Atlantis Online
October 18, 2019, 03:37:50 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: 'Europe's oldest city' found in Cadiz
http://mathaba.net/rss/?x=566660
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Inventory Stela

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Inventory Stela  (Read 6738 times)
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« on: May 01, 2007, 11:16:03 am »


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza


This shall be a reprise of all the best stuff from my former topic of the same title at Atlantis Rising, hopefully with some new stuff added later.

First the text (courtesy of our pal, Catastrophe):


Quote
If you read hieroglyphics there is a photo of the IS on page 93 of "Riddles of the Sphinx" by Paul Jordan (Sutton Publishing).
If you just want a translation:

"Long live ... the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu, given life ...He found the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the hollow of Hwran (the Sphinx) ... and he built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess and he built a pyramid for the King's daughter Henutsen beside this temple. The place of Hwran Horemakhet is on the south side of the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid ... He restored the statue, all covered in painting, of the Guardian of the Atmosphere, who guides the winds with his gaze. He replaced the back part of the nemes head-dress which was missing with gilded stone ... The figure of this god, cut in stone, is solid and will last to eternity, keeping its face looking always to the east ..."

Quote
As you probably know, the IS is the work of a very late period but may be a copy of something earlier. It probably dates to the 26th Dynasty, the so-called Second Saite Dynasty between 664 and 524 BC.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 03:15:48 pm by Psycho » Report Spam   Logged

Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2007, 11:16:57 am »

Here is an alternative translation quoted by Christiane Zivie-Coche:
"The temenos of Haurun Harmakhis is south of the temple domain of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramids, and north of Osiris, Lord of Rasetau. The writings of the temple of Harmakhis were brought to make the inventory (bis) of this divine being (?) of the great ... his effigy, its casing entirely covered in designs ... he made ...which is in gilded stone of seven cubits ... in the temenos of Harmakhis, in conformity with this model that is carved ... He set up an offering table for the vases ... May he endure. May he live forever and ever, his face turned toward the east."

Quote
There is also a photo and a lot more information in this book (Sphinx: History of a monument). Anything specific you want?


Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2007, 11:17:46 am »

From Cleasterwood:Psycho,
Quote
You won't find it on the internet anywhere. Search results only yielded a small handful of pages but nothing relative. Here are a few quotes I did find on the subject from other sites though.
The text of the Inventory Stella in the Cairo Museum clearly indicates that both the Great Sphinx and Pyramid were in existence long before Khufu and that the structure was dedicated to the goddess of magic and not to Khufu. The Sphinx Stella (Where is it?), erected by Thutmosis IV, stated he had restored the Sphinx and paid tribute to an earlier restoration by Khafre indicating the Sphinx was already old and Khufu did not build the pyramid. Like Ramesses II (sometimes spelled Ramses), many pharaohs took credit for what was done prior to their reign. Rewriting history seems to be an obsession for historians. To confuse the literate, names have several different spellings because the English is a phonetic translation of the Arabic or hieroglyphics or Greek or what-ever. http://www.wetrekmd.com/trips/egypt/egypt.htm

Naturally, here is what Hawass has to say about the entire subject as we all know he doesn't believe the Sphinx or GP could have existed before the reign of Khufu. Perish the thought!:
Phase II of the Sphinx conservation:
Saite period (500 BC)
In 1853 A. Mariette found the so-called Inventory Stela, or, the so-called Stela of the daughter of Cheops (Khufu). It was found on the east side of the pyramid of GIC, located on the east side of the great pyramid and dated to the 26th Dynasty. The stela indicates that the Sphinx was repaired in this period. To this period may be attributed the major layer of restoration masonry on the upper part of the Sphinx's body on the south side. This layer, composed of smaller slabs than those of the Old Kingdom, was laid over the earlier (phase I) layer of Thutmosis, the surface of which was cut away in phase II, however, for fitting the new stones. It is important to note here that the restorers did not remove the Old Kingdom stones from the Sphinx. The Saite restoration also focused on the Sphinx's tail and on the (nemes) headdress. The Egyptians of this period may also have painted the Sphinx. There is no evidence, however, of any excavations around the base of the Sphinx in this period. Even Herodotus is silent on the Sphinx, suggesting that it was at least partially obscured with sand. http://www.guardians.net/hawass/sphinx2.htm

I guess that's why we can't find the stella on the web. Hawass won't allow it because he doesn't want people to be encouraged when thinking the Giza Plataeu is actually older than he wants us to believe.
If you read the information supplied by Catastrophe, you can easily see that the GP & Sphinx were built prior to the reign of Khufu. But again, perish the thought that we have to re-write history because Hawass calls it a 'so-called' stella, i.e. meaning he doesn't believe it's the real deal. I guess that's why it's covered in glass in the Cairo museum somewhere never to be released to the public for further exploration. You figure it was discovered in the 1800's, why isn't it available for us laymen to interpret. Maybe because we'll find out it's secrets.



Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2007, 11:19:33 am »

Now, we get started on my own:

Here is some information I dug up on the subject if anyone is interested:
http://www.shadowluna.com/foxparadox/buildlikeanegyptian/digginginthecatbox/digginginthecatbox.html

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forever staring and waiting for the sunrise of each day, is the body of a 240 foot lion, with a Pharaoh's head reaching to 66 feet over the floor of the Giza Plateau. Carved from limestone bedrock and easily the most recognizable stone carving that has ever been uncovered, it sits in its own enclosure facing due East with The Great Pyramid to the North. The Sphinx has been buried up to it's neck in sand for more than half of it's known life. Apparently having been rescued from the ever shifting sands of the Sahara on a number of occasions, the Sphinx was up to it's neck in sand as recently as the nineteenth century, as some of the earlist know photographs attest. It is believed to have been commissioned by the Pharaoh Khafre, the supposed builder of the second Pyramid which sits directly behind it. Khafre was the successor of Khufu, the supposed builder of the Great Pyramid, the largest stone structure ever known to be built. Khafre was also the predecessor of Menkaure, the alleged builder of the third and smallest Pyramid of the three.

The Evidence

The Egyptologists definitive claim that Khafre had the Sphinx built is based on some really interesting conclusions.

The first is the obvious placement of the Sphinx directly in front of the Pyramid attributed to Khafre. That is based on the assumption that Khafre built the Pyramid that sits behind it in the first place and that in itself is quite a leap. If we give them Khafre as the builder of the Pyramid behind it, you still are leaping to a conclusion that he built both.

The Egyptologists claim as additional evidence that the face of the Pharaoh depicted is the face of Khafre. This conclusion is drawn based on comparison to a life-size statue that now sits in the Cairo Museum which is said to belong to Khafre. In 1993 a group of independent researchers commissioned a New York Police Detective, who as a senior forensic artist had been working with facial identification for more than 20 years, to compare the face of the statue in the museum, believed to be Khafre, with the face of the Sphinx. Offering the angular measurements that he uses as the tools of his trade as evidence, he determined that they were not the same face. Having measured the degree of angle from the outer corner of the mouth to the outer corner of the eye, he found an18 degree difference. The Pharaoh depicted on the Sphinx has a jutting jaw that angles to 32 degrees off the vertical, and the statue said to depict Khafre angles to only 14 degrees off the vertical. Another aspect of facial attributes is the shape of the diameter of the face from the front. The statue of Khafre, complete with headdress, at the Cairo Museum has an oval face, the Sphinx has more of a square shaped face. Also the mouth and the eyes of the Sphinx are larger proportionally than the mouth and eyes of the statue of Khafre. If you give the Egyptologists Khafre as the builder of the second pyramid and the Sphinx, the quality of workmanship seems to be far off the norm.

Between the front paws of the Sphinx is a granite stela which was erected in commemoration of a renovation campaign carried out by Pharaoh Thuthmosis IV (1401 BC - 1391 BC). It contains the single syllable 'Khaf', which the Egyptologists immediately claimed was proof that Khafre was the builder of the Sphinx. The Stela was dug up in 1817 and was already badly damaged. Even though the portion of the Stela containing 'Khaf' has now completely flaked away, there isn't any reason to doubt that the syllable 'Khaf' actually appeared on the stela at the time of it's excavation, as it appears to have been well documented. Not to leave something significant unsaid, the stela was inscribed with hieroglyphs which had to be translated to English. One extremely important fact that is impossible to ignore, unless of course you are an Egyptologists it would seem, is the fact that every inscription, and that means literally every inscription, found dated to the very beginning to the very end of the Pharaonic era represented the name of a Pharaoh in a cartouche. A cartouche is an oval-shaped object that framed the inscribed hieroglyphs which spelled out the name of the Pharaoh. Not one single exception has ever been found. Seems to be convenient that this would be the one exception, but just for a moment lets give the Egyptologists that exception. Thuthmosis IV lived 1,000 years later than Khafre, which is a very long time for knowledge to have been passed by word of mouth, as there have been no other inscriptions uncovered that would have bridged the gap of 1,000 years between the two Pharaohs. So even if the not very likely is true, and the Thuthmosis IV stela did refer to Khafre as the builder, how can we be sure that wasn't an assumption on Thuthmosis part? Again, even if we ignore the obvious and stipulate that it does refer to Khafre, it still fails to offer proof.

