The mainstream view of the Egyptian pyramids, page 5

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hans

that is highlarious, built as tombs then intrusion tombs on top of them. That's almost as funny as the 'mainstream' guy I came across who suggested that Khufu was hidden in a different secret chamber inside the GP. At least you realise that intrusion burials were a key aspect, as do a few of the mainstreamers.

Therefore I would suggest it is the extent of the intrusions that should be debated under the orthodox view.

As for examples of solar chambers in the Archaeological record there are 1000s of them, way too many to list. Most of the community ones do not register on this sort of board or the books/blogs of mainstreamers or fringers. Lots do not even have names. They are just not big enough for the egos of most of those that write. If these people did bother to look around the monster pyramids they would find these chambers on almost every continent. Then its a short step up the side of a Step pyramid to work out the industrial nature.

Wrt Giza, as I will repeat again, these structures are slightly different to the chambers and have another use tho Phnom Da should help any one interested in solving most of the mystery. A neglected site in S.Cambodia, which has the elements that make up cheops and the water features. Alas not the same geology, that is unique to Giza.

'Actually I suspect you don't expain it to promote your book sales.......'

Actually Hans some concepts are just too big to be dropped into convenient soundbites. It would be nice to sell more books but I like to give them away too. The aim is to re-establish this technology, not cheap sales, followed by cheap dull comments.

'You mean the natural limestone caves or the tunnels associated with Osiris and such'

No Hans I mean the water that fills the Temple of Osiris. The water that the young lads on the plateau use as swimming spots. The carbonated water that comes up from beneath the ground. The canals that link to the old ports, the urban centers and other lakes. The IAEA has just completed a study of the underground system, which is a bit like letting the fox loose in the chicken shed. Really the water evidence is abundant, some of your corpses were found in the dried up canals, didn't they mention that?

Carry on with the mainstream myth, there's a lot less to it than meets the eye.

BTW if you have read the classics as you say, you would know of references to step pyramids in Luxor with an Ark chest as a central part of the scheme. You would also have come across people cooking without fire, so common even old ladies did it at the time of Herodotus' tour. If you have been to Egypt you will have wandered into a solar chamber without noticing. In Cambodia I am sure you would have been into dozens maybe 100s.

It is a matter of opening that one eye that is filled with blinding images from the main stream.

Regards

Chris

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Continuing with expansion of the list

12. The builder’s villages, villages of people who built pyramids near Giza and a small worker's village has also been uncovered that seems to have been allotted the task of constructing Khentkawes' tomb. In some ways they are similar to a builders village associated with the tombs in the Valley of the Kings

An interactive map that shows the workers village or as some call it, 'The lost city'

As Lehner noted by the time the AE got around to expanding the Memphrite cemetery field that already existed at Giza. They had generations of experience in building (with some success and failure) pyramids for their pharaohs.

The Giza mapping project finds the builders village


An uptodate look in detail at the builders or workers village


The following links are incorporated into the main link just above but as they deal with specific subject I'll present them seperately

Dating the village: Despite deep deposits and rather complex reuse and rebuilding at our site, the material we have processed points to an occupation during the middle to late 4th Dynasty (2551-2472 BC).

Feeding the workers

A Royal Guard?

A Royal building

Wall of the crow

Walking the streets of the builders village

In the builders' village we find the place where thousands of expert craftsmen and overseers lived and also the dormitories where the corvee labourers probably slept in their thousands.



Naturally the AE found it necessary to house, feed and supply the needs of their works which by that time were master craftsmen, they knew what they were doing.

The also needed to bury their own dead



The tombs of such men as Ny Swt Wsrt, show the human side of the building of the pyramids. They built their tombs near the pyramids, and placed statues and other objects inside in preparation for the afterlife. The mud-brick tombs had a variety of shapes: mini-pyramids, step pyramids, mastabas and beehives. Many of the men 's skeletons showed fractures and toil of heavy work. It may have been a task that was past from father to son.

