The House of Netjer, a Kemetic Orthodox Temple

[PUBLIC] Kemetic Orthodoxy General Forums => [PUBLIC] All Things Egypt: Ancient & Modern History and Culture => Topic started by: Nefheru on February 20, 2015, 04:24:14 am

Title: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Nefheru on February 20, 2015, 04:24:14 am
Em Hotep,

I was just wondering what every ones thoughts were concerning the purpose of the pyramids at Giza.

After hearing Graham Hancock and Robert Bouvalle explanation on them, I believe this to be the most factual evidence we have to date.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii332eeFAsA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xFLJZqGFXE

Is there some ancient texts i can read regarding these great monuments
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Ha'autmuti on February 20, 2015, 07:02:05 am
Unfortunately I'm going to have to come down hard against the idea of pyramidology as factual evidence. I would recommend reading Barbara Mertz's Red Land, Black Land for a more knowledgeable critique of such theories than I can give, but they certainly are not based on fact.

Bauval and Hancock really aren't qualified to be making the assertions they are making. You're not going to find much supporting their theories in ancient texts.
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Temseniaset on February 20, 2015, 07:50:26 am
I agree with Phoenix, there is absolutely no evidence to support pyramidology.  I would also recommend reading the Complete Pyramids by Mark Lehner for a complete history of the pyramids of not only Giza but others as well.  Keep in mind there were way more pyramids than those of Giza.
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Nefheru on February 20, 2015, 06:39:50 pm
Unfortunately I'm going to have to come down hard against the idea of pyramidology as factual evidence. I would recommend reading Barbara Mertz's Red Land, Black Land for a more knowledgeable critique of such theories than I can give, but they certainly are not based on fact.

Bauval and Hancock really aren't qualified to be making the assertions they are making. You're not going to find much supporting their theories in ancient texts.

Thanks for your book recommendations, I'm going to order Barbara's book now.
Also I really don't think qualifications should have anything to do with whether they can make claims or not. As education can make a person biased. Remember we are all searching for the truth and nothing but the truth.
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Rev. Shezatwepwawet on February 20, 2015, 08:25:39 pm
You might also want to take a look at the Secret Lore of Egypt by Erik Hornung.

We're not much for pyramidology here or works along the lines of Hancock. Among other reasons, it's disrespectful to the people who lived back then.
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Ha'autmuti on February 20, 2015, 08:46:46 pm
I should clarify: I don't mean professional qualifications. I mean they literally have no idea what they are talking about.
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Helmsman_of_Yinepu on February 21, 2015, 08:18:20 am
It's surprising just how much is being learned about the pyramid-builders recently. I attended a lecture by Richard Redding -The Bones Speak: Archaeofaunal Research Today, who has been excavating at Giza and looking at animal bones. We know where the workers slept, where the administrators lived, and where the priest's houses were. And we know what they ate!

We also know some of the routes that the herds of cattle were driven along, coming up from pastures in the delta, and what age the cattle were when they were slaughtered.

Pyramids and Protein (http://www.aeraweb.org/articles/pyramids-and-protein/)

The Diet of the Pyramid Builders (http://www.lsa.umich.edu/lsa/ci.thedietofpyramidbuilders_ci.detail)

This is Archaeology? (http://www.aeraweb.org/blog/this-is-archaeology/)

Fun tidbit- The beef the priests ate consisted almost entirely of forelegs. Because that's what was being offered in the temple, then reverted to them.
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Arienihethert on February 21, 2015, 09:30:46 am
<snip>Also I really don't think qualifications should have anything to do with whether they can make claims or not. <snip>

This is true. But qualifications weigh heavily in how seriously to take a person's claims.

I personally thing Bauval and Hancock suffer from the need to impose modern-friendly meaning on ancient objects rather than observe and examine in the thing's ancient cultural context to appreciate the original meaning. More often than not a square-based triangular solid tomb is a square-based triangular solid tomb, and people put them where the geography (and aesthetics) warranted. Humans are excellent at finding patterns, but not all patterns all people find are useful.

Look at everything with a critical eye, especially things that are extrapolated from information and artifacts that are not easily accessed.
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Maen on February 22, 2015, 05:00:00 pm
em hotep

ok, I just watched both videos linked in the first post. And you know what? I believe that the 'conservative' Egyptologists and Bauval are actually not as far apart as it might seem. Bauval's story is refreshingly free of aliens, at least.

Let me just list some of the basic assumptions:
- the pyramids were the religious 'hardware' to achieve the pharao's resurrection/ eternal life in the sky
- the ancient people had amazing skills in construction and architecture. We still can't explain all the details of how they did it.
- the Egyptians were very interested in astronomy, and very good at it.
- many Egyptian Gods and myths have a direct link to celestial bodies and their movements.
- Egyptian monuments were built in alignment with certain astronomical phenomena.
- people even further back in history already had huge astronomical knowledge, and the pyramid builder's predecessors were already pretty sophisticated people. *
- The ancient Egyptians are an African civilization.

Why, NONE of that is disputed in Egyptology.

I have absolutely no problem with most of what Bauval is pointing out as evidence. It's good evidence and fascinating observations.

Calculating the actual picture of the sky backwards in time is a smart thing to do (and a number of Egyptologists uses this tool).
I don't even have a problem with assuming that the Sphinx's body is much older than the head. They could either have been remodeling an earlier man-made structure, as suggested by Bauval, or reworking a natural rock formation that inspired them. Neither can really be proven, right?
 The only thing on his fact sheet that I'd seriously dispute is him presenting Wesir and Aset as the main and most important deities in the Fourth Dynasty, while totally ignoring Ra and the other solar deities. (Please forgive me for not delving into the history of the Wesir myth and the sun cult at this point... it would totally explode the dimension of an already too long posting)
 
All through, Bauval is accusing the 'real' Egyptologists of being narrow-minded arrogant bigots, but in my opinion he's showing signs of being one himself (both arrogant and an Egyptologist, by the way).
Most scientists are NOT afraid of finding evidence to disprove earlier assumptions: On the opposite, finding new evidence and reworking the older theories is one of the most exiting things about archaeology.

We're all looking at the same set of evidence, and we're all fascinated by the Ancient Egyptian mindset. It's just that we do different things with that evidence:

The 'real' academics are concentrating on those facts and details they can actually prove. Like the diet of the pyramid workers.
What they cannot explain is not ignored, as Bauval says. Just read contemporary Egyptological essays: a good scientist will always point out the "Things we still don't know for sure" and metaphorically put them in the big box labeled "fascinating riddles to be solved in the future".

What Bauval does, is take his good and fascinating evidence and use it to build a rather lofty theory of an ancient civilization in 10 000 BC.
He cannot just point out that the Ancients had great knowledge and were awfully smart and leave it at that. He just HAS to paint a grand picture of "what it all means", proposing the 10 000 BC people based on only one set of astronomical data and some pretty general and assumptions on the mindset of Sub-saharan nomads and their migration in the last Ice Age.
And then he's proclaiming to the world that he found out the one real truth and presenting himself as a kind of genius... well, no.
I'm always sceptical when anyone says "I'm right and all the others are stupid".

So, conclusion: It's fascinating stuff, and the evidence is actually pretty good. Just, be careful about the conclusions. There's a lot of other theories out there that can explain the same set of facts and will result in a much different picture.
 Quoting Arienihethert:
"Humans are excellent at finding patterns, but not all patterns all people find are useful. "
 I fully agree.
Imagine you're looking out of your window into the dark. There's moving shadows out there. Some people will see monsters, and others will just see branches moving in the wind.
True scientists will admit that they're seeing only shadows. They'll check the weather and and comment on the probability of it being branches, but they won't commit to either theory until there's more light.


senebty

Ma'en
(yes, I'm still alive...)

*(Bauval is suggesting that Egyptologists say the pyramid age came 'out of nowhere'. He's kind of ignoring the research going on about Imhotep's forefathers here, the pre- and early dynastic royal tombs, the large enclosures at Herakleopolis and Abydos with their evidence of similar structures as the Djoser complex, just built from wood, reeds and mats instead of stone. And no word about the pyramids dating BETWEEN Djoser and the Great Pyramids)
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Neferkara on February 24, 2015, 01:29:50 pm
Em Hotep

There is an unanswered question in the apparently flawless evidence, that seemed to be glazed over, where is the evidence left over from the civilization of 10.000BC? I have come to terms that there never be an answer to how they did it

Senebty
Title: Re: The Egyptian Pyramids and the Sphinx
Post by: Bestekeni on February 25, 2015, 02:47:37 am
There is plenty of archaeology and research out there on the predynastic, but you're going to have to be more specific.  I'm not sure what you're asking.