The Sphinx Origins and a Final Link to Pre-Dynastic Egypt

reply to post by hrmmm

BTW stop looking to wiki for facts if i edit the page about the moon and re wrote it as being made of swiss cheese im sure half the internet population would believe it as FACT :'(

I'm not sure if you know how wikipedia works exactly... there is proofreading and fact checking that is done once a user submits information on a topic.

Go ahead and try to change something about the Moon and just wait to see how long before it's deleted.

Also not all my links are from Wiki, but in regard to the Aker wiki, it is correct if you would like to Google search ''Aker God'' - it's the same whether it's an Egyptian website or general info...

I dont think you were looking for a conversation at all, since you started posting all have done is critisise my thread... thats not a very productive conversation and I'm not saying you have to agree or expect you to but have some courtesy. If you dont agree with the theory then add your comments and move on.

Oh and perhaps study some grammar i'm not saying mine is perfect but seriously man.... come on

leave my gran-ma out of this LOL irrelevant so is spelling.

ok so what your saying its written,so no point in anyone studying anything or trying to oppose previous scientific theory (e.g. the earth is flat) because its written.
Your also not looking at what i have said fully,or even looked at that link i provided.

Dude the sphinx is not the originat construct that was there.it was moved there thats why it has water marks (tide line) Horus is the guardian of the horizon (coporial) horus was represented by the falcon not a lion its got mixed-up
Hours or more correctly Horus-Ra is guardian protecter,of the rising and setting Ra.Though more than that,he is in fact Ra, the star of david (read up on solomon and the origins of the star of david and solomons temple ect,ectect) originated in egypt. The upper pyramid shae of it,with its points Ra (top) Amun (Left from faceing out of RA) Horus (right) this top section represents Heaven. then at bottom Ptah-Ra (Ra-the creator of all coporail) Osiris (Life right inverted view right) Anubis-Ra (inverted placement left) and the seventh point at the center being Pharaoh or ((the living Ra)the pharaoh is the heart of Egypt,the land is his body,the people his blood) (e.g. Jesus,god incarnate) there are eight points but i wont get into something thats too difficult for comprehension.
The facts are that Hours,Amun,and Ra are all Ra. (father,son,holy ghost) but this is of the heavenly kingdom.
Ptah,Oriris and Aunbis are also Ra but that of the coporial.space,earths and underworld. (the devil is the godof the world (AKA anubis,Ptah,Osiris) the 6 points are all RA (God) but so is the 7th with a little of each spirit of Ra in differing measurements combining to make individual souls.Which is why people are what they are,all have different quantitys that make up their soul. some are soldiers,some are florence nightengales.All being unbalanced in parts.everyone is unbalanced.

Also to get back to the specifics of your topic:

Djew

Which means mountain, the symbol suggests two peaks with the Nile valley in the middle. The Egyptians believed that there was a cosmic mountain range that held up the heavens. This mountain range had two peaks, the western peak was called Manu, while the eastern peak was called Bakhu. It was on these peaks that heaven rested. Each peak of this mountain chain was guarded by a lion deity, who's job it was to protect the sun as it rose and set. The mountain was also a symbol of the tomb and the afterlife, probably because most Egyptian tombs were located in the mountainous land bordering the Nile valley. In some texts we find Anubis, the gaurdian of the tomb being referred to as "He who is upon his mountain." Sometimes we find Hathor takeing on the attributes of a deity of the afterlife, at this time she is called "Mistress of the Necropolis." She is rendered as the head of a cow protruding from a mountainside.

now read it,its so obvious a 5 year old could see if,if you cant then your in denial.

Have a nice day & be well!

Originally posted by Havick007

Constellations specific to ancient Egypt


Ancient Egyptians called the northern stars around the circumpolar star “Ikhemw-sek” (imperishable stars) and the southern stars “Ikhemw-wredj” (unwearying stars). This naming (tireless stars) is probably because the southern stars especially on and about the celestial equator travel a very long distance after they rise above the East horizon before they sink below the West horizon, while the northern stars move counterclockwise around the celestial north pole.