Inscriptions here also were similar to those found in relieving chambers, such as "friends of Khufu" and 'Drunkards of Menkaure', some amusing some titles such as "overseer of the side of the pyramid","director of the draftsmen," "overseer of masonry," "director of workers," and "inspector of the craftsmen".


Additional links

An aside

I remember when these finds were made, the usenet was functional back then in the electronic mesolithic age. It was interesting to see the extensive denial that any such discovery could be made. Of course the goal posts were moved and the new fringe truth was revealed, that the AE only 'repaired' the pyramids....but I digress - we'll look at this later in fringe and alternative thoughts later on!

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hans

''Nice prose but you must have forgotten to provide evidence of said solar chambers, i would suggest that you link to a few excavations that have found them '

You will see how funny that is when I run the Ancient Solar Premise in its own thread. ''Link to a few excavations'' there are pictures on my website, you have hundreds on your own camera, but I will link to them on another thread. I would hate to disturb this comedy routine that is the doomed tomb theory.

Here is another classic contradiction in terms:
These impregnable tombs with all the valuables of the Idiot Lords, countless tons of stones and presumably the guys working at the cemeteries were in fact 'were looted and 'open to the public' for thousands of years '

BTW this is exactly why Cheops cannot be summarized in a sentence or two ' Putting out bits and pieces doesn't do your theory any good. ' It has to be built toward on the countless simpler examples. The Solar Premise is a framework that re-positions 1000s of ancient structures into useful, working, demonstrable devices.

The best of the rest is just holes in the ground for stiffs , which you seem to be doing a poor job at supporting with hard evidence. Lots of nice peripheral stuff but the core of actual dead bodies is sadly missing and you can't hope to explain the size of the structures with Idiot Lord Ego.

Regards

Chris

Originally posted by secretsofthesunsects
reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hans

''Nice prose but you must have forgotten to provide evidence of said solar chambers, i would suggest that you link to a few excavations that have found them '

You will see how funny that is when I run the Ancient Solar Premise in its own thread. ''Link to a few excavations'' there are pictures on my website, you have hundreds on your own camera, but I will link to them on another thread. I would hate to disturb this comedy routine that is the doomed tomb theory.

Bold claims, lets see how if can come up with something more substantial than what you shown so far. Which sadly is somewhat incoherent

Here is another classic contradiction in terms:
These impregnable tombs with all the valuables of the Idiot Lords, countless tons of stones and presumably the guys working at the cemeteries were in fact 'were looted and 'open to the public' for thousands of years '

They weren't impregnable they were suppose to be watched over by the priest in the mortuary temples - the AE didn't realize that their culture would suffer a dark time and the tombs would be looted - later they lost the religion and the tombs were looted even more, even taken apart.

The best of the rest is just holes in the ground for stiffs , which you seem to be doing a poor job at supporting with hard evidence. Lots of nice peripheral stuff but the core of actual dead bodies is sadly missing and you can't hope to explain the size of the structures with Idiot Lord Ego.

Well all you have provided is personal incredultity, rambling disconnected comments, lots of hand waving and insults against a fabulous culture, which I might add you don't seem to know much about - the evidence stands until you can provide something better. We look forward to a much better presentation of your ideas in your thread....and that will be up when?

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Shane

---

No, not really, it shows that the pyramids were there. In Manetho you have to look exactly at what he was writing. I would suggest you look at a direct translation of Manetho and how he looks at ‘race’.

Link to a PDF on Manetho

Interesting Link, although I began to loose the "flow" of it, with the repetitiveness of the same info, presented from various sources he replies upon. Seems to me, there is extensive indication the bulk of that source materials do point towards Foreigners Ruling Egypt, with most suggesting the "Shepherd Kings" with some going even back to the Sons of Moses.

Look, It's all speculation none the less.

I even noted ENOCH was mentioned. At least here, we are nearing the "TRUTH OF THOTH". Punny Eh!

