...denying the existence of the beams solely on your word without any sources to back the claim is ludicrous.

SOURCES TALKING ABOUT WOOD AT THE SAQQARA STEP PYRAMID

The Saqqara step-pyramid was built with mud-fired bricks, identically fashioned (With mud and straw packed in wooden frames), to bricks made in Mesopotamia long before the time of Djoser.

Ancient Wisdom: Pyramids

Another source...

The decoration and construction of the pyramid combines stone as well as traditional materials such as wood, reeds, or mud-brick.

from EgyptTourInfo.com

Still another source...

At the centre was the Step Pyramid containing 330,400 cubic metres of clay, stone, reeds and wood, which made the pyramid more durable than its mud- brick forebears.

from Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo

And the results of Southern Methodist University doing C14 testing on the Step Pyramid of Saqqara resulted in a date of 2648 B.C.E. which actually makes it younger than the step pyramid of Meidum (2669 B.C.E.) By their results: the Meidum step pyramid is built before the Saqqara step pyramid.


SOURCES TALKING ABOUT WOOD AT DAHSHUR PYRAMIDS

A source on the Bent Pyramid of Dahshur...

The lower part of the chamber was filled with rough limestone masonry, partly bound with mortar, and partly laid dry. In the openings in the side walls lay the remains of cedar beams, just as in the Meidum pyramid.

from Google Books-- a book by Miroslav Verner & Steven Randall -- The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments, p. 177

Another source on the Bent Pyramid of Dahshur...

One of these was lowered in antiquity and a hole has been cut through it, the other remains propped up by a piece of ancient cedar wood.

from Bent Pyramid: Wikipedia

Finding a source on the Red Pyramid is proving to be difficult. All the search engines are flooded with the new modern wood staircase. I would presume that some form of wood was tested--like wood hammered into the slabs (watered and expanded) to cut the bricks-- or some other remaining wood left in the Red Pyramid was C14 tested by the Southern Methodist University which they dated to 2850 B.C.E. They had to test something as they did publish their results. Finding data on the Red Pyramid isn't easy because it used to be military land recently ceded for tourism. And the reason that the pyramid sat on military land for so many thousands of years is because it's true pyramid owner is usually associated with war. In other words--it's not Snefru's. I'll still make the claim that Ptah is the architect, but the person inside the Red Pyramid wasn't Ptah--just a person that is always paired up with Ptah in statues. And some of those statues are also done in red stone.

Originally posted by MapMistress

Originally posted by Harte

There are no mud bricks in the Great Pyramid. Even if there were, you can't date mud brick with C14.

That would really work well. Except there are no wodden beams anywhere in the Great Pyramid.

Since your stated dates are incorrect, so are the conclusions you arrived at using them.

Harte

I feel like I'm talking to a brickwall.

In this case, you are. It is a brick wall you built yourself and it's made out of the wooden beams that hold up the entire structure of the great Pyramid.

Originally posted by MapMistress
Harte-- instead of just claiming of your own personal accord that there's no wood in the pyramids...why don't you quote some sources to back your claim. I have no intention of going just solely off your claim--when you seem to be the only person I've heard of that denies the existence of wood in the pyramids.

I see. In order to make your case, you have to fabricate a claim I supposedly made.

Read what you quoted:

Except there are no wodden beams anywhere in the Great Pyramid.

You stated:

What I find reliable in carbon dating would be carbon dating the wooden beams at the base of the pyramid that hold up the entire structure...as those are always the originals. A person cannot remove those beams or the pyramid collapses. So to carbon date the wood of those beams gives an accurate date.

Again, there are no wooden beams "holding up the entire structure" of any pyramid.

Now you come back with traces of a non-structural beam found at Saqquara. Yet you claimed that the entire Great Pyramid was supported by wooden beams. I corrected you. Sorry you have such a problem with being completely wrong. Additionally, you reference the use of wooden wedges in the quarry. What has that got to do with anything?

I did tell you that there was the remains of wood used to make lime to be found in the mortar and that this has been dated. Now you wish to pretend that I claimed there was no wood at all in the Great pyramid.

The problem (let me just say this again) is that the date is for the wood, not for the pyramid. If you want to state that the dates are the same, you are assuming that only fresh wood was used to burn the limestone into lime.

Wood lasts for hundreds of years. Apparently to you, it doesn't make sense that the Egyptians might use scrap wood from former structures. I disagree.

Regarding the claim that Hawass refuses to date the wood found in the shaft:

Some suggest that carbon dating the wood would allow accurate dating of the Pyramid because wood must have been left in the shaft when the Pyramid was constructed (given that the shaft was sealed) but I contend that this is not absolute. Wood may been placed in the shaft after construction via the shaft’s exit, if one exists.

Source: Hawass' website

I don't see a problem here, since there have been two seperate courses of investigation into the age of the wood remains in the mortar. There's no question the mortar itself is as old as the pyramid (though the wood used might be older.) As Hawass points out, a modern metal pole was also found, likely left there by Dixon. Should they try to date this as well?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


This wooden beam and mud brink debate is getting out of hand...


Ok so lets look at what is currently known and factual in regard to wood in this case - Khafre's Pyramid. What about these secret doors made out of wood that block the shaft's leading out of the Queen's chamber.

Have they actually been dated yet?

Although if they were placed there anytime after construction then the dating may be inconsistent but what if the dating show's it to be much earlier then first thought?

As far as i know some of the samples which were Cedar like wood were missing for years but then turned up again in 2001, but i could not find any information on dating along with the brass handle, although i am not sure whether dating the brass would acheive anything relative to the topic for obvious reasons.


Dixon Relics - Wood and Brass


I understand the points you made about dating the wood and that it could have been placed there later but at the same timecan it hurt to do it anyway?

I find the reluctance of Hawass or the Ministry of Antiquities to even date the objects odd, this coming from a conspiracy point of view but either way why not just date it anyway. Even if it show's the wood is younger than the pyramids supposed build date at least they can have an approx time of placement in the Pyramid.

If it's much older than the build date... well that opens a whole other can of worms

**Bump**

Into the Ancient and Lost Civilisation thread