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.

 

Physical Evidence of Prehistoric Cultures – The Throw Down Thread

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

Reply to TheWalkingFox




TWF - "The people who live here could not possibly have ever been smart enough to do any of this, it must have been someone else." And it keeps getting recycled by quacks like Hancock and Sitchen, and people keep buying into it... And yes, I would speculate that people keep buying into the quackery because of some racist ideas.


So everyone who embraces alternative archaeology is racist? Because... that's what you just typed.

Straw man so obvious I've got hay up my nose.

Pardon me, but where did TheWalkingFox "just type" this?

You quoted him yourself but claim he said something not in your quote (and not in his post?)

Harte




posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

Reply to TheWalkingFox




TWF - "The people who live here could not possibly have ever been smart enough to do any of this, it must have been someone else." And it keeps getting recycled by quacks like Hancock and Sitchen, and people keep buying into it... And yes, I would speculate that people keep buying into the quackery because of some racist ideas.

So everyone who embraces alternative archaeology is racist? Because... that's what you just typed.

Straw man so obvious I've got hay up my nose.

Harte said -
Pardon me, but where did TheWalkingFox "just type" this?

You quoted him yourself but claim he said something not in your quote (and not in his post?)

Harte


He said it on page 2 in one of his first posts, I QUOTED HIM EXACTLY. And I'm moving on....


edit: bbcode

[edit on 30-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Harte - I'm glad to see your here too. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Put LINKS up to the wiki reference and your infamous dovetail joint and then I will comment.

Frankfort's work, "The Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos," was written in 1933. I don't have a link to it. I doubt it's online.
I pulled the reference from This Wiki Page.
Please note the spelling of Osireion there.


Now, would you please lay out some reason for me to believe that the Osireion predates the Egyptian culture?

Is that not your claim here? I mean, what Hans said is correct in that it may still be debatable about whether the construction dates to the new, middle or old kingdom. I'm open to any of that. But before? Not without some reason. Any reason.

You wanted me to link to a reference work from 1933. How about you telling us where you got the crazy idea that the Egyptians didn't build the Osireion. (Though I'm afraid to ask.)


Originally posted by TheWayISeeItAnd, IMO, Occam's razor could more easily be applied to 'my' line of thought than the orthodox one which refuses to look past the sudden rise of civilization out of Sumeria.
Cheers!


Funny that. I mean, you first won't even agree about what the word "civilization" means. If we went by your wishy-washy definition, then the "rise" of the Sumerian Civilization was anything but "sudden."

Please provide (once again) some reason for us to accept the idea that the Sumerian's rise was "sudden."

What are you drinking these days (seriously.) I've been on this rum kick for a couple years now.
Harte



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Harte, TheWayISeeIT has a point, TheWalkingFox did indeed say what was quoted. She also extrapolated on it, dunno how you missed it.

TheWayISeeIt, Harte has a point, what about the cartouche?
Built in, it raises a issue of Seti having built the place.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Tiahuanaco





Tiahuanaco - General overview of the site:

Tiahuanaco sits high in the Andes at an altitude of around 2 miles above sea level. The location is curious in itself as the nearby lake, Titicaca, with which the site is associated, is a sea-water lake with sea-fauna still present. Indications of man-made structures below the level of the lake (which is slowly drying up over time), suggests that our understanding of the site is far from complete

LINK

The first contemporary explorer of the site was German engineer Arthur Posnansky. He studied the site exhaustively for 50 years and his work was extensively studied by academia in the 20’s and 30’s. He initially suggested that the structures were prediluvian, as the sites were covered in a thin layer of lime deposits – which suggest that they were submerged for a long periods of time. Other parts of the ruins were still under deep sedimentary deposits which indicated a ‘massive wave’ washing over the area.

This led him to suggest that perhaps the anomalous evidence of water damage was indicative of the ‘biblical flood’. Needless to say this did not sit well with the academics and his reputation was tarnished. He ultimately settled on a highly controversial dating using astro-archaeology – alignments to sun, stars, etc – to justify what he saw as their great antiquity.

