FranchiseCat: I don't know why. Sitchen is pretty thorough... And no one can study the vast majority of the Sumerians' tablets, because the rest of them are in Iraq. Maybe he's onto the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind? It would certainly put the world's religions on edge if Sitchen (more to the point, the Sumerians) is right, although I doubt many would believe it even if shown more concrete proof. Another good one along that track is William Bramley's The Gods of Eden. He really does think it's a big conspiracy...
There are a lot of studies going on now that are testing the ability of DNA to survive intense freeze, etc. The idea is that there is a continnual exchange of space debris between planets, and it has now technically been proven that DNA could survive the trip. In regards to Egyptians and pyramids, why is it that there always has to be some kind of external help? Why can't people simply accept that they built them. Mark Lehner is excavating the living quarters for the workers at Giza. It is so big that they are calling it a city - probably around tens of thousands of people lived there temporarily. Why so many people if they had all that technology? Further, there are extant records that speak of some of their construction techniques, such as the raising of obelisks, etc. The big technology used most was sand. I know it is not as sexy as aliens or anti-gravity tools, etc, but it is more accurate. Anyway, modern field guys have replicated the techniques such that they can get obelisks up without cranes, etc. It is simply called human ingenuity. Just because they did not have "our" technology, does not mean they were helpless.
They probably did build those pyramids, but there has to be some kind of knowledge that we don't have. If somebody could link up that coral castle thing, then you could read something really weird about building things. Whatever process that guy used to move stuff, that's how the egyptians were probably doing it. We just don't know how it was being done.
rimbaud: What about the chamber in the shaft that was found by that German's (forgot his name) robot? The one that the Egyptians won't let anyone open? Herodotus claimed that the mystics there told him that there was a chamber hidden in a shaft which held a book that described how the survivors of Atlantis built the pyramids... It's odd. Could just be a strange coincidence. But I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians - who didn't even have the wheel, much less spacecraft - didn't build any pyramids on Mars.
treeman, The scientist you're thinking of is Rudolf Gantenbrink and the robot is UPUAUT. I remembered reading about this several years ago and had completely forgotten about it. I have no idea why Hawass keeps stalling or cancelling projects to further investigate the shaft. Gantenbrink's website is www.cheops.org. Also for an update on the whole fiasco, check this out : http://towers-online.co.uk/pages/gantenbk.htm#towers The more I read, the more I simply believe that the Egyptians used brute force to do "the impossible", but there's a part of me that still leaves the possibility open that they had "help".
Thanks, DoD. I'm not ruling out the probability that the Egyptians built the pyramids (they certainly built most of them, at the least), I just think there are a few inconsistencies. If the 3 major pyramids at Giza are burial tombs built by the pharoes, then why are there no markings in them, as in other pyramid-tombs? And why have all of the "burial chambers" been discovered for the most part empty (no artifacts, no mummies, etc)? In the case of the Great Pyramid, we know that graverobbers never entered it's "burial chambers", because it was sealed from the inside when it was opened. The only link tying the Great Pyramid to Cheops/Khufu is an inscription on an obelisk where Khufu claims to have renovated the pyramid; if he renovated it, then that means someone else built it... And the Sphinx apparently predates Egyptian civilization... And was apparently built as part of a master plan that included the pyramids; otherwise the "Way of the Dead", as I think it's called, would lead to nowhere. Instead it leads to the Great Pyramid. In addition, ground-penetrating radar has discovered a cavern underneath the Sphinx, that apparently leads towards the Great Pyramid. Herodotus also mentioned this place, and the Egyptians refuse to let anyone excavate it as well... Just pointing out that there are a number of inconsistencies with commonly held ideas in Egyptology. I think many of them (Egyptologists) merely don't want to see their pet theories go down the tubes... But all of the sciences are like that. I just think that there's alot we don't know, and I'm a bit curious why any scientist would just discount an idea simply because it sounds far out and wouldn't fit with some of their theories... They won't even consider any hypothesis that doesn't conform to their own theories. That's not the way science is supposed to work.
Sorry, treeman, but I cannot let this slide. As a preface I must say that I am not an Egyptologist and know very little, but I work with a very prominant one, so must do this for her. I think many of them (Egyptologists) merely don't want to see their pet theories go down the tubes... But all of the sciences are like that. I just think that there's alot we don't know, and I'm a bit curious why any scientist would just discount an idea simply because it sounds far out and wouldn't fit with some of their theories... Sorry, Egyptologists don't believe these theories because they have more information and, based on that ionformation, can easily come to the conclusion that the means were much simpler than "help." As I said, there is surviving documentation describing construction technique. That is pretty strong evidence. While it does not cover everything, it certainly gives insight. Further, again, there was a whole city built to provide "homes" for the paid laborers involved in the whole Giza complex. Again, if you have fancy technology, why do you need 25,000 men working constantly. If the 3 major pyramids at Giza are burial tombs built by the pharoes, then why are there no markings in them, as in other pyramid-tombs? And why have all of the "burial chambers" been discovered for the most part empty (no artifacts, no mummies, etc)? In the case of the Great Pyramid, we know that graverobbers never entered it's "burial chambers", because it was sealed from the inside when it was opened. Most of this is innacurate or misguided. First, the Giza pyramids, along with Zoser's at Saqqare represent traditional Old Kingdom architecture. As it was the earliest, it had a different aesthetic than the later. All of the Giza pyramids, for exmple, were covered with very smooth, finely dressed limestone, later removed for buildings in Cairo. They were the culmination of form from Zoser's. Additionally, all but one chamber of the pyramids were looted, due to the more crude "deterrents" these early ones had. The one that was free from looting was the deepest in Cheops/Khufu, which was for Khufu's mother, Queen Hetepheres, contained many funerary-type items. "Thieve's tunnels" were even found working their way throughout the pyramids. They were huge targets. And the Sphinx apparently predates Egyptian civilization... And was apparently built as part of a master plan that included the pyramids; otherwise the "Way of the Dead", as I think it's called, would lead to nowhere. First, Egypt unified in 3100 BCE...the Sphinx dates to ~2530 BCE...how is that pre-dating? Also, the three pyramids are in the same range: Cheops, 2570; Chephren, 2530; Mycerinus, 2500. Hell, Cheops pre-dates the Sphinx. I know West and later Bauval have claimed otherwise, but there is a reason they are not taken seriously, their research is flwed and their conclusions were based upon impossible factors. These types of theories, though, get more attention because they are sexy. Second, yes, the pyramids and the Sphinx were all part of an elaborate complex, each pyramid had connecting temples, there were many smaller pyramids surrounding, etc. The Sphinx temple connected by causeway to Chephren. There were probably 35-50 structures, not including the "city" of the workers. Several sculptures survive from the temples as well, including a portrait of Chephren. In any event, this was typical of funerary complexes... Again, why listen to something far-fetched when more tangible evidence survives, has been replicated to a degree, and is much more reasonable and logical? Why listen to dating theories that are based upon astrological signs that did not exist at the time, etc? The Romans built barrel vaults that could not be replicated for 1000+ years after they crumbled, are we to say they had "help" as well? The list goes on. There are free-standing stone monuments that pre-date the pyramids by 1000 or so years, as well...what about them? To underestimate humans of the past is to underestimate ourselves. Anyway, Egyptologists try to maintain academic discipline in their research and try to remain responsible. It is the irresponsible "work" of outsiders, novices, and dreaming that produces all of these Egyptian conspiracy theories. All that does is lead to misinformation such as that which we have here. Again, though, this is not my field and I have not done justice to the response that this misinformation deserves. I also don't have any books from which to seek help. Oh well.
rimbaud: Just going down the line... On other pyramids, yes. We know they used sand ramps to build later pyramids (which happen to be far less sophisticated, and most of which have already crumpled into indeterminate mounds of sand themselves), and we know that large work forces were employed to build their own (Egyptian) pyramids, but that does absolutely nothing to explain the 3 at Giza. Zoser's pyramid (the Bent Pyramid) was actually far less sophisticated than the straight-angular form used at Giza - that in itself should throw up a warning light. We know Zoser had his built in his time (Imhotep), but there is no evidence at all that Cheops, Cephren, and Menkaure built the pyramids attributed to them. Why as there a total absence of funerary heiroglyphics in the Great Pyramid, for example? Weren't the funerary texts actually necessary according to Egyptian mythology? You've got to admit that's baffling... That is as conventional Egyptology has it. And if so, why did the Queen's chamber contain no artifacts? The only possible answer is that it never contained any artifacts at all, and it never contained any bodies either. These "thieves' tunnels" you speak of are bogus; there is a single carved tunnel that leads from the base tunnels to the Grand Gallery, and it was blocked when it was found - it was inaccessible from either way. More accurately, it was unfinished - there was a section of tunnel (it's pretty vertical, too) that literally had not been carved yet. To this day no one knows what it was carved for... That is as conventional Egyptology has it. But more recent dating of flood-erosion patterns have placed the Sphinx at possibly 10,500 years old; I'm sure you've heard of these findings. (DoD, I'm sure could find them for you). And the dating od the Giza pyramids is complete guesswork. The Great Pyramid has nothing to link it to Khufu, save for an obelist inscription, which claims renovation, and not construction. I am not refuting the worker-city evidence that's been found; there are quite a few munumental structures that I think the Egyptians most certainly built. I'm just saying that there is evidence that the 3 pyramids and Sphinx at Giza may be far older than conventional Egyptology holds, and trying to point out that scholars closer to the times concerned - Herodotus, Egyptian mystics/priest caste - the guys who wrote the "Book of the Dead" and the Pyramid Texts, and most importantly the Sumerians (who Egyptologists conveniently ignore) - may not have been lying when they themselves said that they had help from the "Gods". I don't know either way. Neither do you.
