INTERNATIONAL MILOS CONFERENCE 2005 :ATLANTIS (Ulf Richter)

[Tina Walter]

Ulf Richter

Member
Member # 1190

Member Rated:
   posted 08-15-2005 04:40 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick,

It was interesting what you told about Marc André Gutscher that he didn´t believe in the existence of Atlantis anyway. Maybe that he didn´t believe in an Atlantis as Collina-Girard proposed it (and also Collina-Girard himself has written somewhere that he didn´t believe in the real existence of Atlantis and that only the real sinking of the "Spartel" island could have created this myth which Plato later used for his story), when he prepared his paper for the conference.
But during the conference he learnt more about the Atlantis story and the possible sources of Plato, and eventually changed his mind and is now playing with the idea that Atlantis could have existed, but in the Bronze Age:

http://archaeology.miningco.com/od/controversies/a/atlantis05_3.htm

[ 08-15-2005, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: Ulf Richter ]

--------------------
Ulf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 782 | From: Schwabenheim, Germany | Registered: Sep 2002   

[Tina Walter]

Riven

Member
Member # 1495

  posted 08-15-2005 05:13 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand why Gutscher would accredit himself to what Collina Girard already established?

Seems like a 3 way tug of war for Spartel, which is a mud shoal in the way of Atlantis for Scholars.

Sounds like Jacques Collina-Girard gave up on an expedition and told Gutscher to come up with something from Floyd McCoy, the Hawaiin geo.

You are right Ulf,that Collina had the same view of Atlantis as an allegory rhetoric to Plato's ideal philosophical views as Suzanne-Bernards intricate Plato website also thinks of the Atlantis legend.

It amazes me how Plato's statement of facts are dismissed as rhetoric.

Why should they believe anything Plato wrote for that matter?

Today we have books or movies that say, "based on a true story" and we believe them.

Would we have believed Plato if he started off the Atlantis legend this way?

[ 08-15-2005, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Riven ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4048 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003   

[Tina Walter]

Ulf Richter

Member
Member # 1190

Member Rated:
   posted 08-15-2005 05:47 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riven,

The research of Marc André Gutscher shows that under the Bay of Cadiz a very specific subduction of one continental plate under the other takes place, causing earthquakes, tsunamis and also a sinking of certain parts of the sea bottom:

“In 1755, the great Lisbon earthquake (estimated magnitude 8.7) killed 60,000 people in southern Iberia and northwest Morocco and generated a 5- to 10-m-high tsunami wave. In his Perspective, Gutscher discusses the current research on the tectonic source of the earthquake. Recent evidence suggests that an eastward-dipping subduction zone beneath Gibraltar may have caused the earthquake. Though no interplate earthquakes have been recorded here, evidence from mud volcanoes, seismic images of deformed sediments, and heat flow data suggest that subduction is active and that the seismogenic fault zone may be locked.”


“An active subduction zone off southern Iberia poses a long-term seismic risk and is a likely candidate for having produced the Great Lisbon earthquake in 1755.
…… the Gibraltar subduction would resemble the Nankai and Cascadia subduction zones, which are characterized by a large locked zone and have a recurrence time of 100 to 1000 years for great earthquakes.
……..The generation of a strong tsunami implies a source region mostly at sea. The tsunami wave can be modeled and compared to historical observations. A record of past great earthquakes exists in the abyssal plains off southwest Iberia”

Marc-André Gutscher
The author is at the Institut Universitaire Européen
de la Mer (IUEM), CNRS Unité Mixte de Recherche
6538, Domaines Oceaniques, F-29280 Plouzané,
France. E-mail: gutscher@univ-brest.fr
SCIENCE VOL 305 27 AUGUST 2004

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:kk3rRTF7yKQJ:www.iew.unizh.ch/home/fehr/science/Perspective_on_Neural_Basis_of_Altruistic_Punishment.pdf+Marc+Gutscher+Gulf+of+Cadiz&hl=de

This could have caused the sinking of Atlantis in “one day and one night”, when it ever existed in this region, be it near the Iberian coast or on the Horseshoe Abyssal Plain. Therefore it could be worthwile to follow Gutscher´s further research closely.