This is controversial because most of the megalithic stones were scattered, and had collapsed from what was obviously some great cataclysm. They have since been partially re-erected but as they were not found in their original state the exact positioning of them re: alignments can be question.

In the 1930’s archaeolgist Wendell Bennett started the conventional dating practices of 200 A.D for construction based on pottery shards, etc. and collapsing at 1000 AD . But it is in no way unusual to imagine later peoples (survivors of cataclysm) happening upon these massive structures, seeing them as supermnatural, settling around them, and in turn replicating the imagery on pottery and textiles. This, IMO, could very reasonably cast doubt on Wendell’s dating which is the accepted norm by the orthodoxy at this point.

First Stop PUMA PUNKU – A Seaport at 12, 550 feet?


Puma Punka is still littered with giant, precisely shaped blocks, many of which weighing appear machine made. The port of Tiahuanaco, called Puma Punku or "Door of the Puma," which appears to have once been a wharf with a massive four-part building, is now an area filled with enormous stone blocks scattered around the ground like matchsticks, with several weighing between 100 and 150 tons. One block still in place is frequently estimated to weigh 440 tons.

LINK

You can see from this image that these 100 to 440 ton stones had to have been displaced with with great violence:



Here is a graph of the reconstruction of the stones here:



AND HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF REGULARLY SPACED DRILL MARKS IN THE PRECISION-CUT 6MM GROOVE.




As with the Osirion and Giza there is no consensus on how these stones were quarried from 50 miles away and placed in the extreme altitude of 12, 550 feet. The only explanation thus far as to how this had-no-knowledge-the-wheel culture created such massive structures is... wait for it… logs and llama skin!

MORE TO COME!

PS - IN RESPONSE TO THE TWO POSTS:

Harte -

The spelling you are using now IS NOT THE ONE yous used earlier. I checked both the speliing I am using and the one you are now using. Look at your earlier post. You spelled it OSEIRION.

Rune - as to Harte's oblique references of "Frankfort" and his supposed deductions from the 'dovetail cartouche' allow me to quote from HANSLUNES'S external quote from page 2:


h. Frankfort made sondage pits down the outside walls of the main hall. At the bottom he found pottery of the Archaic Period and early Old Kingdom. There was no more pottery until very near the present ground level when pots of the XXXth dynasty were found.


Hanslunes link from the Hall of Maat

That would be the link where Hans threw down with his "it is Old Kingdom". So, harte and hans can go argue about what this "Frankfort" actually thought, but its not my fight.

Personally, I think the "Seti built it" evidence is rickety, hence the confusion in their ranks -- they need Seti to have built it because it messes with the orthodox timeline for Seti to have FOUND the TEMPLE 50 feet below where he was building, as nothing exists in Egytian records from Middle to New Kingdom that would explain how The Osirion came to be buried thus.



[edit on 30-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]
2nd edit: for typos and desc. sentence of final image

[edit on 30-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
Harte, TheWayISeeIT has a point, TheWalkingFox did indeed say what was quoted. She also extrapolated on it, dunno how you missed it.

I missed it because it's not there in thewalkingfox's post, that's how.

TWISI claims TWF said:


So everyone who embraces alternative archaeology is racist? Because... that's what you just typed.


Please indicate to me where Thewalkingfox posted the words in bold from my above quote.

In context, thewalkingfox was referring originally to how the idea that the Egyptians (for example) couldn't have done this or that originates in the racism of 19th century academia. That is simply an undeniable fact.

Take a look at Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy Society. Read what she wrote about Atlantis and Lemuria and the "original races." Consider what effect it had on the proponents of the Great Aryan race - the Nazis.

She is still being quoted as a reference today re Atlantis and Lemuria, as well as "ascended masters" aka "channelled spirits," BTW. Despite the fact that she was caught red handed twice by audiences while conducting faked-up seances.

Fox's point was that the same old crotchety ideas are being recycled today by Hancock, Sitrchen, et al. Fox put forth the opinion that even today many people buy in to this crazy crap for racist reasons. Will you deny this?