On ancient Egyptian tombs and ceilings of temples, northern constellations were discovered. These stars are called “Ikhemw-sek” (imperishable stars) because they are generally assumed to be “northern circumpolar stars” never sinking below the horizon. The oldest existing northern constellation is a constellation named “Meskhetyw.” It was drawn as a forefoot of a bull on the interior lid of the wooden coffin for the man named Idy which dated from the First Intermediate Period (from 2145 B.C. to about 2025 B.C.) and was excavated in Asyut.

 

There are two famous constellations among the southern stars called Ikhemw-wredj (unwearying stars): a constellation called Sah corresponding to the current Onion's Belt and Sirius called Sepdet. The name Sah was first found in the “Pyramid Text” engraved in the Pyramid of Unas, the last king of the 5th Dynasty, Old Kingdom (reign: from 2340 B.C. to 2320 B.C.).

Source

So are you saying they didnt use constellations at all and only focused on single stars?

Look at the text you quoted. Look at the Egyptian words for these stars.

None of them refer to the stars as a shape of anything (lion, crab, bull, etc.).

That's what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Havick007Yes i am talking about Egyptians because the Sphinx is in Egypt but instead of refering to current day or the Egyptians of the Dynastic periods i am going further back. I picked Leo because that is the entire point of this thread and how it relates to Aker.

If you wish to so maintain, then you should look into whether the Egyptians ever thought that the pattern of stars we call Leo looked like a lion.

Maybe they did. If so, I haven't found it. And I've looked.

Anyway, there were no Egyptians in 10,000 BC. So why would it matter if Leo lined up with the front of the sphinx then - just like every zodiacal constellation did (or will do, eventually)?

Originally posted by Havick007Not just the fact there are two lions in the symbol for Aker (sometimes also represented by two Human heads on either side of the horizon symbol) but because at that date in time it fits well with the myth and meaning behind Aker, the location of the Sphinx, the direction it faces and the stars at dusk, through the night and at dawn.

What date? 10,500 BC?


Harte

reply to post by Harte



There were people in Egypt around that time, it was called the Neolithic Period and goes back to 12000BC. Although science will say around that time you would be looking at a more hunter/gatherer type civilisation there were still people there.

This thread is not about current known facts... it's a theory. Which is what i like about ATS, although you seem to think this is a university lecture... perhaps you are in the wrong place.

What date? 10,500 BC?

10,000BC if indeed the Sphinx was there, and i know you are going to say it wasnt and tell me when it was supposedly built and by who but as i said this thread is about a theory.

None of them refer to the stars as a shape of anything (lion, crab, bull, etc.).

Further on the right of the pole, there is a female hippopotamus carrying a crocodile on her back and the astronomical instrument called Merekhet as well as a crocodile in her hands. Also a lying lion, crocodile, and human beings were drawn on the left.

Source

The above quote doesnt specifically say the Lion was a representation of the stars, it's the closest i have found so far. I want to go through the Pyramid texts and also some more of Ptolemy's treatise on astrology (to find any refernece to previous astrological charts they took from the Egyptians) in more detail than last time and also some related documents.

When it comes to the Greeks and even the Romans it wouldnt be the first time a conquering army or civilisation stole knowledge or ideas and claimed it as their own.



In regard to astrology or the zodiac there is The Dendera Zodiac and although i realise it is widely believed and dated to be in 1st century BC there are others out there that beleive it could be much older, somewhere around 2,500BC.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f64c14b0a4cc.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d28b181200e.jpg[/atsimg]

The famous Zodiac of Dendera confounds today's visitors who may look for a reflection of modern-day astrological beliefs. This bas-relief actually represented a night skyscape, on the ceiling of a chapel in the Temple of Hathor at Dendera, where the mysteries of the resurrection of the god Osiris were celebrated.