treeman, The more recent claims of a Sphinx that is 10000 years old (far pre-dating any of the Pyramids) base it on erosion patterns on the Sphinx itself. The belief is that the Nile hasn't flooded in a manner in which those erosion patterns could occur since at least 5000-9000 BC. Bauval (as rimbaud mentions) supports this theory, but he also bases the claim on the Constellation Leo being aligned in some manner (which I forget now) with the Sphinx (and possibly the Pyramids). He placed a model on a computer and wound back to the last time that synchronization could have taken place and arrived at roughly 10,000 BC I think. Bauval's book The Orion Mystery goes into this. Graham Hancock and Bauval are proponents of a lost civilzation explanation of the Pyramids.
DoD: I've actually read Bauval's [I[The Orion Mystery[/I], but thanks for the reminder... That was right about what I was refering to. The estimated dates for the antiquity of the Sphinx fall within the last time we were in the Age of Leo (see precession), which would indicate at the very least a template of the master plan (and carving of the Sphinx) during that period. That was my point... I've also read all of Graham Hancock's stuff. Fascinating... Who knows?
All I'm really saying is "Who knows?"... Egyptologists claim to know, but the really do not know. They're just making educated guesses, but unfortunately the way academia works is if your educated guesses turn out to be wrong, then you have a much harder time finding tenure... Mark Lehner is one of the most prominent Egyptologists in the world, and if rimbaud actually works with him, then I'll accept what he states as fact to be so. But the theories are always open to interpretation, because there is far more that Egyptologists don't know than there is that they actually do know. There are just too many gaps to be definitive either way... But don't let that little fact interfere with your quest for tenure.
One book? Read the Bauval book mentioned. I'd actually recommend the entire Hancock series... Start with Fingerprints of the Gods. Read Sitchen's series if you're interested in the bigger picture. The Sumerians are far more interesting, IMO. And they created the world's first civilization, about a thousand years before the Egyptians. They built pyramids (ziggurats) too, I might add... I'd actually say that The Earth Chronicles would be a must-read for anyone who is concerned with ancient prehistory and mankind's origins. And it's just interesting to learn that mankind's first civilization worshipped beings whom were admitted aliens... rimbaud could probably point you to a more authoritative source (no sarcasm intended).
I don't know enough about heiroglyphics to comment. Actually, this is wrong (I guess I didn't emphasize my point). a portable pavilion covered with sheet gold, two arm-chairs, a bed, a sedan chair and caskets inlaid with gold and ebony, and ornate jewelry were all found. It is, perhaps, true that there were no bodies. Evidence seems to indicate that the building of the pyramids took importance over the person, anyway. It has been suggested that they were simply monuments to rulers, help for them to get to the afterlife aside the sun god. That was certainly the reasoning behind many other monuments. Perhaps you are thinking of the "airshafts" that lead to the king's chamber? I am speaking of multiple tunnels (vertical and horizontal) that go up and down (down to a false tomb). I have seen multiple renditions...they are all a scam? Zoser's is the "Step Pyramid," ~2750 BCE and was based on (and built upon the form of) earlier mastabas tombs. Snefru built the "Bent Pyramid" and it dates to ~2600's BCE. So what you are saying that increasing sophistication over time, monument by monument, is a warning signal? To me it spells architectural evolution. Giza was the pinnacle for the period. I don't get the big mystery there. Misleading. The non-trained "egyptologist" John West claims a date of 10500, based upon the work of geologist Robert Schoch. West also claims the complex was based upon constellations and the Sphinx was "looking at" Leo, thus the lion. This, however, has thoroughly been debunked and the Sphinx has been proven to relate to the sun. The Egyptians did not even have the same concept of "leo" we do now...we get that from Greeks, I believe. Anyway, Schoch dated the core of the sphinx to about 5,000, but not the face, hind, etc. Many monoliths were being built around 5000, so it very easily could have been something that was expanded upon, etc. Schoch himself has stated that it means nothing. Again, another example of misleading and irresponsible mixing of theories by frauds. Modern scholars say an average os 30,000 workers lived and worked there constantly. Why couldn't they build something larger? We believe nothing of their mythologies now...why should we believe ones relating to pyramids? Unless you start advocating their religions as truth in everything, I see no point. Gods helped them in everything. And I am just saying that you are promoting the ideas of frauds as the foundation of your argument. It comes straight out of a Fox primetime "Mysteries of the Pyramids" media circus. I do not like erroneous information being passed on in such a way. Sure, we don't know everything, that is impossible. That, however, is true for everything we "know" about history. We know enough, though, to know how they were built and why they were built. Just because it is not as readily accessible or sexy as Maury Povich specials does not mean it is so horrible.