Furthermore another stela known as the 'Inventory Stela', uncovered at Giza and believed to be contemporary to the era, states that the Pharaoh Khufu saw the Sphinx. Being that Khufu was the predecessor to Khafre, and Pharaohs were Pharaohs for life, it would make it impossible for Khafre to build it and Khufu to see it.

Egyptologists view the 'Inventory Stela' as fiction, again simply dismissing anything that contradicts them.

One more interesting aspect of the Sphinx weighs in heavy on this debate. It is less obvious from the front, but quite apparent viewed in profile. Proportionately the head is way too small for the body. It would be easy to blame the enormity of the carving for this, but if the Pyramids were built, and this is key, and the Sphinx as we see it today, at the same time, the craftsmanship seems less than should be expected. If however the Sphinx was uncovered, and the Sphinx head was recarved during the fourth dynasty by Khafre into the head of a Pharaoh, complete with headdress, that would allow for a reason for Khafre's name to appear on the afore mentioned stela and for the Egyptologists to believe it is the face of Khafre. However, I can't leap that far; it doesn't look like the statue of Khafre in the Cairo Museum, and the 'Khaf' isn't in a cartouche as it must be.
Conclusion

It should be the Flying Egyptologists, the name of a Trapeze act at the circus, for all the leaps these scientists make. Where the Sphinx sits in relation to the Pyramids needs more than just the assumption that they are accurate in their assessments of when the Pyramids were built, it needs evidence that proves who built one built the other, more about when the monuments of the Giza Plateau were built in The Dating Game. The inscriptions on the Sphinx stela do not match other historical inscriptions without the cartouche, and proclaiming the 'Inventory Stela' to be fiction, because it punches a hole in their conclusions, is manipulating the evidence to support their truth, not collecting evidence to find the truth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



With all due respect to our Egyptology friends who do the actual work, I think that some of the traiditional conclusions may have been a bit, ah, hasty...
Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2007, 11:20:06 am »

From the link provided by Catastrophe:

http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/read.php?f=1&i=99738&t=99738

Quote from John Anthony West (Hall of Maat), concerning the attacks on the Inventory Stela there:
http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/read.php?f=1&i=99738&t=99738


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I got halfway through this eternal foolishness and gave up.
Tell me: does anyone in this discussion point out that the date of the
Inventory Stela is not the issue but rather the validity of the information
-- which is impossible to determine. To dismiss it because of its Late
Kingdom date is like having only a 20th Century translation of the Bible
available and concluding from that, that the Bible is a 20th century document
because of the language.

The Inventory Stela is a suggestive piece to the puzzle, no more than that,
and we have never claimed otherwise. Without it, the geologiy would still be
the geology. Until ***an and the Ma'at pack of attack Chihuahuas find a way
to explain away the differential weathering to the Sphinx enclosure wall
(along with the other extensive marshaled array of geological evidence) the
geology stands and refutes the argument from archeological context. "


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Anthony West, you have to love him!

Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2007, 11:21:44 am »

From William Fix, Pyramid Odyssey, (Urbanna, Virginia: Mercury Media, 1978


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the single most important collection of Egyptian historical materials is a work called Ancient Records of Egypt. This is a five-volume, 1500 page catalogue of the historical documents of ancient Egypt, translated and commented upon by J. H. Breasted. It is arranged by dynasty and pharaoh. In Volume One, under the Fourth Dynasty, the records (translations of inscriptions on stones) which supposedly pertain to this era occupy just thirteen pages, which consist as much of the notes, interpolations and comments of Breasted as they do of the documents. This seems scant indeed. But what is truly extraordinary is that of these thirteen pages the documents for the entire reign of Khufu occupy only three, and these are taken up by the controversial "Inventory Stela", which Breasted flatly declares does not belong to the Fourth Dynasty at all! Other than that, the entire documentary remains from the "reign of Khufu" consist only of the names Khufu and Khnum-Khuf which have been found inside the Great Pyramid and written in a few other places.