[ 08-15-2005, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Ulf Richter ]

--------------------
Ulf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 782 | From: Schwabenheim, Germany | Registered: Sep 2002

[Tina Walter]

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 08-15-2005 06:32 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf, I think more people would have been swayed at the conference towards the coast of Spain as where Atlantis could possiably be, if Gerogous had a chance to display his work. There is map the he discovered showing clearly there was a penisula of land there.The depth is about right to.Its goes along with your theory of land marshes that could have been natural or shaped into channels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7892 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   

[Tina Walter]

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 08-15-2005 06:46 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We only have Plato`s word that atlantis was very close to the county called Gade in his time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7892 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000

[Tina Walter]

docyabut
Member
Member # 117

Rate Member   posted 08-15-2005 07:34 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(News


Published online: 22 July 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050718-13
Seafloor survey buoys Atlantis claim
Andreas von Bubnoff


Earthquake debris shores up evidence for lost city.

Soggy city: will researchers ever find Atlantis?

"There occurred violent earthquakes and floods. And in a single day and night of misfortune... the island of Atlantis disappeared in the depths of the sea."

This account, written by Plato more than 2,300 years ago, set scientists on the trail of the lost city of Atlantis. Did it ever exist? And if so, where was it located, and when did it disappear?

In a recent paper in Geology, Marc-Andre Gutscher of the European Institute for Marine Studies in Plouzané gives details of one candidate for the lost city: the submerged island of Spartel, west of the Straits of Gibraltar.

The top of this isle lies some 60 metres beneath the surface in the Gulf of Cadiz, having plunged beneath the waves at the end of the most recent ice age as melting glaciers caused the sea level to rise.

Geological evidence has shown that a large earthquake and a tsunami hit this island some 12,000 years ago, at roughly the location and time indicated in Plato's writings.

Gutscher has surveyed this island in detail, using sound waves reflected off the sea floor to map its contours1. His results bring mixed news to Atlantis hunters.

Ups and downs

At first, his conclusions seemed disappointing. At the time identified by Plato for the city's loss, the sea level would have been fairly high on the island's banks.

With the information we have from the ancient text, it may never be found, if indeed it ever existed.

Floyd McCoy, geologist
University of Hawaii, Kaneohe


According to sea-level measurements alone, Gutscher estimates the island "would have been reduced to wave-swept rocky islets" and would have been less than 500 metres in diameter, making it impossibly small for a sophisticated city.

But there is a saving grace. Gutscher says the island might have sunk further since those times from seismic activity.

Layers of turbidite, the sand and mud shaken up by underwater avalanches, suggest that eight earthquakes have happened in the area since Atlantis sank. Each earthquake could have resulted in a drop of the sea floor by several metres.

So 12,000 years ago, Spartel might have been 40 metres higher than expected, and could have measured five by two kilometres.
Simple folk

"This does not mean the island was inhabited," Gutscher cautions. At a conference of Atlantis researchers in Greece this month, he became convinced that the sophisticated city described by some could not have existed this long ago. "If inhabited, it would have probably been simple fishermen and not a Bronze Age culture as described by Plato," he says.

The Bronze Age is usually described as beginning just 5,000 years ago. Gutscher adds that his sound reflection data revealed no unusual geometric structures that could suggest an extinct civilization.

He says that the Egyptians who told Plato the Atlantis story may have used a different definition of 'years', meaning the destruction of Atlantis happened more recently than thought.

Candidate city

The conference in Greece came to no firm conclusions about the city's existence. But researchers managed to agree on 24 criteria that a geographical area must satisfy in order to qualify as a site where Atlantis could have existed. The place must have accommodated such oddities as hot springs, northerly winds, elephants, enough people for an army of 10,000 chariots, and a ritual of bull sacrifice


At present there are half a dozen candidates for Atlantis's location, each one with its own shortcomings. Some say that settling on a final answer may prove impossible.

"The geophysics is well done, the geology excellent," says geologist Floyd McCoy of the University of Hawaii, Kaneohe, of Gutscher's study. "But most of Plato's description of Atlantis is so ambiguous and open to interpretation. With the information we have from the ancient text, it may never be found, if indeed it ever existed.")


Layers of turbidite, the sand and mud shaken up by underwater avalanches, suggest that eight earthquakes have happened in the area since. Each earthquake could have resulted in a drop of the sea floor by several metres.


If that map that Gerogous discovered in the vatian, showing a small penisula off the coast of spain in front of the Straites of Gibraltar, parts of atlantis could have broken off in those eight quakes,leaveing only the small submerged island of Spartel.

Even Cayce said Atlantis had several sinkings,not just one.

Its also goes along with what Georgous had said, that Atlantis had its beginnings 9000 years before solon, however totally sank in the bronze age,900 years before Solon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7892 | From: toledo .ohio | Registered: Mar 2000   

[Tina Walter]

Peter V

Member
Member # 71

Member Rated:
   posted 08-15-2005 08:43 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the quarry marks which we were talking about above, discovered by Col. Richard Howard-Vyse in 1837, well the Egyptians were still using the same red ochre paint in 1837 when Vyse supposedly “discovered them” as they were in ancient times. I don’t need to place him as a disgruntled employee, just one under pressure. At the time they were “discovered”, Vyse’s funding was running out, and he had to produce something of substance or else his dig would come to an end. Only two months before, Italian explorer Captain Caviglia, had found quarry inscriptions (hieroglyphs marked with the same red ochre paint in some of the tombs around the Great Pyramid. Vyse could have wanted to overshadow Caviglia by simply imitating these quarry inscriptions inside the Great Pyramid itself. Simple as that. It doesn’t mean that is exactly what happened, just that we should be open to that possibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impossible. You're forgetting the most important point. The quarry marks contain Khufu's Horus Name. Khufu's Horus name, Horus Medejdu, was not known at the time of Vyse's discovery. It therefore would have been impossible for Vyse to forge it. And let me say again that there are no grammatical errors.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only source that says that Khufu actually built the Great Pyramid are Herodutus, and the inscriptions found by Vyse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. The actual ancient Egyptian name for the pyramid was Akhet-Khufu (Horizon of Khufu). We have his name from the causeway, the mortuary and valley temple remains quarried by Amenemhat, the quarry marks on the outside of the pyramid, the surrounding graves of his officials and family members, the name of his son inscribed in the boatpit he completed for his dead father, many classical historians, etc, etc. The list goes on. There is not ONE shred of evidence suggesting anyone but Khufu built it. It is absolutely conclusive.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, I don’t believe Herodutus either. I haven’t verified this yet, but I have heard that this account differs with whatever other Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Hermetic, Coptic and medieval Arabic scholarly sources that can be found which agree that the Great Pyramid was not constructed during the time frame of Pharaoh Khufu or Dynastic Egypt, but during "Age of the Gods" thousands of years earlier.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are no sources saying anything to that effect.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if it did, after two hundred years, it would have been too old, and by this time the organic binder would have worn out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it would still be testable today.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was used in the repair work, just like it was said in the Inventory Stela.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Better re-read that then. The Inventory Stela doesn't saying anything about repair work. And those c-14 results come from every point on the pyramid from to bottom, inside and out.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, I have read the Stela, seems pretty clear to me that Khufu simply discovered the Great Pyramid, didn’t build it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is totally false. Please quote.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all, 23 major pyramids were erected following the Fourth Dynasty and in each single case, the work on them was hastily done, with little precision or care, using blocks that were little more than roughly-hewn boulders. There isn’t anything even comparable to the Great Pyramid built after the Fourth Dynasty, and a lot of them now lie in rubble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you're wrong. The GP too is full of rubble and roughly hewn blocks. In fact, much of the core is unworked stone mixed with gaps and sand. It isn't a solid structure, it only appears so from the outside. And in terms of longevity, Khafre's and Sneferu's Bent and Red beat Khufu. Aside from the shafts, there isn't a single unique feature in Khufu's pyramid. And even the uniqueness of the airshafts is in question.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn’t sound to me that they evolved in terms of purpose and function. Maybe I’m missing something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're missing a lot. Please read this: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidevolution.htm


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like I said, they take some parts of his work, the parts that agree with their traditional concepts and time frame (post 3100 b.c ) and disregard the rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not exactly. Manetho didn't have the benefit of archaeological knowledge that we do today. Egyptologists take these lists and use them as a guide to organize Egyptian chronology which is weighed against archaeological evidence.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerald Tablet of Thoth, also considered another forgery by Egyptologists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not merely a forgery, it simply does not exist. Where is it? What professional has ever seen it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s see here, the Inventory Stela
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not a forgery at all, but it was made during the Saite period by the members of the cult of isis. The is propagandistic and strives to validate the cult by giving it a false antiquity. It isn't seen as an authentic history because of the terms and religious associations it uses. Besides, the stela actually AGREES with Egyptologists in that it attributes the GP to Khufu. Normally the "alternatives" use it to claim deeper antiquity for the Sphinx and forget that it tells the reader that Khufu built the GP and erected their own 23rd dynasty temple of Isis. The Stela comes from the 26th.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerald Tablet of Thoth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, it doesn't exist. What reason do you have for believing it does?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is, Peter, you have bought so much into what your profession has taught you that you seem to be incapable of independent thought towards any of this. I’d leave the sheep motif behind, by the way. It’s a little silly, and if people here are sheep for wanting to believe in Atlantis, I’d say that people who study Egyptology are sheep just the same for believing everything that their instructors tell them, without questioning any of it. Anyone who says they are a total expert on Egypt when most of what matters probably lies buried is, to say the least, mistaken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't claim to be an expert. And we students ARE taught to question, you can't get into archaeology without being investigative. Also, don't forget that I'm really the only one here who has been intellectually honest enough to entirely change my belief system when presented with evidence contradictory to what that system of belief says we should find. Should something come up contradicting what I believe to be true again, I would be the first to accept it and change my perception of the ancient world again.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree with Riven, it would be nice to have someone actually out in the field who might still be interested in some of this stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am very interested in this stuff. You just have no evidence.

