Forbidden Egyptology

reply to post by seagrass


Good point

If I wanted all the "it cant be so" I would have visited another website. But oh well. Everyone is entitled to their boring, repetitive mainstream propaganda educated opinion.

Well dang the majority of my post disappeared, so I'll restate

If I wanted all the "it cant be so" I would have visited another website. But oh well. Everyone is entitled to their boring, repetitive mainstream propaganda educated opinion.

Boring:

Sorry Sky facts and reality are planned to be boring, if you find it necessary to make stuff up so it isn't "boring", what value does it contain - sense it isn't true?

Repetitive:

Yes, now who brings up stuff debunked decades ago and acts like it fresh data? Now that is repetitive - and boring! LOL

Propaganda:

Meeting each fact with a declaration that you don't buy it and that the real stuff is being hidden by conspiracies (which you never can prove) is in fact propaganda, facts are never Propaganda Sky just false statements and made up stuff - now that is propaganda

Educated:

Quilty, I find education, study and research more valuable than "feelings"

Delightful as always Sky LOL

[edit on 4/6/08 by Hanslune]

...and if I wanted to watch debates or tennis matches I would go back to college. Can we move on now? I get that it is not "possible" that aliens built the pyramids, but it is fun to think about it anyway.

Originally posted by seagrass
...and if I wanted to watch debates or tennis matches I would go back to college. Can we move on now? I get that it is not "possible" that aliens built the pyramids, but it is fun to think about it anyway.

Oh they COULD have made the pyramids - but they used some very very low technology. The same technology in use by Egyptian before and after the event.

"Where's the evidence of another civilization?"

This is a common question used to basically say that there wasn't ever another civilization which pre-dated the Egyptians. And ironically enough this question is used as conventional evidence to support their view.

My answer to this is that the evidence still lies beneath the sand waiting to be discovered. If there was a civilization that predated the AE's then it could be possible that the evidence of such still lies buried, possibly beneath some already existing AE structures.

I also believe that some artifacts which have been uncovered and labeled as "Egyptian" may in fact be from another civilization.

There are also structures at Giza which would appear to "predate" the current chronology of the pyramids and could be indicative of earlier development there. The so called "Tomb of Khentkawes" being an example. Evidence of very similar erosive features, such that is seen on the Sphinx, can also be seen on this so called tomb.

Have a look...





Decide for yourself. It all depends on what you choose to believe.



And what's supposed to be going on within the confines of Hawass' wall? What might be found beneath those sands? One can only wonder at this point....




[edit on 4-6-2008 by PhotonEffect]


Mod Note: Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Jbird]

I read somewhere that they "thought" them to look "built", how low tech is that?

When the sand blows up against that wall, isn't it just going to become a ramp? Since they can't afford a nice complimentary-to-the_Pyramids looking wall, can they afford to remove the build up of sand?

Howdy PE

My answer to this is that the evidence still lies beneath the sand waiting to be discovered

So how do you know it exists? You can speculate on it but until someone finds something it remains speculation.

So PE what is your opinion of the hundreds of proto-Egyptian (Neolithic) sites?

What would differentiate your proposed unknown civilization with the AE ones?

Howdy Seagrass

Ah yes, the crafty aliens who make everything look like primitive construction! Those guys!

Only crafty in that we aren't able to replicate the technology, for our own good I would think. I don't let my children play with certain things.. can you imagine the destruction that could entail?

The tomb of Queen Khentkawes represents the connection between the fourth and fifth dynasties. She is shown wearing the uraeus and false beard - symbols of kingship. Her remarkable tomb has a base consisting of a large cube of bedrock reserved has the stone around it was quarried for the pyramids. On top of the cube is masonry structure shaped like a mastaba. The lower bedrock section was encased in fine Turah limestone. On the tomb's granite gate Selim Hassan found a title that translates either as 'The Mother of two Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt' or 'The king of Upper and Lower Egypt'. In Abusir there another pyramid bearing the name Khentkawes , but these appear to be a generation apart

egyptphoto.ncf.ca...

A huge gateway of pink granite bearing the inscriptions of Khentkawes’s name and titles, stood at the southern entrance to her tomb. Selim Hassan discovered fragments of the gateway. The first title listed is one that was previously unknown to Egyptologists and become the subject of much scholarly debate. Selim Hassan, who excavated the tomb in 1932, and Hermann Junker translated the inscription as proclaiming Khentkawes to be “King of Upper and Lower Egypt and Mother of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt”. Vladimir Vikentiev and Ludwig Borchardt disagreed. They interpreted the inscriptions as saying Khentkawes was simply the mother of two kings. The hieroglyphic inscriptions (nj-swt bjtj nj-swt bjtj mwt) can be interpreted correctly in either way. At the bottom of the inscription is an effigy of Khentkawes holding a scepter, wearing the ureus on her brow, and wearing the royal false beard. These were symbols reserved for gods and kings during this era. She also wears the vulture headdress. During the Old Kingdom this crown was the symbol of a king’s mother.

egyptologist.org...

(added links)

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Jbird]

Um, what is the point of the above quote? I don't get it?

Originally posted by Hanslune

So how do you know it exists? You can speculate on it but until someone finds something it remains speculation.

And how do you know it doesn't? A lot of what current egyptology is based on is speculative in nature.

So PE what is your opinion of the hundreds of proto-Egyptian (Neolithic) sites?

Which sites would you be referring to? In general they were nomadic on nature.


What would differentiate your proposed unknown civilization with the AE ones?

This is a good question. I can honestly say that I don't know for certain. Although there have been some artifacts which were found within early dynastic tombs which look to be unlike pieces that would've come out of that time frame. Take the schist "bowl" as an example. Or the perfectly hewned granite bowls with metallic handles.



[edit on 4-6-2008 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by Hanslune


yes Ive read these but dont have time to comment right now....will be back shortly

read colin reader

EDIT to ADD:

In response to Hanslune's 2 quotes:

The niched-façade features on the tomb of Khentkawes have been recognized by others, [51], [52] and are limited to the lower part of the southern wall of the tomb, facing the Main Wadi (Figure 2). In its completed 4th Dynasty state, the Khentkawes tomb was faced throughout with a limestone casing. This casing will have obscured the rock-cut niches, further suggesting that the niched features pre-date the use of the tomb for the burial of Khentkawes.

bold mine.
Source



[edit on 4-6-2008 by PhotonEffect]

I'm sorry, but it sounds like speculation to me to assume nothing else could be found. There are lots of civs built on civs. Troy? The only one I could think of.

reply to post by seagrass


Hi seagrass,

I'm sorry, but it sounds like speculation to me to assume nothing else could be found. There are lots of civs built on civs. Troy? The only one I could think of.

From what I've read, catching up, nobody is assuming nothing else COULD be found, just that in regards to AE and the possibility of an older advanced civilization nothing HAS been found.

Taking your example of Troy into account, there are indeed many levels/cities added to and built on top of one another. However, that doesn't really indicate different civilizations as much as the same or similar civilizations over a very long period of time.

cormac

There are about 125+ neolithic (settled) sites known in Egypt

An online book about ancient Egyptian materials and neolithic settlements

Metallic handles? I don't recall that could you provide a link please?

Some light reading for those interested in neolithic settlements in Egypt and Sudan

A bibliography of articles dealing with Egypt and neolithic settlements

The earliest known Neolithic settlement

Abstract Cultural development in the middle Nile Valley from 10,000 to 2000 bp was characterized by significant subsistence changes — from hunting/gathering and simple aquatic resource exploitation to cultivation of domestic sorghum. Research in the Atbara and Khartoum regions enables us to identify distinct technological phases relating to resource diversification as well as specialization. Pottery was an important technological innovation which had far-reaching consequences for development of a more diversified use of aquatic and cereal resources. A basic distinction is made between cultivation and domestication as two separate but interdependent processes — the first a socio-economic process relating to peoples' activities, the second a biological process relating to morphological changes in the plants. Cultivation is considered to be evolutionarily prior and to have constituted the selection pressures which led to the emergence of domesticated plants. Cultivation of sorghum was practised from the 6th millennium bp but domesticated sorghum emerged only around 2000 bp. Specialized pastoralism and the use of secondary products like milk and blood appear to have become important in the late 6th millennium bp. An attempt is made to connect the development of technological traditions with that of Nilo-Saharan and Cu#ic languages.

One comment

If you walk around the ME you will quickly note that the soil has shards in it. Yep pollution from thousands of years ago. Pottery shard are nearly indestructible.

I've walked thru fields in Jordon, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere and quickly ID'd, pottery from a multiple thousand year range.

If there was a "unknown" civilization in the Nile valley prior to those we call the Egyptians. They didn't use pottery.

If they didn't use pottery one must ask what they used for food storage?

Only one culture, a rather small one in the SA, was able to develop without pottery - its the food storage capacity (one of prime reasons) that allowed human societies to develop civilization.

Unknown shards in Egypt? Nada

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
reply to post by seagrass

 

Hi seagrass,

I'm sorry, but it sounds like speculation to me to assume nothing else could be found. There are lots of civs built on civs. Troy? The only one I could think of.

From what I've read, catching up, nobody is assuming nothing else COULD be found, just that in regards to AE and the possibility of an older advanced civilization nothing HAS been found.

Taking your example of Troy into account, there are indeed many levels/cities added to and built on top of one another. However, that doesn't really indicate different civilizations as much as the same or similar civilizations over a very long period of time.

cormac

But if we are talking about forbidden AE then what could be discovered is speculated as not to exist before it has even been tried. The Hall of Records, or anything else that could exist 'on the plateau" for that matter. Not that we should be removing or disturbing ancient artifacts on the off chance there might be another civ underneath, but the age of the temples and structures are debated. The debate wil never end unless there is some kind of compromise between new discovery and preservation.

edited to add Hello Cormac, nice to meet you. Just think of me as a little kid with lots of questions.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by seagrass]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by seagrass]

The age old problem (well about hundred and fifty years) How far do you go?

Many of these structures are on limestone or other bed rock. those that are not have tended to disintegrate.

Egypt is one of the best documented an explored areas in the world. Its been looked at extensively for over 200 years.

As of the moment only part of the enclosure of the Sphinx is thought to (maybe) older than thought.

We'll get a better picture in 10-15 years as the various field surveys are completed and the reports come in.

But at the present time nada on unknown civiizations.

Originally posted by Hanslune
One comment

If you walk around the ME you will quickly note that the soil has shards in it. Yep pollution from thousands of years ago. Pottery shard are nearly indestructible.

I've walked thru fields in Jordon, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere and quickly ID'd, pottery from a multiple thousand year range.

If there was a "unknown" civilization in the Nile valley prior to those we call the Egyptians. They didn't use pottery.

If they didn't use pottery one must ask what they used for food storage?

Only one culture, a rather small one in the SA, was able to develop without pottery - its the food storage capacity (one of prime reasons) that allowed human societies to develop civilization.

Unknown shards in Egypt? Nada

Wasn't cheese invented by carrying milk in a stomach lining that contained enzymes. I love cheese!