In terms of solid evidence, we know absolutely nothing about the times in which Khufu lived nor is there clear evidence of any kind to support the dating of the Great Pyramid and the Fourth Dynasty at 2700BC. That dating is only a convention, an agreed-upon estimate - more simply, only a guess. And because we are left with nothing from the reign of Khufu except a few symbols which have been translated as Khufu and Khnum-Khuf, we know virtually nothing of Khufu either.9


In searching for Khufu, after centuries of exploration all that has been found that can be considered contemporaneous with him are those few cartouches translated as Khufu, Souphis, or Khnum-Khuf. There is nothing else.10


In terms of direct and solid evidence, the association of Khufu with the Great Pyramid rests entirely on the apparently straightforward fact that there are cartouches reading "Khufu" painted on the walls of hidden chambers inside the building.11


These marks are the only inscriptions or writing of any kind inside the Pyramid and constitute the only hard evidence for attributing the Great Pyramid to a "king" called Khufu. In terms of direct evidence, the entire case linking the Great Pyramid with Khufu comes down to these few cartouches.12


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://cycle-of-time.net/construction_date_of_the_great_p.htm

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000461#000000
Report Spam   Logged
Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2007, 12:21:20 pm »



Good work, P.  Thank you!

I read somewhere how poorly archaeologists are paid.  I thought: 

"As much as they're worth............."


Love and Peace,
B
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2007, 03:10:35 pm »

Thanks, B!  The archaeologists I have met have been well-deserving of that lack of pay - a bunch of petty prima donnas!  Think they know something about everything!
Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2007, 03:11:37 pm »

By Robert Bauval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Language Of Stone

The Great Sphinx of Giza is probably the world's best known relic from the distant past. It is shrouded in mystery. Indeed to many it is mystery itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
he Sphinx is not built with quarried blocks like the pyramids and temples it guards, but carved out of the living bedrock. Its makers gave it a man's head (some say it's a woman) and the body of a lion. It is 66 feet high and an impressive 240 feet long. It has the most extraordinary expression, like a hundred Mona Lisas all rolled into one. And it eyes gaze forever at the distant horizon due east, at the equinox point...at something not of this world but beyond it, in the sky. Something, perhaps, that is reflected or 'frozen' in the essence and age of the Sphinx.

Nothing can prepare a first-time visitor for the awe-inspiring and humbling experience of meeting the Great Sphinx face to face. No matter who you are, no matter what your disposition and temperament are, the Great Sphinx of Giza will not leave you unmoved. John Anthony West is a man who knows this phenomenon well. He has stood in the shadow of this great statue many a time since he started visiting Egypt some thirty years ago. To him the Sphinx had always appeared as a monument apart, and much, much older than anything else he had seen either at Giza or elsewhere.

West's strong 'gut feeling' had rarely let him down. One day, while reading a book on Egypt by the French author and mathematician Schwaller de Lubicz (Sacred Science, Paris 1961) an answer to his intuitive hunch came shooting straight at him. Schwaller made a passing remark on what appeared to be water erosions on the body of the Sphinx. Turning to a close up photograph of the Sphinx, West suddenly realised that the weathering patterns on the Sphinx were not horizontal as seen on other monuments at Giza, but vertical. Now horizontal weathering is the result of prolonged exposure to strong winds and sandstorms. There sure had been plenty of those in this arid region of the Sahara. Could water have caused the vertical weathering on the Sphinx? Water from where?

Something, clearly, was worth investigating here. West knew, of course, that most Egyptologists believed that the Sphinx was built in 2500 BC in the time of the pharaoh Chephren (of Khafre), who is identified with the Second Pyramid at Giza. He also knew that this belief was now so entrenched that it would take an intellectual bulldozer to tug it out. Yet his study had shown him that this believe was more a dogma than any-thing else. He asked himself if a proof-positive identification between Khafre and the Sphinx would stand in an 'open court' under public scrutiny?

The answer was no. The reason was, quite simply, this. There was no inscriptions - not a single one - either carved on a wall or a stela or written on the throngs of papyri that identified Khafre (or anyone else, for that matter) with the construction of the Sphinx and its nearby temples. As for the proximity of Khafre's pyramid to the Sphinx (in fact it is 1700 feet away) this did not prove that both monuments were built as one complex nor, more relevantly, at the same epoch. By such standards future generations of archaeologists may one day allocate ownership of the Sphinx to the builder of the Sound & Light theatre because of its proximity to the Sphinx complex or - as someone else has put it - attribute St. Paul's Cathedral to General Gordon of Khartoum just because his statue was found in it. In short, Khafre may well be the quintessential 'Kilroy was here' of antiquity. So could the Sphinx be much older than the reign of Khafre, as West had long suspected it was? Could this hypothesis explain, for example, the strange vertical weathering on the statue?

In 1991 John West rounded a crack team of scientists who were not hampered by an ingrained Egyptological consensus, and took them to Giza. Along came Dr. Robert Schoch, a prominent geologist and professor from Boston University to examined the unique weathering patterns on the Sphinx and its enclosure. His conclusions, which came after several months of analysis, was to convulse the world of archaeology. The vertical weathering patterns on the Sphinx and its enclosure, Schoch argued, were not caused by wind effect, as had previously been thought, but by water - water from torrential rains and pouring down in sheets over these ancient structures. But how could this be? Was Schoch saying that such heavy rains only fell on the Sphinx area but nowhere else at Giza?

That was impossible, retorted the Egyptologists. Not impossible, said Schoch, if it is conceded that the Sphinx was built at an epoch when such rains were common in this region but that the other monuments at Giza, however, were built long after these rains had stopped occurring. Again impossible, replied the ruffled Egyptologists; such heavy rains stopped occurring thousands of years before the time of Khafre. Schoch politely shrugged his shoulders. This, he answered, was not his problem.

The usual was to happened. John West was branded a charlatan and a sensation-seeker, and Schoch was politely shunned for not minding his own business and for stepping on the Egyptological turf. John West, however, was relentless. True, he did not have the lofty credentials of his learned opponents, but this did not deter him in the least. Scientific logic was on his side, not credentials. He was now determined more than ever to see that the Egyptologists either prove him wrong with equal or better scientific arguments or concede that he, and not they, was right about the age of the Sphinx. Anything less would be short change.

To be fair, the implications of West's theory are, of course, far-reaching. History books will have to be re-written and scientists will have to reconsider the origins of civilisation as a whole. Well, so be it. Progress worked like that. In any case, it had been done many times before. It could be done again. Yet going about to prove that the Sphinx was much older than Khafre was one thing. The question was, how much older exactly? How could science determine the true age of a stone monument?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Astronomy Joins The Sphinx Debate
n 1989 I published a paper in the Oxford Journal, Discussions In Egyptology (vol. 13), in which I demonstrated that the three Great Pyramids and their relative position to the Nile created on the ground a sort of 3-D 'hologram' of the three stars of Orion's belt and their relative position to the Milky Way. To support this contention, I brought into evidence the inclined shaft in the Great Pyramid which were aimed at the south meridian towards these group of stars as well as written evidence from the Pyramid Texts that identified the afterlife destiny of the pyramid-kings with Orion.

Later in my book The Orion Mystery (Heinemann-Mandarin) I also demonstrated that the best fit for the Giza Pyramids/Nile pattern with the Orion's belt/Milky Way pattern occurred when the sky was pushed back in time (i.e. precessed) to the epoch of 10,500 BC. There were good reasons for doing so.

The ancient Egyptians, for example, constantly refer to a remote golden age they called Zep Tepi, 'The First Time' of Osiris, which they believed had long predated the Pyramid Age. Osiris was Orion, and the Great Pyramid had a shaft directed to Orion at the meridian. To me, this 'silent' astro-architectural language seemed to be spelling out 'here is Osiris in the sky when these pyramids were built, yet know, too, that his origins are rooted in the First Time.' But The 'First Time' of what? How could the stars of Orion have a 'First Time'?

