Giza - Was There An Overall Plan?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
The question of whether the structures at Giza represent a collection of singular monuments constructed in ‘isolation’ and without any significant reference to what went before or would come after is as hotly debated a subject as the question of ‘why’ the structures were built. The prevailing view of the structures at Giza is that each pyramid was constructed in a sequential order, beginning with Khufu. That Khafre should have also built at Giza and then Menkaure was - so the prevailing view goes - simply down to the Pharaoh’s choice - there was no overall design, no ‘grand plan’.

However, when one considers the ‘singularity’ argument we immediately find contradictions.

If the final resting place of the Pharaoh was simply a matter of the personal preference of the King then we have to ask ourselves why Khufu should have chosen to place his pyramid (G1) at the very edge of the north-east corner of the plateau. On the surface this would not seem particularly odd. Looking closer, however, we find that the high dominant ground of the plateau lies in the centre of the plateau where Khafre’s pyramid (G2) is built. Not only is this area the dominant ground on the plateau but it benefits also from having a ‘natural causeway’ that runs from the area of the Sphinx up to Khafre’s Pyramid. Also, in ancient times the area of the Sphinx may have had a natural harbour. Even today, Egyptologists refer to this as the 'gateway' to Giza.

Why then, we ask, did Khufu choose to construct a quite monumental artificial causeway deep into the valley when a natural causeway already existed up to the high ground of the plateau?

Why did Khufu not claim the prestigious, commanding, central high ground for himself, thereby nullifying the possibility of some future Pharaoh outdoing him by building a higher pyramid than his own in that area? (Which, as matters transpired, is precisely what happened – G2 appears larger than G1 due to it being built on the central high ground of the plateau).

The Ancient Egyptians were - first and foremost - very practical builders. For Khufu to have decided not to build his pyramid in the most practical and prestigious location on the plateau is entirely contradictory. Why would Khufu risk having the magnificence of his own grand structure eclipsed by leaving the door open for a future pyramid to be built on the high central ground? It makes no sense.

And why did Khafre (G2) decide to return to Giza when his predecessor, Djedfre, did not follow his father, Khufu, but built his pyramid at Abu Rawash? Indeed, Khafre was the first King of the 4th Dynasty to ‘co-locate’ at the site of another Pharaoh (Khufu). Why did Khafre do this?

And finally, there is Menkaure’s pyramid. Why on Earth would Menkaure have wished to locate his own infinitely smaller structure in the shadow of G1 and G2 where its relative insignificance would only have been ‘amplified’ by its two illustrious neighbours. Why would Menkaure wish to go down in posterity as the Pharaoh that failed to live up to the high standards set by his predecessors?

Of course, all of these anomalies, contradictions and motives are simply and easily explained by the existence of a grand, overall plan. If, as I propose, the AE were copying a plan or ‘codex’ passed down to them from antiquity, then in all probability such a ‘codex’ would have been crafted onto a durable material such as granite. In all likelihood the pyramids would have been crafted onto a level granite model – a model that would become the monuments of Giza. On a level model Khufu’s pyramid would have been larger and taller than Khare’s. Thus, Khufu having first choice, opted for the largest and tallest structure in the model. Little did he realise that Khafre’s pyramid when built on the higher central ground would eventually eclipse his own grand design.

By following an ancient ‘sacred codex’ Khafre and Menkaure were effectively ‘duty-bound’ to complete it. Djedfre’s abandonment of the plan could be explained by any number of reasons but it seems that his desire to emulate the tomb style of his forefathers was perhaps a decisive factor. There may also have been religious/cultural conflicts governing his decision not to continue building the ‘sacred codex’ at Giza.

We have to conclude then that the structures at Giza followed an overall plan from the outset and - contrary to the prevailing academic consensus – are not a series of ‘singularities’. The AE of the 4th Dynasty built Giza according to a 'codex' of some description; a 'codex' that was passed down to them from great antiquity.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Hi Scott,

Welcome back. I am looking forward to reading your latest threads regarding your trip to Egypt.


I too believe that the pyramids and some of their surrounding structures are a part of the same overall design plan, but I'm still not so sure about its origins. And I guess my answer to most (if not all) of your above questions (which I've asked myself aswell) would be that Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure had nothing to do with building those pyramids.. Of course this is my interpretation of the evidence.

I wanted to get your thoughts on G2 though. It puzzles me...

