Three Good Arguments For A Different Story of Ancient Egypt

Originally posted by Harte The depictions are accompanied by hieroglyphs that explain the entire scene. I've quoted and linked the translations several times over right here at ATS and elsewhere. Have a look - Doernenburg

Doernenburg:

Resomtus is alive with gloss in the sky (and) lives as the day of the New Year celebration. He lights up in its house in the night of the child in his nest, by donating the light to the country from the birth bricks.

Glad we could debunk this and move on.

reply to post by Harte




And what was that child but the glorious light breaking forth from the darkness....

Originally posted by abeverage

 

I just love how there is an explanation that is satisfactory of NUN holding up the universe that looks like a woman goddess but ZERO explanation of the THING depicted holding up What a second Universe? That looks suspiciously like a High Voltage Insulator.

So much so I would say they designed it (a high voltage insulator) after that design! LOL

So why no mention why NUN looks like a goddess in one part and like a Metallic or Ceramic object on the other? Or why 2 so-called universes are depicted?

That's exactly what it looks like ...

The problem with the djed symbol is that it represented different concepts over time, it's meaning changed and the origins seem to be unclear. According to the handbook of Egyptian Mythology, it could have originally referred to some kind of fertility cult, whereas by the time of the new kingdom, it became the 'spine' of Osiris and stands for 'stability'.

I don't know if the difficulty of tracing back the original meaning of such terms & concepts is generally true for other parts of AE symbolism or not, but IMO this could be one of the weak spots in traditional Egyptology.

Apart from that: out of a myriad of possible illustrations for their "universe emerging from primordial waters" concept, they have chosen exactly this depiction with those incredibly precise characteristics of a technical device ... whatever the reason was, it's definitely an astonishing resemblance!


P.S.: I just mentioned the Dendera lights to have a good introduction for this thread, I didn't expect people to get that excited about them ... but it shows how difficult it still is (after many previous threads on the subject) to understand why AE chose this particular way to illustrate what they mean!

Originally posted by Shiloh7

 

I certainly don't buy into the idea that Egypt suddenly sprung forth knowing the way to build complex, cyclopean buildings 'just like that'.

You may want to watch part 6 to 12 to check out a different perspective on Egypt:
www.youtube.com...
The parts 1 to 5 mostly deal with 9/11.

reply to post by jeep3r


So the PhD says the head of the Sphinx looks the way it does now most certainly due to re-carving.

When I read that, the first thing that crossed my mind was the possibility that the Sphinx originally started out with a Jackal's head, and was later re-carved into the head of a Pharoah in an attempt to make an idol statue for a ruler in a different time, who possibly didn't like the Sphinx and wanted his own image carved there instead.

In Robert Temple's "The Sirius Mystery", he points out that it is obvious that the Sphinx is not a lions body, due to the anamorphic details of the size of the paws, the tail, the back and shoulders. All of those traits line up perfectly with a dog, more specificall, a jackal. The kind of wild dogs that were around that area back then, and the same jackal that is used on the head of Anubis.

The idea of the Sirius Mystery includes the possibility that the Egyptians used advanced symbols for astronomy.
For example, it is clear that Isis, which represents Mother Nature or Life, represents also the star Sirius A, the brightest star in the sky. And it is obvious that Isis's dark companion, Osiris, the god of the dead, also represents Sirius B, Sirius A's dark companion that is invisible to the naked eye, and much smaller, yet much denser and heavier.

In Egyptian mythology, Isis and Osiris had a son called Anubis. Anubis had the head of a dog, because he was a guardian. A guard dog. Why?

Because Sirius B (Osiris) orbits around Sirius A (Isis), and the personification of the orbit trajectory itself, is represented by Anubis. Because, the orbit trajectory is circumventing it's mother (Sirius A, Isis) aka guarding it, protecting it like a guard dog.
So it only makes sense that mother and father would give birth to an orbital pattern.

Anyway, all this is to point out why a jackal (dog) head is important, and why the sphinx is located off to the side of the Pyramids. Because if you look up at Orion's belt, the constellation in which the three pyramids are aligned, off to the side is Sirius A. If you hold your two fists up side by side in the sky, that is about the length between Orion's belt and Sirius A and B. The "Dog Star" itself, is represented by a dog headed statue, and the re-carving into a human head in a later dynasty is starting to make more sense to me now.

A spherical hot air balloon of 125 feet diameter can lift about 6.5 ton, equal to less than two average limstone blocks used to build the pyramids of around 2.5 ton each.

The first modern hot-air balloon was made of linen and paper, two materials available to the ancient Egyptians.

Depicted in the image is Horus, god of the sky. The goddess sitting on the stone block to the far right of the image is likely the ancient Egyptian goddess, Amaunet—the goddess of air although this could also be the god Heh who was also an air/sky god identified with Shu who supposedly held up the pillars of the sky. The air goddess is also depicted as a snake (or serpent) which we observe within the center of the balloon-like object.

The myth associated with these reliefs in the Temple of Hathor at Dendera is certainly much older than the temple itself. Perhaps what we are observing here, couched in religious metaphor, is the means by which the anceint Egyptians raised these heavy blocks to build their pyramids whereby--as some ancient legends allude--the pyramid stones flew into place.

Regards,

SC

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by jeep3r

 

One can speculate all one wants but when you present a SCIENTIFIC theory you are restricted to what is actually known.

I would agree with your thoughts, and yes, it is restricted to what is known.

Things which can not be altered, because of what we know.

An example would be the current atmosphere of this globe. Based on what we believe today, we assume the conditions of our atmosphere we see today, has been like this for quite some period of time.

We have methods of measuring (dating) items today because of the current atmospheric conditions, and using what we know now, we can calculated the age of an item, (within a Margin of Error)

But problems arise when we alter what is actually known.

I see many indications from varying ancient cultures which would tend to suggest our current atmospheric condition on this planet is a much more recent event.

You can either opt to take one position or another.

Take this and apply it to Egypt and we'll find the same thing.

The Sphinx is unquestionably not what we have been told by those who have one point of view. This is solely based upon what is known. Well, actually it is based upon what we accept, but that's a different topic.

Based on my view, I would suggest the Age of Leo, (10500 - 8000 BC) was the time frame to apply to the Sphinx. I believe the Ancient Stories are far more accurate than many other's may feel.

The Light Device is interesting to say the least. I am certain what we have been told it is, isn't anymore accurate than the Light explanation.

But again, I do think these people are far more than what we have been led to believe, so a light bulb wouldn't out of the question.

Have a good evening

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

 

A spherical hot air balloon of 125 feet diameter can lift about 6.5 ton, equal to less than two average limstone blocks used to build the pyramids of around 2.5 ton each.

The first modern hot-air balloon was made of linen and paper, two materials available to the ancient Egyptians.

Interesting alternative explanation, especially with those references (eg. Dendera snakes, mythology). Reminds me a bit of the ancient kite theory (see here & here) that researchers came up with back in 2001.



Regarding the lights, I also thought about something else (and I'm now ignoring the 'voice of reason'):

When looking at the elements of the depictions altogether, we actually see a more or less exact blueprint of a Crookes tube. Very technical, very precise. Yet, each element for itself represents something familiar that AE knew from their daily lives. Except for the djed pillar, which is rather 'abstract' (compared to other symbols) and closely resembles a high voltage insulator.

One is tempted to consider the possibility that they've actually seen or found such a device at some point (or remember having seen it), while having no understanding whatsoever of what it was made of. I don't want to exclude any other scenarios - so it's just an idea, given that the pieces of the puzzle just don't seem to fit together ... unless, of course, one fully agrees with the interpretation offered by Egyptologists.

Here again the image:
Overall view: looks rather technical & precise (Crooke's tube)
Detail view: looks rather metaphysical & interpretative (Snake/Flower)

The usual problem with such assumptions is, of course, the lack of further evidence and other related depictions of that kind etc. From that perspective it would really be less frustrating & more comfortable to simply make the Dendera lights tie in with conventional AE mythology ...

Originally posted by jeep3r

One is tempted to consider the possibility that they've actually seen or found such a device at some point (or remember having seen it), while having no understanding whatsoever of what it was made of. I don't want to exclude any other scenarios - so it's just an idea, given that the pieces of the puzzle just don't seem to fit together ... unless, of course, one fully agrees with the interpretation offered by Egyptologists.

Or, alternatively, one could simply read the glyphs right there on the walls of the (each) room. The writing describes the entire scene in each case.

See, the glyphs form sort of a prayer or praise to harsomptus (horus) as well as an inventory of all the materials to be used for that particular celebration/festival that were supposed to be stored in each room. The temple has many such rooms where similar accoutrements for various different celebrations were stored.

If one merely sits and stares at a photo of the thing without even attempting to find out anything about the site, I can see why one would reach extraordinary conclusions.

Alas, the world is not that sparkly.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

 

Or, alternatively, one could simply read the glyphs right there on the walls of the (each) room. The writing describes the entire scene in each case. See, the glyphs form sort of a prayer or praise to harsomptus (horus) as well as an inventory of all the materials to be used for that particular celebration/festival that were supposed to be stored in each room. The temple has many such rooms where similar accoutrements for various different celebrations were stored.

Nobody says the glyphs within the temple crypt (incl. context) don't represent what AE intended to express - based on their mythology and symbols. We know what they carved into the stone and how they lived. But do we know how they interpreted these mythological concepts and where these ideas came from in the first place?

We have seen that AE changed the meaning of some symbols themselves between predynastic times and the new kingdom. In some cases we are solely interpreting an 'interpretation' of AE which makes it diffcult to understand the true origins of their symbolism ...

If one merely sits and stares at a photo of the thing without even attempting to find out anything about the site, I can see why one would reach extraordinary conclusions. Alas, the world is not that sparkly.

Actually, the depiction 'demands' that we sit and stare due to the close resemblance with a very familiar technical concept of our modern age - something which is very difficult to represent with that level of detail 'coincidentally'. And there are other 'contradictions' at Giza making it difficult to say we know 'for sure' where it all came from ...

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by Harte

 

Or, alternatively, one could simply read the glyphs right there on the walls of the (each) room. The writing describes the entire scene in each case. See, the glyphs form sort of a prayer or praise to harsomptus (horus) as well as an inventory of all the materials to be used for that particular celebration/festival that were supposed to be stored in each room. The temple has many such rooms where similar accoutrements for various different celebrations were stored.

Nobody says the glyphs within the temple crypt (incl. context) don't represent what AE intended to express - based on their mythology and symbols. We know what they carved into the stone and how they lived. But do we know how they interpreted these mythological concepts and where these ideas came from in the first place?

We have seen that AE changed the meaning of some symbols themselves between predynastic times and the new kingdom. In some cases we are solely interpreting an 'interpretation' of AE which makes it diffcult to understand the true origins of their symbolism ...

If one merely sits and stares at a photo of the thing without even attempting to find out anything about the site, I can see why one would reach extraordinary conclusions. Alas, the world is not that sparkly.

Actually, the depiction 'demands' that we sit and stare due to the close resemblance with a very familiar technical concept of our modern age - something which is very difficult to represent with that level of detail 'coincidentally'. And there are other 'contradictions' at Giza making it difficult to say we know 'for sure' where it all came from ...

edit on 5-7-2013 by jeep3r because: text

There are 10s of thousands of AE and later images of which this one, that some might resemble an old style of our technology is not that unusual. However you are dismissing the oddity of the carving itself...is it really 6 meters long? You are using the old fringe trick called the tyranny of possibilities, if something is possible it must have been intended.

The carving could also be a demonstration of Egyptian knowledge of a two dimensional works, ala flatland, it could be a demonstration of a vacuum cleaner, it could be bubble maker, etc.

...fringe lives in the dark spaces of knowledge, safe because no one can ever say, 'for sure'.

How do we know 'for sure' that the Battle of Waterloo actually occurred as taught? Lol

Do tell....what are these other contradictions you find compelling?

Originally posted by Hanslune

 

There are 10s of thousands of AE and later images of which this one, that some might resemble an old style of our technology is not that unusual. However you are dismissing the oddity of the carving itself...is it really 6 meters long? You are using the old fringe trick called the tyranny of possibilities, if something is possible it must have been intended.

While our descriptions of AE culture might be 100% legit and correct, important parts of it are tied up in metaphysical concepts, the roots of which we cannot trace back in all cases. If now, for example, certain AE concepts (eg. artifacts, depicitions, structures etc.) suddenly make sense when seen from 2 different perspectives - namely from the mythological point of view AND our 'modern' view - then we have a problem.

It's more about pointing to such problems - no tricks and no disrespect involved ... in the end, AE mythology is certainly linked to what we see at Giza, but it may just possibly be that we're not looking at the 'complete' story.

The carving could also be a demonstration of Egyptian knowledge of a two dimensional works, ala flatland, it could be a demonstration of a vacuum cleaner, it could be bubble maker, etc. ...fringe lives in the dark spaces of knowledge, safe because no one can ever say, 'for sure'.

Notable 'dark spaces of knowledge' can especially be found beneath the sands of Giza ... by the way: here, we're not so much talking about 'fringe' but about reasonable curiosity required to conduct further research.

Do tell....what are these other contradictions you find compelling?

See arguments in the OP & the great pyramids as such incl. all their design features that point to various open questions ...

reply to post by jeep3r


You can never obtain the 'complete story' for any archaeological question. What research do you feel needs to be added to that which is on going?

I would also like to mention that when taking about 'possibilities', you must also address his two brothers, probable and plausible.

Originally posted by jeep3r
If now, for example, certain AE concepts (eg. artifacts, depicitions, structures etc.) suddenly make sense when seen from 2 different perspectives - namely from the mythological point of view AND our 'modern' view - then we have a problem.

Hardly a "problem," since there was no electricity in Ancient Egypt.

Remember, the carving dates to the Ptolemaic period - that's Roman times.

We can be certain they didn't have light bulbs, or the Greeks (who ruled Egypt at the time) and the Romans (who took it) would have had them too.

The AEs wrote about the myth involved. It is the child Horus (Ihy) being born out of a lotus blossom. On the walls next to it, the "bulb" shape is described as the "perfection" of Harsomptus - Greek for Horus the Uniter.

More info:

Finally, as Har-Mau or Harsomptus (Horus the Uniter), Horus fulfills this role of uniting and ruling over Egypt, though he is sometimes identified as the son of Horus the Elder and Hathor in this role, for example, at Edfu and Kom Ombo, and called by the name Panebtawy "Lord of the Two Lands".

Read more: www.touregypt.net...

Also:

...often a festival entailed a visit by the temple god to the temple of another god. This was the occasion of the festival procession, when priests carried the divine image out from the sanctuary in its model barque. The barque might travel entirely on land or be loaded onto a real boat to travel on the river. The purpose of the god's visit varied. Some were related to fertility: in the Ptolemaic period, an image of Hathor from Dendera Temple was brought annually to Edfu, the temple of her mythological consort Horus, and the images of the two gods spent several nights together in the mammisi that celebrated the birth of their child Harsomptus.

wiki

And:

According to one myth, Ihy sprung into existence out of a lotus flower which blossomed in the watery abyss of Nun at dawn at the beginning of every year. It is therefore suggested by some that the "light-bulbs" are in fact lotus flower bulbs, mythologically giving birth to the god. Another panel shows the bulb opening into a lotus blossom and the snake standing erect in the centre as a representation of the god Ihy. On the southern wall of the last room, a falcon, preceded by a snake emerges from a lotus blossom within a boat.

Francois Daumas suggested that the sacred procession which was held on the eve of the first day of the New Year, began in these rooms. Thus the inscriptions represented the myth which was being celebrated. Of course, the myths have nothing to say regarding lightbulbs, and there is no evidence to substantiate their use from Egyptian remains or text. This is fairly damning as the building of huge stone monuments required the maintenance of detailed and thorough accounts, yet there is no record of any electric devices or the movement of raw materials to create them.

source

Also:

Ihy-Harsomptus

The Divine Child Ihy-Harsomptus, the “Sistrum Player”, the “Musician”, the “Calf”, “Horus the Uniter”, is the son of Haroeris (Horus the Ancient) and of the Goddess Hathor. The main cult centres of Ihy-Harsomptus are the Temple of Hathor at Iunet, Dendera (one of the main Triads worshipped at Iunet is composed by Hathor, Horus the Ancient, and Their son, Ihy-Harsomptus), and the Temple of Horus at Apollinopolis Megale

Lastly, here's a pic from the same temple concerning the same myth, only without the "perfection of Harsomptus":



Both the falcon and the snake in that pic represent Horus.
For much more information click here.
There are several pages there discussing this hypothesis of electric lights, each bit of the hypothesis rebutted and debunked with facts.

Should you care to find more on your own, please be aware that Harsomptus is often spelled Harsomtus. Both are the Greek versions of the name Hor-sema-tauy (IIRC.)

You might find more if you search under all three names/spellings.

Originally posted by jeep3r

Do tell....what are these other contradictions you find compelling?

See arguments in the OP & the great pyramids as such incl. all their design features that point to various open questions ...

No such claim appears in the OP, unless you mean the claim of concrete.

BTW, the sawn circles in the diorite (if it is diorite in the pic) can be made by hand with a copper tube drill saw, as demostrated in modern times by Denys Stocks.

99% of what is written in the OP is recycled fringe hooey, whether you or the OP care to believe it or not.

Hart

reply to post by Shane


When people's views don't line up with the facts the view should change, not the fact. You are basically saying "This fact doesn't fit my view, so I'm going to question the validity of the fact, for by putting the fact in doubt I am propping up my view."

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Scott, thank you for pointing that out! I've been resisting saying anything here. I don't like getting into internet battle royales with those who can't/won't entertain an alternative thought.

I'll hold true... these are codified technical blueprints.

reply to post by Hanslune


Regarding research: an interdisicplinary & independent study group (incl. archaeologists & egyptologists) would be nice - apart from GPMP - to look into some of the open questions regarding stonework at Giza.

In the light of the contradictions highlighted by non-mainstream specialists the research question should be: what are the minimum requirements to achieve the result we see (and not: what was available at the time and then forcing preconceived results into existing paradigms).

Originally posted by Harte

 

Hardly a "problem," since there was no electricity in Ancient Egypt.

Remember, the carving dates to the Ptolemaic period - that's Roman times. We can be certain they didn't have light bulbs, or the Greeks (who ruled Egypt at the time) and the Romans (who took it) would have had them too.

The AEs wrote about the myth involved. It is the child Horus (Ihy) being born out of a lotus blossom. On the walls next to it, the "bulb" shape is described as the "perfection" of Harsomptus - Greek for Horus the Uniter.

See OP for the exact wording. Nobody said 'AE' had electricity, the point here is to readdress certain problems of how we interpret their culture and how it came about. Other specialists & experts deliver some indications. It seems, though, that there are no open questions or problems whatsoever ...

By the way: the carving dates are irrelevant if an idea (eg. as depicted at Dendera) is based on much older myths & legends ... how would we know what the scene elements referred to in the first place, how did they originate prior to becoming an element of the depiction? AE described the scene, yes, but the meaning of its elements changed over time and the origin is unclear. This is just to argue against 'absolute determinism' and the general opinion that there are no open questions.

...often a festival entailed a visit by the temple god to the temple of another god. This was the occasion of the festival procession, when priests carried the divine image out from the sanctuary in its model barque. The barque might travel entirely on land or be loaded onto a real boat to travel on the river. The purpose of the god's visit varied. Some were related to fertility

Yes, and there was even a festival to celebrate the erection of the djed pillar ... same question here: where did it come from, what meaning was initially attached to the djed pillar? I admit these questions are 'picky', but they seem justified to argue against some of the determinism we encounter in Egyptology.

No such claim appears in the OP, unless you mean the claim of concrete.

I'm sure you mentioned that because you are well aware that there actually 'is' an explanation that would fit the hypothesis of AE fabricating reconstituted limestone in a natural way using conventional tools?

Also: are you sure that the more sophisticated diorite & granite artifacts could be reproduced using Deny Stocks methods? I'm not surprised that he even has a theory for the methods used to shape granite sarcophagi, here an excerpt from page 173 (source):



The pamphlet answers almost everything ... I have to wonder: really? Can someone review this and see whether his methods can also be applied to the sarcophagi at the Serapeum?

Again: the point here is not to discredit Egyptology or Archaeology nor am I pretending to have better answers. The purpose of this thread was to indicate a few 'problems' as highlighted by specialists in the field and from other disciplines. But if all questions are answered and if all interpretations of AE mythology are the ultimate truth, then be it so ...

... but I have my doubts:

reply to post by jeep3r


I'm fairly certain limestone was what casing stones were made of. And isn't the picture on the right sandstone? Can you source your material for how you determined they were granite?

Originally posted by jeep3r
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Regarding research: an interdisicplinary & independent study group (incl. archaeologists & egyptologists) would be nice - apart from GPMP - to look into some of the open questions regarding stonework at Giza.

In the light of the contradictions highlighted by non-mainstream specialists the research question should be: what are the minimum requirements to achieve the result we see (and not: what was available at the time and then forcing preconceived results into existing paradigms).

They are considered 'open' only by those who deny the existing evidence or they are questions that could only be answered by recreating the culture and era in question, misusing 10,000s of thousands of people for decades to see just how long it would actually take to do x and y, once they re-established the skilled craftsman needed to attempt it. We presently cannot build a WWI battle cruiser, we could build one using today's tech- easily but if you wanted it built using the techniques used in 1914 you'd have to rebuild a massive skill base and recreate a lot of obsolete technology-same for the AE.