Sad thing is, finally, someone is noting the Truth.

Sure they do, the C-14 dates and the chronology gives us more than a clue, we do know it was after the AE invented writing for one thing….

That is based solely upon what is confirmable. Today, we can tell some datings accurately, but when Ancient Periods are to be considered, then all bets are off. There is nothing Science can do to calibrate Carbon Dating Machinery to Pre Flood times. All dating prior to this event, will be skewed. Inaccurate due to the Environment
of the period. It's the same reason, I have never believed any dates for Dinosaurs. I believe in Dinosaurs, but when they where here, and alive, that is pure speculation. At least here, we have some Manmade indicators that afford some direction as to when to look to date things.

We get Manetho from mentions in other texts, to include those wishing to reinforce their own view….especially the Jewish and Christian writers

So, answer this. Why is it these views are dismissed, when it appeared to me, from materials you offered yet again, that a majority of the sources either note or suggest some "Israelite" connections for example. (whatever they maybe called).

Didn't respond to your bible quotes, wasn't sure what the point was, perhaps you could explain further as to how it pretains to the mainstream view of the AE pyramids

It is just an written example that dates to 300 BC which refers to both Egypt and the Great Pyramid, from a source I have faith in.

Have a good day Hanslune

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Scott Creighton

---

Again, a most respectful reminder of what is going on within the Realm of ATS, and the reason we partake in these various events.

I am here to make Observations Alone. I have a set perspective that is unlikely to change, although it may evolve.

I do not know many who share my perspective on many subjects, but the basic thing is we can learn something new, by being introduced to various perspectives others have.

Here, I never knew of, or reviewed "Manetho" material before. I am going to be taking an indepth review of the that link Hanslune provided, because it appeared to have a lot of detail, (Most of which it appears, is dismissed by "MainStream") but I did not go to lenghts to try and place it altogether. It became a bit confusing at first review.

Point is, I learned something from Hanslune. Now, if it means that changes my view, is another topic, for another day, but it is material I never seen before.

Even as Hans has responded, he is placing details out there, even though it may be counter productive to his current premise..



And for HARTE

I mean no disrespect my Friend, (and despite what you may think, I do think of you as a friend, well Antifriend in the worst case, but friend is there none the less.)

Take a good look at who is responding and commenting in here.

Not everyone has been here as long as you. Some new contributors or viewers may not have these delusions embedded in their grey matter as of yet, and maybe when presenting their own interpretation, you may actually learn something from them, looking at things from their own perspective.

Not everyone is as Wise or Knowledgeable as you, my Friend

So suggesting this is rehashed stuff, as it may be, it doesn't mean it should not be brought up again.

Ciao

Shane

reply to post by Hanslune

---

If by mainstream view you mean the one presented by Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner, I don't neccessarily oppose it. It is a plausible theory that works for me. The important thing is, it is nothing but a theory, therefore it can not be treated as a fact. But both Hawass – who is a man who will not think twice once he has made up his mind - and Lehner treat it as a fact, and they sometimes defend it in absurdum, which is good neither for science nor their credibility. I personally consider that Robert M. Schoch – on the question of the age of the Sphinx – has put forward a strong, scientific case for a much older dating of the Sphinx than the one put forward by Hawass and Lehner. Nevertheless, Lehner, the so called foremost expert on the Sphinx, simply shook his head at all the evidence presented by Schoch and pretended that it had no value whatsoever. Hawass whiffed it all away saying that it was 'only one geologist's opinion', ignoring the number of renowned geologists who agree with Schoch. It shows a lack of scientific discipline to dismiss data simply because it does not fit with your theory, and that in a scientific discipline in which Lehner and Hawass have no merits (geology). It down-graded their scientific credibility in my eyes.

I therefore consider that the 'mainstream' theory is shaky and built on circumstantial evidence, even if it makes sense in a strictly linear interpretation of Egyptian culture and history.

Carbon dating

As far as I know, no carbon dating has been done on material from inside the Great Pyramid (that some wish to call Khufu's pyramid). Carbon dating has been done in 1984 on material from outside the pyramid, more precisely on organic material found in the Pyramids' mortar (its mortar joints are consistently 1/50 of an inch, there's practically no mortar to speak of). We're talking sooth flakes. Another carbon dating project was launched in 1995. More sooth flakes from the Pyramid mortar was tested, and also from excavations at the Giza plateau where two largely intact bakeries were discovered in 1991. The reasoning here is that the bakeries served the builders of the Pyramid, therefore if we date the bakery we can date the construction work of the Great Pyramid.
The 1984 radiocarbon dates averaged 374 years older than the dates of the kings with whom the presumed Old Kingdom pyramids are identified. If we rely on the scientific method used to date the construction, Khufu could not be the builder of the Great Pyramid.
The calibrated dates from the 1995 Old Kingdom pyramid samples tended to be 100 to 200 years older than the historical dates for the respective kings and about 200 years younger than our 1984 dates. Still no match with Khufu's reign.
Hawass/Lehner explained this by postulating that the builders used 'old wood' in the construction material. There's a possibility it is so, but it is speculation. Those who believe that the Great Pyramid is way older than the 4th Dynasty speculate that the mortar of the Pyramid was re-applied during the Old Kingdom. So it's speculation vs speculation.

The Cartouche

The mainstream theory clings to one single item as 'data', the quarry mark found inside the Great Pyramid containing Pharaoh Khufu's name. Someone tagged his name on a block of stone, therefore he built it. Many question the genuinity of this cartouche, but even if it is genuine it does not prove that Khufu built the Pyramid. Egyptologists know that Pharaohs had big egos and sometimes imposed their marks on other pharaohs' monuments. Take Ramses II as an example. We find his cartouche in a number of monuments that we know were built by earlier rulers. Had we no other data to reference it with, only the Ramses cartouche, we might be tempted to think he built it.

History is never a precise science, but the more reference data that we have, the more we can triangulate information and arrive at higher or lower probabilities. But with the Great Pyramid, we simply don't have enough data to go on, and it's not because Hawass and Lehner think it fits nicely with Khufu that makes it so.

reply to post by Hanslune

---

The problem with mainstream Egyptology is the underlying agenda they have, and the reasons they have for upholding it.

Preservation of faith- They must preserve the Christian faith, and the story the Christian faith tells, at all costs. This means that other societies must pre-date Egypt, they must remain better, and the faith of Egypt must be considered hoodoo.

Preservation of study- These two are closely related. They can't find a truth that will get them kicked out. They tried that. They got kicked out. Then the hoodoo theory got pushed harder, until they were allowed back in.

Preservation of the monuments- They will say or do anything they can to keep the muslin world from tearing them down. They will overlook obvious evidence because they think exploring it might damamge the area.

Egyptology is more pollitics and lies than it is study. The evidence, interpretations, and theories go along to support the current political agenda. They know the truth.

reply to post by Harte

---

Okay, I can live with Friend.

The Anti-Friend aspect was our common agreement to tend to disagree, despite the best efforts of both of us to try and convert one an other, as in the distant past.

I expect that was put away with a few years ago, and we have been quite civil all and all.

So, here we are again. It is blatantly clear to me, what Mainstream offers for fact is a misrepresentation of the truth, and several others have been prompted lately to denote some of those reason.

It is also clear, the View I have is not one you would generally accept, nor would seem comfortable embracing at all.

That's fine. That's collective thoughts being exchanged. As I expect it will be in another 7 Years.

But, I do understand your implied comments as well, when you made them. I also feel, we should apply a Test, for Joining ATS, with several questions which relate to Topics of Threads.

