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.

 

Forbidden Egyptology

page: 38
108
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Hanslune
Are myself, Byrd and Harte part of this conspiracy?



If we are, I want a Pay Raise, Darnit!!! This here PhD is getting WAY expensive!


Yeah all I ever get is the damn pen and fridge magnets at the repression conventions. We should demand cash.

Some other comments I noted in reading page 37

Gilgamesh and king Gilgamesh may not be the same person, its possible the latter was name for the former. However until the site is excavated we don't know.

Myth usually comes in four portions

1. Myth that is based on reality and is essentially true
2. Myth that is partially based on reality but is not essentially true
3. Myth that is not based on reality and is not true


1. The Trojan war
2. There may have been an Achilles or any of the other characters, who may or may not have done was is written
3. Written portions of Greek gods discussing events in the Trojan war

[edit on 26/3/08 by Hanslune]




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quiintus
Now, a German-led expedition has discovered what is thought to be the entire city of Uruk - including, where the Euphrates once flowed, the last resting place of its famous King.


What!! They certainly did not discover Uruk.

Wikipedia


The location of Uruk was discovered by William Loftus in 1849.



In regard to Joerg Fassbinder's claims it seems not everyone agree's.

Link


Not everyone in archaeology thinks he’s right. "I would be very happy to hear that Gilgamesh's tomb has been found. However, I believe it is highly unlikely," Giovanni Pettinato of Rome's La Sapienza University said.
One of the world's most respected assyrologists, Pettinato discovered a new version of the Gilgamesh story two years ago, after translating hundreds of tablets that archaeologists from Baghdad had found in an immense private archive.
The new tablets tell of Gilgamesh meeting death freely, and at the same time ordering the mass suicide of his entire court. Indeed, after a huge tomb with a golden roof was built, the king invited his entire court to enter it. The structure was then inundated by the water of a dam opened after Gilgamesh's last order.
"We should not forget that this is myth. The German team is making a big mistake: they are trying to turn legend into history," Pettinato said.


cdli.ucla.edu


W. K. Loftus was the first archaeologist to visit Uruk in 1850 and 1854. During his excavations, he uncovered several small items, including a numerical tablet, and prepared a map of the site. R. Koldewey and W. Andrae, who would later excavate Babylon and Assur, each visited the site in the early years of the 20th century. It wasn’t until 1912 that large scale excavations began under J. Jordan.


://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology

So i'd be wanting a bit more evidence before believing anything these guy's say, particularly when they are claiming to have discovered the site.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Howdy Mojo

He actually really, really hopes he found his tomb!



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I hope that this is not off topic, but I was wondering is there any correlation between ancient egypt and the temples in the Grand Canyon with egyptian names?
Also, I am not a mathwhiz or astromer, but I was wondering, if these two are related, do they converge at a point in space to create an even larger pyramid? Or, do I just need to get some sleep??
Thanks for the interesting thread...



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 


Howdy Rangersdad

About a hundred years ago there was a newspaper article about this but no evidence has ever appeared to make it creditable.

It is my understanding that the names of various natural features in the grand canyon were given fanciful Egyptian names for aesthetic reasons.

Giving well known names to geological features is a well established tradition still followed today - as is shown by a recent fly by picture of Enceladus



One assumes there is no middle eastern influence on this satellite!

This is a fringe page that discusses this myth

Those Egyptian ruins in the Grand Canyon

[edit on 26/3/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rangersdad
I hope that this is not off topic, but I was wondering is there any correlation between ancient egypt and the temples in the Grand Canyon with egyptian names?

Only that they were named (I'm not kidding) by someone who loved reading about Egypt and had some romantic notions about what the rocks looked like -- Clarence E. Dutton. He was one of the first mapmakers to detail the canyon and therefore got to name a lot of the features:
memory.loc.gov...

Here's a little light reading on it:
www.philipcoppens.com...



Also, I am not a mathwhiz or astromer, but I was wondering, if these two are related, do they converge at a point in space to create an even larger pyramid? Or, do I just need to get some sleep??


You can pick any four points on the surface of a sphere and eventually make a pyramid from it. I pick the location of my husband and the location of my two cats. Now, I might have to project the lines through the earth to come up with a perfect pyramid since the Darn Siamese is in the livingroom and Sweetums is in the bedroom, but I can eventually get them to form a perfect pyramid.

Until one of us moves.

So, no. No magic. Just math and projections.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Byrd]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Thanks Byrd

Clarence E. Dutton

That was the guy I was thinking of but couldn't remember his name!

You don't really call a cat sweetum do you? You realize the cat's own name is probably "ripper of small rodent bellies" or something similar......



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zeptepi
This is according to “The Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt”

The first major buildings in ancient Egypt were built during the reign of Khasekhemwy until (2686BCE). Large mud brick structure at Hierakonpolis. One bigger mud brick at
Abydos, and a large wall of rough dressed stone at Saqqara.


Not mentioned, but may be from newer digs, are finely crafted stone lintels and stone columns found at Hierakanopolis, also built by Khaskemwy. Both limestone and granite were found:
www.archaeology.org...

And they were using stone for tombs, as far back as the 1st Dynasty (ol' Khas is 3rd dynasty, at least 300 years afterwards, I think.)


The high priest at that time was Imhotep. Imhotep was considered as something of a wizard about a lot of things, but most certainly the father of dressed stones.

I think the builders of the temples and mastabas of the earlier pharaohs would beg to differ with you.


Egyptologist and archeologist want us to believe that in less then two decades the building
Arts went from basically mud brick mounds to the step pyramid complex?
This is like going from igloos to skyscrapers in 20 years (has this timeline been updated?)


You might like the interesting "firsts" a Hierakonopolis listed here:
www.hierakonpolis.org...

There's a report of a temple there that's being excavated by a Southern Methodist University team there that dates to before 3100 BC, but I don't know any details.


Then for 36 years not much in the way of major pyramid building takes place.

Perhaps from the length of his reign? They weren't constantly building pyramids.


Now comes Sneferu in 2613BCE. He built 3 giant pyramids, possibly better then Djoser’s.

Aye. THERE was a guy who was pyramid-happy!


And then in 2589BCE our old pal Khnum-Khufwy (Khufu) soon starts building his pyramid.
The likes of which had never before been seen, and dare say, will never be seen again!
Quite frankly, because we probably cant build it today.


Ah, have you seen the Pyramid hotel in Vegas? It's a lot more complicated (not being solid stone) and I think it may be bigger. The Worlds' Tallest Buildings are also quite a bit more complicated and they can be put up in a few years' time. Just throw money and construction equipment at it, and you can have a pyramid as tall as you like today.

No problemo.

Simple structure.



After that, it was all in decline, smaller and smaller until the last one was built around
1750BCE 13th Dynasty. Basically a pile of stones and sand, by comparison.

About that time, they began a period of conquest and expansion (which was to get them in a lot of trouble around the end of the 16th dynasty. I suspect the reason was that you could either throw money and labor into a pyramid (which looked great but did nothing for the treasury) or you could run off and do a land grab from some neighbor who was being troublesome and had a nice piece of land with forests and animals and all sorts of goodies.

I can't say authoritatively (no one can) but it may have been an economic decision.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Thanks Byrd

Clarence E. Dutton

That was the guy I was thinking of but couldn't remember his name!

You don't really call a cat sweetum do you? You realize the cat's own name is probably "ripper of small rodent bellies" or something similar......


Actually, her name is "Lindsey Peabody." No, I didn't name her. I went to a rescue place to get a cat (I wanted a Siamese) and this little old gray and white kitty kept following me around and going "squeak!" at me. When I went to the office to tell them which Siamese I wanted, I looked up and the little old kitty (13 years old) had hopped up on the bookshelf to squeak at me through the office window. The staff (and vet papers) said her name was "Lindsey Peabody."

I'm such a sucker. Poor little old kitty. People don't come to shelters and say "I want to adopt an old kitty." But she was determined that I was HER human... and proved it when I opened the door to the cat room and called her name, and she ran up to me and put her paws on my knee as if to say "take me home-- right NOW!"

She's an absolute love, and turned out to be a Lilac Point Balinese. She's 15 now, and I expect another good 5 or 6 years of purring and squeaking from her.

(Yeah, I'm an ol' softie.)



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 





And they were using stone for tombs, as far back as the 1st Dynasty (ol' Khas is 3rd dynasty, at least 300 years afterwards, I think.)


Byrd, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember reading that one of the original, pre-dynastic temples at Abydos was around 30 X 50 feet. Also, there are many pre-dynastic tombs there well before Khasekhemwy. I am not sure what one considers a MAJOR building as the previous poster mentioned.

cormac



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Quoted from Phaedrus, 360 B.C. :



Socrates: At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters, . Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censored others, as he approved or disapproved of them




But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.



Bolding mine.


[edit on 27-3-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Myth usually comes in four portions

1. Myth that is based on reality and is essentially true
2. Myth that is partially based on reality but is not essentially true
3. Myth that is not based on reality and is not true

And the fourth?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 

"I hope that this is not off topic, but I was wondering is there any correlation between ancient egypt and the temples in the Grand Canyon with egyptian names? "

This may not,, but the conspiracies that the Smithsonian Institute is behind,,,pfft The missing remains of "giants" in the Southeast North America. The remains of "last of their kind" native american" found on the west coast beleive it was California died in a American jail. The remains were kept at the Smithsonian and they lied (The Smithsonian) about having them,, the remains were finally returned to California. I'm sure there are more examples.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbmitch
"also placing the master cross in a y and his y in a cross in time and through it to have a "personal" perspective of this forbidden "egyptology".


jbmitch,

I can't say for certain what your are referring to here, however it did immediately conjur up the image of the ankh in my mind.

This cross with the looped end (can look like a Y on top) symbolized life and was widely used in Ancient Egyptian culture and was also the basis for the cross of Christianity (hmm). The origins of the Ankh is unknown.

The Djed Pillar of Osiris (you've seen this before) is another mysterious symbol which was said to represent stability( considered the spine of Osiris) and durability (amongst other things).

Again it's origins are unknown but it has been widely used since at least the pre-dynastic times ( city of Djedu named after it) and can be found engraved inside the 1st step-pyramid at Saqqara...this was also the basis for Egyptian columns, which then the Romans and the Greeks adopted, and so on...(hmm)

The picture below shows this icon infused with the Ankh.



A typical Djed;



Ever notice the shape of the "relieving chambers" above the Kings chamber inside the GP that are said to be used for stability? This is no coincidence.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Quiintus
Now, a German-led expedition has discovered what is thought to be the entire city of Uruk - including, where the Euphrates once flowed, the last resting place of its famous King.


What!! They certainly did not discover Uruk.

Wikipedia


The location of Uruk was discovered by William Loftus in 1849.



In regard to Joerg Fassbinder's claims it seems not everyone agree's.

Link


Not everyone in archaeology thinks he’s right. "I would be very happy to hear that Gilgamesh's tomb has been found. However, I believe it is highly unlikely," Giovanni Pettinato of Rome's La Sapienza University said.
One of the world's most respected assyrologists, Pettinato discovered a new version of the Gilgamesh story two years ago, after translating hundreds of tablets that archaeologists from Baghdad had found in an immense private archive.
The new tablets tell of Gilgamesh meeting death freely, and at the same time ordering the mass suicide of his entire court. Indeed, after a huge tomb with a golden roof was built, the king invited his entire court to enter it. The structure was then inundated by the water of a dam opened after Gilgamesh's last order.
"We should not forget that this is myth. The German team is making a big mistake: they are trying to turn legend into history," Pettinato said.


cdli.ucla.edu


W. K. Loftus was the first archaeologist to visit Uruk in 1850 and 1854. During his excavations, he uncovered several small items, including a numerical tablet, and prepared a map of the site. R. Koldewey and W. Andrae, who would later excavate Babylon and Assur, each visited the site in the early years of the 20th century. It wasn’t until 1912 that large scale excavations began under J. Jordan.


://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology

So i'd be wanting a bit more evidence before believing anything these guy's say, particularly when they are claiming to have discovered the site.






I guess no one is saying for certain that it is his tomb, but they are saying it may be... I think it can be proven pretty easily if they actually get into the tomb. Surely there'll be some inscriptions somewhere that'll let everyone know
.

About the legend to history comment made by Pettinato. Lets not forget that we as a human race don't actually know who we are. So how can we know where we are going? We have short term memories. Mankind suffers from a serious case of arrogance and superiority when looking back on the people of the past. They had to be stupid, less evolved. We are far more intelligent now? So they couldn't possibly have recorded history back then, rr done all these fantastic things. This is what most scholars believed up until a few left of field thinkers dared to be brave enough to step outside of the sheep farm that this archaeological boys clubs have become. I believe these people are going to be left behind like how Einstein was in the latter part of his career.

And I am not saying all mythology is fact but the further back we go, the closer we get to the truth and I believe in that.

The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quiintus Mankind suffers from a serious case of arrogance and superiority when looking back on the people of the past. They had to be stupid, less evolved. We are far more intelligent now? So they couldn't possibly have recorded history back then, rr done all these fantastic things. This is what most scholars believed up until a few left of field thinkers dared to be brave enough to step outside of the sheep farm that this archaeological boys clubs have become.


Actually most mainstream scholars believe that the ancient people were intelligent enough to build the pyramids, the sphinx, easter island statues, mayan and aztec civilizations, Hanging gardens of babylon, temple of artemis, collosus of rhodes etc etc etc.
it is actually alternative theorists who paint ancient man as too dumb to have built these wonders by themselves, ie they had to have had alien help, or technology from advanced lost civilizations and so on.

And i actually do believe that there may have been a lost civilization or two along the way, i just don't think they were advanced enough to build aircraft and nuclear weapons.

now merka, hanslume and harte are shaking their heads at me.



i am allowed a couple of pet alternative theory's ya know.

[edit on 27/3/08 by mojo4sale]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mojo4sale
 






it is actually alternative theorists who paint ancient man as too dumb to have built these wonders by themselves, ie they had to have had alien help, or technology from advanced lost civilizations and so on.


mojo4sale,

Something else I have come across here at ATS and at other places as well is that some alternative theorists tend to base their theories or speculations on what science knew hundreds of years ago, not necessarily what they currently know.

cormac



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Quiintus Mankind suffers from a serious case of arrogance and superiority when looking back on the people of the past. They had to be stupid, less evolved. We are far more intelligent now? So they couldn't possibly have recorded history back then, rr done all these fantastic things. This is what most scholars believed up until a few left of field thinkers dared to be brave enough to step outside of the sheep farm that this archaeological boys clubs have become.


Actually most mainstream scholars believe that the ancient people were intelligent enough to build the pyramids, the sphinx, easter island statues, mayan and aztec civilizations, Hanging gardens of babylon, temple of artemis, collosus of rhodes etc etc etc.
it is actually alternative theorists who paint ancient man as too dumb to have built these wonders by themselves, ie they had to have had alien help, or technology from advanced lost civilizations and so on.

And i actually do believe that there may have been a lost civilization or two along the way, i just don't think they were advanced enough to build aircraft and nuclear weapons.

now merka, hanslume and harte are shaking their heads at me.



i am allowed a couple of pet alternative theory's ya know.

[edit on 27/3/08 by mojo4sale]


I think that every book I have ever read points out scholarly quotes and they usually refer to these peoples as people that should have been primitive but knew a lot about things they shouldn't have.

And it's easy enough for them to change their minds cos they are the law. The alternative scholars were saying this way before the mainstream ones...



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Quiintus Mankind suffers from a serious case of arrogance and superiority when looking back on the people of the past. They had to be stupid, less evolved. We are far more intelligent now? So they couldn't possibly have recorded history back then, rr done all these fantastic things. This is what most scholars believed up until a few left of field thinkers dared to be brave enough to step outside of the sheep farm that this archaeological boys clubs have become.


Actually most mainstream scholars believe that the ancient people were intelligent enough to build the pyramids, the sphinx, easter island statues, mayan and aztec civilizations, Hanging gardens of babylon, temple of artemis, collosus of rhodes etc etc etc.
it is actually alternative theorists who paint ancient man as too dumb to have built these wonders by themselves, ie they had to have had alien help, or technology from advanced lost civilizations and so on.


This is, of course, the actual case, and thanks for saying it Mojo.


Originally posted by mojo4saleAnd i actually do believe that there may have been a lost civilization or two along the way, i just don't think they were advanced enough to build aircraft and nuclear weapons.

now merka, hanslume and harte are shaking their heads at me.



i am allowed a couple of pet alternative theory's ya know.

I have to agree with you here Mojo. I'm not shaking my head at all. But with one caveat. It depends on which definition of "civilization" you go by.

It would surprise me if the other skeptics here felt differently on this. I mean, I doubt you'll be derided. Why else would we hang out here, if not to try and catch any new developments in this area?


Originally posted by Quiintus
I think that every book I have ever read points out scholarly quotes and they usually refer to these peoples as people that should have been primitive but knew a lot about things they shouldn't have.

And it's easy enough for them to change their minds cos they are the law. The alternative scholars were saying this way before the mainstream ones...

Hmmm. Perhaps you're reading the wrong books?

I'm certain you must be reading the wrong threads here if you really think this.

What you call "alternative scholars" I call pseudoscientists in general and in this particular they are pseudohistorians.

Where did this stuff begin, after all? Some claim the first ancient astronaut stuff came from H.P. Lovecraft. Doesn't Velikovsky discredit ancient man's capabilities? Isn't Sitchen saying the exact opposite of what you claim here? Ever heard of the Ancient Astronaut theory?

Hatrte



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Where did this stuff begin, after all? Some claim the first ancient astronaut stuff came from H.P. Lovecraft. Doesn't Velikovsky discredit ancient man's capabilities? Isn't Sitchen saying the exact opposite of what you claim here? Ever heard of the Ancient Astronaut theory?



It began when people started rejecting religious interpretation of ancient texts


When there´s talk of angels I will assume they are non-physical beings...until...until...

...until they start acting like humans, start handling tools, are being touched by humans, have sexual relationships with them, etc.

See my last post.

While I still believe in non-physical beings, not all ancient accounts refer to religious visions. They refer to actual physical occurences.

The argument that I as an ancient-astronaut-theorist, believe ancient humans to be primitive, is not valid.

Why? Because ancient-astronaut-theory says that the "Gods" were either extraterrestrials and humans created in their LIKENESS or the "Gods/Angels" were advanced human beings.

In other words, we dont differ much between ETs and humans.

Whereas contemporary history has it that humans were primitive hunter-gatherers since 200 000 years or more.

Now...I understand you dont buy any of this. I just felt the need to point out our actual POSITION without it being muddied by distortions.



new topics

top topics



 
108
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join