An Advanced Egyptian Civilization BEFORE the Old Kingdom

a reply to: Scott Creighton



The Halaf and Ubaid happened and Egypt was colonized by Susa through the Persian Gulf and around the Arabian Peninsula, but it's the right case to bring up Gobekli Tepe at around 13,000 years ago because the exact same thing occured there earlier, an astonishing leap forward in the usage of natural and human resources and one that also went into gradual decline though some elements would have continued to develop, one way or another there was a relatively highly advanced intelligence among that group, that may have needed a refresher at around 6,500 years ago in the region of Susa which went on to produce Mesopotamian and Egyptian culture.

Where are you people getting your date data from?
Gobekli Tepe :- started about 9500bc, abandoned 8000 bc.
Susa period:- 4400 bc to 1218BC.
Naqada period:- 4000bc to 3000bc.

a reply to: crayzeed

They haven't excavated the core of Gobekli Tepe so something of an estimate given the rate of expansion for 11,000 BC (13,000 years ago) , Susa is fine at around 4,500 BC(6,500 year ago) .

originally posted by: Madrusa
a reply to: Scott Creighton

... it's the right case to bring up Gobekli Tepe at around 13,000 years ago because the exact same thing occured there earlier, an astonishing leap forward in the usage of natural and human resources and one that also went into gradual decline ...

My personal view is that the people who built the pyramids that Egyptology attributes to ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom Period ca.4,500 BC, were actually part of the same megalithic culture and had similar megalithic construction know-how as the builders of Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe ca. 10,000 BC. IMO, the societies that built the megalithic temples, pyramids and other stone monuments of Egypt, Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe all collapsed together as a result of, and during, the great Earth changes of the Younger Dryas ca. 12,000 years ago.

The Giza monuments in particular are astronomically aligned to a period of around 12,000 years ago. (Incidentally, I do not use Robert Bauval's archaeo-astronomical dating method to arrive at this date but my own astronomical method which I explain at length in my latest book. The Giza pyramids do seem to point to an astronomical alignment of ca.12,000 years ago).

The emerging civilization that we see around 5-6k BC appears to me to be the gradual re-emergence of civilization after it had been decimated thousands of years earlier during the Earth changes of the Younger Dryas.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

I can't see any basis for comparison, Egyptian Masonry could be vastly superior to Gobekli Tepe and the cultural motifs are vastly different, the only correlation is that Giza was speculated by Theosophists to date to that period based on astral alignments notably Leo and the Sphinx at the Spring Equinox as per Gerald Massey, but it was actually the case that the Summer solstice was in Leo during the Old Kingdom as related to their New Year periodic.

The Theosophists were kind of right about an early dawn 13,000 years ago but not in Egypt, that was 6,500 years later, so i think there is something to the archaeo-astronomy and the Zodiac ages, there is the suggestion that sometimes Egyptians indulged in archaic style architecture to reference the former age which would show an interesting understanding of continuity from that former age, because as the picture illustrated there was continuity through the Halaf and Ubaid cultures leading to Susa colonizing Egypt, they also first designed these.

Yet Bauval has worked it out for the Sphinx to be aligned with the constellation Leo in 10,500, before even the old kingdom. Thereby showing there was a civilization before the known Egyptian dynasties.

originally posted by: Madrusa
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I can't see any basis for comparison, Egyptian Masonry could be vastly superior to Gobekli Tepe and the cultural motifs are vastly different, the only correlation is that Giza was speculated by Theosophists to date to that period based on astral alignments notably Leo and the Sphinx at the Spring Equinox as per Gerald Massey, but it was actually the case that the Summer solstice was in Leo during the Old Kingdom as related to their New Year periodic.

The Theosophists were kind of right about an early dawn 13,000 years ago but not in Egypt, that was 6,500 years later, so i think there is something to the archaeo-astronomy and the Zodiac ages, there is the suggestion that sometimes Egyptians indulged in archaic style architecture to reference the former age which would show an interesting understanding of continuity from that former age, because as the picture illustrated there was continuity through the Halaf and Ubaid cultures leading to Susa colonizing Egypt, they also first designed these.

Yes, the Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe sites are very important because these sites tell us that, in terms of megalithic technology, there is a big gap in our knowledge, a big gap in our prehistory. While these cultures expressed different motifs in their megalithic architecture from that found in Egypt, I see no difficulty with that and would expect such. But both cultures were able to quarry, cut, shape, transport and relief carve vast volumes of heavy stonework. Both cultures were able to put in place all the necessary infrastructure that would have been needed to embark upon such projects (we have only uncovered a small fraction of what lies below the ground at Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe). So yes, while their motifs are different, the underlying capability they possessed is virtually identical.