I see constantly the Same News Articles being presented discussing the same topics in different new threads with no efforts take to Search ATS's Archives to see if applicable Threads already exist, which can be built upon, and expanded. I do this, even when I find topics, that others started. It's not always about the Stars and Flags. Its about the material we can mass into a topic.

Now here, I think Hans is intending to somehow fence off Mainstream, from the others views, and reflect on it, for now. It sounds then as if he will do the Fringe, and on and on, as later add ons. Is this different enough, I cant tell yet, but I enjoy his topics, because he does provide DETAILS, and MATERIALS to review to support, or as in this case, NOT support his Premise. More could/should follow this example when posting.

Have a Good Day Harte.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane
reply to post by Harte

---

Now here, I think Hans is intending to somehow fence off Mainstream, from the others views, and reflect on it, for now.

Nope as noted before I'm listing the mainstream view which as Harte has noted isn't represented as a whole - fringe usually just denies it. This will allow a source so people will at least know what they are denying and while Egyptology holds this view

It sounds then as if he will do the Fringe, and on and on, as later add ons.

That's what I said but it will be a general review of the fringe attempts to deny the mainstream view to bring in their own views which have less backing

Returning to complete this thread. Sorry for the intermission - I had to deal with a client who was suffering from a dreaded attack of ID ten T.

To review the status so far:

I posted an outline of the mainstream view of the pyramids

Mainstream view of the pyramids

To clarify this is, as I understand it, the evidence considered by the mainstream Egyptologist and those associated with them, as to the theory that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids and they did so as tombs.

Of the 13 items listed above I have done:

#1 Cultures #1 Cultures

#1 Cultures (part 2)

#2 Markings, #2 Markings

#6 Necopolis #6 Necropolis

#12 Builders #12 Builders

In the ensuing discussion some points were added or clarified, these items will be consolidated at the end of the thread and the completed 13 sections will be posted to the Pyramids sticky at the top of the forum

We move next to religion, probably the single most important aspect of the mainstream contention that the AE built the pyramids and did so as tombs

13. The ancient Egyptian religion: The religion concentrated on the pharaoh, the king of Egypt. Although he was deemed a human, the pharaoh was believed to be descended from the gods. He acted as the intermediary between his people and the gods, and was obligated to maintain communication between the gods and man through rituals and offerings so that they could maintain order in the universe. The ancient Egyptians dedicated enormous resources to the performance of these rituals and to the construction of the temples to honour the Gods. An important aspect of the religion was the belief in the afterlife and funerary practices. The Egyptians made great efforts to ensure the survival of their souls after death, providing tombs, grave goods, and offerings to preserve the bodies and spirits of the deceased. This devotion to the Pharaoh and preservation of his body led to the pyramids. As we have seen in other cultures, excessive resources have been used to massage an elites ego by preparing a massive burial edifice or gifts

Ancient Egyptian Religion, Part 1. The Conceptual Foundations

Ancient Egyptian Religion, Part 2 - Concepts of Creation, God, and Eternity

Ancient Egyptian Religion, Part 3 – Temples, Festivals and Personal Piety

Ancient Egyptian Religion, Part 4 — Preparing for Eternity

Ancient Egyptian Religion, Part 5 — The Mansion of Millions of Years

Ancient Egyptian Religion, Part 6 — Art for Eternity

Ancient Egyptian Religion, Part 7 — Roots Too Deep to Dislodge

The Egyptians believed totally in magic (heqa) to violate this was to violate their world view

The Egyptians believed there were three worlds: the world above, Nut; the world below, Duat; and the world in between, Ta (Earth).

The life-force, the ka, came into being when the person was born birth. At death, the ka had to be sustained in the tomb with offerings of food and drink, and the prayers of those priest or family members. The provisions did not have to be real; models and pictures on the walls would work, thanks to the magic of heqa, ritual and word, and those things written in stone would last forever even if the “Appeals to the Living” went unheeded.

It was to support their religion their view of the afterlife that the AE when from pits to mastabas, to step pyramids, to pyramids - but they found that during times of trouble the pyramids were to easy to loot - and they were hard to build, so the pyramid age ended and the time of rock cut tombs began.

#11. The C-14 tests, putting the pyramids and other monuments into the time frame attested by early work on king lists, two arrays of tests.

The first experiments in radiocarbon dating ancient material from Egypt was done by Willard F. Libby’s team obtained acacia wood from the 3rd Dynasty Step Pyramid of Djoser to test a hypothesis they had developed.

Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, the Djoser sample’s C14 concentration should be about 50% of the concentration found in living wood. The results proved their hypothesis correct

From that early start Carbon dating has been used where ever it is possible to do so, we will look at two key series of tests:

Between 1984 and 1995 over 450 organic samples were collected from monuments built during the Old and
Middle Kingdoms. The most suitable samples were selected for dating with the purpose to establish a radiocarbon chronology with samples from secure, known context and collected with the careful techniques required for 14C samples.

In the field we looked for organic materials that were clearly linked to the construction of the monuments.
Temples and pyramids built from mud bricks yielded grass, straw, and reed fragments, which were mixed into the clay and soil before shaping the bricks. Finding suitable materials in stone monuments was a greater challenge. In most of these monuments the stone building blocks were leveled and secured in place with mortar that was manufactured locally. This required massive fires to heat gypsum or limestone. The roasted minerals and the ashes from the fires were added to the mortar mix, along with remaining charcoal fragments. The usually very small fragments (1–2 mm) constituted the datable material. While searching the monuments, we examined seams between stone blocks for mortar filling and for black specks of charcoal inside the mortar.

RADIOCARBON DATES OF OLD AND MIDDLE KINGDOM MONUMENTS IN EGYPT

The end results were




The results from the two testing projects was enough to allow for statistical comparisons between the dates for the pyramids of Djoser, Khafre, Menkaure and Khufu, Two interesting results occurred:


1. There are difference between the 1984 and 1995 dates for Khufu and Khafre, but not for Djoser and Menkaure

2. The 1995 dates vary widely even for a single monument. For Khufu’s Great Pyramid, they scatter over a range of about 400 years

The old-wood problem

Ancient Egypt’s population was restricted to the narrow confines of the Nile Valley with, we assume, a sparse cover of trees. It is likely that, by the pyramid age, the Egyptians had been intensively exploiting wood for fuel for a long time.

Because of the scarcity and expense of wood, the Egyptians would reuse pieces of wood as much as possible. Some of this recycled wood was burned, for example, in mortar preparation. If a piece of wood was already centuries old when it was burned, radiocarbon dates of the resulting charcoal would be centuries older than the mortar for which it was burned.

How old are the pyramids - AERA

The ancient Egypt did like to recycle so this seems to explain. An example of their recycling of cultural material

In the 12th Dynasty, Amenemhet I (1991-1962 BC) left clear evidence of this kind of recycling. He took pieces of Old Kingdom tomb chapels and pyramid temples (including those of the Giza Pyramids) and dumped them into the core of his pyramid at Lisht.

More Mysterious Nazca Lines From Space
  Posted 6 days ago with 124 member flags

Egypt\'s Ancient Fleet: Lost for Thousands of Years, Discovered in Cave
  Posted 17 days ago with 95 member flags

Arizona man finds what he believes will change American prehistoric history....
  Posted 19 days ago with 56 member flags

The Aztec and Norse god of war are both missing one hand.
  Posted 17 days ago with 48 member flags

63,000-Year-Old Modern Human Skull Found in Laos
  Posted 18 days ago with 38 member flags

Multiple Human Species Were Likely The Norm
  Posted 11 days ago with 37 member flags

Plantagenet Legacy Paved Over??? Presidents, Christianity, And Hidden History.
  Posted 11 days ago with 18 member flags

The Sumerian \'Flood-Storm\' weapon.
  Posted 6 days ago with 18 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: