Why do we never hear about the two other Giza pyramids?

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Cont'd from previous


Byrd: I understand that good texts with current material on Egypt are expensive (boy, howdy are they! My wallet is still cringing) but you are basing a lot of your ideas on material that's very old and extremely incomplete.


SC: Isn’t that what Egyptologists do? I am basing my ideas on the physical evidence left there by the AEs.


Byrd: I do wish you had the ability to take these courses at the University of Exeter -- it's very eye-opening -- and I think that you could do a lot if you only had access to the vast amounts of knowledge stuffed into these textbooks (and the work behind them.)


SC: I am quite fine with where I am.


Byrd: As a result, the mish-mash of sources (most of which are not from the Egyptians themselves) and poor context (with respect to time and political climate and resources) and questionable foundation sources gives you a very weak basis for any speculation.


SC: With respect, but I do have to disagree. I will say again—I use the evidence that the AEs left us. You cannot seriously tell me that a large earth-filled container that was discovered in G2 is not reminiscent of the later, smaller earth-filled Osiris Bricks. You cannot tell me that vast quantities of seed were not discovered in S1 with secondary evidence of similar quantities also found in G1. You cannot tell me that the Pyramid Texts (long before the Middle Kingdom) state that the “…pyramid … is Osiris… this construction… is Osiris”. You cannot tell me that these same texts bear the first elements of the Osiris Myth. You cannot tell me that the later AEs did not make effigies of Osiris and pack it full of seeds (Corn Mummies). You cannot contradict any of this evidence because it is there. And it is there to be interpreted and made sense of. I do not need Greeks, or Romans, or Lehner or Hawass to tell me how to interpret this evidence. I am telling them that their interpretation is wrong so why do you think I should be taking lessons from them?


Byrd: I feel this is a shame, because I think that if you had access to the training and the material that I'm able to access, you would have the most amazing time with it and that you could come up with things that would be accepted and respected in the field.


SC: With respect, but I am not so naïve as to think that any of the ideas I come up with would be remotely acceptable to mainstream Egyptology. Researching written material is fine and I do a LOT of it. But my own research benefits most with field trips to Egypt where I can really get my hands dirty. (Alas, not so much recently as a result of the ongoing social upheaval). And, in my opinion (and I know you will disagree) but mainstream Egyptology is simply closed ranks and the entire peer review process is nothing more than ‘academic censorship’. I prize my freedom to think and to express myself in publications outside the confines of stifling academia. And, as I have oft said, original thought is without peer. It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it.


The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Friedrich Nietzsche


And….


All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

Friedrich Nietzsche


SC: Someday, someday…….


Byrd: ...and so, back to the books. I probably won't emerge until after the dissertation defense and yes, this is for my PhD.


SC: I sincerely wish you well and look forward to greeting you as Dr.


And on a final note, to take it back to the topic at hand, I dearly wish people would talk about the other pyramids. They're awfully interesting. Can't wait to get to them in my studies -- but I won't have scholarly access to the good stuff until after I get through the basics on art and architecture and literature and history and Nubia and the Delta.


SC: Well, I think we have made a sterling effort here to redress the balance a little by at least discussing G2 and G3 in some measure as well as bringing in, on a small level, all the other giant pyramids of the Old Kingdom. Yes folks, there is more than just the Great Pyramid.

Regards,

SC
edit on 29/10/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
It's a great OP and a point I was making in another thread. Again, I think its important to see both the macro and the micro. We need to understand the bigger picture I think, therefore its important to identify and analyze all pyramids and all locations.

So the world needs to put pressure on the Chinese government to uncover and allow for international scrutiny on said pyramids as they are a part of OUR history. This includes all nations and all nations should be put on notice in this regard.

You want answers? Seek and ye shall find.

That said, on the microcosom, I think that history repeats if only because "sacred knowledge" continues to be handed down. So to get an idea of their purpose perhaps its best to look at something similar.

Micro:



Note that the map of Washington DC has a symbolic undertone. (Micro)

The macro:



Even though we have "shrines" and obelisks in DC we also have buildings with practical purposes. Same would go with China as we the Americas.
edit on 29-10-2013 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



Hanslune
'TV documentary' Really? Actually no it doesn't might want to research that yourself the first 'pharaoh' that we know of was Narmer and he was around in circa 3150 BC, there were some earlier kings of upper and lower Egypt too but they only go back to circa 3250 BC


The Papyrus of Turin claim a lineage of Egyptian kings going back 36,620 years.
edit on 22-11-2013 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

MerkabaMeditation

The Papyrus of Turin claim a lineage of Egyptian kings going back 36,620 years.
edit on 22-11-2013 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)


Odd, I'm looking at the kings list on the Turin Papyrus and it only dates the 1st dynasty to 3150 BCE. Unless you're trying to include the list of gods from column 1 and the spirits and mythical rulers from column 2 row 1-10 but if thats the case we may as well include Odin and Zeus because its just as likely a scenario in this case.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

peter vlar

MerkabaMeditation

The Papyrus of Turin claim a lineage of Egyptian kings going back 36,620 years.
edit on 22-11-2013 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)


Odd, I'm looking at the kings list on the Turin Papyrus and it only dates the 1st dynasty to 3150 BCE. Unless you're trying to include the list of gods from column 1 and the spirits and mythical rulers from column 2 row 1-10 but if thats the case we may as well include Odin and Zeus because its just as likely a scenario in this case.




The total years of Egyptian history reaches back 36,620 years according to the Turin Papyrus ...venerables Shemsu-Hor, 13,420 years Reigns up to Shemsu-Hor, 23,200 years

Source:
Before the Pharaohs: Egypt's Mysterious Prehistory, Edward F. Malkowski, pg. 295

edit on 23-11-2013 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MerkabaMeditation
 


One out of context quote does not make a fact. The following line from your link says "emery agrees in principle". It's nothing but supposition. Look at the actual remains of the papyrus, its much more telling than the opinion of someone who makes statements with little to back them up such as the author of the book you linked.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 

If you look a little more at that author, you'll see he holds the idiotic idea that "Cro Magnon man" was the first example of the anatomically modern human.

"Cro Magnon man" is simply a name for a collection of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (modern human) fossils found near Abri de Cro-Magnon , a rock shelter in Southern France. The term is not even a classification, and other, earlier examples, of H.S.S. have been found. The oldest "Cro Magnon" fossils are a little over 43K years old. H.S.S. fossils have been found elsewhere that are nearly five times older than that.

He claims there is a "mystery" concerning the "rise of Cro Magnon."

There is no mystery there.

Well, there is, I guess. The mystery is how people can be so dumb as to spend even a penny on a book written by a con man.

Harte





top topics
 
16
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join