''The Dendera Affair''

The controversy around the zodiac, called the "Dendera Affair", involved people of the likes of Joseph Fourier (who estimated that the age was 2500 BC[6]), Thomas Young, Jean-François Champollion, and Jean-Baptiste Biot.[7] Johann Karl Burckhardt and Jean-Baptiste Coraboeuf held, after analysis of the zodiac, that the ancient Egyptians understood the precession of the equinoxes. Champollion, among others, believed that it was a religious zodiac. Champollion deciphered the names of Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and Domitian on the ceiling of Dendera's temple, and placed the zodiac in the era of Roman rule over Egypt.

The ancient Egyptians used to worship it as well as it's relation to the Sun conicided with the summer solstice and the annual flooding of the nile -

It was worshipped in ancient Egypt, as its entry into Leo in the heat of Summer coincided with the annual flooding of the Nile. Regulus, the star which marks the Lion's heart, was worshipped as the ruler of the heavens throughout Europe and Asia as far back as 4000 BC.

Stars and Mythology

I dont enjoy having to post so much off-site content... but no one else will do it.

I read in a book recently where they stated that there was a study done in which water marks were found on the back portion of the Sphinx. Now these water marks were very deep, as in they were characteristic of marks left by daily/nightly rainfall patterns, as in, these types of marks could only have been made when it was raining heavily, daily, in Egypt. Now the last time it rained like that in Egypt was apparently about 13 000 years ago, when Egypt was a rain forest, during the last ice age. Now don't quote me, but this is what I read. I will try to find something more solid to contribute, but if they did indeed find these watermarks then someone has a lot of explaining to do.

reply to post by sir_slide


Yeah i have heard about that, the erosion of the Limestone and the surrounding walls or enclosure of the Sphinx.

Water erosion debate - Wiki

From his investigation of the Enclosure's geology, Schoch concluded that the main type of weathering evident on the Sphinx Enclosure walls could only have been caused by prolonged and extensive rain.[20] According to Schoch, the area has experienced a mean annual rainfall of approximately one inch (2.5 cm) since the Old Kingdom (c. 2686–2134 BC), and since Egypt's last period of significant rainfall ended between the late fourth and early 3rd millennium BC,[21] he dates the Sphinx's construction to the 6th millennium BC or 5th millennium BC.

 

The chief proponents of the water erosion theory have rejected these alternative explanations. Reader, for example, points to the tombs dug into the Enclosure walls during Dynasty XXVI (c. 600 BC), and notes that the entrances of the tombs have weathered so lightly that original chisel marks are still clearly visible. He points out that if the weathering on the Enclosure walls (up to a metre deep in places) had been created by any of the proposed alternative causes of erosion, the tomb entrances would have been weathered much more severely.[32] Similarly, Schoch points out that the alternative explanations do not account for the absence of similar weathering patterns on other rock surfaces in the Giza pyramid complex.

There is alot more information out there about it and more detailed reports but the Wiki link summarises it quite well and has arguements from both sides.

Thanks for the amazing and informative thread!

I have my own opinions on The Sphinx, but a lot of what you've said have mirrored them.

Thanks again! S&F!

reply to post by drsamuelfrancis


Thanks for the feedback

This thread was actually a work in progress, if you go back one page it has the some more info on Leo and it's location in 10,000BC exactly after using Cybersky software and how it relates to Aker and the symbology and myth of that particular god.

I have considered re-publishing this thread as since the OP i found more supporting info etc.

Scroll through (page 8) , it has some better info and abit clearer than ealrier on in the thread -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte

 

Harte: After so doing, what you then will have is a description of exactly what you've done in the same thread.

SC: Utter nonsense! Are you suggesting here that the consensus opinion of mainstream Egyptologists is that the Sphinx was originally carved as something else other than the head of a pharaoh? Is that really what you are suggesting here?

Why would you even ask this question?

Oh, never mind. I just realized. You would ask this question in order to avoid providing citations to support what you claimed:

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.

Obviously, you must muddy the waters, considering you've been caught red-handed making vapid, empty and baseless claims without providing any documentation for them - a charge you continue to make against Byrd right here in this thread.
And you and I both know that there can be no documentation for such a claim, since (again, both you and I know) the claim is a complete fabrication, a straw man created by you so that you could might make an otherwise unmakeable point - that "orthodoxy" consists of a bunch of evil men conspiring to keep "the truth" from us ordinary folks while simultaneously trying to maintain their "cushy, high paying" jobs.

Harte

I've been reading these pages for the last 30 minutes or so and just cant bite my tongue any longer.

I have the score as SC- 6 and Harte- 0. Anyone disagree? Really Harte, you seem somewhat intelligent just admit defeat gracefully.

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Harte

 

There were people in Egypt around that time, it was called the Neolithic Period and goes back to 12000BC. Although science will say around that time you would be looking at a more hunter/gatherer type civilisation there were still people there.

This thread is not about current known facts... it's a theory. Which is what i like about ATS, although you seem to think this is a university lecture... perhaps you are in the wrong place.

You're misusing the word "theory."

A theory has to at least fit the known facts.

What you have here is unfounded speculation that not only doesn't fit the facts, it goes directly against several known facts.

You shouldn't expect to be able to just post any nonsense that you can dream up and not (eventually) have someone tell you why it can't be true.

Originally posted by Havick007

None of them refer to the stars as a shape of anything (lion, crab, bull, etc.).

Further on the right of the pole, there is a female hippopotamus carrying a crocodile on her back and the astronomical instrument called Merekhet as well as a crocodile in her hands. Also a lying lion, crocodile, and human beings were drawn on the left.

Source

The above quote doesnt specifically say the Lion was a representation of the stars, it's the closest i have found so far. I want to go through the Pyramid texts and also some more of Ptolemy's treatise on astrology (to find any refernece to previous astrological charts they took from the Egyptians) in more detail than last time and also some related documents.

When it comes to the Greeks and even the Romans it wouldnt be the first time a conquering army or civilisation stole knowledge or ideas and claimed it as their own.

I know there are lions on (supposedly) astronomical artworks in Egyptian tombs. However, I've not found any star or star pattern associated with a lion anywhere in ancient Egypt.

But I'm not a pro. Like I said, I've looked (like you are looking.) I've not found it.

Regarding theft of astrology from Egypt, that's quite a stretch. Greek astronomy (astrology) is quite well known prior to the Ptolemaic period. They didn't steal it from Egypt. They (and the Babylonians) got it from Sumer.

Originally posted by Havick007
In regard to astrology or the zodiac there is The Dendera Zodiac[/url] and although i realise it is widely believed and dated to be in 1st century BC there are others out there that beleive it could be much older, somewhere around 2,500BC.

The only people that believe such a thing today would be fringe writers and their audience. yourself (presumably) included.

Possibly you aren't aware of exactly how Greek the Dendera temple actually is. Even all the god's names there are given in the Greek version. There's simply no question at all that the place is purely Ptolemaic.

Originally posted by Havick007The ancient Egyptians used to worship it as well as it's relation to the Sun conicided with the summer solstice and the annual flooding of the nile -

It was worshipped in ancient Egypt, as its entry into Leo in the heat of Summer coincided with the annual flooding of the Nile. Regulus, the star which marks the Lion's heart, was worshipped as the ruler of the heavens throughout Europe and Asia as far back as 4000 BC.
Stars and Mythology

Given that astrologers make their living by lying to their clients, I'd suggest that an astrology website would not be the best place to look for credible support for this idea.

Here:

In any case, there are many allusions in these texts that make it implicit if not explicit that certain zodiacal constellation were perceived as 'The Scales', 'The Bull', 'The Lion' and so forth. But in the case of Leo, the identification with a 'lion' or 'Sphinx' seems certain. In Keeper of Genesis we devote quite a few pages of the book to make this point clear (see Chapter 10). We show that the entity the ancient Egyptians called 'Horus of the Horizon' was identified to both the Sphinx and the constellation of Leo. There can be little doubt of this. Even the ancient Greeks knew that the Egyptians identified the constellation of Leo with the idea of a sphinx, pointing out that they used sphinxes as fountains to symbolise the summer solstice sun in Leo at the time of the Nile's annual flood.

Source
That's Robert Bauvel, fringe writer, replying to Ian Laughton.

See the part I bolded? That, as far as I've been able to determine, is just wishful thinking on the part of Bauvel.

Regardless of what the pseudohistorians want us (and themselves) to believe, there's not been any evidence that the idea of the Egyptians visualizing the constellation we call Leo as a lion.

You did uncover a few star patterns they named, as I have. There are several more, by the way. Just no Leo the lion.

I'd like to point out again that, at that latitude, every constellation in the Zodiac will, in time, line up with the sphinx just like Leo does. They'll also line up in the same way with anything else that faces east (or west.)

Lastly, regarding this:

This thread is not about current known facts... it's a theory. Which is what i like about ATS, although you seem to think this is a university lecture... perhaps you are in the wrong place.

What's wrong with a university lecture when it comes to finding out exactly what is known about Ancient Egypt?

Are fringe authors the only sources allowed around here? After all, where would you go to find out all you want to know about Ancient Egypt? Graham Hancock? Some other (former) journalist?

I don't regard this place as a site for university lectures. I am, however, interested enough in these ideas to try and find out the facts of the matter. I am assuming that you are too. Have I got that wrong?

I wonder if you'll accept these facts when you discover them yourself. If not, then what's the point in looking?

Originally posted by CayceFan

I've been reading these pages for the last 30 minutes or so and just cant bite my tongue any longer.

I have the score as SC- 6 and Harte- 0. Anyone disagree? Really Harte, you seem somewhat intelligent just admit defeat gracefully.

I take it then that you are prepared to support this remark?:

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.

You are of the opinion that the above is not an "absolute statement," which is exactly the sort of statement Creighton was complaining about in his post that caught my attention?

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Harte: I take it then that you are prepared to support this remark?:

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.

You are of the opinion that the above is not an "absolute statement," which is exactly the sort of statement Creighton was complaining about in his post that caught my attention?

SC: If the consensus opinion of mainstream Egytology is that the Sphinx might not have been crafted with the head of an ancient Egyptian King (Khufu, Radjedef, Rachaf or whoever) of the 4th Dynasty, then I - unlike Byrd - will gladly stand corrected and will happily modify/qualify my statement on this matter accordingly in future posts.

So, if mainstream Egyptology - as your objection to my statement seems to imply - does not discount the possibility that the head of the Sphinx may originally have been something else prior to the work of a 4th Dynasty king, then what exactly is the alternative option that mainstream Egyptology considers the head of the Sphinx might originally have been? If mainstream Egyptology does not assume that the Sphinx always had the head of an ancient Egyptian king of the 4th Dynasty, then what does mainstream Egyptology offer as a plausible alternative?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte

 

Harte: I take it then that you are prepared to support this remark?:

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.

You are of the opinion that the above is not an "absolute statement," which is exactly the sort of statement Creighton was complaining about in his post that caught my attention?

SC: If the consensus opinion of mainstream Egytology is that the Sphinx might not have been crafted with the head of an ancient Egyptian King (Khufu, Radjedef, Rachaf or whoever) of the 4th Dynasty, then I - unlike Byrd - will gladly stand corrected and will happily modify/qualify my statement on this matter accordingly in future posts.

"Consensus opinion" is not the same as "Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility" isn't it?

My beef was with you complaining about Byrd's "absolute" statement while following it up with one of your own.

The head of the sphinx juts up above the surrounding surface. It could have been carved in the shape of anything at all anytime at all, prior to the excavation of the sphinx. I'm certain that "orthodoxy" will admit to this fact.

You complain that the mainstream discounts a lion's head on a lion's body because you want to place the sphinx at an earlier date. There is no evidence for an earlier date than the Old Kingdom, and plenty of evidence for the Old Kingdom date itself.

Because of this, you want to pretend that the "mainstream" is foolish for not considering a lion's head on a lion's body - it seems obvious that a lion should have a lion's head. What you fail to mention is that this idea has been considered, in the past, and rejected for good cause.