The ziggurats built by the emerging Mesopotamian cultures of ca.6000 years ago may well have been inspired by the Egyptian pyramids that I believe are contemporary with Göbekli Tepe. Indeed, the step structure nature of the ziggurat is very reminiscent of the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, as is the 'palace façade' motif used.

As for the Sphinx - its head very clearly faces due east and not 23 degrees north of east (summer solstice point). As such, if Bauval-Gilbert are right that it was built when the lion constellation was rising due east, then this does indeed take this monument back at least 12,000 years.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Bauval/Gilbert didn't come up with the Orion Theory Gerald Massey did, he was taking it's lowest rising point during the Age of Leo as a sort of all aboard the Ark scenario.

The sinking ones had looked for their deliverance from the waters to the bark of Anup, voyaging round the pole; also to the crescent-shaped arc of Taht seen in the new moon; then to the ark of Horus and the “holy sahus” constellated in Orion; and finally they sought salvation in the ark which Nnu and his three sons, Shu, Taht, and Seb, were now to build for Ra, the solar god.

Amongst the words that are said on the day of burial to bring about “the resurrection and the glory,” the deceased asks that he may see the ship of the holy Sahus traversing the sky; that is, the ark of souls represented in the constellation of Orion.

He saw Orion as a sort of Ark of salvationm operative in conjunction with Leo.

That is, in building the new heaven which was based upon the equinoxes in the circuit of precession, at a certain starting-point, including all the previous foundations laid by Ptah and Taht, Shu and Sut, and by the first great Mother in the Heptanomis.

At dawn he rises from the lotus, the opening flower of dawn. But, instead of commencing with the sign of Virgo, the present writer traces this new beginning in the solar mythos to the time when the vernal equinox was in the sign of Leo, now some 13,000 to 15,000 years ago

Bauval popularized the theory and produced a more readily understandable version in a less religious context, but what Massey was doing was applying already known esoteric tradition relating to zodiac ages towards a potential dating for Egyptian origins, i don't think it was directly applicable to Egypt origins but relevent to Gobekli Tepe.

originally posted by: Madrusa
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Bauval/Gilbert didn't come up with the Orion Theory Gerald Massey did, he was taking it's lowest rising point during the Age of Leo as a sort of all aboard the Ark scenario.

The sinking ones had looked for their deliverance from the waters to the bark of Anup, voyaging round the pole; also to the crescent-shaped arc of Taht seen in the new moon; then to the ark of Horus and the “holy sahus” constellated in Orion; and finally they sought salvation in the ark which Nnu and his three sons, Shu, Taht, and Seb, were now to build for Ra, the solar god.

Amongst the words that are said on the day of burial to bring about “the resurrection and the glory,” the deceased asks that he may see the ship of the holy Sahus traversing the sky; that is, the ark of souls represented in the constellation of Orion.

He saw Orion as a sort of Ark of salvationm operative in conjunction with Leo.

That is, in building the new heaven which was based upon the equinoxes in the circuit of precession, at a certain starting-point, including all the previous foundations laid by Ptah and Taht, Shu and Sut, and by the first great Mother in the Heptanomis.

At dawn he rises from the lotus, the opening flower of dawn. But, instead of commencing with the sign of Virgo, the present writer traces this new beginning in the solar mythos to the time when the vernal equinox was in the sign of Leo, now some 13,000 to 15,000 years ago

Bauval popularized the theory and produced a more readily understandable version in a less religious context, but what Massey was doing was applying already known esoteric tradition relating to zodiac ages towards a potential dating for Egyptian origins, i don't think it was directly applicable to Egypt origins but relevent to Gobekli Tepe.

I love reading Massey and consider his work to be highly significant but, sadly, much under-rated. The ancient esoteric tradition that he taps into is deeply profound and, imo, important. It's just a pity that few these days seem to know of his contribution to the understanding of our prehistoric past let alone have read any of his works.

Massey's connections with Orion (particularly the three belt stars) to the Giza pyramids is not, imo, as clear cut as Bauval's or even Cocteau's - but important nevertheless.

SC

I think you all aught to alter your maps as the Black sea at the time of the last ice age was not there. This has been proved by the finding of prehistoric structures deep under the Black sea below a halocline layer. IE. at the time of the ice age it was a valley. There is some discussion that the Mediterranean might not have been so deep either which would extend the North African coast line. This could be the reason of the ancient Egyptian structures under the coastal waters. I firmly believe this scenario (rising of the sea levels after ice age melt) rather than the land slip theory that main stream archaeologist seem to like.

Really need the do key

originally posted by: crayzeed
I think you all aught alter your maps as the Black sea at the time of the last ice age was not there. This has been proved by the finding of prehistoric structures deep under the Black sea below a halocline layer. IE. at the time of the ice age it was a valley. There is some discussion that the Mediterranean might not have been so deep either which would extend the North African coast line. This could be the reason of the ancient Egyptian structures under the coastal waters. I firmly believe this scenario (rising of the sea levels after ice age melt) rather than the land slip theory that main stream archaeologist seem to like.

What carrot led donkey source is this from?

a reply to: Bspiracy

Just poke around:
forest-monitor.com
radiolemberg.com

So technically there was no Black Sea, more of a Black Lake. I think crayzeed needs to explain this theory a bit more. Do they mean that it was a valley with a lake in the middle of it? I could back that idea, but if they are pushing that the Black Sea area was a dry zone, then nope not going to buy that without some evidence to back up the notion.

a reply to: Guyfriday
Ballard, who discovered the prehistoric structures alluded that the Black sea was a valley with a fresh water lake with settlements around the lake. With the sea level 130 meters lower I have yet to find any "maps" showing how the whole of the Mediterranean coasts would have been.
I think the breaking of the Straits of Bospherous and the subsequent flooding that is now the Black sea is the basis for the flood myth in the Bible and the other world wide flood myths.
Either way there was an enormous amount of land open to man than what there is now thereby some evidence of past civilisations could be under water.

a reply to: crayzeed

Flood myth has roots(pun) in the olive branch symbolism marking the end of the flood.
Cultivation of olives began about 7000 years ago in the historical Levant region which was named after the Italian word Levante to be read as "rising". That is probably the earliest *recorded* history of *advanced* civilization differing from tribal primates that they had. Early calendar works from astronomical observation of stars and the sun rising above the horizon that would be useful for planning purposes.

Hunter gatherer tribes dated back maybe a couple million years but apparently "god" decided they should not be included in the dawn(pun) of civilization.

Odds are that some of the earlier hunter gathering colonies somewhere had deeper understandings of the cosmos but not much of the evidence survived. A quick review of the Sothic calendar debate which may go back 20,000 years or more indicates few people would even know where to look.

Hi Scott,

This is Charles N. Pope, author of A Twisted History: Genesis and the Cosmos.

I've just read your new book and posted a review on Amazon.

www.amazon.com...=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1591434025

I also had an email exchange about it with Mark Carlotto.

What I have concluded is that your spiral arc of the pole (through Alaska, the Hudson Bay, Baffin Island, S. Greenland, the Norwegian Sea, back to N. Greenland and around to the Arctic) shown on page 60 of your book beautifully explains all of the major climate changes since the end of the last Ice Age.

I can post the info here, or start a new thread on this if you prefer.

Thanks!

a reply to: CharlesNPope

Hi Charles,

Many thanks for your post here and for your kind review of my latest book, The Great Pyramid Void Enigma.

As a rule I generally do not comment on any review of my books but since you have brought the matter here, I'd just like to say that it is very clear to me that you have read GP Void Enigma thoroughly, have given it a lot of thought and that you 'get' it. That means a lot to me, so thank you again.

Just to clarify my timing of when I believed these events took place which you seemed unclear about. The 3rd and 4th dynasty pyramids were, imo, constructed around 12,000 years ago (by Surid/Suphis aka Khufu after the 1st pole shift event) and were subsequently repaired thousands of years later by the 'Followers of Khufu' ca.2,550 BCE (in anticipation of another Earth catastrophe which the Giza monuments predicted would occur around 2345 BCE). I hope that clarifies my thinking on this for you.

Now, as regards my image of the Path of the Pole Spiral. I have done a slight update to this (an animated GIF) shown below:



The truly intriguing aspect of this spiral is that it is logarithmic in nature, the type of spiral we see throughout nature in galaxy spirals, weather patterns and so on. It would not surprise me at all to learn that you have found a correlation between this Path of the Pole spiral and Earth climate change over the past 12,000 years and I am certainly interested to read more on your findings provided, of course, that you are happy to share it with us here at ATS.

I suggest it's best that you start a new thread to present your findings as then you can be much clearer with the Subject Title and thus attract readers with that particular interest.

I look forward to reading your research on this and, once again, thank you for your interest in my own books and your generous comments.

Best wishes,

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Hi Scott,

I don't seem to have privileges to start a new thread on your forum, so please repost your adjustment to the pole spiral in a new thread and we'll take it from there.

Yes, it is a phi type curve and does seem to explain why a pole shift does not necessarily wipe out everything. Yet, it also seems to explain why humanity has not advanced much beyond the glory of "Special Thursday Night Edition of Monday Night Football" (lol).

Thanks for clarifying about the proposed date of Giza Pyramid construction. I'm onboard with that general time frame. However, the pole shift phenomenon obviously requires us to revisit the amount of actual elapsed time that has taken place since the end of the last Ice Age. I haven't yet attempted to wrap my brain around that one, but looking forward to it. Judging from the shape of that spiral, it might involve a bit of calculus, and it obviously also depends upon whether the pole settled in the Bering Sea and reversed, or passed through the Bering Sea as part of a complete pole flip. It very well could be that the poles only settle in their current position during an Inter-Glacial, and spend most if not all of an Ice Age in the opposite configuration. Climate Science people think that an ice-free North Pole should prevent the onset of a new Ice Age, but it could be that an ice-free Arctic and Greenland instead creates another tipping point (literally) in terms of the planet's inertial and angular momentum properties. "Mr Toad's Wild Ride" may have one more surprise twist for us.

I riffled through most of the other topics on your forum yesterday and was excited to see all of the other supporting videos and materials. This is an amazing line of research that you are on, and it's about to get more amazing. You are going to love what that little spiral does for Climate Change studies!

-Charles

originally posted by: CharlesNPope
a reply to: Scott Creighton

...
You are going to love what that little spiral does for Climate Change studies!

Evidence certainly points to some form of mid-24th century BCE climate anomaly: but more likely the result of phenomena other than pole shifts.

a reply to: Scott Creighton

What about the people who claim to be reincarnations of those who lived there at the time who tell a completely different story?

a reply to: CharlesNPope

I don't mean to be over-dramatic about this, but once you see the pattern it will be obvious. It's not a discovery per se, just a natural consequence of the "Dzhanibekov Maneuver." I personally don't want a pole shift, because I live in Florida and like the climate here! But, I'm quite sure they fervently pray for "climate change" in Scotland this time of year (lol).

I've looked at the various dates in antiquity that are associated with catastrophic events. I concluded that the Maya were tracking a couple of long-period comets. So, the 3rd Century BC event could have been one of those. The "mini-nova" theory also sounds interesting. As Kung Pow would say, it was "badong" no matter what it was. Mankind was getting the crap beat out of them on a regular basis. It's a wonder we had the ability to even dig ourselves out much less build something in the 3rd Century BCE.

I know Scott wants to move the start of the Egyptian Old Kingdom back. However, my research indicates that the Old Kingdom was founded just after a major cataclysm rather than right before. That's a completely different subject and of far less importance than recognition of a Great Pyramid that predates the Old Kingdom entirely.

While we are waiting for the new thread to drop (drum roll), I'm also reading Kara Cooney's new feminist revisionist history The Good Kings published through National Geographic. She chooses Khufu from the Old Kingdom as her first case study of Patriarchal oppression from the ancient world. This is curious, because Cooney readily admits that almost nothing is known from Egyptology about Khufu. In its surviving fragments, the Palermo stone mentions some possible brick making, a couple of statues and other donations, as well concern over public religious observance, but no pyramid building of Khufu (nor for any other 4th Dynasty pharaoh, as far as I can tell). Cooney mentions that the founder of the Middle Kingdom pirated construction material of Khufu, and references Hans Goedicke's "Reused Blocks from the Pyramid of Amenemhet I at Lisht" (1971). Amenemhet evidently did not think very highly of Khufu or even his refurbishment efforts. Cooney prefers to conclude that Amenemhet was paying tribute to Khufu. Cooney also inexplicably decides that the pained expressions on the Middle Kingdom pharaoh's faces, such as Senusret III, were attempts to look like "tough guys," and their big ears were "better to hear you with," and not in the sense of caring about you, but in the sense of eavesdropping on whisperings of treason and revolt.

While professing to chafe under the oppression of her own chosen male-dominated discipline, Cooney is nonetheless compelled to call Zahi Hawass by the epithet of "celebrated Egyptian archaeologist." Cooney seems to have forgotten that the Old Kingdom featured a number of very powerful queens. On the famous Narmer Palette, which was used to mix and apply the makeup of the Queen Mother, Narmer is depicted as slaughtering the survivors of a recent natural disaster. The Queen was evidently relishing her role as a Hathor/Sekhmet in destroying mankind in her time. Another Old Kingdom Great Queen, Khentkaues, built (or claimed) a tomb for herself in the same relative position to the 3rd Pyramid as the "man-eater" Sphinx is in relation to the 2nd Pyramid. It's not entirely clear what was happening before the Old Kingdom, but during the royal age of the pharaohs (and beyond), it was a Matriarchy. The boys did what "Mama says." Cooney portrays Akhenaten as an absolute tyrant and pedophile, but in reality it was his mother Queen Tiye that was calling the shots. The cover of the book features the image of the powerless boy-king Tut, but he is only mentioned on four pages of the book and only in passing. Another pyramid builder, Taharqa is her final victim. I haven't read that far yet, but I don't think it's going to be good. Taharqa spent most of his reign trying to gain independence from "foreign oppression" and more specifically "royal female oppression." I'm not saying that patriarchal control is better than matriarchal, but this is just another example of how Egyptologists cannot get their facts straight!