Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ether · 08-17-2002, 05:25 AM

Quote:

There are people coming from a New Age perspective who want the pyramids to be very old, much older than Egyptologists are willing to agree. There are people who want them to be built by extraterrestrials, or inspired by extraterrestrials, or built by a lost civilization whose records are otherwise unknown to us.

I gave up reading right there, there is so much christianiry going on there.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ether ]

Vorkosigan · 08-17-2002, 05:44 AM

Vork,
You havent provided any evidence that this guy is a crank so far he, by the way, does NOT set out to determine the age of the pyramids, his books' main agenda is to decode the meaning of the word god(s) using ancient texts these same same gods who Erick Von Daniken (king of cranks, I bet), called the "ancient astronauts" - from Ezekiels famous verses.

Van Daniken is not the king of cranks -- after all, he stole his ideas from people prior to him -- he is merely a usurper. He did make a lot of money, though, peddling his racist, ethnocentric crap.

... what I am interested in are his ideas, which you don't seem aware of.

I have no interest in further argument. The passage above, in which he dates the Pyramids to 8,000 BP, renders ridiculous all further discussion; there is no need to waste my time with an obvious crank like this. Please explore the PBS site, and get a good introductory mainstream book on Pyramid archaeology, such as <a href="http://www.mummytombs.com/market/books/egypt/misc/lehnerpyramids.htm" target="_blank">Lehner's</a>.

Vorkosigan

Sojourner553 · 08-17-2002, 05:48 AM

To Vork:

Those were wonderful sites. I like the sublinks on the last one as well. Thanks for that. Hope we are still friends! (You misinterpreted my "tone" in an earlier post... Really)

To Intensity:

For someone who hurls personal attacks against anyone who has a theory (you don't like) and cannot back it up with 100% evidence...

are you not unlike the person who lives in a glass house out throwing rocks! Where is your EVIDENCE???! It seems to me you are in the touchy/feely "it would be nice to believe" mode. Well, maybe this means you have more in common with our Christian friends at this website than you realize.

You see I recognize that people yearn/"would like to believe" in something that will make them more powerful and/or live forever.

That's why I generally try to be more gentle with Christians than you -- by not automatically assuming their "motivation" is one from lying, forgery, etc. Atheists would like to be supermen/women too. They just let their reason supercede their desires/fantasies. Please show us your reasoning here.

Sojourner

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Marduk · 08-17-2002, 06:23 AM

“Is that the one where he postulates that mankind is a hybrid offspring of an alien race, designed as slaves nearly 170,000 years ago?”

I’ve always been rather intrigued by this theory, one Mr. Sitchin expounds on quite heavily by more or less writing the same book over and over again. However as I’ve pointed out in my “Are we not men?” thread all the evidence is in VERY old mythological format. The Sumerians make these claims in their numerous stories:
The ‘gods’ were on Earth before man
There were only 300 on the Earth at any given time, with another 300 in the sky.
They created man from primitive beings to be their slaves and servants, to tend their gardens (Eden?), build their cities.
Over time they gradually taught mankind the art of civilization.
They got into a war amongst themselves over who would rule Earth.
They ‘scattered to the four winds like birds’ after a major war of mass destruction.
(the ancient Hindu texts tell a similar story, the Book of Enoch also has tales of the ‘Watchers’ teaching humans science & technology)

I don’t see why Sitchin is branded a racist for this? He is only quoting the myths, which anyone can read if they so desire. Sitchin however is basically a fundamentalist, to accept his theory you must believe that all of these old stories are fact, including the flood story.
You must also overlook the fact that his hypothesis is unnecessary, if the ‘gods’, the Annunaki, could evolve to become an advanced space travelling species without the need of intervention from yet another group of aliens, then so could we.
This is where Alford gets interesting, though I haven’t read his book. Since these stories are so prevalent in many different cultures and were treated with such reverence in ancient times. It does lead one to think there may have been something that started all this, some foundation to these myths. The idea of people writing stories and giving human characteristics to some celestial event of major proportions makes a certain amount of sense.

As far as the Pyramids go, I think the evidense that they were built 4500 years ago by humans is quite convincing.
The Sphynx however not only looks older but the shape of the head (the face is much smaller than the head, especially from the back) makes it look like it used to be a lion and someone altered it to have a Pharonic face.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]

Vorkosigan · 08-17-2002, 06:37 AM

I don�t see why Sitchin is branded a racist for this? He is only quoting the myths, which anyone can read if they so desire. Sitchin however is basically a fundamentalist, to accept his theory you must believe that all of these old stories are fact, including the flood story.

Van Daniken is heir to older ideas that people of darker skin colors couldn't possibly have built the great cities of Central and South America.

Vorkosigan · 08-17-2002, 06:39 AM

To Vork:

Those were wonderful sites. I like the sublinks on the last one as well. Thanks for that. Hope we are still friends! (You misinterpreted my "tone" in an earlier post... Really)

Really? Then I am deeply sorry. Of course we are still friends.

Michael

Marduk · 08-17-2002, 06:47 AM

"Van Daniken is heir to older ideas that people of darker skin colors couldn't possibly have built the great cities of Central and South America"

OK, this is true, saw him on TV once. VanD's silliest idea of all, when he was talking about the Easter island 'Heads'
interviewer: why would aliens put up all these heads?
VanD: "they were probably stuck on that island and were bored"

Ted Hoffman · 08-17-2002, 07:16 AM

Vork,
Excellent links. Since your main contention is the dating of the Pyramids, lets look at the arguments then.

Under Alfords "adoption theory" he underlines the complexity of the matter of dating the pyramids:

Quote:

It must be emphasised that the age of the Giza monuments is a complex question, and not a subject on which anyone can speak with absolute certainty. Anyone who pretends to have a definite answer to this question, based on the evidence available as at 2000/01, is, in my opinion, a fool. Rather, it is a case of looking at all the evidence, making judgements about ‘facts’ which seem to contradict one another, and drawing an overall ‘most likely’ conclusion based on the balance of evidence.

Your friend, MARK LEHNER, Archaeologist, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, and Harvard Semitic Museum says when asked what evidence he has for dating the pyramids to NOT older than 5000 years ago:

Until now there is no evidence at all that has been found in any place, not only at Giza, but also in Egypt...No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago.
there are inscriptions and pottery inside the pyramids, a bakery and workmen that are dated to the fourth dynasty (the reigns of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure)

Most importantly, he confesses:

Quote:

Rarely do we have people from thousands of years ago who are writing, who are signing confessions. So there's no one easy way that we know what the date of the pyramids happens to be. It's mostly by context.

Then he adds:

Quote:

...primarily we date the pyramids by their position in the development of Egyptian architecture and material culture over the broad sweep of 3,000 years. So we're not dealing with any one foothold of factual knowledge at Giza itself. We're dealing with basically the entirety of Egyptology and Egyptian archaeology.

He ends with a challenge:

Quote:

show me one pot shard of that earlier civilization. Because the only way they could have existed is if they actually got out with whisk brooms, scoop shovels and little spoons and cleared out every single trace of their daily lives, their utensils, their pottery, their wood, their tools and so on, and that's just totally improbable. Well, it's not impossible, but it has a very, very low level of probability, that there was an older civilization there.

So, in essence he (a) is arguing that there is no evidence that a civilization that preceded the fourth dynasty built the pyramids
(b) admits that they cant be very sure or provide an exact date.

And What does Alford Say?
In his "Adoption Theory" he states:

Quote:

virtually all of the supposed evidence for 4th dynasty construction of the Giza Pyramids and Sphinx was, in fact, consistent with an ‘adoption’ scenario. In other words, it seemed entirely plausible that the Egyptian kings Khufu and Khafre had ‘adopted’ pre-existing structures in the form of the Great Pyramid, the Second Pyramid and the Sphinx, and merely added the causeways which ran between the mortuary and valley temples

He emphasizes:

Quote:

Only one piece of evidence speaks unambiguously for 4th dynasty provenance of the Giza monuments, namely the ‘quarry marks’ inside the Great Pyramid which contain the names of king Khufu. These marks, discovered by the English explorer Colonel Howard Vyse in 1837, were located inside sealed chambers (the so-called ‘relieving chambers’ above the King’s Chamber) and thus, on the face of it, seem to prove that the Great Pyramid was built by the 4th dynasty king Khufu. And if this were so, it becomes virtually certain that all the structures at Giza, including the Sphinx had a 4th dynasty provenance

He lists the following evidence against the 4th Dynasty provenance besides the argument that Howard vyse had faked the quarry marks:

1. The SphinxFrom a detailed study of the highly-weathered limestone rock of the Sphinx and the enclosure in which it sits, Robert Schoch, a geologist from Boston University, has concluded that the monument was exposed to prolonged heavy rainfall, and he has therefore dated its construction to around 7000–5000 BC.
it should be noted that the Inventory Stele (26th dynasty) informs us that Khufu repaired the headdress of the Sphinx after it had been damaged by lightning. If this is true (and there is no particular reason to doubt it), this would negate the theory that Khufu’s son Khafre built the Sphinx, and it would throw a serious ‘spanner in the works’ of the orthodox dating of the Giza site. Moreover, the Inventory Stele fails to make any claim that Khufu built the Sphinx or the Great Pyramid, and these omissions offer considerable support to my ‘adoption’ hypothesis.

In my view, the evidence from geology and the Inventory Stele, together, make a compelling case for an older Sphinx.
2 Radiocarbon Dating

Egyptologists date the 4th dynasty kings Khufu and Khafre to the period 2500-2400 BC. However, the 1983–84 ‘Pyramids Carbon-dating Project’, commissioned and funded by the Edgar Cayce Foundation, and directed by the Egyptologists Mark Lehner and Robert Wenke, discovered some highly anomalous results.

For example, thirteen samples of mortar from the Great Pyramid produced dates in the range 3101–2853 BC, and an average date of 2977 BC. Similarly, seven samples of mortar from the Second Pyramid produced an average date of 2988 BC. Equally intriguing, a sample of wood from ‘Khufu’s Boat’, buried alongside the Great Pyramid, produced a remarkable date of 3400 BC.

Such was the confusion caused by the 1983–84 ‘Pyramids Carbon-dating Project’ that a second, more thorough study was carried out in 1995, with the results being expected in early-1998. As of September 2001, the results of this study have still not been fully published, and are more than three years overdue.
3 Inscriptions

The Inventory Stele, mentioned earlier, was supposedly written by the priests of the cult of Khufu during the 26th dynasty to praise the deeds of the ancient king. However, it makes no claim whatsoever that Khufu built the Great Pyramid. A very strange omission indeed if Khufu really did build the Pyramid.

Moreover, 4th dynasty inscriptions found at Giza confirm that Khufu was building the mastaba fields for his high officials to the west of the Great Pyramid in ‘year 5’ of his reign. Is it really likely that Khufu, having initiated the largest, most complex and innovative pyramid-building project in Egyptian history, would have allowed any work to be carried out in building mastabas? Can we seriously believe that Khufu would have put his great venture at risk by diverting resources to the building of such mastabas in the fifth year of his reign, bearing in mind that he did not know whether he would live long enough to see the completion of his pyramid? The idea, surely is ludicrous. The inscriptions only make sense if the Great Pyramid was already built before the time of Khufu. (As far as I know, I am the first person to have highlighted this anomaly; my thanks to Mark Lehner for mentioning it unwittingly in his book ‘The Complete Pyramids’.)
4 The Alignment between Giza and Dahshur
I pointed out a relationship between the Giza and Dahshur pyramids that no-one had ever noticed before. In a nutshell, it involves an alignment between the twin pyramids built by Sneferu at Dahshur and the two giant pyramids at Giza. Amazingly, the alignment is such that Sneferu’s pyramids must have been oriented towards two pre-existing pyramids at Giza (this fact is apparent to any intelligent person who knows the topographical constraints of the Giza and Dahshur sites and who is able to study the alignment free from bias and preconceptions; interested parties are referred to Figure 4 in the book).

Since Sneferu was the father of Khufu, this fact alone precludes any possibility that Khufu built the Great Pyramid at Giza.
5 Archaeological Context
the Great Pyramid does not fit in to the standard evolutionary model of pyramid-building. In particular, its builders used an innovative design and several revolutionary technologies which immediately thereafter disappeared from the archaeological record. When studied in its essential archaeological context, the Great Pyramid simply does not belong in the mooted sequence of 4th dynasty pyramids
(Intensity: I beleive he refers to ultrasonic machining here)
6 Refurbishment of Khafre’s Valley Temple at Giza
As has been pointed out by Robert Schoch and others, there is clear evidence that the granite casing blocks of Khafre’s Valley Temple were fitted to limestone blocks which were already severely weathered. Since the granite blocks are dated to the 4th dynasty, the inner limestone core, i.e. the original temple, must date to long before the 4th dynasty.

If the Valley Temple dates to long before the 4th dynasty, then it becomes a virtual certainty that the other megalithic temples at Giza, which are attributed to Khufu and Khafre, were also built long before the 4th dynasty. And, of course, no-one would build temples in front of non-existent pyramids. QED, the two giant pyramids, by the same token, must date to long before the 4th dynasty.

His conclusions:

Quote:

Firstly, the Sphinx was probably ‘adopted’ by the 4th dynasty king Khafre, having been built by an earlier, pre-dynastic culture. Secondly, the two giant Pyramids at Giza were probably ‘adopted’ by the kings Khufu and Khafre, having been built by a pre-dynastic culture at some time during the 6th-4th millennia BC. Thirdly, the ‘quarry marks’ in the Great Pyramid (incorporating Khufu’s name) were probably forged by the English explorer Colonel Howard Vyse.

Note that the dating provided via Radiocarbon dating has been anomalous and more importantly, DOES NOT take into account the issues Alford addresses above.

Sojourner
For someone who hurls personal attacks against anyone who has a theory (you don't like) and cannot back it up with 100% evidence...
What are you talking about?

are you not unlike the person who lives in a glass house out throwing rocks! Where is your EVIDENCE!
Evidence for what?

It seems to me you are in the touchy/feeling "it would be nice to believe" mode.
Well, maybe you have more in common with our Christian friends here at this post than you realize.
This is not relevant in any way. You sound like you are desperate to make friends with Vorkosigan. Just send a message to him and ask him if you and him can be friends - you dont have to appear to be backing him when you dont even have an idea what the discussion is all about. You are behaving like some silly teenager boy trying to court a girl.

Ted Hoffman · 08-17-2002, 07:41 AM

Hi Marduck,
Glad this thread got your attention. You are the only one I have noticed is well familiar with Astra Hasis texts, Enuma Elish etc, and I hope you will contribute in plenty because we have here people who view others who interpret/translate ancient texts as racists - it shows you we are neck-high in myths and propaganda around here.

Wow, Von Daniken gave such a silly answer at a TV show? Funny. But Alford parted ways with him quite the ancient astronaut theory/ intervention theory especially as concerns the Nacza Plains.

It does lead one to think there may have been something that started all this, some foundation to these myths. The idea of people writing stories and giving human characteristics to some celestial event of major proportions makes a certain amount of sense.
It does, and questions abound concerning the origins of such beliefs. But I think the important thing at the momemt is to get a theory that can be used to interpret those ancient texts in a way that makes sense. And I beleive Alford has it.

As far as the Pyramids go, I think the evidense that they were built 4500 years ago by humans is quite convincing.
Alford dates them to between 6000 - 8000 years ago - for the reasons provided above. What makes the 4500 yrs ago dating "quite convincing"?

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Ether · 08-17-2002, 11:17 AM

I think this is a good article on pyramids:

<a href="http://mars-earth.com/cydonia_eygpt/" target="_blank">http://mars-earth.com/cydonia_eygpt/</a>

It doesn't deals with dating but it deals with the connection between the pyramids on earth and mars.

As for the Enuma Elish, here is a link for the whole text:

<a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm</a>

Quote:

But Tiamat and Apsu were still in confusion...
They were troubled and...
In disorder...
Apru was not diminished in might...
And Tiamat roared...
She smote, and their deeds...
Their way was evil...

I think this has something to do with their orbits? Maybe their orbits where not right and thats the reason they crashed with something else and exploded?

Good Day
Ether

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ether ]

08-17-2002, 05:48 AM	#13
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	To Vork: Those were wonderful sites. I like the sublinks on the last one as well. Thanks for that. Hope we are still friends! (You misinterpreted my "tone" in an earlier post... Really) To Intensity: For someone who hurls personal attacks against anyone who has a theory (you don't like) and cannot back it up with 100% evidence... are you not unlike the person who lives in a glass house out throwing rocks! Where is your EVIDENCE???! It seems to me you are in the touchy/feely "it would be nice to believe" mode. Well, maybe this means you have more in common with our Christian friends at this website than you realize. You see I recognize that people yearn/"would like to believe" in something that will make them more powerful and/or live forever. That's why I generally try to be more gentle with Christians than you -- by not automatically assuming their "motivation" is one from lying, forgery, etc. Atheists would like to be supermen/women too. They just let their reason supercede their desires/fantasies. Please show us your reasoning here. Sojourner [ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

08-17-2002, 06:23 AM	#14
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	“Is that the one where he postulates that mankind is a hybrid offspring of an alien race, designed as slaves nearly 170,000 years ago?” I’ve always been rather intrigued by this theory, one Mr. Sitchin expounds on quite heavily by more or less writing the same book over and over again. However as I’ve pointed out in my “Are we not men?” thread all the evidence is in VERY old mythological format. The Sumerians make these claims in their numerous stories: The ‘gods’ were on Earth before man There were only 300 on the Earth at any given time, with another 300 in the sky. They created man from primitive beings to be their slaves and servants, to tend their gardens (Eden?), build their cities. Over time they gradually taught mankind the art of civilization. They got into a war amongst themselves over who would rule Earth. They ‘scattered to the four winds like birds’ after a major war of mass destruction. (the ancient Hindu texts tell a similar story, the Book of Enoch also has tales of the ‘Watchers’ teaching humans science & technology) I don’t see why Sitchin is branded a racist for this? He is only quoting the myths, which anyone can read if they so desire. Sitchin however is basically a fundamentalist, to accept his theory you must believe that all of these old stories are fact, including the flood story. You must also overlook the fact that his hypothesis is unnecessary, if the ‘gods’, the Annunaki, could evolve to become an advanced space travelling species without the need of intervention from yet another group of aliens, then so could we. This is where Alford gets interesting, though I haven’t read his book. Since these stories are so prevalent in many different cultures and were treated with such reverence in ancient times. It does lead one to think there may have been something that started all this, some foundation to these myths. The idea of people writing stories and giving human characteristics to some celestial event of major proportions makes a certain amount of sense. As far as the Pyramids go, I think the evidense that they were built 4500 years ago by humans is quite convincing. The Sphynx however not only looks older but the shape of the head (the face is much smaller than the head, especially from the back) makes it look like it used to be a lion and someone altered it to have a Pharonic face. [ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]</p>

08-17-2002, 07:41 AM	#19
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Hi Marduck, Glad this thread got your attention. You are the only one I have noticed is well familiar with Astra Hasis texts, Enuma Elish etc, and I hope you will contribute in plenty because we have here people who view others who interpret/translate ancient texts as racists - it shows you we are neck-high in myths and propaganda around here. Wow, Von Daniken gave such a silly answer at a TV show? Funny. But Alford parted ways with him quite the ancient astronaut theory/ intervention theory especially as concerns the Nacza Plains. It does lead one to think there may have been something that started all this, some foundation to these myths. The idea of people writing stories and giving human characteristics to some celestial event of major proportions makes a certain amount of sense. It does, and questions abound concerning the origins of such beliefs. But I think the important thing at the momemt is to get a theory that can be used to interpret those ancient texts in a way that makes sense. And I beleive Alford has it. As far as the Pyramids go, I think the evidense that they were built 4500 years ago by humans is quite convincing. Alford dates them to between 6000 - 8000 years ago - for the reasons provided above. What makes the 4500 yrs ago dating "quite convincing"? [ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2002, 05:44 AM	#12
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Vork, You havent provided any evidence that this guy is a crank so far he, by the way, does NOT set out to determine the age of the pyramids, his books' main agenda is to decode the meaning of the word god(s) using ancient texts these same same gods who Erick Von Daniken (king of cranks, I bet), called the "ancient astronauts" - from Ezekiels famous verses. Van Daniken is not the king of cranks -- after all, he stole his ideas from people prior to him -- he is merely a usurper. He did make a lot of money, though, peddling his racist, ethnocentric crap. ... what I am interested in are his ideas, which you don't seem aware of. I have no interest in further argument. The passage above, in which he dates the Pyramids to 8,000 BP, renders ridiculous all further discussion; there is no need to waste my time with an obvious crank like this. Please explore the PBS site, and get a good introductory mainstream book on Pyramid archaeology, such as <a href="http://www.mummytombs.com/market/books/egypt/misc/lehnerpyramids.htm" target="_blank">Lehner's</a>. Vorkosigan

08-17-2002, 06:37 AM	#15
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I don�t see why Sitchin is branded a racist for this? He is only quoting the myths, which anyone can read if they so desire. Sitchin however is basically a fundamentalist, to accept his theory you must believe that all of these old stories are fact, including the flood story. Van Daniken is heir to older ideas that people of darker skin colors couldn't possibly have built the great cities of Central and South America.

08-17-2002, 06:39 AM	#16
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	To Vork: Those were wonderful sites. I like the sublinks on the last one as well. Thanks for that. Hope we are still friends! (You misinterpreted my "tone" in an earlier post... Really) Really? Then I am deeply sorry. Of course we are still friends. Michael

08-17-2002, 06:47 AM	#17
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"Van Daniken is heir to older ideas that people of darker skin colors couldn't possibly have built the great cities of Central and South America" OK, this is true, saw him on TV once. VanD's silliest idea of all, when he was talking about the Easter island 'Heads' interviewer: why would aliens put up all these heads? VanD: "they were probably stuck on that island and were bored"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.