Many things were considered in the past. "Science" once believed flies spontaneously generated from rotten meat. With continuous additions to knowledge, old ideas get thrown out and replaced by other ones with better provenance.

Except in the case of Scott Creighton.


Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte

 

Harte: I take it then that you are prepared to support this remark?:

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Orthodoxy completely discounts the possibility that an original lion’s head on a lion’s body might have later been recarved into the head of a pharaoh, assuming that it had always been a pharaoh's head.

You are of the opinion that the above is not an "absolute statement," which is exactly the sort of statement Creighton was complaining about in his post that caught my attention?

SC: If the consensus opinion of mainstream Egytology is that the Sphinx might not have been crafted with the head of an ancient Egyptian King (Khufu, Radjedef, Rachaf or whoever) of the 4th Dynasty, then I - unlike Byrd - will gladly stand corrected and will happily modify/qualify my statement on this matter accordingly in future posts.

Harte: My beef was with you complaining about Byrd's "absolute" statement while following it up with one of your own.


Harte

SC: Let's keep on track, shall we.

You have absolutely no foundation for your "beef". I have no problem in making absolute statements or in anyone else making them, including Byrd. That is not the issue, is it? The issue is about proviiding proof to substantiate the absolute statement. I am quite happy that my absolute statement can be backed up with even a cursory glance at any mainstream, orthodox book that discusses the Sphinx - each will invariably tell us that the provenance of the Sphinx lies with the kings of the 4th Dynasty of ancient Egypt. If you don't believe me, why don't you actually try reading some orthodox books on the subject? You will then find my statement, unlike Byrd's, is very securely founded and proven by what is actually written in those books. The Sphinx, according to orthodox books on the subject, is - without exception - the provenance of the 4th Dynasty kings, crafted in the likeness of one of them (some books can't decide which one). Nothing else is considered. This is the position of orthodox, mainstream Egyptology. Period. Attempting to argue otherwise is futile and will serve only to delude yourself.

So, my absolute statement is proven by what is written on the subject in orthodox books. Go look. Now, let us have Byrd's proof for making her absolute statement that the Sphinx dates to 2,500 BCE +/- 100 years. If she cannot provide such unequivocal, indisputable proof to back her absolute statement then she should modify/qualify her statement accordingly.

Harte: There is no evidence for an earlier date than the Old Kingdom, and plenty of evidence for the Old Kingdom date itself.

SC: I certainly do not dispute that the Giza Pyramids (and probably also the Sphinx) were likely the provenance of the people of the Old Kingdom. What I question is the absolute date(s) attributed to the Old Kingdom period. My new book (Bear & Co, Feb 2012), will present evidence that calls into question the present attribution of c.3100-2200 BCE for the Old Kingdom period - there is evidence to suggest the Old Kingdom should be pushed further back in absolute time. But that is for another discussion.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


So your saying you don't agree at all in regards to this thread or the purpose behind it and that the age of the Sphinx (not the pyramids) could not be far older than the old kingdom?

reply to post by Havick007

Hello Havick,

Havick007: So your saying you don't agree at all in regards to this thread or the purpose behind it and that the age of the Sphinx (not the pyramids) could not be far older than the old kingdom?

SC: Certainly there is some good evidence to support the idea that the Sphinx predates the 4th Dynasty to which it is traditionally attributed by mainstream Egyptology. In addition, there exists some evidence that suggests the Pyramids at Giza (and possibly their pre-cursors) may have been attributed to the wrong time period i.e. the people of the Old Kingdom who built them existed at an earlier time than present mainstream opinion permits. And the pyramids of this period most certainly were not and could not have been conceived for the purposes of burial. The evidence I present in my forthcoming book completely debunks the 'tomb theory' with regard to these early pyramids and demonstrates a completely different but logical function for them and also for the Sphinx.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Please let me/us know when that book comes out.

I am a complete noob but wanting to learn more. My first real dive into the Giza area was from Christopher Dunns book The Giza Power Plants.

Then I found out about this person: Margaret Morris and then back to feeling like I know nothing more.
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com...

The problem is that I still have yet to hear about any bodies being discovered in the Giza Pyramids (or any of them). Am I wrong?

Anyway, I am convinced the Giza ones did have some other purpose but I still am having trouble with the whole established time line. With all the discoveries they are still making etc, I just think it is too early to say anything "for sure".

I went to the King Tut exhibit about 3 years ago when it came through the US. After looking at almost everything they had on display, I was absolutely convince there is no way they could have built the Giza Pyramids. Then one comes to ATS and gets all messed around...

Getting back, please let it be known when your book comes out (or have any other readings to suggest-U2U if fine also).

Take care

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Awesome, i look forward to the book. Let me know when it is released.... maybe even send a signed copy my way

Seriously though i look forward to it.

Also;

I know my theory, if it can be called that is a stretch but i stand by it as a thoery. At the same time i am not convinced myself that what i have written in the thread is completly possible but i do beleive that the Sphinx is far older than mainstream science or Egyptology beleives it to be.

reply to post by Harte

Possibly you aren't aware of exactly how Greek the Dendera temple actually is. Even all the god's names there are given in the Greek version. There's simply no question at all that the place is purely Ptolemaic.

Looking at the Dendera Zodiac what part of it resembles Greek influence? Because just looking at it it seems very Egyptian...

There were inscroptions carved on it thayt linked it to the Ptolemaic period but could they have been carved on the existing stone at a later date?

No opinion neccesary here, i just want you to answer me the above question, could the greek related inscriptions have been carved at a later date?

Originally posted by Havick007

Looking at the Dendera Zodiac what part of it resembles Greek influence? Because just looking at it it seems very Egyptian...

There were inscroptions carved on it thayt linked it to the Ptolemaic period but could they have been carved on the existing stone at a later date?

No opinion neccesary here, i just want you to answer me the above question, could the greek related inscriptions have been carved at a later date?

Here is a pic of an exterior wall of ther Hathor Temple:



Here is the accompanying caption:

Pharaoh Ptolemy XV,Caesarion,son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra,(second from right) offering incense to the goddess Hathor. Next to him is his "ka". His mother Cleopatra stands behind him, she wears an atef-crown. On the left are the god Ihy and his mother the goddess Hathor with the sceptre "ouas". From the surrounding wall of the Hathor Temple,Dendera. (332-30 BCE),Ptolemaic Period.
Temple of Hathor, Dendera, Egypt

The temple is known to have been started by Ptolemy III. But from the above one can see that it was added onto (Cleopatra lived 150 years later than Ptolemy III.) The Romans added on as well.

It could be that the zodiac was added after Ptolemy III. But not before.

There was an earlier temple at the site. Not much remains of it but IIRC it dates to around the time of Pepi (6th Dynasty.)

I think you're reaching too far here, hoping that the temple is older so that the zodiac could be. Perhaps you should consider the absence of any reference to any kind of zodiac in known and far earlier temples.

In that light, I believe you can let this Greek zodiac in Egypt go.

I suppose you know that the "lightbulbs" the Egyptians are supposed to have had are depicted in the same temple?

You should read this page. You can find out all sorts of things about the temple there. Including the amount and extent of usage of Greek names for Egyptian gods that can be seen in the various temple rooms.



harte

I read somewhere that the head of the Sphinx may originally have been a dog. Anubis would figure into that, but so would the Sirius constellation.

Look at the body of the Sphinx: is it feline, canine, or none of the above?

Now, Anubis was the guardian of the Earth and the Underworld and the protector of Osiris. The Pyramid Texts state that the pyramid represents Osiris (Utterance 600), so it would make a lot of sense if the Sphinx was originally a dog or jackal. That would have made the head more in proportion with the body of the Sphinx.

I guess it depends on what artistic limitations the builders came across. The jackal head may have been impossible to work with or fell off or who knows what. But it's an interesting idea and certainly makes sense in terms of what we know about the ancient Egyptians and their beliefs.