Now, how does that equate to "everyone who embraces alternative archaeology is racist?"


Originally posted by RuneSpider
TheWayISeeIt, Harte has a point, what about the cartouche?
Built in, it raises a issue of Seti having built the place.

Like Hans said, it's still debatable. But the debate goes like - "well, Seti repaired the structure and it was built by an earlier, uinknown pharoah (or even earlier, unknown advanced civilization.)"

Couldn't this "repair" scenario be applied to every, single Egyptian structure then? It's already been applied to the Sphinx and the Giza pyramids.

Maybe Americans simply repaired the Empire State Building, which was likely built by the Lemurians when they were dropping off some preClovis colonials here.

Harte



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
In the 1930’s archaeolgist Wendell Bennett started the conventional dating practices of 200 A.D for construction based on pottery shards, etc. and collapsing at 1000 AD . But it is in no way unusual to imagine later peoples (survivors of cataclysm) happening upon these massive structures, seeing them as supermnatural, settling around them, and in turn replicating the imagery on pottery and textiles. This, IMO, could very reasonably cast doubt on Wendell’s dating which is the accepted norm by the orthodoxy at this point.


You said it, there's some big rocks there.

But the site is not dated based on pottery alone. Carbon 14 has nailed this site down very tightly to 1500 BC for the earliest evidence of humans, to becoming a fairly large city around 600 BC and then, as was stated, beginning to collapse around 900 AD.

It's a non-starter, IOW.

Oh, and also, it was certainly never a seaport. Nobody's made that claim since the early 1900's. Why? because geologists finally got down there to take a look at what Posnansky was talking about and, guess what, they actually explained it.

Reference links:
Link1

Link2

Also, if anyone cares to look, the following is a listing of C14 results obtained at Tihuanaco and the surrounding area:
Collection of Tihuanaco C14 samples and results

Sorry, bubble burst.

We win.

Time for rum now - goodbye.

Harte



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
All riiiiight, Tiwanaku!


Tiahuanaco sits high in the Andes at an altitude of around 2 miles above sea level. The location is curious in itself as the nearby lake, Titicaca, with which the site is associated, is a sea-water lake with sea-fauna still present. Indications of man-made structures below the level of the lake (which is slowly drying up over time), suggests that our understanding of the site is far from complete

LINK

...Sea water lake? Sea fauna? Oh good lord. No. Lake Titicaca is 100% fresh water, and actually has rather sparse fauna - mostly consisting of frogs and killifish. Killifish have a funny habit of managing to live anywhere - their eggs can dry out and be blown in dust in the wind and still be viable. They're an odd bunch of fish, and can live in some of the harshest waters you can imagine.

There seems to be a bad habit of some writers with conflating Permian sea life fossils around Titicaca with actual marine life in the lake, plus an occasional confusion of Titicaca with Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, the second-largest South American lake (Actually a brackish lagoon)

Man-made structures wouldn't be unbelievable, as the people who lived there often built out onto the lake, either on earthen weirs or, as with hte modern natives, artificial reed islands.


The first contemporary explorer of the site was German engineer Arthur Posnansky. He studied the site exhaustively for 50 years and his work was extensively studied by academia in the 20’s and 30’s. He initially suggested that the structures were prediluvian, as the sites were covered in a thin layer of lime deposits – which suggest that they were submerged for a long periods of time. Other parts of the ruins were still under deep sedimentary deposits which indicated a ‘massive wave’ washing over the area.


There's lots of sediment to go around in glacial areas. First and foremost, fine, windblown grit and soil - loess, the key to Andean farming. This stuff will pile up faster than you might think. While in Alaska, I lived near a juncture of three glaciers near the Copper River, and I was constantly sweeping mounds of this stuff out of my garage shop. Second, the region has a history of weather extremes, with drought resulting in smaller glaciers (thus more loess in the air), sudden heat causing glacial floods, and very rarely, torrential downpours that the region just can't absorb fast enough resulting in flash floods.


This led him to suggest that perhaps the anomalous evidence of water damage was indicative of the ‘biblical flood’. Needless to say this did not sit well with the academics and his reputation was tarnished. He ultimately settled on a highly controversial dating using astro-archaeology – alignments to sun, stars, etc – to justify what he saw as their great antiquity.


"God did it" never wins points with the scientific method
Especially given that the location in question is further above sea level than the place Noah was supposed to have landed the ark. And I have no idea how one can use "Astro-archaology" to determine the age of ruins - particularly in years prior to spectrum analysis.


This is controversial because most of the megalithic stones were scattered, and had collapsed from what was obviously some great cataclysm. They have since been partially re-erected but as they were not found in their original state the exact positioning of them re: alignments can be question.


It's called an earthquake. The Andes are full of 'em. Plus the Tiwanaku culture regularly disassembled portions of the city to build new things, resulting in a city where parts were ruins, and other parts were being constructed. And yes, the ruins had been re-arranged. In fact the famous "gate of the sun" was places precisely where it is by the local natives in order to capitalize on people who'll spend big bucks to come watch the sun rise on a Solstice through "ancient ruins"


In the 1930’s archaeolgist Wendell Bennett started the conventional dating practices of 200 A.D for construction based on pottery shards, etc. and collapsing at 1000 AD . But it is in no way unusual to imagine later peoples (survivors of cataclysm) happening upon these massive structures, seeing them as supermnatural, settling around them, and in turn replicating the imagery on pottery and textiles. This, IMO, could very reasonably cast doubt on Wendell’s dating which is the accepted norm by the orthodoxy at this point.


There's no evidence of any of the locals ever thinking these buildings were the work of supernaturals. However there's a cottage industry nowadays of selling crystals and woo-woo stories about spacemen. Tourists love that stuff, and the locals love tourist money, so it works out well. Archaologist Alan Kolata excavated part of Tiwanaku in the 80's and surmised that the city had a population of about 115,000 in 1000 AD, with far more in the surrounding countryside. Geological evidence points to a harsh drought smacking the region in the same time period - probably the result of a mega-Nino in hte pacific, which may have been responsible for other odd weather conditions in the world. Dust storms enfulfed the area, darkened the glaciers, and messed up agriculture. When you have a large urban population with little food and low water, problems start happening.


First Stop PUMA PUNKU – A Seaport at 12, 550 feet?


Puma Punka is still littered with giant, precisely shaped blocks, many of which weighing appear machine made. The port of Tiahuanaco, called Puma Punku or "Door of the Puma," which appears to have once been a wharf with a massive four-part building, is now an area filled with enormous stone blocks scattered around the ground like matchsticks, with several weighing between 100 and 150 tons. One block still in place is frequently estimated to weigh 440 tons.

LINK

You can see from this image that these 100 to 440 ton stones had to have been displaced with with great violence:



Here is a graph of the reconstruction of the stones here:





I'm not seeing a seaport. i'm seeing a building that got hit by an earthquake, which, in case I need to remind you, are pretty common in the Andes.

[quote[As with the Osirion and Giza there is no consensus on how these stones were quarried from 50 miles away and placed in the extreme altitude of 12, 550 feet. The only explanation thus far as to how this had-no-knowledge-the-wheel culture created such massive structures is... wait for it… logs and llama skin!

MORE TO COME:


You forgot cotton ropes, skids, and lots and lots of people. I like how you try to make a perfectly rational method of moving stuff sound crazy. As if the "aliens built it" conclusion is the sane one



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Maybe Americans simply repaired the Empire State Building, which was likely built by the Lemurians when they were dropping off some preClovis colonials here.

Harte


Silly.

So, do we have records from Egyptians on the monuments being built? Something that shows some of the accounting that surely must have happened when rationing food and provisions to such a large workforce? We DO have that for the Empire State Building.

I know you are trying to make a point...but the point seems to have been missed.