Well they can. And they do. Provided, of course, that you can read through the allegorical 'language' of the ancients via the symbolic architecture and the related Pyramid Texts. Allegory, to put it in another way, is the 'Q-Basics' of the master astronomers who designed the Giza complex. When the stars of Orion are observed at the meridian in the precise manner that the ancient Egyptian astronomers did over many centuries, the could not help noting that these stars crossed the south meridian at different altitudes at different epoch. This is, of course, due to the phenomenon of Precession (see The Orion Mystery, appendices 1 and 2). In short, the stars of Orion can be said to have a starting point or 'beginning' at the nadir of their precessional cycle. Simple calculations show that this occurred in 10,500 BC. Could the ancient astronomers of the Pyramid Age have used their very clever 'silent language' combined with Precession to freeze the 'First Time' of Osiris - somewhat like the gifted architects of gothic cathedral froze in its allegorical stonework the 'time of Christ'?

In the summer of 1993 Graham Hancock and I got together to investigate this issue further. Graham was quick to realised the important implications this approach could have on the Sphinx problem. He had a hunch that the curious harking back to the epoch of 10,500 BC by the pyramid builders of Giza was an invitation by them to consider the actual age of the Sphinx. If this hypothesis was correct, then the Sphinx must be an 'original' time-marker of that remote epoch using an obvious celestial tag valid for 10,500 BC. But which tag? What could the Sphinx be representing that was in the sky? Could this have something to do with the due east direction of its gaze towards the horizon?

In his ground-breaking book Fingerprints of the Gods (Heinemann-Mandarin), Hancock pointed out that the 'First Time' date of 10,500 BC also denoted the beginning or 'First Time' of the Age of Leo. This was when the 'lion' constellation would have risen heliacally (at dawn before the sun) on the day of the spring (vernal) equinox. This event brought the celestial lion to rest due east, thus in perfect alignment with the Sphinx. The Sphinx, in other words, was made to look at his own image in the horizon - and consequently at his own 'time'. Hancock pointed out that 10,500 BC was no random date. It very precisely denoted another beginning, that of Orion-Osiris defined on the ground with the pattern and alignments of the nearby Pyramids. Here, then, were not just the Pyramids but also the Sphinx luring us to the same date of 10,500 BC. But were we dealing with a 'coincidence' -albeit an astonishing one- or was all this part of a deliberate long term scheme set by the ancients? Could it be possible that some blueprint was put into motion in 10,500 BC with the making of the Sphinx then to be completed much later by the builders of the Pyramids? Was there evidence of a continuous presence here at Giza through the ages of some master 'astronomers' who could have been responsible to see this scheme through?

If so, who were they? Where had they come from? Why here at Giza? Graham and I have spent the last two years researching this fascinating issue. We believe that what we have uncovered will change the perceptions of what Giza was (and still is) forever. The full results of our investigation, as you might have guessed, are laid out in our new book, Keeper of Genesis, available now at a discount through AA&ES. Suffice at this stage to say that author Colin Wilson, who gave the book an early review, thinks it's 'a much more satisfying tour de force' than Fingerprints of the Gods or The Orion Mystery. Meanwhile let us take a look at an intriguing archaeological discovery near the Sphinx that has very recently made the news.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2007, 03:12:17 pm »

A Lucky Turn Of The Spade

In October 1995 the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation finally decided to refurbish the old parking lot east of the Sphinx. While clearing the area in front of the Sphinx and the Valley Temple, a 'lucky turn of the spade' from one of the labourers unearthed part of an ancient complex of underground galleries and pathways. Hearing of this providential discovery, Graham Hancock and I planned a short trip to Egypt to see for ourselves what was going on. John Anthony West also was on his way there, and so we decided to meet directly at Giza. When we arrived there we found the place swarming with activity.

Several gangs of labourers and masons were digging and clearing the area in front of the Sphinx and its temples. By a stroke of good fortune the Egyptian authorities had not yet cordoned this area, so we asked one of the inspectors in charge if we could take a closer look. It was a little difficult to tell what exactly was happening here. No one seemed to be sure. It looked as if part of the area had already been excavated some years ago but then, for reasons unknown, it was covered up again.

This was evident by the botches of modern mortar and iron bars that were left embedded in the ceiling of the ancient pathways, probably in an attempt to underpin or reinforce the relics. An inspector standing by seemed to think that these modern-day additions were made either when Egyptologist Selim Hassan was clearing the area for the Egyptian Antiquity Organisation in the 1930s or, perhaps, later in the 1950s when the Sons Et Lumieres open-air theatre was constructed nearby. But why the vestiges were covered up again, and why and how they came to be forgotten remains a mystery.

These vestiges consisted of a major artery cut into the natural bedrock (some 10 feet wide and 200 feet long from north to south) which runs in front of the Valley Temple and the Sphinx. This artery is itself intersected by two paved pathways coming from the Valley Temple and going due east -much like two small roads bridge over a straight motorway. These pathways very oddly dip at their eastern end and then vanished into the ground. We also noticed a very curious manhole set in the main artery at the point where it intersects the southern pathway. It's lid, which is made from a single piece of limestone, is broken at one corner and through it we could see water flowing (mixed with the sewage from the nearby village) and heading towards the Sphinx and the Valley Temple.

The whole complex was obviously very ancient and almost certainly contemporary with the Sphinx. But what could its function be? And what was the purpose of the underground waterway? According to a prominent Ancient Egyptian myth, the legendary gates of the Afterworld were guarded by two gigantic lions or sphinxes called Aker. In New Kingdom tomb drawings the aker-sphinx of the eastern gate sits proud with its hind parts in a hollow. Underneath it can be seen an curious underground stream or duct. Behind the lion towers a huge mound or pyramid and under it is found a large, oval chamber which appears to be hermetically sealed.

In this mysterious chamber it said to be some lofty secret, no doubt from the 'gods' who ruled the land of Egypt during the remote epoch of Zep Tepi -'The First Time'. This strange chamber was called the 'House of Sokar' in Rostau. The resemblance with the Sphinx complex at Giza is uncanny. Giza in ancient time was also called Rostau, and Sokar (a hawk-headed deity) was identified to Osiris. Odd coincidences? Perhaps.

Or will astronomy make 'a lucky turn of the spade' that will convert this supposedly cosmic myth into an historical reality? Stay tuned.

Robert Bauval


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/ritson/quest/sphinx/
Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2007, 03:13:05 pm »

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giza is a convenient archaeological site to study because it lies above the Nile floodplain and has escaped the annual flooding that, before the damming of the Nile at Aswan, typically deposited one millimeter of soil each year. Over the 10,000 years between the beginning of the Neolithic Period and now, a little over 26 feet of soil has accumulated, burying any ancient sites to be found there. The Nile itself has changed course many times during that same period, and the Mediterranean coastline has also shifted. The heavy post-Ice Age rains that deluged Giza and weathered the Sphinx raised the sea level hundreds of feet, drowning any cities, villages or holy sites on what used to be the shore. It is possible that the ruined settlements of the people who carved the Spinx and held holy the site of Kahfre's Pyramid lie hidden under silt or sea.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://cycle-of-time.net/construction_date_of_the_great_p.htm
Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2007, 03:14:14 pm »

Here's a little interesting tidbt behind the origins of the pyramids:
http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/pyramids.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pyramids.
Based on an Atlantean model?


Many experts on the Atlantis story believe the immense flowering of culture in ancient Egypt was itself inspired by the prototype of the Atlantean experience. According to the Greek philosopher Plato the fact we have any knowledge at all of the story is largely due to diligent records kept by Egyptian priests. Egypt was believed to be the repository of lost wisdom and knowledge from this incredible Atlantic Island - knowledge which theorists attribute to the awesome rise of Egyptian civilisation.

Inseparably woven.

The connection between Egypt and Atlantis has even led some to speculate that the pyramids themselves were built to the design of an Atlantean prototype. Others go still further and say that the Atlanteans themselves built the pyramids over 12000 years ago. While the evidence for this is not convincing the certain truth is that Atlantis and Egypt have become  inseparably woven into the fabric of a story that is difficult to ignore. But were the pyramids really inspired by an original Atlantean blueprint? One author who firmly believed they were was Lewis Spence. Below is an account of his views published in his book History of Atlantis.

Sacred hills.

The question of the presence of pyramids in Atlantis also arises. It seems unlikely that they were actually to be found there, but it is probable that the pyramid in Egypt and America is merely a reminiscence of the sacred hills of Atlantis. In early Egypt, Mexico and Peru certain hills were regarded as especially sacred., as the homes of powerful supernatural beings. In Mexico the mountain was regarded as the home of the Goddess of Fertility, and in some parts of the country it was faced with stone, like the Egyptian pyramid, although in the region inhabited by the Mound Builders of Mississippi it was constructed from earth alone.”

Mexican link.

“The link between the Mexican pyramid constructed from masonry and the simple earthen hill is provided by the eastern mound sacred to the goddess Coatlicue close to the Teocalli or pyramid of her son Uitzilopochtli at Mexico. Personages of importance were buried in these American pyramids just as they were in those of Egypt, which were also obviously developed from the idea of the sacred mountain. Indeed several of the Egyptian pyramids were called by such names as the “Mountain of Ra,” and similar titles.”

Missing link.

“Egyptian and American pyramids have thus a common evolutionary history. The idea must have sprung from a common centre. Both would appear to trace their descent from the sacred hills of Atlantis. Moreover pyramids were to be found in the Canaries and the Antilles, the insular links in the chain between Europe and America, of which Atlantis is the missing link.”

Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2007, 03:14:53 pm »

from "Riddles of the Sphinx" by Paul Jordan:

"The Inventory Stela is an anachronistic invention, a pious fraud in which a latter day king borrows the name of Khufu to cloak his own operations at Giza in glory, and to promote the antiquity of the cult of Isis at Giza. (It also indicates, of course, that we should expect some of the repair work at the Sphinx to belong to Saite times.) The nineteenth-century scholars quickly saw through the general archaizing of the Inventory Stela, but some of them were inclined to regard it all the same as a late copy of a genuine Old Kingdom work. You can still hear this argument put forward today, but not by scholars. The evidence is all against it: the cult of Isis was little known in Dyn. IV times; the title Mistress of the Pyramid wouild make no sense when Khufu was to be the first to build a pyramid at Giza; the temple in which the stela was found had clearly been extended into, and was built in part out of Henutsen's own temple, probably in New Kingdom times to judge by some of the other finds later made in it; Henut means Mistress and memory of Henutsen's name would have inspired the the title later attributed to Isis. The Saite period saw a great revival at Giza of the cults of Khufu, Djedefre, Khafre and Menkaure and the 'temple of Isis' was found after Mariette's time to have contained various pieces of statuory taken from local Old Kingdom tombs to deck it in appropriately traditional style. The stela offers various anachronistic titles for the gods whose statues it lists and the names Hwran and Horemakhet for the Sphinx were unknown before Dyn. 18. So the Inventory Stela is no evidence at all for the age of the Sphinx, though it planted in people's minds the notion that it might be older than the pyramids, a view which continues to this day among non-scholars."




Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2007, 03:16:43 pm »

From my old pal Catastrophe:

(Christiane Zivie-Coche, op cit):

"Archaeological analysis of the colossus has shown that the second phase of restoration probably dated to the Saite period, though few of these repairs have survived. The repairs were effected with large blocks of Tura limestone displaying tool marks, which are still visible, similar to those found on contemporary monuments such as the tomb of Tjary in the south of Giza. They made a complete inventory of the cult places, repairing both of them and renewing the offering donations, while commemorating the name of Cheops, the first of the pharaohs who chose the plateau of Giza for their pyramids."

There is also a convincing fact:

"The interesting part of the brief text is the topographical description, which situates the cult places with precision ... Thus is depicted the landscape of Giza in Dyn. 26: the temple of Isis at the foot of the pyramid of Cheops, the Sphinx below it, and further to the southwest, where the cultivation met the desert, the temple of Osiris."

Report Spam   Logged
Psycho
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2655



« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2007, 03:17:47 pm »

http://www.grahamhancock.com/features/trenches-p4.htm
Re "the 'quarry mark' hieroglyphs in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid, I have rightly been taken to task for uncritically supporting Zecharia Sitchin's forgery theory. I reported this theory in Fingerprints (published 1995) and in Keeper/Message (published 1996)."

Graham Hancock's retraction.  Sad

"The interesting part of the brief text is the topographical description, which situates the cult places with precision ... Thus is depicted the landscape of Giza in Dyn. 26: the temple of Isis at the foot of the pyramid of Cheops, the Sphinx below it, and further to the southwest, where the cultivation met the desert, the temple of Osiris."
« Last Edit: November 15, 2007, 03:18:50 pm by Psycho » Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy