Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Are the pyramids really tombs or are the experts wrong
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a link for the picture above that didn't show.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/hrdfact2.php

There's a great deal of physical evidence that all say our interpretations are flawed.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 538
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
There's a great deal of physical evidence that all say our interpretations are flawed.


So you keep saying. You also keep saying you're using "logic," but it's not at all the sort of reasoning I associate with that term, so I think you are misusing the word.

So... what *precisely* was the function or purpose of a pyramid, in your view? In our language and terms, not theirs. If we jumped in our TARDIS and popped out 4500-ish years ago, how would we ourselves describe it all?

You stated above that they were "mnemonic" devices for remembering kings, but that's utterly preposterous. They had a written language for that, and used it (c.f. the Palermo Stone and associated fragments). You also at one time stated that they were themselves sawmills, then reversed yourself and said that the valley temples were sawmills, and then you posted a link to a photo which would seem to indicate that stone blocks were sawn in situ.

And what's up with the canneries you also claimed?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
cladking wrote:
There's a great deal of physical evidence that all say our interpretations are flawed.


So you keep saying. You also keep saying you're using "logic," but it's not at all the sort of reasoning I associate with that term, so I think you are misusing the word.

So... what *precisely* was the function or purpose of a pyramid, in your view? In our language and terms, not theirs. If we jumped in our TARDIS and popped out 4500-ish years ago, how would we ourselves describe it all?

You stated above that they were "mnemonic" devices for remembering kings, but that's utterly preposterous. They had a written language for that, and used it (c.f. the Palermo Stone and associated fragments). You also at one time stated that they were themselves sawmills, then reversed yourself and said that the valley temples were sawmills, and then you posted a link to a photo which would seem to indicate that stone blocks were sawn in situ.

And what's up with the canneries you also claimed?


If we could go back in time it would be impossible to communicate with these people. Our universal translator wouldn't work any more than it did with Darmok and the children of Tama (Tamarians). Shaka when the walls fell. You couldn't ask why they built them and they couldn't answer if you did.

But they wouldn't put a body in any of them and they'd use the pyramid as a mnemonic to remember their king.

I sympathize with your understanding of the word "logic". It's impossible to actually use "logic" with modern language and I can't either. However there is a logic to mathematics and metaphysics and by these standards (the ability to make prediction) that I say my theory is "logical". Meanwhile the generation of countless mysteries by theory is prima facie evidence that that theory is wrong. Some of Egyptology really is "illogical" because it flies in the face of definitions.

The valley temple was an industrial plant on the river. It might have cut stone or wood but when pyramid construction began any cutting was done on the east side of the pyramid. If there were saws in the "valley temple" they were moved up the causeway for construction of the pyramid which was a distinct project. The valley temple became almost exclusively a port.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 237

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If, cladking, you have as you say spent a vast amount of time trawling immense numbers of sites on the internet for you information, it's a pity, and a surprise, that as you base much your entire "theory" on an inability of us, not you of course, to understand Old Egyptian, that you missed this site, one which I think should have been your first port of call. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language

I'll quote what it says about Old Egyptian vis Middle Egyptian:

Quote:
Overall, it does not differ significantly from Middle Egyptian, the classical stage of the language, though it is based on a different dialect.


It hardly needs pointing out, or maybe it does, that we can in fact understand Middle Egyptian, that being the case, how can we therefore not understand Old Egyptian.

I once read, I think in one of Tyldesley's books but don't remember exactly, a passage about the differences in language from the Old Kingdom to the Ptolemaic period. It went something like, Queen Tiye [of Amunhotep III] would be able to have a conversation with Queen Hetepheres [of Sneferu] and with Cleopatra VII, but Cleopatra VII would not be able to hold a conversation with Queen Hetepheres, or only with some difficulty. I would put it as being like a speaker of modern English trying to have a conversation with a speaker of Old English. There would be some recognition of Old English words, but a flow of conversation would be impossible.

To reiterate the earlier point, if we can understand Middle Egyptian, how can we not also understand Old Egyptian when there was interinteligibility between the two.

Please, cladking, show your workings for how you can state that we cannot understand Old Egyptian, show the changes in the language which prevent us from understanding, yet still allow the language to be understood by speakers of Middle Egyptian, who we can understand quite well. Evidence is needed, not saying it is so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 538
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
If we could go back in time it would be impossible to communicate with these people. Our universal translator wouldn't work any more than it did with Darmok and the children of Tama (Tamarians). Shaka when the walls fell. You couldn't ask why they built them and they couldn't answer if you did. .