It, to me, seems perfectly reasonable to question the dates of all of this stuff. Given the Egyptian propensity to record keeping, one would expect that they would have kept a record SOMEWHERE of the great monuments being built.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I know I'm kinda butting in here where I don't belong, I'm definetly not as knowledgeable about this as I could be but...
If the Egyptians "only" repaired monuments, then that shows they had the tech to make repairs to a earlier advanced civilization while not leaving any obviouse or unobvious signs that they repaired the site, correct?
Meaing if nothing else they were probably on par with the sites they supposedly repaired.
And there is therefore also no proof that they didn't build the site themselves, right?



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
In the 1930’s archaeolgist Wendell Bennett started the conventional dating practices of 200 A.D for construction based on pottery shards, etc. and collapsing at 1000 AD . But it is in no way unusual to imagine later peoples (survivors of cataclysm) happening upon these massive structures, seeing them as supermnatural, settling around them, and in turn replicating the imagery on pottery and textiles. This, IMO, could very reasonably cast doubt on Wendell’s dating which is the accepted norm by the orthodoxy at this point.


You said it, there's some big rocks there.

But the site is not dated based on pottery alone. Carbon 14 has nailed this site down very tightly to 1500 BC for the earliest evidence of humans, to becoming a fairly large city around 600 BC and then, as was stated, beginning to collapse around 900 AD.


Ummhmmm, and I opened with the position that the C14 dating is taken from later settlements. The point here is not to say there was not an agrarian culture that inhabited the area and thrived in those time periods. No one is debating that.

What I am saying is that the C14 dating is entirely insufficent when trying to explain how that culture was capable of building those megaliths. Again, Occam's razor if applied, would more easily point to the remnants of a preexisting civilization than how that culture was able to construct those structures with logs and llama skin.


Oh, and also, it was certainly never a seaport. Nobody's made that claim since the early 1900's. Why? because geologists finally got down there to take a look at what Posnansky was talking about and, guess what, they actually explained it.

Reference links:
Link1


The link does not say anything about Puma Punku not being a wharf, conclusively proven or otherwise, it just takes potshots at Hancock.


Link2


I've read that exchange before, I can't find much on the skeptic in it, P. V. Heinrich, and the web does not offer much up. I know that Puma Punku is now called a 'temple' but I cannot find out why. Who deigned it so? Anyone? I'm sincere here. I looked around and the only place I found it called a temple on the web was wikipedia, but there is no info as to why -- and there are many, many more references to it as a wharf.

From the rendering of it as 'temple' on the wiki link it seems like at least as much speculation as a wharf. And the sources listed as references aren't making that case either.

And as for P.V. Heinrichs statement:

A number of these dates are from stratigraphic units
and contexts that date the construction of structures at
Tiwanaku. As I have time, I hope to prepare a detailed
analysis of the context of these dates that illustrates
how silly it is of people, who apparently are completely
clueless about the archaeology of this site, to dismiss
these radiocarbon dates as being nothing more than the
remains of "campfires."


It's ten years later, has he maged to do that? Because I can't find it anywhere and its not for lack of trying.


Sorry, bubble burst. We win. Time for rum now - goodbye.


I don't think so... but enjoy your rum!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I don't buy C-14 dating. There are quite a few reasons...but primarily it has to do with available carbon.

Current carbon levels are much higher than they were just, say, 40 years ago. What does this do with our measurements?

How about things like forest fires? Volcano's?

How do we know that the carbon available now in the atmosphere is even close to 1500 years ago, or further back?

Am I the only one here to is unwilling to put my faith in a self defining methodology?



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
I know I'm kinda butting in here where I don't belong, I'm definetly not as knowledgeable about this as I could be but...
If the Egyptians "only" repaired monuments, then that shows they had the tech to make repairs to a earlier advanced civilization while not leaving any obviouse or unobvious signs that they repaired the site, correct?
Meaing if nothing else they were probably on par with the sites they supposedly repaired.
And there is therefore also no proof that they didn't build the site themselves, right?


I don't think that is correct. There is evidence of repair that is fairly extensive.

But how do you identify repairs that are thousands of years old?



