It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abydos Temple Hieroglyphics

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence....

99 times out of 100 it is! We have no real proof of a Loch Ness Monster, after dozens of sonar missions, we have no infrastructure to support the idea that the Egyptians could build any of these things.

If they had advanced tech then why use thousands of slaves and rollers and pulleys to build the pyramids?

Why are people so unwilling to believe Byrd? This has been thorougly explained in overwhelming detail, yet people seem happy to ignore this and say 'but it looks like a helicopter.'

Stop. Think. What about the explanation provided makes no sense?




posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Allow me to reiterate: I believe the erosion / palimpsest theory of why the carvings look the way they now look to be valid. That’s good science.

The swamp gas comes in when you tack on to that bit of good science the proviso of “If the ancient Egyptians had (high tech) then (why did they use low tech, where is the support industry, yadda yadda) ergo there was no (high tech)” That is bad science riding piggyback on the good science.

No one on this thread has stated that the ancient Egyptians had these things, (built these things, used these things, maintained these things, supported these things, or supplied these things.) It is implied that perhaps (perhaps) they saw these things and then incorporated them into their artwork and legends.

The artwork under scrutiny right now is not a good example of the possibility that the ancient Egyptians witnessed some high tech gizmo flying around in the sky, as the erosion / palimpsest theory seems to be quite solid. Other artwork / legends might not be so easy to explain away…

It only takes one traumatic / dramatic event to have a deep and lasting impact on a society. There was only one Alamo, and we here in America all remember it. One event of a flying gizmo buzzing an ancient city might (might) have been traumatic enough to incorporate into the ancient societies myths, legends, and artwork.

Again, Byrds work on those carvings is stellar, outstanding, superb, I totally follow the logic and science involved and am 100% willing to accept that the reason those carvings look the way they do now is because of erosion / palimpsest.

However, to go from that one, small bit of good evidence to the much grander conclusion that the ancients never witnessed some form of high tech gadgetry, no, I’m sorry, you lost me. I don’t see the clearly defined trail. I require more evidence.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
It only takes one traumatic / dramatic event to have a deep and lasting impact on a society. There was only one Alamo, and we here in America all remember it. One event of a flying gizmo buzzing an ancient city might (might) have been traumatic enough to incorporate into the ancient societies myths, legends, and artwork.


The problem is, where are all the writings?

That is one image...one...that to me isn't anywhere near enough for people to claim they had seen such things. They would have been amazed by them [people still are to this day] and there is one image...it just doesn't make that much sense to me.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
and here's another reason why it's not a helicopter.

If you look at egyptian art, they used images to convey information, not to accurately represent appearances.

They drew the sun as a scarab with with wings. Did the sun look like a beetle in ancient times? No. It looked like a red ball at sunrise, just like today. The sun had the spiritual significance of a scarab, as it rolled across the sky and generated life. So they drew a scarab, instead of the outer appearance of the thing.

Now, scarab beetles have membraneous wings. But the Egyptians drew them with feathered wings. Not because they'd never seen a scarab; no, they drew wings as a symbol of ra, the falcon, as a symbol of effortless flight. Whereas they knew a real beetle has to pump it's wings several times a second just to fly in a bumbling, haphazard manner.

Look at Black Elk's drawings of Major Custer and the 7th calvary. Black Elk drew a bullet coming out of each gun. Could he see the bullets? No, but he knew it was there, and was communicating the metal death that emerged from Long-hair's thundersticks.

I speculate that IF egyptians saw an AH-64, they would draw thunderbolts, or a lion, to represent the roar of the rotors. I would expect them to draw one of the wind-god's for the downdraft, and then one of a fly to show the invisible pestilence raining down from the helicopter.

I would NOT expect Egyptians to draw a side view of a helicopter from the blueprints on a draftsman's table.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by drinkinlikeafish
I agree with masterp, theres no way erosion could leave perfect carvings of helicopters

You're not understanding, the erosion didn't carve anything, there were two sets of glyphs, one superimposed over the other. The glyphs that they are composed of are known, and when you superimpose them, you get this image. Also, they're not perfect images, the photos have been 'doctored', though I suppose it was just an honest attempt to 'more clearly' show what they thought was there.

Here are the superimposed glyphs



how much of that stuff is still sitting around now?

Thousands of metric tonnes of it. They still find ordanance now, in unexpected places, let alone the factories and cities that were required to make them. Somone had to have made the helicopters, if they are a real thing, if not the egyptians, then there's still a need for some civilization somewhere that has all the stuff needed to make it.

Abscence of proof is not proof of abscence

I agree. However, given that there is an absence of proof, you cannot say that it did indeed exist.

to go from that one, small bit of good evidence to the much grander conclusion that the ancients never witnessed some form of high tech gadgetry

I agree, the fact that the abydos palimpset isn't a representation of a helicopter clearly doesn't mean that they never saw a helicopter.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
There is a logical explination for the coincidence and evidence of the glyphs that combine to make the image we see as a helicopter. The symbols translate into something in line with thier standard writing.... there is tons of evidence that show that this look could come from over lapping glyphs.

There is ZERO evidence that egyptians had knowledge of helicopters.

THUS the only rational conclusion is that it is indeed just overlapping glyphs that WE see as a helicopter. If you choose to come to any other conclusion, you do so going against logic and evidence.

Neither case is a 100% fact, but one is heavly supported by evidence and logic, the other is not.

I'm fine if people want to believe it represents a helicopte, as long as they acknowldge that they do so against logic and evidence.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Odium,

“…where are all of the writings?”

In the library, on the Internet, in museums, carved / painted on walls…

All I can say is, if you are waiting for the information to fall into your lap, you will probably have a long wait. Life sucks.

I find the ‘djed’ to be an interesting object worthy of study. There are numerous depictions of it in a variety of forms (jewelry, carvings, paintings…) There is a very interesting image inside the tomb of Huy that deserves a good look…

So there, something fell into your lap, life doesn’t suck so much after all.

Nygdan,

yes, lots of unspent ordinance and shell fragments pepper the landside of all battlefields. How many Shermans, Panzers, Tigers, jeeps, troop transports, P-38s, Spitfires, destroyers, aircraft carries and the countless other bits of heavy equipment pepper those same fields? How much is still in commission? How much was salvaged as scrap and turned into something different? How many Fokkers and Sopwith Camels are there left? How many tools and dies left to make and repair this “ancient” equiptment?

Stuff goes away. The technology and skills needed to make the stuff goes away, replaced by new stuff.

Quest,

Agreed, the image in question is almost certainly the result of a combination of events resulting in the appearance of apparently modern technology and should not be used by the pro ufo folks to support their belief.

Zero evidence that the Egyptians had knowledge of helicopters (or, less specifically, “flying machines”) is debatable.

I find it fascinating that scholars are more than willing to say that: This portion of a text is the literal truth. Such and such a king led an army to such and such a land and had a battle at such and such a place and such and such a king was getting his butt kicked. However, when we get to this portion right here, it stops being truthful and now it is pure metaphor, because right her it says that a being that was not human flew over the battle field in a physical contraption of some type and dumped napalm on the kings enemies, turning the tide of the battle. However right here the text reverts back to the literal truth, the king was indeed victorious, and he and his descendents ruled over that land for many generations…

gimme a break.

Just because preceding generations of translators didn’t know how to deal with a “fiery chariot” episode doesn’t mean that we can’t. They had “stones that talk” woohoo! Magic! Metaphor! Not Real!! *rolls eyes* I got a pocket full of minerals that not only talk, the bloody things play music, too.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
torbjon, if so much evidence exists of such technology and the Egyptian's knowing about it display it for me to see otherwise, there is evidence that prooves you are wrong. I just keep it in my pocket.

Nar-nar-ne-nar-nar. -sticks tongue out-

This is fun...



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
*bursts out laughing!*

Odium, thank you, I needed that, best moment I've had all day was reading your post. Good ol' grandpa gave my 1.5 year old daughter one of those fisher price tool sets today and she has spent the entire day rebuilding our house with it... add to that the real contractor out back putting in a new deck, well, you can imagine the noise level *rolls eyes*

I'm more interested in ancient societies in general as opposed to ancient Egyptians specifically, so on the topic of ancient technology I tend to drift from culture to culture...

Have you read Any mythology at all? Some pretty fantastic stuff going on there...

Keep in mind this is not a majority driven enterprise. Doesn't matter what the majority of the people think, it's what you think that matters. Have a genuine opinion, don't rent one. Yours will be much better then the rented one.

Did you image google 'djed' and look at a lot of them? Pretty interesting gizmo if you ask me... how 'bout the tomb of Huy, very nice picture of a rocket ship in a silo in there....

how 'bout a medical caduceus? There's an ancient symbol for you, always associated with the medical profession since the invention of dirt, nice double helix design.... fascinating that a helix would be the symbol for doctor since time began...

there's tons o' stuff out there that makes good food for thought and a fun read... pick anything, Greek, Hindi, Norse, doesn't matter. Egytian is fine if that's your bent. After you've read enough of them you'll start to notice some remarkable simularities, which makes for more food for thought...

After a while you'll start to see a unified pantheon... kind of like they taught us in school about Greek and Roman gods, yes? Zeus = Jupiter, that sort of thing on a larger scale....

Then again, maybe you won't *shrugs* which is fine. The thing is, you have to do it, I can't do it for you. I can't just encapsulate it and hand it to you in a nutshell. Even if I could I'm not sure that would work, it's the sort of realization you need to come to on your own...

Or not. It's not a life or death thing, whatever folks choose to believe is fine by me as long as it doesn't mess with me and my family.

For the record, I don't believe that "high tech" was a wide spread thing in the ancient past. I do believe that there was some isolated "high tech" stuff that helped to spawn some interesting myths and some curious artwork.

Can I prove it? Of course not. I can't even prove that I'm not the dream of a butterfly or plugged into some Matrix or that the reality I think I think I precieve isn't just some shadow on the wall of a cave *laughs*

I do know that my daughter has found the remote and managed to turn the volume up to full blast, soooo,

I gotta go
twj



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Actually torbjon, I do have a fiarly high level of knowledge on Ancient Civilisations primarily that of the Egyptian's...and in many cases I agree that there was regions with much more advanced technology but to the level of helicopters, missiles, etc which people seem to see in their artwork? I find laughable.

Also because many cultures hold similar stories as one another and were in trading distance isn't that hard to believe. There was a lot of cross cultural shifts in that period and because of this and inter-travel between the regions myths which were similar to one another over time becamse the same Myths however there are massive differences between the cultures as well. Take this thread for example. Even the names we use for Egyptian God's have been changed and this is where a lot of the similarities come into play.

As for the images? So what? Children can draw fantastic images, that reprosent things they have never seen or it can be a bunch of lines on a piece of paper. As for some of the inventions of the period. They are amazing however you can see how they got to them if you dig hard enough however you can't see any civilisation before the current ones and how they got to helicopters or missiles...



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Wow, that was a great thread! Thanks for the link. That beforebc person really seems to have a chip on their shoulder… butting heads is Not the way to advance a theory *laughs* Well, good luck to them…

In many ways I see your post here as a reflection of what I’m saying only in your own words, which is great. We all need to put things into language we can swallow or we’ll get a bellyache.

Again, for the record, I don’t believe that humans built high tech gizmos or machines that could fly until very recent times. I do believe that there were a few high tech gizmos and a small number of machines that could fly in very ancient times…

There’s a conclusion there *shrugs*

Children and artwork… hmmm. I’m not so sure I can buy into that. Do you have kids? Or spent anytime with them? They come up with some pretty amazing stuff, sure, as do adult artists, but it seems to me that when the work becomes coherent that it is built upon a recognizable theme. Kids don’t seem to draw pictures of race cars until after they have been exposed to cars… once they have seen a car, then they start to draw all sorts of fantastic cars, but not before then. Perhaps “primitive” peoples living in the Amazon basin ARE sketching out images of cars in the sand and I’m just not aware of it, but I am doubtful of that.

Perhaps that bit of artwork in the tomb of Huy IS just meaningless lines. I find that odd though. I don’t think that untalented children were commissioned to decorate the tomb. Perhaps they were, I have no idea who the artists really were, I only Assume they were skilled at their craft. I also only assume that they were not doing a pure abstract simply for the sake of art, but rather that the work they were creating carried a meaning and had significance. I assume the artist was trying to depict something, either real or imagined, but something that could be recognized and appreciated. I also assume that the artist based their work upon a foundation. It may be highly stylized and full of artistic flare, but at the core the subject matter built upon was a tangible thing…

These are just assumptions on my part and carry no scientific weight whatsoever *shrugs*

However, if those lines in the tomb of Huy ARE just esoteric abstract meaningless lines thrown up on a wall oh so long ago, then, in my opinion, they deserve even More examination and study in the terms of art appreciation and art history. Fascinating group of lines…

I’m curious about your views as to the evolution of human societies… do you perceive peoples springing up independently of each other all over the world and then making intermittent contact with each other, or, a core group of peoples starting in a central location, spreading out, and then loosing and re-establishing contact with other groups? I’m for the core group theory myself, but some folks lean towards parallel evolution.

If the core group theory is more true, then the idea of a unified pantheon / unified mythology stemming from that core seems feasible to me. It’s that core pantheon / mythology that interests me the most.

No comments on ‘djed’ or caduceus, huh? hmmm. okay.

(as an aside, I am sooooo glad to get away from SDC, ATS is where it’s at, yay!)

rock on
twj



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
fascinating that a helix would be the symbol for doctor since time began...

Its actually more interesting than that.


The cadeucus is thought, with its wormy little serpens wriggling around it, to represent this ancient african practice, wherein the 'doctor' would insert a stick into the person's body, hook a parasitic worm that tended to infect people, and draw it out by turning the stick, thus screwing the worm out of the person, wrapping it around the stick.



you'll start to notice some remarkable simularities, which makes for more food for thought...

Could be that the gods were actual people that were invovled with some very primitive humans before they spread across the world, or, then agian, could be that, since the gods are allegories for nature and the world around men, that there'd tend to be similarities between them.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I normally have time to take apart posts, and look at them properly giving an answer to every question and point raised however I am at the moment in no position to do such a thing. I have three pieces of coursework to finish by the End of October and each one makes up 1/3rd of my final grade so for the short-term, I get back to a few points when I can. Sorry.

My point on children, I guess I didn't explain properly [I have a 4 year old brother I look after two days a week] and the point I was making is that he can attempt to draw one thing and to him it looks like that one thing and thus that is its meaning. Now another person, looking at it years down the line might see a different object all together and in turn think that the object was his own interpretation and not the childs. This is the same with many images from ancient cultures. They have one meaning in their society and in our society they take on another when we look at it through our own eyes.

If you look at the post by dr_strangecraft, he displays such things better than I do. How they use one image to have a different meaning to what it would today.

As for how culture came about? In honesty, I believe we have probably been around a lot longer than people wish to accept. However, I do not believe we have always been that intelligent. I see it as a growing process and slowly over time we got smarter and smarter, with thousands of years spent on a very basic level and every so often one person coming along and 'boosting' our whole level...

However, I do believe many cultures came up independently and the similarity between the God's was placed on after. Nydgan makes a good point on it, as many people did view Nature and use natural forces as gods...thunder being a prime example.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Nygdan,

Interesting, however the caduceus is most usually depicted as two serpents (snakes) entwined in a helix. I've seen a lot of parasitic worms in my life, they tend to lack the decided "headness" and "tailness" of the snakes usually shown on the caduceus.

This African theory sounds good, but I'm not sure I can buy into it... it lacks an explanation for the pairing... why a pair? Why not just one, or five?

As far as the "gods" go, well, ya, there's a bucket of parasites for you *laughs* A discussion on that is worth more than a post or two, and something I would love to chat about... however my daughter is going ape right now so I gotta go

Odium,

Read your post, will get back to on that...

Fully understand the 'only so many hours in a day' thing. Do what you gotta do. There's no rush on any of this, I got a life time to play with it. Right now I gotta go pull my monkey girl offa the walls before she kills somebody (most likely Me)

Rock on
twj



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon

Did you image google 'djed' and look at a lot of them? Pretty interesting gizmo if you ask me... how 'bout the tomb of Huy, very nice picture of a rocket ship in a silo in there....


A reasonable theory on what a "djed" is, from: en.wikipedia.org...


In their 2004 book "The Quick and the Dead", Andrew H. Gordon and Calvin W. Schwabe speculated that the Ankh, Djed and Was symbols have a biological basis derived from ancient cattle culture, thus:

the Ankh - symbol of life - thoracic vertebrae of a bull (seen in cross section)
the Djed - symbol of stability - base or sacrum of a bull's spine
the Was - symbol of power and dominion - a staff made from a dried bull's penis

"The Egyptians believed that semen was formed in the spinal fluid, if you understand that, the rest makes sense. So the essence of life starts here in the Ankh - it flows down through the vertebral canal, past the strong base of the spine (the Djed), and out through the penis, the Was - symbol of power."


Regarding the Tomb of Huy, the only image I could find that remotely resembles what you describe was hand-drawn by Zechariah Sitchen. I'm not saying it's fake, but it is his drawing and he is trying to sell a load of pseudohistory.

I'm assuming that THIS is the image to which you refer. Doesn't look much like any kind of missile to me.


Originally posted by torbjon
how 'bout a medical caduceus? There's an ancient symbol for you, always associated with the medical profession since the invention of dirt, nice double helix design.... fascinating that a helix would be the symbol for doctor since time began...


The double helix is a coincidence. HERE is a site that tells of the Babylonian origins of the two-serpent symbol, and the African worm idea previously mentioned as regards the one-serpent symbol. That website states that the one-serpent symbol is the better symbol for the medical profession, and the two-serpent caduceus is used only due to a mix-up.

If you go to the site linked and read the Sumerian part, there is a typo. It says: "There are other images cast into the vase that can correlate an association with the caduceus. Ningizzida was the predecessor of the Egyptian god Thor."

"Thor" should read "Thoth."

Here's a smidgen more on the caduceus' origins:


Within his sacred precinct “Mound of Creation” in Eridu, Enki unraveled the secrets of life and death. His emblem was two serpents entwined on a staff — the basis for the winged caduceus symbol used by modern Western medicine.
(from: HERE - scroll down!)
The god Enki created humans, according to the Sumerians anyway. The caduceus was his symbol, though likely not for his medical prowess.

Harte



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
I've seen a lot of parasitic worms in my life, they tend to lack the decided "headness" and "tailness" of the snakes usually shown on the caduceus.

Thats because the myth is transported over a long distance of time and space. The 'wyrms' become snakes, the two things are infact sometimes interchanged, such as dark ages dragons being called 'wyrms'. And yes, there is a duplication with two snakes, but, honestly, which is more reasonable?


why a pair?

I don't think its too unusual of an addition, and there's no 'official' version of a cadeucus, sometimes its one, other times its two.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Most interestingly, i have seen this described as preists, in ceremonial garb, conducting 'pollinization' experiments, on their plants, or at least being a godly representation of that.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
wow, you guys are Great!

Ya see? This is why I came here (boo SDC!)

Harte, yes, the link to picture in the tomb of huy that you provided was the picture I was talking about, but if it's one of Sitchins forgeries then I both sincerely apologize and retract my statements about it. There goes another one for the s-can. (I love/hate that guy---Great science fiction, makes you think. Bad Science *sighs* can't stand forgeries, Really ticks me off)

djed as a symbol.... yes, okay, as a symbol. Stick figure of a person slipping as a symbol for slippery when wet, line drawing of a hand held up as a symbol for halt, yes. Stick figure and hand represent very real things other than what they symbolize.

There are a Lot of images of djeds to work with, and they all seem to have the same basic characteristics; in two dimensional views it's a long vertical line with four short horizontal lines across the top, in 3D views (as in jewelry) it's a long thin cylinder that goes through four --- what? donuts? hulahoops? spare tires? what's the name for that geometric shape that looks like a donut? *laughs* sorry, bit brain dead...

As a symbol it symbolizes whatever they say it symbolizes and I have no problem with symbols, but my hand outstretched is not the act of halting, it is my hand, which is a very real thing.

djed as a sacrum I've heard before, but a sacrum is distinctly triangular in shape, the four "cross lines" are of different lengths, (from longer to shorter, thus also triangular) and there is no long vertical member (unless that is supposed to be the spine, or tail or something) If it is supposed to be an image of a pelvic bone I would think it would retain at least Some of triangle nature of said bone... but what do I know? I thought the pic. in the tomb of huy was real *rolls eyes*

To me a djed looks like an electrical component, a transformer of sorts... I saw somewere some ancient bit of artwork showing what appears to be eggplants plugged into a djed and people holding these things, implying it was portable... ancient astronutters say it's a picture of lightbulbs *shrugs* With my luck that's probably a Von Daniken forgery *laughs*

The djeds themselves though, there's a Lot of them, they are remarkably consistent in their depiction of them, and, to me, they appear to be some sort of tech component. *shrugs*

I'm also happy to be wrong. I got no chip on my shoulder, no point to prove, and no axe to grind, and I'm REALLY enjoying ATS and don't want to blow it for me or anybody else. *laughs*

The caduceus... okay, that link sent me to a site with some sort of bs inline media music whatever that completely and totally locked up my computer, loosing my oh so eloquent and spell check original post and resulted in this disjointed brain dead kluge you see here, plus the end of my daughters nap so I'll have to get back to you on that

rock on
twj



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by torbjon
wow, you guys are Great!

Ya see? This is why I came here (boo SDC!)

Harte, yes, the link to picture in the tomb of huy that you provided was the picture I was talking about, but if it's one of Sitchins forgeries then I both sincerely apologize and retract my statements about it. There goes another one for the s-can. (I love/hate that guy---Great science fiction, makes you think. Bad Science *sighs* can't stand forgeries, Really ticks me off)


Torbjon,
I'm not saying it was a forgery. I am aware that Sitchen, for whatever reason, used a lot of his own sketches. That's not really uncommon, especially when you are trying to call attention to a particular detail. Details can get lost in a photo, for sure. But I wouldn't believe Sitchen if he told me his name was Zechariah. That's how strong I feel about that con man. Use the search function for links to Sitchen debunking sites I have posted here.

Also, even if the sketch is 100% accurate, it still don't look like a missile to me.


Originally posted by torbjondjed as a sacrum I've heard before, but a sacrum is distinctly triangular in shape, the four "cross lines" are of different lengths, (from longer to shorter, thus also triangular) and there is no long vertical member (unless that is supposed to be the spine, or tail or something) If it is supposed to be an image of a pelvic bone I would think it would retain at least Some of triangle nature of said bone... but what do I know?

I'm also happy to be wrong. I got no chip on my shoulder, no point to prove, and no axe to grind, and I'm REALLY enjoying ATS and don't want to blow it for me or anybody else. *laughs*


I'm not exactly up on my ox anatomy, but I think the sacrum is part of the spinal column. So yes, the spinal cord would be the vertical member, from whence the semen supposedly flows (to the Egyptians, anyway.) Obviously, the design has been stylized if that is the case. But that's not very unusual either.


Originally posted by torbjon
The caduceus... okay, that link sent me to a site with some sort of bs inline media music whatever that completely and totally locked up my computer, loosing my oh so eloquent and spell check original post and resulted in this disjointed brain dead kluge you see here, plus the end of my daughters nap so I'll have to get back to you on that

rock on
twj

There's a spellcheck here?
I should have warned you about that idiotic music. When loading a site, I usually click on "stop" on my browser as soon as it looks like the page is loaded because so many sites lock up my pitiful computer. Don't care if I miss a few images, a "right click" will usually show them for me. The site is extremely informative though. I'd never heard the "worms" idea before, and there it was, right there on the site I dug up.

I too enjoy ATS, though this Ancient Civ. section is practically the only part I ever visit. There's so many knowledgeable people here that this site is an excellent reference source. It's like having your own cadre of fact checkers and researchers at your fingertips, along with several complete idiots to laugh at.

Harte



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
The djed pillar can also be seen as symbolizing the spine of Osiris. Also Osiris' casket floated down the Nile and became entangled in the roots of a tamarisk tree. The tree grew around the coffin, enveloping it. The King of Byblos had the tree cut down and fashioned into a pillar for his palace. This is the djed pillar and it associates with the middle column of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life. The connection between the spine and the middle pillar, the axis that connects earth to the celestial realm, also seems to indicate the yogic chakras.

The Caduceus is a symbol of medicine because it is emblematic of Hermes/Mercury/Thoth, the wisdom god whose gifts to humankind included medicine craft. It is an ancient symbol predating recorded history. Obviously the serpent is a major symbol worldwide. Like Mercury the serpent is a symbol of wisdom, an attribute obvious in Genesis where it is associated with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The reasons for why there could be two serpents could be endless. Interestingly, the Scandinavian Odin shares many attributes with Mercury, but his wisdom is symbolized by twin ravens, Hugnin and Mugnin, thought and memory. It's actually quite possible that both the Djed pillar and the Caduceus symbolize the same thing. Interestingly, the planet Mercury, due to its close proximity to the sun, from the vantage point of Earth, seems to move in the night sky in relatively rapid serpentine motions which, charted over the course of a solar year, form a pattern reminiscent of twin serpents. This fast motion compared to that of the other planets is also arguably the reason for Mercury's famed swiftness.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join