Appreciate the TNG reference, but we wouldn't have to talk to them What would we observe?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
cladking wrote:
If we could go back in time it would be impossible to communicate with these people. Our universal translator wouldn't work any more than it did with Darmok and the children of Tama (Tamarians). Shaka when the walls fell. You couldn't ask why they built them and they couldn't answer if you did. .


Appreciate the TNG reference, but we wouldn't have to talk to them What would we observe?


Since we couldn't communicate it would be extremely difficult to observe them using it as a mnemonic device. The king was "assigned" a pyramid to be remembered by day and a star by night. This might look like reverence or ritual, I don't know. But they did hold feasts and festivals at these sites and they also had funerals for many centuries.

What we wouldn't see is bodies going inside of them because they weren't tombs. It's entirely possible that the cremated remains went in some of them as an after thought and it's possible the internal organs were actually put in them before the "justification ceremony" where the king's heart was weighed. Many details of the ceremonies simply don't appear in the Pyramid Texts since this is merely a collection of the rituals read to the crowds at the various ascension ceremonies of the king. I know only what was said at these ceremonies and a few of the things that were done. I have to make deductions about specifics and why they were done.

A great deal of work needs to be done to understand the pyramids, the builders, and the science they used. It will take decades of intensive study by scholars and scientists to really understand this.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
What would we observe?


If you could observe them for a long time you would see the site being used for industrial purposes for many years before conversion to a pyramid site. You would see the Great Pyramid being built on top of the second Sphinx and writing on all the walls that deflect the weight from it. You would see many inexplicable rituals, events, processes, and procedures you'd find pretty surprising.

You probably wouldn't see aliens and magic. You wouldn't see people behaving as alike but you would see cooperation. Most of what you'd see just wouldn't make a lot of sense to you but you'd certainly come back knowing about the processes they used since most of them were really quite simple.

The things you didn't see were the most important to really understanding and these things will be unknown until we come to actually understand the language.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 538
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
It's entirely possible that the cremated remains went in some of them as an after thought and it's possible the internal organs were actually put in them before the "justification ceremony" where the king's heart was weighed.


Aside from the un-Egyptianness of cremation, why would this be materially different than a "tomb"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
cladking wrote:
It's entirely possible that the cremated remains went in some of them as an after thought and it's possible the internal organs were actually put in them before the "justification ceremony" where the king's heart was weighed.


Aside from the un-Egyptianness of cremation, why would this be materially different than a "tomb"?


When we build a "tomb" there is simply no doubt that our intention is to put remains in it. Whether it's ever used to house remains or not this is the principle defining characteristic of what we mean by the word.

The Egyptian pyramids were never built for the purpose of holding remains. That some of them might have held cremated remains or his internal organs before the king was cremated is irrelevant to the reason the pyramids were built. There are bodies in wrecked cars, hospitals, and mortuaries but these aren't tombs either. Existing in a necropolis doesn't make them tombs any more than a church surrounded by cemeteries.

We'll never understand the pyramid builders until we understand the pyramids. This isn't to say the pyramids are more important, far from it, but they are the only key to understanding that has survived other than a "book of incantation" that is incomprehensible to us.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:


Aside from the un-Egyptianness of cremation...


Before the great pyramid building age kings were buried. But they probably were well aware these bodies still decomposed no matter how well mummified and how well protected in the mastabas.

I believe that it was only during the great pyramid building age that they hit upon the solution of committing the body to heaven by burning it on the pyramid in a pyre called the "iskn". The body could not decompose further once it was cremated. This practice was almost certainly reserved only for kings.

After they could no longer build great pyramids the practice came to an abrupt halt and they built the tiny little "pyramids" (piles of rubble) as tombs. Part of the reason changes are so hard to see is because we use the same terms for so many things. We don't see the change in language because the vocabulary didn't change. We simply see the same meaning in that "book of incantation" as the authors of the "book of the dead" saw. We have a remarkable ability to take little evidence and then color in an entire picture. It is one of the greatest strengths of thinking in our language. But we usually forget that we see this picture at all times and that it is sometimes in error. Indeed, there are always at least small errors in our models and it's possible for our models to be entirely wrong. I believe this is just one of those cases where our models are wholly in error and it was caused by having so little evidence to fill in the picture. We have painted a masterpiece of something that never existed.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 538
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
We'll never understand the pyramid builders until we understand the pyramids.


IMHO, this is backwards. One can't understand any structure or portion of a society without learning about the society as a whole and seeing how the structure fits into it... context.

cladking wrote:
This isn't to say the pyramids are more important, far from it, but they are the only key to understanding that has survived other than a "book of incantation" that is incomprehensible to us.


Negative. By the time we have evidence of the "Pyramid Texts," the pyramids they were in were little "piles of rubble," to use your phrase. (I saw some speculation recently that the Pyramid Texts may have been present in earlier pyramids in the form of wooden panels or tapestries of some sort, which of course have not survived the millennia, but that's a hypothesis-- if an attractive one.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:

IMHO, this is backwards. One can't understand any structure or portion of a society without learning about the society as a whole and seeing how the structure fits into it... context.


No, this is exactly where we went wrong. We think we turned our backs on the pyramids to understand the culture but in reality we painted our masterpiece composed of assumptions that the pyramids were tombs, they were dragged up ramps, and that the builders were fully comprehensible in terms of the superstitions of later people (the authors of the book of the dead). These assumption go back to long before anything was known about the pyramids or their builders. They were based chiefly on our belief that humans progress and this progress is similar across many cultures and civilizations. It was based on assumptions about the nature of superstition and the nature of epistemology and science. It was based on our beliefs about pyramids.

After the Pyramid Texts were discovered our understanding of the builders was based principally on it as translated and interpreted in terms of the "book of the dead".

We painted a picture with very little evidence but the picture remains even as more and more evidence is found that contradicts it and shows its errors.

We didn't and still don't know anything about the builders as amply demonstrated by the simple fact the builders repeatedly and coherently said the pyramid is not a tomb. They literally said over and over the pyramid is the king and his tomb is in heaven. If we really understood the builders we'd know WHY they said such things that contradict all of our beliefs.

I simply propose they said such thi8ngs because that's exactly what they meant and we have everything wrong. Our picture is of something that never existed.

We have no real key to understanding the culture. It's highly illogical to base our understanding on a book of incantation. The culture is gone and the only key to understanding the little writing that survives is to understand the pyramid which still stands in its ruined glory. It still is a sort of mnemonic to remember Khufu. We no longer know how Khufu fit in the pantheon of stars but this is the kind of thing that actually made up the culture and can probably be recovered.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
(I saw some speculation recently that the Pyramid Texts may have been present in earlier pyramids in the form of wooden panels or tapestries of some sort, which of course have not survived the millennia, but that's a hypothesis-- if an attractive one.)


I've suspected this from the beginning. Obviously the Pyramid Texts are far far older than the 5th dynasty. Some of these rituals likely date back to before the invention of writing. Why wouldn't they appear in the great pyramids since most of them took place on or adjacent to great pyramids?

But this is still speculation and it's irrelevant to their meaning. It is irrelevant to the individual who wrote a specific ritual (utterance) in 2500 BC what it was used for in 2400 BC. Egyptology has it all backward. We must understand what each of these meant to the original author to understand them at all. We can't translate them until we know what they meant to the author and it's wholly irrelevant what anything meant to the authors of the "book of the dead". The methodology used to translate these was wholly illegitimate.

The only physical evidence to come to understand what they meant is the pyramid. Everything else is gone. As soon as they apply modern science to the pyramids they'll find one anomaly after another that contradicts all of their hypotheses because they are all wrong. They'll find hot spots with infrared and they'll light up areas (north side) in ultraviolet. A forensic study will show there were never bodies in the pyramid and it might show what was. They've simply never tested any of their assumptions. Instead they are looking to prove their hypotheses and this hasn't been working.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:



Negative. By the time we have evidence of the "Pyramid Texts," the pyramids they were in were little "piles of rubble," to use your phrase.


Of course they weren't built as piles of rubble but the point is that they aren't and never were real pyramids because real pyramids started at 200' and got larger and larger, and they are still standing. Tiny little piles of rubble built after the great pyramids should not be called "pyramids" at all. Calling everything "pyramids" is part of the confusion that underlies our models.

By the time the Pyramid Texts were found we already had the assumptions that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by highly superstitious people who were just like the authors of the" book of the dead" .

Of course finding the "book of incantation" changed nothing at all. Even though this incomprehensible book of incantation literally, repeatedly, and coherently said the pyramid was not a tomb we were at liberty to interpret it any way we wanted since it was only a "book of incantation" and this is the way our language works.

We got it all wrong so now the only way to correct our errors is to turn our back on the "culture" we think we found and look at the pyramid that preserves a great deal of physical evidence about how it was built and the ACTUAL culture that built it.

We have fundamental errors in our understanding,and these errors explain why the builders said it wasn't a tomb.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 538
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't understand the importance of a 200' height* in labeling something a "pyramid" or not. Are the queens' and subsidiary pyramids constructed alongside the two big Giza pyramids not to be considered pyramids, then?
_______
*In whatever measure. 166 and a half cubits @20.6", 61 metres, whatever... It seems very arbitrary, like someone measured Menkaure's pyramid and said "that's the smallest."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group