1- For the very reason you mentioned above, it was built on a higher elevation than G1; why would the great Khufu not pick the highest point to build the greatest pyramid of them all?

2- G2 doesn't have the convex sides like G1 and G3 have. Why not? This doesn't seem to follow the "logical progression in pyramid design" ( i.e. if you buy into this idea, which ironically dissipates after the supposed construction dates of G1-3.)

3- The Sphinx. Khafre is credited with having originally carved it. Of course I disagree. I think it's safe to say that G2, its causeway, the Sphinx with its enclosure and temple, and the Valley temple are all part of the same design plan (within the overall plan of course). There is sufficient evidence that suggests the Sphinx pre-dates Khufu by at least a few hundred years. ( and I'm not necessarily referring to Schoch's opinions here) So naturally if that indeed is the case then G2 would also pre-date Khufu.

I guess I'd just like to know your opinion of this possibility and why it may or may not hold water.

Thanks,

PhotonEffect

[edit on 2-4-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Hello PhotonEffect,

Good to hear from you again.


Photon: And I guess my answer to most (if not all) of your above questions (which I've asked myself aswell) would be that Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure had nothing to do with building those pyramids.


SC: Be that as it may, we still have to accept that the C-14 dating of the mortar and timbers from within the pyramids (yes, some timbers have actually been used in the construction as lintels or beams within a number of chambers), places the construction as contemporary with the Kings of the 4th Dynasty. This is incontrovertible.


Photon: I wanted to get your thoughts on G2 though. It puzzles me...

1- For the very reason you mentioned above, it was built on a higher elevation than G1; why would the great Khufu not pick the highest point to build the greatest pyramid of them all?


SC: It's a great question, Photon and goes straight to the heart of the plan / no plan debate. The way I see it is that Khufu had first choice of the Giza cherry. For prestigious and practical reasons the most likely location he would have chosen would have been the high, commanding central ground where G2 was eventually built. So why didn't Khufu claim this area for himself? Well, let's suppose there was indeed a granite model of Giza - a plan - that had been passed down from great antiquity, as I have postulated. On such a plan it is reasonable to suppose that the base would be flat. On such a flat-based model G1 would appear larger AND TALLER than G2, hence perhaps why Khufu chose G1 - it would have looked bigger and taller than G2 on the plan (perhaps a granite model of the Giza complex). In this sense then we can see Khufu opting for prestige over practicality not realising, of course, that G2 would eventually eclipse his own grand structure by virtue of being built on the highest part of the plateau. (Note though: G1 is still the larger pyramid although G2 seems bigger).


Photon: 2- G2 doesn't have the convex sides like G1 and G3 have. Why not? This doesn't seem to follow the "logical progression in pyramid design" ( i.e. if you buy into this idea, which ironically dissipates after the supposed construction dates of G1-3.)


SC:You're right - it does not follow the logical progression - these features just seemed to appear out of nowhere. There was no precedent, nor were they continued with Khafre or after Menkaure. (M&R have suggested that there may be traces of them on the Red Pyramid but I could not see any sign of such when I examined this structure recently). The concavities of G1 and G3 truly are a puzzle. I present 2 possibilities for these quite unique features - possibilities that are not mutually exclusive, both could apply.

1) They were placed to indicate the latent Incentre and Circumcentre centroids. The ancient world understand only 3 centroids and I speculate in the Giza Centroid Theory that through understanding these features as being indicative of their latent centroid, a very unique triangle can be reconstructed, the apex of which points to a specific location in the Egyptian desert to the southwest of Menkaure. I recently attempted to reach this location but it is entirely sealed off with walls, fences, watchtowers and guards (some bearing arms). Odd that you can have free access to the most sacred structures in all Egypt but an area immediately adjacent to it is totlly sealed off.

2) They are a timing mechanism. They indicate 'shining stars' i.e. stars above the horizon. The middle pyramid (G2) is devoid of these features thus perhaps indicating that its corresponding star - Al Nilam - has set below the horizon. We find such an arrangement of the Orion Belt stars c.10,500BC on the SW horizon.


Photon: 3- The Sphinx. Khafre is credited with having originally carved it. Of course I disagree. I think it's safe to say that G2, its causeway, the Sphinx with its enclosure and temple, and the Valley temple are all part of the same design plan (within the overall plan of course). There is sufficient evidence that suggests the Sphinx pre-dates Khufu by at least a few hundred years. ( and I'm not necessarily referring to Schoch's opinions here) So naturally if that indeed is the case then G2 would also pre-date Khufu.


SC: There is also the theory that the Pharaoh Djedfre who succeeded Khufu (but who built his pyramid at Abu Rowash) may have been responsible for the construction of the Sphinx, or perhaps the reparations to the Sphinx. I am tending to lean towards John Anthony West's view on this one - the Sphinx may indeed predate the exisiting monuments. This is not to say, however, that there could not have been earlier structures at Giza (of great antiquity) that were built over by the pyramids of the 4th Dynasty Pharaohs. I think this quite possible.

Hope this answers your queries.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Hey Scott,


SC: Be that as it may, we still have to accept that the C-14 dating of the mortar and timbers from within the pyramids (yes, some timbers have actually been used in the construction as lintels or beams within a number of chambers), places the construction as contemporary with the Kings of the 4th Dynasty. This is incontrovertible.


If we're going to disagree on anything it'll have to be on the C14 tests. Amongst the pieces of evidence that we're told unequivocally link the pyramids of Giza to the timeframe of the 4th Dynasty Kings, it's the C14 dates which I have one of the biggest problems with. Bear with me a minute if you don't mind...

Unless there have been more C14 tests conducted recently that I'm unaware of, the results from the 1984 and 1995 dating are quite anomalous. What of the samples of charcoal found in mortar taken from the upper portions of the GP that showed dates of ca 3800 bc? Samples of wood, ca 3100 bc? Dates ranged all the way down to 2800 bc... I know that these anomalous results prompted the 2nd test, to show I imagine, that there must've been something incorrectly done in the 1st test to arrive at such out of range dates...

But interestingly enough there were results from the 2nd test that matched (and corroborated) results from the 1st, and Khufu's results were still off by some 100 or so years... So maybe the 1st test was telling the truth.

Now I know that the Egyptians were said to reuse old wood from other locations to burn in the fires, but if the 3800 bc dates are accurate, that means they were reusing wood that was some 1200-1300 years old when constructing the GP. This does not compute.

Also, as I understand it, there is wood that is supposedly lodged in one of the shafts inside the GP that was initially discovered by Waynman Dixon. His portion has gone missing, although there is still some left inside that for whatever reason hasn't been tested.

You mentioned testing of timbers found within chambers of the GP...I'd be interested to know more about this if you could point me in the right direction.


SC: ....On such a plan it is reasonable to suppose that the base would be flat. On such a flat-based model G1 would appear larger AND TALLER than G2, hence perhaps why Khufu chose G1 - it would have looked bigger and taller than G2 on the plan (perhaps a granite model of the Giza complex). In this sense then we can see Khufu opting for prestige over practicality not realising, of course, that G2 would eventually eclipse his own grand structure by virtue of being built on the highest part of the plateau.


Under these circumstances this could definitely be an explanation as to why Khufu would've 'built his' pyramid. I remember that you had mentioned that this plan or codex was found inscribed somewhere, Saqqara maybe? Or that there is a reference to it somehwere? I'd be curious to read about it.



SC:1) They were placed to indicate the latent Incentre and Circumcentre centroids. The ancient world understand only 3 centroids and I speculate in the Giza Centroid Theory that through understanding these features as being indicative of their latent centroid, a very unique triangle can be reconstructed,


Quite frankly Scott, I don't understand what those terms mean. I think you discussed them in one of you other threads, and again I would be very interested to read up on this and try to wrap my head around it.


the apex of which points to a specific location in the Egyptian desert to the southwest of Menkaure. I recently attempted to reach this location but it is entirely sealed off with walls, fences, watchtowers and guards (some bearing arms). Odd that you can have free access to the most sacred structures in all Egypt but an area immediately adjacent to it is totlly sealed off.


Yes! I saw your pics. Odd indeed. Wonder what could be going on there...


2) They are a timing mechanism. They indicate 'shining stars' i.e. stars above the horizon. The middle pyramid (G2) is devoid of these features thus perhaps indicating that its corresponding star - Al Nilam - has set below the horizon. We find such an arrangement of the Orion Belt stars c.10,500BC on the SW horizon.


An interesting theory aswell. The concavities seem to form an 8 sided pyramid that could be said to resemble shining stars when looked at from above, which is a curiosity.


SC: I am tending to lean towards John Anthony West's view on this one - the Sphinx may indeed predate the exisiting monuments. This is not to say, however, that there could not have been earlier structures at Giza (of great antiquity) that were built over by the pyramids of the 4th Dynasty Pharaohs.


Have you by chance read Colin Readers study of Giza?



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Howdy Scott



Odd that you can have free access to the most sacred structures in all Egypt but an area immediately adjacent to it is totlly sealed off.


Hawass wall is to keep people out of the Pyramid area - not keep them in, the outer wire barrier is a security fence-that is designed to keep people out. All you need to do is cross the Hawass wall. If you are concerned about the locals/security obtain a knowledgeable guide - a 100 Egyptian pounds would take care of security concerns. I presume you are of European descent and can look like a tourist?

Let me guest you didn't ask anyone if you could cross the wall did you?

I walked over that area in 92 and again in 94, nothing on the surface. If anything is there you'd have dig - so "securing" it is meaningless.

Do you have contact with a organization or high level person who can fund and obtain a license to dig at that location?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Hello Photon,

Excellent post - many thanks.


PhotonEffect: Now I know that the Egyptians were said to reuse old wood from other locations to burn in the fires, but if the 3800 bc dates are accurate, that means they were reusing wood that was some 1200-1300 years old when constructing the GP. This does not compute.


SC: The so-called 'old wood' proposal is a bit more complicated than it would first appear. For one thing the c-14 dating from mortar samples near the top of the Great Pyramid are older than those at the bottom of the pyramid, seemingly indicating that the pyramid was constructed from the top-down!!

Impossible of course - so what's going on?

The answer may be as simple as the way in which a tree absorbs c-14. Trees grow from the centre outwards, rendering the centre or 'heartwood' of the tree effectively dead tehreby unable to absorb further c-14 isotopes. The youngest part of the tree are the outer rings which will be larger than the inner rings thus absorbing larger quantities of c-14 isotopes than the inner heartwood. A single tree then - depending on its age - can provide an array of dates. If a 1,000 year old tree was felled today it will produce c-14 dates ranging from 2008AD to 1008AD. Thus we would find more c14 data with 2008 dates because the rings of the tree are larger. We would also find lower quantities of 1008 c14 dates because the rings would have been smaller whent he tree was much younger. So, it is entriely possible for one tree to produce a wide range of c14 dates. This is perhaps why scientists tend to provide average dates and also prefer to date plants (short-lived) carbon material.


Photon'Effect: You mentioned testing of timbers found within chambers of the GP...I'd be interested to know more about this if you could point me in the right direction.


SC: As said previously, there are a number of wooden beams/lintels used in the construction of some chambers in a number of pyramids. I noticed these in the Great Pyramid and at Meidum. I would be surprised if samples from these had not been dated. I am still trying to find a specific reference to this and will let you know.


PhotonEffect: Under these circumstances this could definitely be an explanation as to why Khufu would've 'built his' pyramid. I remember that you had mentioned that this plan or codex was found inscribed somewhere, Saqqara maybe? Or that there is a reference to it somehwere? I'd be curious to read about it.


SC: There are a couple of inscriptions in the collonade of the Temple of Horus at Edfu taht tell of how an ancient codex came from heaven in the days of Imhotep and that this codex contained architectural plans. These inscriptions are part of my on-going research. At Giza I see abstract knowledge in plain view; knowledge that the prevailing historical view cannot attribute to the AEs. So how could such knowledge have come to the AEs? Perhaps in the form of a codex - just as the AEs themselves are perhaps telling us.


SC:1) They were placed to indicate the latent Incentre and Circumcentre centroids. The ancient world understand only 3 centroids and I speculate in the Giza Centroid Theory that through understanding these features as being indicative of their latent centroid, a very unique triangle can be reconstructed,

PhotonEffect: Quite frankly Scott, I don't understand what those terms mean. I think you discussed them in one of you other threads, and again I would be very interested to read up on this and try to wrap my head around it.


Here's a link that explains better the Giza Centroid Theory:

www.grahamhancock.com...


PhotonEffect: Have you by chance read Colin Readers study of Giza?


SC: Yes - there's a good article from Colin here:

www.hallofmaat.com...

Kind Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Hey Scott,

Thanks for your reply. Bear with me here again, as I understand this may drift slightly off topic. If I should move these posts to another one of your threads please let me know.



SC: For one thing the c-14 dating from mortar samples near the top of the Great Pyramid are older than those at the bottom of the pyramid, seemingly indicating that the pyramid was constructed from the top-down!!


It is indeed, but seeing as how that could be very unlikely, perhaps this is indicative of repair work that was done on the lower portions of the pyramid in later years (later being the time of Khufu). Just a thought.



SC: If a 1,000 year old tree was felled today it will produce c-14 dates ranging from 2008AD to 1008AD. Thus we would find more c14 data with 2008 dates because the rings of the tree are larger. We would also find lower quantities of 1008 c14 dates because the rings would have been smaller whent he tree was much younger.


So in this regard (yours was a great explanation by the way, thank you) the material which yielded dates of 3800 bc and 3100 bc could be said to be more at the latter end of that particular tree's life span, hence pushing back the age of that tree even further.



So, it is entriely possible for one tree to produce a wide range of c14 dates. This is perhaps why scientists tend to provide average dates and also prefer to date plants (short-lived) carbon material.


I guess the problems I have is that we have no idea at what point in that tree's life it was used as fire wood or building material. (IOW, was it an old tree or a young tree) Were the samples taken for dating from the same tree or from different trees? Or were they taken from older structures? Were the samples tainted in any way? etc etc.

These are but a few of the reasons why I consider the dating evidence to be highly unreliable for establishing a concrete date for the pyramids in question. It should be labeled as such, but it never is. And I feel that the dates which coincide with what mainstream egyptologists have established for Giza are the ones they pay attention to and talk about, conveniently weeding out the anomalous ones. (maybe by taking an avg)



SC: As said previously, there are a number of wooden beams/lintels used in the construction of some chambers in a number of pyramids. I noticed these in the Great Pyramid and at Meidum.


Would you be able to elaborate a bit more, based on what you saw, on how they were used within the construction of the chambers in the GP?



I would be surprised if samples from these had not been dated. I am still trying to find a specific reference to this and will let you know.


I haven't been able to find any info on dating from samples of any wood from inside the GP. I find this to be very curious, although I may be missing something in my searches. In an earlier post though I had mentioned the wood which was found inside one of the shafts which was later authorized by Hawass to be explored using a robot.

Hawass had this to say about why he won't date it:

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

source

Weak and suspect at best. Why not date it anyway just to see? He's already supporting highly circumstantial dates taken from the outside as 'hard evidence', why now is wood from inside a sealed shaft not good enough? Dating that wood and publishing the results could be the beginning of the end all for alternative theories (and some headaches). It could certainly help his case.... or maybe not so much.




SC: Yes - there's a good article from Colin here:

www.hallofmaat.com...


Yes, that was the exact article I was referring to. Great article and an important one at that.

Thanks for the link about centroid theory. I'm looking forward to reading up on it.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,

Nice to hear from you.


Hans:Hawass wall is to keep people out of the Pyramid area - not keep them in, the outer wire barrier is a security fence-that is designed to keep people out.


SC: It seems to me to keep people out of the necropolis area ONLY hAwass's 'Wall' would had sufficed. The 'Russian Doll' effect of the outer security fence effectively creates a 'no-man's land' that is inaccessible.


Hans: All you need to do is cross the Hawass wall. If you are concerned about the locals/security obtain a knowledgeable guide - a 100 Egyptian pounds would take care of security concerns. I presume you are of European descent and can look like a tourist? Let me guest you didn't ask anyone if you could cross the wall did you?


SC: When I attempted to do this I was given the distinct impression by the Antiquities Police that it was 'forbidden'. Further around (down the south western highway) I offered a couple of workers 30USD to open a gate and they wouldn't do it.


Hans: I walked over that area in 92 and again in 94, nothing on the surface. If anything is there you'd have dig - so "securing" it is meaningless.


SC: Agreed - there will be nothing visible on the surface. If the Centroid Theory I present has any merit then it wopuld be ludicrous for the Designers of such to place whatever it is the design points to in open plain view. It seems to me that the Designers DEMAND that the math be understood in order to locate whatever may be hidden. They wouldn't have wanted whatever they may have hidden under the sands at this location falling into the hands of 'mindless barbarians' who - had such people stumbled across it by accident - destroyed it through their lack of understanding.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Do you have contact with a organization or high level person who can fund and obtain a license to dig at that location?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Hello Photon,

Thanks again for another excelent post.


SC: For one thing the c-14 dating from mortar samples near the top of the Great Pyramid are older than those at the bottom of the pyramid, seemingly indicating that the pyramid was constructed from the top-down!!

Photon: It is indeed, but seeing as how that could be very unlikely, perhaps this is indicative of repair work that was done on the lower portions of the pyramid in later years (later being the time of Khufu). Just a thought.

SC: If a 1,000 year old tree was felled today it will produce c-14 dates ranging from 2008AD to 1008AD. Thus we would find more c14 data with 2008 dates because the rings of the tree are larger. We would also find lower quantities of 1008 c14 dates because the rings would have been smaller whent he tree was much younger.

Phonton: So in this regard (yours was a great explanation by the way, thank you) the material which yielded dates of 3800 bc and 3100 bc could be said to be more at the latter end of that particular tree's life span, hence pushing back the age of that tree even further.


SC: It's not impossible that the GP (and other pyramids could have been repaired with later mortar being used and this is what we are finding and dating). We do know that the Sphinx was repaired in antiquity. The scenario is unlikely though because many samples were taken from many different areas of the GP. Of course, what would be of immense help in answering this question is a profile of the elevations mortar was taken from and the C-14 dates produced from those elevations.

What may also be muddying the waters somewhat is a scenario where the deforestation of the Memphite area required the acquisition of wood (trees) from wider afield i.e. from areas where ancient forests grew and where trees would be much older. In ancient times they would farm near to their settlements and would use up the resources near to their settlements first before seeking other resources from further afield - 'virgin forests' that may have been untouched by man, thus providing trees of great age. And being in a dry climate, even trees that have been felled and lying dead for hundreds of years would not decay as quickly as they would in a wet climate and could also have been utilised for the burning of fires to make the gypsum and fire the ovens for the pyramid builders food.

Essentially what you could find then is mortar that was manufactured c.2,600BC producing C-14 dates of 3,800BC.


Photon: I guess the problems I have is that we have no idea at what point in that tree's life it was used as fire wood or building material. (IOW, was it an old tree or a young tree) Were the samples taken for dating from the same tree or from different trees? Or were they taken from older structures? Were the samples tainted in any way? etc etc.


SC: Well expressed. The point here being, however, that we simply are not talking about pyramids being built c.10,500BC or anywhere near that remote date. Certainly there is a view emerging (and the work of Colin Reader seems to lend some support to it) that Giza evolved from an earlier plan. Reader suggest perhaps only a few hundred years earlier but Schoch and West still believe - through their weathering investigation of the Sphinx and its enclosure - the date to be much further back to when Egypt had a much wetter climate.


These are but a few of the reasons why I consider the dating evidence to be highly unreliable for establishing a concrete date for the pyramids in question. It should be labeled as such, but it never is. And I feel that the dates which coincide with what mainstream egyptologists have established for Giza are the ones they pay attention to and talk about, conveniently weeding out the anomalous ones. (maybe by taking an avg)


SC: Again some good points well made. I think the problem with a lot of Egyptologists is the stubborness bordering on dogma that they got their sums wrong with the King Lists.


SC: As said previously, there are a number of wooden beams/lintels used in the construction of some chambers in a number of pyramids. I noticed these in the Great Pyramid and at Meidum.

Photon: Would you be able to elaborate a bit more, based on what you saw, on how they were used within the construction of the chambers in the GP? I haven't been able to find any info on dating from samples of any wood from inside the GP. I find this to be very curious, although I may be missing something in my searches.


SC: There are a couple of wooden lintels runnng across the ceiling of the descending passsage, about half-way down before the subtarranean chamber of the Great Pyramid. If my memory serves me correctly, there are also some wooden beams in the Grand Gallery of the GP. There are a number of wooden beams in the pyramid of Meidum. Also at Meidum there are a number of holes in the walls where other wooden beams would once have been in situ but are now gone. (I saw similar holes in the chambers of the Red Pyramid though no wooden beams). The arrangement of the holes looked like some kind of pulley system had perhaps once been in place.

The point here is that these beams are categorically part and parcel of the fabric of the structure. They were placed there when the pyramids were built - there is simply no denying this. They most certainly would have been C-14 tested. I am scanning the journals to see if any of this wood is mentioned but haven't found anything yet. Will let you know when/if I do.

Best,

Scott Creighton



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   


SC: When I attempted to do this I was given the distinct impression by the Antiquities Police that it was 'forbidden'. Further around (down the south western highway) I offered a couple of workers 30USD to open a gate and they wouldn't do it.


Why didn't you just cross hawass's wall?

Sorry Scott but I find that explanation unbelievable Scott. Did you mention this bribe attempt in your first telling of the adventure?

Sorry no I don't have current contacts in Egyptology that would have access to money. Have you considered a fringe source for the money and a real university for the permission.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hans,

Thanks for your post.


Hans: Why didn't you just cross Hawass's wall?


SC: It's not too easy to cross 'Hawass's Wall'.



And especially so when there are mounted armed police in close proximity and also those in the watchtowers:





Best,

Scott Creighton



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Its not only difficult to pass the wall, its difficult to get around anywhere by yourself in egypt. Lots of police and military protecting..."desert sand".



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
How do you know that Skyfloating? When were you last there?

I worked in the ME from 1979 - bribery works wonders, especially on poorly paid Egyptian Government workers.



[edit on 10/4/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Hey Scott,

Thanks for your informative reply.



SC: Of course, what would be of immense help in answering this question is a profile of the elevations mortar was taken from and the C-14 dates produced from those elevations.


All I could find regarding the locations of dated material was from the below site. I know this is just a small sample, but it does seem to show (if Im reading it correctly) that the oldest results were found on the upper portions of the GP.
Here. Scroll down a bit to find the chart.



What may also be muddying the waters somewhat is a scenario where the deforestation of the Memphite area required the acquisition of wood (trees) from wider afield i.e. from areas where ancient forests grew and where trees would be much older.


The cedars of Lebanon I presume.



Essentially what you could find then is mortar that was manufactured c.2,600BC producing C-14 dates of 3,800BC.


Absolutely a possibility.



SC: The point here being, however, that we simply are not talking about pyramids being built c.10,500BC or anywhere near that remote date.


Probably not, but I'm keeping an open mind on this.



Certainly there is a view emerging (and the work of Colin Reader seems to lend some support to it) that Giza evolved from an earlier plan. Reader suggest perhaps only a few hundred years earlier but Schoch and West still believe - through their weathering investigation of the Sphinx and its enclosure - the date to be much further back to when Egypt had a much wetter climate.


I find Colin Reader's study the best of it's kind so far. And although it doesn't push the Sphinx back thousands of years, it does push it back far enough to be without of the reign of the 4th dynasty pharaohs....so who then was responsible for it's construction? Not to mention that the Sphinx is part of the overall plan of Giza.




SC: I think the problem with a lot of Egyptologists is the stubborness bordering on dogma that they got their sums wrong with the King Lists.


Amongst other things....



SC: There are a couple of wooden lintels runnng across the ceiling of the descending passsage, about half-way down before the subtarranean chamber of the Great Pyramid. If my memory serves me correctly, there are also some wooden beams in the Grand Gallery of the GP.


I would love to see pics of these. And there's no way these could've been added some time later I suppose?

[edit on 10-4-2008 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Hey Scott,

Just curious if you've had any luck finding out any information about any dating results of wood from inside the Great Pyramid?



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Hello Photoneffect,

Thanks for your post. Still looking. Here's a good site (AERA) for info:

www.aeraweb.org...

Also found that Khufu's 'Solar Boat' has been C14 dated to within 200 years or so of Khufu's reign. Trying to find the source for this though.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Ok sounds good Scott, much appreciated. I've been searching too, but haven't had much success...

Regarding the solar barge, I had been wondering about that, as I remember having read somewhere that it wasn't tested, which seemed odd to me; but good to hear that it has.

So 200 years or so...



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
you do now what was in the codex? you hacve checked?



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Simon Peter
 

Hello SP,

Nice of you to join us over here at ATS.


SP:you do know what was in the codex? You have checked?


SC: Alas, since we do not have the actual codex being referred to in the inscription at the Temple of Horus at Edfu, we cannot be certain. The inscriptions mentions an architectural plan. I contend, however, that this 'architectural plan' consisted of a model of some kind - a durable granite model of Giza not unlike this:




... which Djoser/Imhotep initiated the long building plan towards implementing on the ground at Giza.

Hope this helps answer your question.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
havent you checkerd yto se if the conrtents are knowsn?





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join