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


As to Titicaca'a salinity, you are 99.9% right, my quoted source was 0.1% correct as that is the content of fresh to saltwater today. It is worth noting that there is a Lake Poops just due N/E that is entirely saltwater. It is very easy to see how they were joined at one time check it out.


You forgot cotton ropes, skids, and lots and lots of people. I like how you try to make a perfectly rational method of moving stuff sound crazy. As if the "aliens built it" conclusion is the sane one.


I am simply quoting the only source I could find that explains how they might have built it, it was wikipedia and they say:


Researchers say that the invention of the wheel may have been unknown to them. Thus, the process of moving stone blocks was performed by pulling the blocks with ropes made of llama skin and rolling them on logs. The early engineers also found a way of getting the blocks to the plateau with the use of inclined planes, or ramps.

Link

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
More information on the 'O'

The folks over at the Hall of Ma'at provided a hat full of data

The link to that thread

The 'O' thread



The Osireion is unique as a separate standing structure which attempts to recreate the mythic burial of Osiris upon the 'mound of creation'. There are examples of "Osiris tombs" in various places in Egypt, but only at Abydos did Seti I attempt to create a ritual building portraying the mythical "mound of creation" arising from the waters of Nun, with steps, as laid out in the New Kingdom afterlife books and also provided a sarcophaus room for the "rebirth" of Osiris on a daily basis.

The Osireion is constructed in an archaising stye (that is, it's meant to look like a very old architectural design). This confused many people in the early years of its excavation, but stones bearing the cartouches of Seti I define the structure as 19th Dynasty done in an archaicising style, which Seti I possibly considered as an act of piety towards the deity.

The rear (east) wall of the structure (in the sarcophagus room) is lined up with the western wall of the Temple of Seti I at Abydos, showing the two structures were built at the same time (this contradicts some early reports that the Seti I Temple was "restructured" to accommodate an already existing Osireion - it wasn't).

Best reading on the Osireion include:

Farid, S., Ed. 1983. The Temple of Abydos. Simpkins Splendours of Egypt. Salt Lake City: Simpkins Souvenirs.

Frankfort, H., A. de Buck, et al. 1933. The Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos. (Two Vols.). EES Excavation Report 39. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

Murray, M. A., J. G. Milne, et al. 1989 (1903). The Osireion at Abydos. Egyptian Research Account. 9th Memoir. London: Histories and Mysteries of Man.

Omm Sety/Eady, D. and H. el Zeini. 1981. Abydos: Holy City of Ancient Egypt. Los Angeles: L L Company.

Piankoff, A. 1960. The Osireion of Seti I at Abydos during the Greco-Roman Period and the Christian Occupation. Bulletin de la Société d'Archéologie Copte 15: 125-149.

Preys, R. 1993. De Osirismysteriën en de tempel van Sethi I te Abydos. De Scriba (Leuven) 2: 1-55.

Wilkinson, A. 1994. Landscapes for Funeral Rituals in Dynastic Times. In C. Eyre, A. Leahy and L. M. Leahy, Eds., The Unbroken Reed: Studies in the Culture and Heritage of Ancient Egypt, in Honour of A. F. Shore: 391-401. Occasional Publications 11. London: Egyptian Exploration Society.

Zayed, A. el-H. 1963. Abydos. Cairo: Government Printing Office.






As I mentioned in my previous post, the Osireion building style is meant to look old - that is, its architecture reflects some facets of Old Kingdom architecture. But the actual age of the building is not before 19th Dynasty, which is why I say (as do most Egyptologists, as I recall) that it's built in an archaising style. This was likely done for political and/or religious reasons, but reflects a long history of "hearkening to the past" to make a monument, text or art to seem more "sacred."

However, this by no means takes away from the fact that the Osireion is a unique building - in fact, as far as I know, the only one of its kind which attempts, in stone, as a free-standing monument, to recreate mythic scenes and events portrayed in the afterlife books which describe the rejuvenation of Osiris. As these scenes are only defined during the New Kingdom afterlife books, this solidly dates the Osireion to the New Kingdom period, and the blocks engraved with the cartouches of Seti I solidly place the Osireion as a structure built during his reign.

"Archaism", or reversion to earlier styles of architecture, sculpture and/or texts is seen throughout ancient Egyptian history - from as early as the Third Dynasty (mimicking First Dynasty style) (Emery 1968), to the Middle Kingdom which replicated Old Kingdom sculpture style (Fay 1995), to the early New Kingdom where another archaising period began (Romano 1983), particularly during the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, which had an archaising period of both Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom styles in sculpture and relief work (Kahl 1996), culiminating in the Late Period from Dynasties 25-26 which saw the highest degree of archaising style in sculpture, texts and monuments (der Manuelian 1994).

Reference:

Emery, W. B. 1968. Tomb 3070 at Saqqara. JEA 54: 11-13.

Fay. B. 1995. The Louvre Sphinx, A 23. In Kunst des Alten Reiches. Symposium im Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Kairo am 29. und 30. Oktober 1991: 75-79. Sonderschrift. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo 28. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Kahl, J. 1996. Steh auf, gib Horus deine Hand. Die Überlieferungsgeschichte von Altenmüllers Pyramidentext -- Spruchfolge D. Göttinger Orientforschungen. IV. Reihe: Ägypten 32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

der Manuelian, P. 1994. Living in the Past. Studies in Archaism of the Egyptian Twenty-sixth Dynasty. Studies in Egyptology. London/New York: Kegan Paul International.

Romano, J. F. 1983. A Relief of King Ahmose and Early Eighteenth Dynasty Archaism. BES 5: 103-115.





posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Trying to catch up here

TWISI. Ancient civilizations didn't live on the coast, they lived along rivers

There is no sign of your drowned coastal civilizations - and they would have had time to move and most interestingly they never left anything anywhere else. Civilizations create massive footprints. Let me say that again, Civilizations create massive footprints. The only foot print we see at 'O' is Egyptian.

Back to 'O'

No evidence of anyone else around, so who would have built it? You keep mentioning 50 feet. why do you think that is important? It is important but you are missing a key piece of info by quoting that without understanding what you are quoting......Think sand

'T' slides and lots of folks. I once moved a four ton block with 24 grad students - using a sled and ropes - back breaking labor but you can do it.
We only did it because we had to I can tellya.

Texan. If you are having a problem with C-14 then I suggest you research over at Talkorigins. They have detailed info on every possible concern having fought the YEC for decades. Again take a look at tree ring confirmation.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

More information on the 'O'

"The rear (east) wall of the structure (in the sarcophagus room) is lined up with the western wall of the Temple of Seti I at Abydos, showing the two structures were built at the same time (this contradicts some early reports that the Seti I Temple was "restructured" to accommodate an already existing Osireion - it wasn't). "


It seems to be a situation of either or. Unless the walls are shared or quarried at the same time/place, how would that be determined conclusively?



As I mentioned in my previous post, the Osireion building style is meant to look old - that is, its architecture reflects some facets of Old Kingdom architecture. But the actual age of the building is not before 19th Dynasty, which is why I say (as do most Egyptologists, as I recall) that it's built in an archaising style. This was likely done for political and/or religious reasons, but reflects a long history of "hearkening to the past" to make a monument, text or art to seem more "sacred."


How do 'they' know this to be a fact as opposed to conjecture? Is there a record somewhere of the building of Seti's temple that discusses this?


However, this by no means takes away from the fact that the
Osireion is a unique building - in fact, as far as I know, the only one of its kind which attempts, in stone, as a free-standing monument, to recreate mythic scenes and events portrayed in the afterlife books which describe the rejuvenation of Osiris. As these scenes are only defined during the New Kingdom afterlife books, this solidly dates the Osireion to the New Kingdom period, and the blocks engraved with the cartouches of Seti I solidly place the Osireion as a structure built during his reign.


For the sake of expediency I will post now get back to you on this. I believe that this too is up for debate, but have to dig around in my 'book of the dead', 'Pyramid Texts', 'Book of Caverns', etc. files as I am familiar with that refrain and remember discord surrounding that.

Cheers!

edit:bb

[edit on 30-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
TWISI,

Wikipedia is usually lackluster at best. Better than, say Crystal Links or Pravda, but still, can't go 100% by it.

And yes, Lake Poops does look like it had at one time connected to Titicaca. What does the fact that one is fresh and the other is salt mean? It means that the one that is fresh gets a regular flow of meltwater, while the briny one gets little to no water and is salty due to a concentration of minerals in the water as it evaporates.

Also have no doubt that rope was made from llama wool and cotton, and that they used skids. "Rolling it on logs" is kind of the automatic assumption of every halfassed archaeologist out there. Never mind that there are almost no trees in the area due to climate... And there's the trouble of stacking logs to try to roll something uphill on them. Nah. Definately skids / runners.

reply to post by Hanslune
 


Actually it would seem that Andean civilization got started on the coast, and only grew one major crop to start with - cotton. The cotton was then used to make nets. The civilization got its start on anchovies and cotton cultivation. This was the root of what would become the Wari, Tiwanaku, Moche, and Chimu cultures, as well as the Inka.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   

In Reply to Hanlsune

Hans said - TWISI. Ancient civilizations didn't live on the coast, they lived along rivers


Please see TWF's post above.


Hans said - There is no sign of your drowned coastal civilizations - and they would have had time to move and most interestingly they never left anything anywhere else. Civilizations create massive footprints. Let me say that again, Civilizations create massive footprints.


And let me say again -- this refers to other threads we've skirmished on, referenced and linked to in this one -- that's because they're buried beneath the ocean floor!

Cheers!

edit(s): %!@#* bb!


[edit on 1-10-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 1-10-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Harte
Maybe Americans simply repaired the Empire State Building, which was likely built by the Lemurians when they were dropping off some preClovis colonials here.

Harte


Silly.

So, do we have records from Egyptians on the monuments being built? Something that shows some of the accounting that surely must have happened when rationing food and provisions to such a large workforce? We DO have that for the Empire State Building.

I know you are trying to make a point...but the point seems to have been missed.

It, to me, seems perfectly reasonable to question the dates of all of this stuff. Given the Egyptian propensity to record keeping, one would expect that they would have kept a record SOMEWHERE of the great monuments being built.



Im working 18 hr days right now so Im only skimming whats come up,


but BFFTT,
The empire state building was only 70 years ago, come on.


Yes the egyptians left us a wonderful amount of very boring book keeping.
Not great complete volumes but little snippets of what was going on.
They are but a glimpse of the longest lasting contibution the E's made to modern civilization, the bureaucracy.

Pay records for workers, lists of work gangs and who their boss was and on what projects they worked on.
There is even a record of who was out sick on on day, one guy broke an arm and another was sick with fever.
The cemetaries have been found, the kitchen complexes, the buthcher shops the place where the fishmongers sold thier goods. All these have been identified at the work camps.

And when you find these things at the QUARRIES themselves, its pretty hard to argue with.

The tomb of a mid level manager, or Overseer for those more dramaticly inclined, has been recently uncovered.
An inscription in the crypt tells how this man worked on the pyramid for x number of years during the reign of whatever pharoa, a pretty straight forward tell of the guys life.

Radio carbon dating is very accurate, accurate enough that ages given tested samples accurately correspond to the true age, know from historical documents.

Sure there is a margin for error and a possibillity of contamination by extraneous sources, but it is sound science.
And when the radio carbon dating gives an age that is confirmed by historical sources, geological age signal,(volcanic dust, and or ash) and a whole host of other indicators its hard to ignore the data.


the physics are not in question at all, and its too complicated to get into here.



I do find the oserian intruiging, I would like to know if there are any other sites with a similar carving style of the big blocks.
From the very limited stuff ive seen, not in person, I dont recall any stone work of that type, im likely wrong, but its still poses some questions none the less.

The same style pf carving can be found in several different places around the world.
They are separated by to large a gulf in time and distance to be directly related, but why did these very different people in very different times all carve large stones the same way?







 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join