To clarify, I don't work with Lehner, I work with a different scholar. It is a close community, though, and they all know each other: mine, Lehner, Tefnin, etc... Incidentally, everything is always presented as educated guesses, not really fact.
rimbaud: Well this would be the absolute first I've ever heard of any artifacts being found inside the Great Pyramid. You must have secret sources who didn't relate their findings to the rest of the world... It has always been reported that the only item found in the Great Pyramid was a stone "sarcophagus", which was abnormally confined if built for a human body. Are you telling me that there are a bunch of artifacts no one's ever mentioned? BTW, it is not "perhaps true" that there has never been a body found in the Great Pyramid, it's undoubtedly true. The Grand Gallery was sealed with a several-ton rock when it was found. The "airshafts" lead from the Queen's Chamber, not the King's Chamber. And they point to an astrological date of 10,500 BC. No, and you know that's not the case. The Giza complex is dated to the 6th dynasty, and no one's ever been able to explain why later dynasties couldn't replicate their achievements architecturally. Zoser's Bent Pyramid - it is a "bent" pyramid, mastaba on top of mastaba, but not creating a congruent 52 degree angle - is dated as the earliest, and even it apparently composes a more advanced mathematical and architectural knowledge than post-6th dynasty pyramids... What is misleading is your interpretation. The Egyptians themselves said that the orientation of the Sphinx was astrologically oriented. You are replacing their claims with your own, and assuming that they were telling a mythical story... Erosion geologics don't lie. You're basically saying that Schoch is either a kook or he's wrong (and later saying that he recalled his estimations, which is untrue; he merely refined the dates, which still predate Egyptian civilization), and those aren't really good arguments. Who's to say 10,000 men couldn't do it? or 5,000? I'm not actually disputing that there was a significant work force involved in construction on Giza monuments. I'm just pointing out that there are some "unexplainables" as far as the complex and the 3+1 (Sphinx+pyramids) is concerned. I think you'd be a fool to write off every single thing that they said as "myth". Egyptologists tend to write those parts off that they deem 'fantastic', while accepting the parts they can undersand and link to their own theories. That is perfectly understandable, but it might not get us anywhere closer to the "truth". What if some of those parts that archeologists dismiss as 'fantasy' on the part of the Greeks, Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, etc were actually interpretations of events that they did not fully understand? It is not that big of a stretch. You do not know their history. You are an arrogant "fraud" if you think you do.
I think its ironic how this thread started out by using a scientific finding (possible water on Mars - which we found thanks to advancements in space technology,etc) to eventually try and debunk scientific findings concerning Mars. Anyway, rimbaud's argumetn definitely holds more merit here. The best archeaologists today take into account every finding when coming up with their hypotheses. While I havent extensively read any of these psuedo-archaeology books, they go a far way to discredit a lot of previous findings and archaeology as a science in general. There are definitely more findings supporting "rimbauds view of Egyptian history" than otherwise. But, new findings, that seem likely, are included in the newest theories (its kinda like the whole Clovis/Pre-Clovis argument - i heard there was an interesting find in Texas on that matter recently by the way). What if some alien civilization came to our planet thousands of years ago, and set in motion the process that they knew would lead us to this argument today!
What do you mean by "this"? I ask because as you can tell from the dialogue in this thread, there's the traditional Egyptologist side (rimbaud) and there are those who wish to debunk it (what treeman is presenting although I don't think he's necessarily presenting it as fact).
treeman, rimbaud & DrofDunk: what do y'all do [occupation-wise]? what are y'all reading and who are y'all speaking with to be so in the know on this particular subject?
Yeah, I like your tone. My secret sources talk to me at night and tell me things. That, or I have two Art History survey books that have the objects listed and some images of them. They must be in league with the Museum of Cairo who is displaying them as such as well. As I said, my resources for the subject or limited, so I cannot get into more detail. I said it was "perhaps true" that there were not originally bodies, I was not referring to the discovery of bodies, please try not to make up new arguments for me, they only get in the way. Hmmm, I am looking at a diagram right now and it shows the shafts leading into the King's champer of Cheops/Khufu. The queen's is directly below and has no direct connection. Where are you getting your information?
