Forbidden Egyptology

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Quotes will be difficult as this is a long thread, but I owe you that. Off the top of my head though, one occurrence that prompted my comment had to do with something one of you guys posted (Hanslune I think it was) in response to a point I was making regarding the C14 dating of the GP. A chart was posted showing a plotting of the supposed results of the dating which didn't include everything (the anomalous dates were missing), and I challenged that, and received no response. I brought it up again and again I got nothing...

Will you please repost this info you're requesting? I'll see if I can help you.

Are you aware that there was a more recent round of C14 dating done for the GP that basically did away with the former problems to a great extent? Maybe that was the plot you were looking at. C14, and other nuclear measurement techniques, are constantly being refined and recalibrated.

At any rate, this is a long thread. I seem to remember your questioning of the C14 stuff, but I didn't recall that it hadn't been addressed.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
With you it only took a couple of times of asking to get you to respond on a couple of issues

, but you did... See the stones of Sacsayhuaman and Hancock...

I believe I thought someone else had answered you on that - that's why I hadn't responded.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
But basically my response was in defense of the 'fringe', who are posting here (myself included), who are being generalized and cast in a negative light in such a way that says "we don't know what we're talking about, move on." See cormac's statement that I responded to.

My apologies if I offended anyone.

I'm sure that none of the so-called "debunkers" here mean that "you don't know what you're talking about."

But you must realize that, for some of the fringers, when they ask something and get a logical mainstream answer, they simply discard the answer because it doesn't fit in with what they wish to be true.

The point then is, why do they ask in the first place?

In this light, it makes sense for someone like me to eventually get fed up with someone that continually asks yet continually disregards answers without so much as stating even the flimsiest reason for disregarding the answer.

You should realize I don't necessarily mean you here. I'm not gonna take the time to look back and see if you've been doing this. I'm just saying that I see it all the time and it's happened in this thread as well as others.

Perhaps Cormac gets frustrated over such behavior. I know I do.

Harte

Howdy Photon

In response to your question. There were two C14 studies, the first one had the odd dates you seem to be interested in. The second study didn't. I believe that chart was from the second study. You can find both studies using google scholar or at any good college library.

Sorry if we didn't answer your question initially, long thread and I'm often gone for days and weeks on end.

They didn't find "coc aine" they found an active ingredent that is in coc aine - and other local plants in Egypt and elsewhere. Same for Nicotine.

The mummies that these studies were done on were not allowed to be seen by outside investigators. the initila investigators have not continued the study, after the criticism of there work was published.

Balababova, S., F. Parsche, and W. Pirsig. 1992. First identification of drugs in Egyptian mummies. Naturwissenschaften 79:358.

Bisset, N.G. and M.H. Zenk. 1993. Responding to 'First identification of drugs in Egyptian mummies'. Naturwissenschaften 80:244-245.

Bjorn, L.O. 1993. Responding to 'First identification of drugs in Egyptian mummies'. Naturwissenschaften80:244.

Cartwell, L.W. et. al. 1991. Cocaine metabolites in pre-Columbian mummy hair. Journal of the Oklahoma State Medical Association 84:11-12.

Discovery Information. 1997. Curse of the Cocaine Mummies. Thirty-six page transcript of program viewed on US National TV in January 1997 and July 1999.

Kehoe, A.B. 1998. The Land of Prehistory, A Critical History of American Archaeology. Routledge, New York and London. 266 pp.

McIntosh, N.D.P. 1993. Responding to 'First identification of drugs in Egyptian mummies'. Naturwissenschaften 80:245-246.

McPhillips, M. et. al. 1998. Hair analysis, new laboratory ability to test for substance use. British Journal of Psychiatry 173: 287-290.

Nerlich, A.G. et. al. 1995. Extensive pulmonary haemorrhage in an Egyptian mummy. Virchows Archiv 127:423-429.

Parsche, F. 1993. Reply to "Responding to 'First identification of drugs in Egyptian mummies'". Naturwissenschaften 80:245-246.

Parsche, F. and A. Nerlich. 1995. Presence of drugs in different tissues of an Egyptian mummy. Fresenius'. Journal of Analytical Chemistry 352:380-384.

Sachs, H. and P. Kintz. 1998. Testing for drugs in hair, critical review of chromatographic procedures since 1992. Journal of Chromatography (B) 713:147-161.

Schafer, T. 1993. Responding to 'First identification of drugs in Egyptian mummies'. Naturwissenschaften 80:243-244.

Sorenson, J.L. 1998. Bibliographia Pre-Columbiana. Pre-Columbiana 1(1&2):143-154.

Wells, S. A. American Drugs in Egyptian Mummies: A Review of the Evidence. www.colostate.edu,

Wilhelm, M. 1996. Hair analysis in environmental medicine. Zentralblatt fur Hygeine und Umweltmedizin 198: 485-501.




[edit on 29/4/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by jbmitch
? FAct its was constructured by Khufu because: his cartouche was found inside the structure. Or because he claimed that he had it build?
-Who claims its the cartouche of Khufu and what does he have to present, and I'm sure there are counter points,,,The final say,, its Khufu's cartouche because someone wants to believe stronger that some else ,, there is no coclusive evidence.

The fact that Khufu's cartouche appears in the relieving chamber over the King's Chamber cannot be denied.

It really can be denied, look for instance to this interesting info about these cartouches?

www.rickrichards.com...

Originally posted by spacevisitor
reply to post by Harte

 

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by jbmitch
? FAct its was constructured by Khufu because: his cartouche was found inside the structure. Or because he claimed that he had it build?
-Who claims its the cartouche of Khufu and what does he have to present, and I'm sure there are counter points,,,The final say,, its Khufu's cartouche because someone wants to believe stronger that some else ,, there is no coclusive evidence.

The fact that Khufu's cartouche appears in the relieving chamber over the King's Chamber cannot be denied.

It really can be denied, look for instance to this interesting info about these cartouches?

www.rickrichards.com...

Pardon me, I should have said

The fact that Khufu's cartouche appears in the relieving chamber over the King's Chamber cannot be denied by any nonbiased observer familiar with the FACT that there are many different variations on hieroglyphics, one of which had yet to even be discovered when Vyse first found the cartouche of Khufu in the G.P. written using that very, and at the time undiscovered, variation.

The variation used in the G.P. discovered by Vyse has since been found in several other places in Egypt.

Additionally, each King had several different variations of his name.

edited to add:

from your link:

No funerary text, hieroglyphics, or frescoes exists to depict the GP as a tomb. For the ancient Egyptians to spend so much time, energy and money to build such a monument and not spend one ounce of time or energy to decorate it in their customary elaborate, ornate funeral-ritualistic style to depict the awe-inspiring structure as a tomb for their great Pharaoh (King!) makes no common sense at all, especially since that is one of the most famous things the ancient Egyptians are so famous for! Think about that.

That is simply a lie. The temple in front of the G.P. (what remains of it) specifically refers to the G.P. as a tomb.

The source knows, but doesn't tell you, that no Egyptian structures from the 4th Dynasty or before show any of the "customary elaborate, ornate funeral-ritualistic style..."

So, "Think about that."

Harte


[edit on 4/29/2008 by Harte]

[edit on 4/29/2008 by Harte]

Originally posted by Harte

Do these results support an established trans-Atlantic trading route between Egypt and South America that predates Columbus (1492AD)?

WP: No, this conclusion cannot be made from the Ulm findings.

Well, just sweeping it away by citing some "credible source" who says "no, this conclusion cannot be made"...doesnt explain the fact.

Generally speaking, the nicotine found on a handful of mummies has been explained in the past through the use of a nicotine-based pesticide that was in use for decades in the museum where these few mummies were stored.

Does this explanation sound convincing to you? Or is the simpler and more obvious explanation of import from America not more likely? Or to put it differently: Were they also using coc aine based pesticide?

I've seen the coc aine and nicotine also explained by the fact that the mummies involved were in private hands for decades as well, during a period when (rich) people once had "mummy unwrapping" parties and when coc aine was in widespread use among this same group.

Ive seen this somewhere too but never found any documentation on it.

It's important to realize that the coc aine in particular has been found in only a couple of mummies.

You mean like only a small percentage of our modern society uses coc aine?

Its amazing to what lengths people go to deny ancient transatantic contact...despite language simiarlities, despite sports and games similarities, despite mythological similarities, despite the fact that the ancients were excellent seafarers, despite oop-artifacts, despite acnient american accounts have having been contacted by "whites" in their distant past.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Harte

Do these results support an established trans-Atlantic trading route between Egypt and South America that predates Columbus (1492AD)?

WP: No, this conclusion cannot be made from the Ulm findings.

Well, just sweeping it away by citing some "credible source" who says "no, this conclusion cannot be made"...doesnt explain the fact.

Generally speaking, the nicotine found on a handful of mummies has been explained in the past through the use of a nicotine-based pesticide that was in use for decades in the museum where these few mummies were stored.

Does this explanation sound convincing to you? Or is the simpler and more obvious explanation of import from America not more likely? Or to put it differently: Were they also using coc aine based pesticide?

I've seen the coc aine and nicotine also explained by the fact that the mummies involved were in private hands for decades as well, during a period when (rich) people once had "mummy unwrapping" parties and when coc aine was in widespread use among this same group.

Ive seen this somewhere too but never found any documentation on it.

It's important to realize that the coc aine in particular has been found in only a couple of mummies.

You mean like only a small percentage of our modern society uses coc aine?

Sky,

Let me guess, you didn't read the linked article, did you? The guy that you characterized as "some "credible source"" is one of the original authors of the original paper where the very findings you're talking about were first published.

You can't rely on his findings and then dismiss his responses about those same findings.

Well, you obviously can. I mean, you shouldn't.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Its amazing to what lengths people go to deny ancient transatantic contact...despite language simiarlities, despite sports and games similarities, despite mythological similarities, despite the fact that the ancients were excellent seafarers, despite oop-artifacts, despite acnient american accounts have having been contacted by "whites" in their distant past.

Migration to Australia obviously happened. I wouldn't characterize island hopping from one spot to another that is visible on the horizon as "excellent" seafaring.

On the other hand, the Polynesians had no fear of going however far it took, apparently, and it has been recently recogniozed, once evidence was found, that the Polynesians apparently visaited South America.

Why didn't the "mainstream" try to deny this and/or cover it up?

I'm telling you now, there is simply no way that the Egyptians came to the Americas to get their drugs!

While the Polynesians could have, the Egyptians were quite incapable of doing this except, possibly, by accident.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

I'm telling you now, there is simply no way that the Egyptians came to the Americas to get their drugs!

While the Polynesians could have, the Egyptians were quite incapable of doing this except, possibly, by accident.

I wouldnt be so sure they were incapable of this and that there is "no way" this happened.


Oh and yes...I did not read the link.

Mainstreamers....much too quick to draw absolute and final conclusions...

...which backfires someday when new data is collected.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Harte
That is simply a lie. The temple in front of the G.P. (what remains of it) specifically refers to the G.P. as a tomb.

Oke but a tomb for what purpose then if I may ask?
Because even Hawass himself is in the dark.

From a point partway along the descending passage, a second passage leads upward to a horizontal passage which leads in turn to a second chamber, misnamed the Queen’s Chamber in fact, it was certainly not for any of Khufu’s queens, who had their own small pyramids.

to a third chamber, the “King’s Chamber”, where the granite sarcophagus of Khufu was found, empty.

Scholarly discussion about the building sequence and purpose of these corridors and chambers is ongoing: many Egyptologists believe that the three chambers represent three changes in the interior plan, reflecting changes in Khufu’s cult,but others believe that all three chambers were part of the original plan.

The presence of these doors in the Great Pyramid raises many questions. One idea is that the doors are challenges that the king must face during his journey to the afterlife. It is written in the Pyramid Texts that the king will face bolts before he travels; perhaps this is a reference to the doors’ copper handles. Yet if this is true, why is Khufu’s pyramid the only one with such doors?

Also, why are there no doors in the shafts of the third chamber? Logically, they should be where the king’s body was buried.

It is possible that these doors are evidence that Khufu’s actual burial chamber might be hidden somewhere inside of his pyramid. An ancient story from the Westcar Papyrus tells of how Khufu searched for the secret documents of the god Thoth in order to design the chambers of his pyramid; we are still trying to understand the complex he and his architects left behind.

guardians.net...

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Harte
That is simply a lie. The temple in front of the G.P. (what remains of it) specifically refers to the G.P. as a tomb.

Oke but a tomb for what purpose then if I may ask?
Because even Hawass himself is in the dark

For the purpose of entombing Khufu.

Hawass is in the dark as much as the rest of us regarding where in the G.P., why in the G.P. and what the so-called "doors" in the 8 by 8 inch shafts signify.

I didn't see any quotes where he said anything indicating he didn't know if it was a tomb.

It was your link that said that there were no indications anywhere that the G.P. is a tomb.

I merely pointed out that you were being lied to there. There are such indications, as I said.

At any rate, if it is a tomb, it seems to be an empty one.

Harte

One little correction, they didn't find coc aine, they found a chemical that is part of coc aine and other compounds. You will note that they are saying they found nicotine and not tobacco. That is correct.

The other overlooked facts are that:

Concentration, the chemical that is part of coc aine was in such a concentration as to have killed the person it was found in. That is one reason they believe modern external contamination is to blame.

The dates of the mummy weren't all ancient, they range (9 mummies I believe) from 1000 BC to 350 AD. Oddly there is no mention in Greek, Egyptian, Roman or other sources of these drugs, it trade or its existence.

I studied the transfer of poppy syrup from Anatolia to Cyprus then its re-export to Egypt. That trade is well documented and evidenced. No such thing for C and T and the poppy trade was well before the time of the alleged C & T times.

You also have the problem that the Incas and there predecessors didn't have coc aine. So how did they export it? Perhaps someone could explain how and where a ship would have gone to pick up C & T on and what did they trade for this?

Where are the containers for the C - no SA pottery has shown up and Cocaine needs to be kept from moisture.

>>>>>>>>>

On the pyramids. I believe I mentioned this before, there is evidence, and other examples of, the AE using wood paneling. This would explain why the walls inside the pyramids are so bare and why they show signs of such panelling.

[edit on 29/4/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune


A very helpful post on many levels. Thanks

Howdy Sky

Just got an email in that caused me to update my posting above.

despite language simiarlities, despite sports and games similarities, despite mythological similarities, despite the fact that the ancients were excellent seafarers, despite oop-artifacts, despite acnient american accounts have having been contacted by "whites" in their distant past.

1. Language, nope no languages similarities - that was 19th century thingy and it is long disproven

2. Sports and games? Such as? I suspect you'll also like to claim that knives, chopper, spears and scrappers also look the same on both sides of the Atlantic (they do).....

3. Ancient seafarers? Depends on which ancient you are talking about and evidence of such, in your source

Southeast Asia and Australia give archaeologists some of the best evidence for ancient sea crossings, not just by Palaeolithic humans but also by Neolithic peoples and even spice traders contemporary with the Roman Empire. New discoveries, some controversial, are pushing back the dates of human colonization of this region and are expanding our knowledge of early island networks. These finds are also illuminating the first steps in some of the longest prehistoric open-sea voyages of colonization on record--from Southeast Asia to Polynesian islands such as Hawaii, Easter Island, and New Zealand, and perhaps also from Indonesia to Madagascar--during the first millennium A.D.

Data for Europe and Africa to the Americas is lacking - which is the basis for questioning there ability to do so.

4. Oops? Sure which ones? The roman head, the pottery jars or what?

5. 'Whites' You might want to recheck that, a lot of that has been shown to be faulty or wishfull translation and pure hoax. Plus the Egyptians aren't particularly "white". Especially after a sea voyage of 4-7 months!

Evidence - we have hard core evidence that the Vikings came and we have hard core evidence that Columbus came - so that after his voyage the Europeans had "done a China; and shut down exploration, there is archaeological evidence beside documents of this occuring. We also have hard core evidence of people coming in from up north by foot and perhaps by coast hopoing. Why nothing from earlier trips?

Hey OP and the rest of the ATSers, did you ever hear of SIWA Oasis in the Sahara and I wont put desert after Sahara because it means desert, lol.
Well sinse the subject is Forbidden Egypt, here is a good one for the history books.
I was told once upon a time by an Egyptian, during the time I was living there, this small village of Siwa keeps its population in check by only allowing men to live in it, supposedly, an ancient homosexuality based community controlled by by a village leader and when they want to expand the population because of a death in the community, they go out into the neighboring communities and find eligible females to give birth, how true this is, I just dont know, but the population is also controlled by a special (X#) of inhabitants, how many I dont know, it seemed to unbelievable to be true to me, but, maybe so.
Check it out for you history buffs:

www.touregypt.net...
gwhint

Interesting story

I know a Coptic priest from Alexandria. I'll ask him if he knows anything about this. He has an unusual knowledge of the weird and bizzare.

reply to post by Hanslune


Hey

Thanks for the information superhighway, right and by the way it was a Coptic in Cairo that told me so for sure your priest will know more, check this out from surfing the net:

www.gayegypt.com...

So I guess my friend told me the truth, maybe this was the first stage of them coming out 1000's of years ago, lol, and Islam seems to ignore this occurrance, right, dont ask dont tell even in Egypt.
Maybe it was an Alexander the Great afterhours party that started it.
gwhint

Certainly unislamic! I know some religious police in Saudi who'd go bat s** over this kinda of stuff!

Might have had a start as either a garrison town on the Egyptian frontier or gosh knows what. It may also be a modern social convention. Gay towns/areas are known even to exist even in conservative Saudi.

The Pyramid of Unas at Saqqara

From a thread at the Hall of Ma'at by Jon_B




The thread




In situ carving of Egyptians moving stone columns by ship




Detail of the picture above

I'm going to put this data in a separate thread but will also post the link to the study here

The following Egyptian building materials and monuments have been investigated with regard to mineralogy, radioactivity content and luminescence dating: (1) Sphinx Temple, (2) Osirion Shaft, (3) Valley Temple, (4) Khufu (hereafter Cheops), Khefren or Chephren and Menkaure or Mykerinus pyramids at Giza, (5) Osirion at Abydos, (6) Temple of Seti I at Abydos, and (7) Qasr el-Sagha at Fayum. They derive from three distinct areas, Giza (Nile Delta), Abydos and Fayum.]The following Egyptian building materials and monuments have been investigated with regard to mineralogy, radioactivity content and luminescence dating: (1) Sphinx Temple, (2) Osirion Shaft, (3) Valley Temple, (4) Khufu (hereafter Cheops), Khefren or Chephren and Menkaure or Mykerinus pyramids at Giza, (5) Osirion at Abydos, (6) Temple of Seti I at Abydos, and (7) Qasr el-Sagha at Fayum. They derive from three distinct areas, Giza (Nile Delta), Abydos and Fayum

The link to the study

reply to post by Hanslune


It must be syncronicity for you to mention this pyramid structure, as I think back during my days living in Egypt.

I did a crazy thing here on one of the OCONUS moments working there.

Way Back in the middle 80's our time 1985 to be exact,lol, I took a dare from one of my coworkers to lay down in one of the Tombs while visiting here at this site.

I payed a little in Baksheesh or tips $$$ to the guard or Boab as they are called, standing at the entrance and took the chance and laid down in Master "T" tomb and my coworker snapped the pic, crazy ha.

www.touregypt.net...

Thanks for strolling down memory lane, gwhint