[ 08-15-2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Peter V ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4445 | From: Canada | Registered: Dec 1999 

[Tina Walter]

Ulf Richter

Member
Member # 1190

Member Rated:
   posted 08-15-2005 10:49 AM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us leave the problems of Egypt and go back to the Milos Conference.

Erick wrote about the lecture of Floyd McCoy, a volcanologist from Hawaii, and that he has told him he didn´t believe in the existence of Atlantis, either.
Here is the abstract of his paper:

Floyd W. McCOY, University of Hawaii, USA

"Reconstructing a Lost Island - A Preliminary Depiction of Thera (Santorini) before the Late Bronze Age Eruption"


In the devastating eruption of Thera (Santorini) in the Late Bronze Age (LBA), an island that hosted a Cycladic culture was destroyed. Archaeological information suggests the island was a center of trade and religion for a prosperous society; the Cycladians also left a record of their pre-eruption landscape in paintings and frescoes at the archaeological site of Akrotiri. Additional information on that ancient landscape is preserved in the geology of the Santorini archipelago today: relic alluvial fans, buried topographic features, paleosols, and residues of that destroyed landscape incorporated into the LBA eruption deposits. Combining archaeological and geological criteria with an understanding of the eruption dynamics and the progression of eruptive events during the explosion, a preliminary reconstruction of the LBA island just prior to its devastation is presented.

--------------------
Ulf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 782 | From: Schwabenheim, Germany | Registered: Sep 2002   

[Tina Walter]

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 08-20-2005 11:26 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf,

I think, perhaps, that you might be misunderstanding both Marc-Andre Gutscher and Floyd McCoy; either that, or neither one of them made themselves perfectly clear to you at the conference.

I do not wish to start any arguments as to what Marc and Floyd did or did not say. I can only tell you what they said to me, in face-to-face conversations that I had with them during the conference, and what their research projects clearly illuminate.

I think that it might be appropriate to re-examine the statements that Marc-Andre Gutscher made in his response letter to K. Kris Hirst. In that letter Marc wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After having heard various talks at the conference in Milos last week (on Atlantis) I cannot escape the fact that Plato is writing about a bronze age society, with a hierarchy, metallurgy skills, advanced construction, transport and navigation skills, and that this just isn't conceivable in Southern Iberia some 12,000 yrs ago.

So I conclude, if Spartel paleo-island was inhabited roughly 12,000 yrs ago, then it must have been simple fishermen...

The bottom line is, Spartel was not inhabited by an advanced bronze age culture. So the Atlantis hunters can keep searching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither in this article, nor at the conference did Marc-Andre Gutscher profess to believe in Atlantis; he merely presented the scientific evidence from his study of Spartel-paleo island. This evidence indicates that Spartel-paleo island (i.e., Ampere Seamount) can be struck from the list of possible locations for the Lost City of Atlantis. Marc told me he presented his findings at the conference because it had relevence to the topic; many people have argued the possibility that Ampere Seamount is the remains of Atlantis Island. Because his study provided evidence quite to the contrary, he felt that presenting his research at the conference was a worthwhile venture. His personal belief is that if Atlantis did actually exist, then it was a Bronze Age society and the actual history surrounding it has been embellished upon to such a point that the real story has become unrecognizable (i.e., history became legend and legend became myth). Either that, or Plato created the entire story in his head and the story is nothing more than an allegory. He was undecided as to which it actually is.

Floyd McCoy shared very similar beliefs. Floyd also felt that it was reasonable to present his findings regarding Thera, due to the Atlantis theories that have surrounded it because of Spyridon Marinatos. Additionally, I believe that Stavros Papamarinopoulos may have asked him to present his Thera research; the two of them have worked together on a project at Santorini with Christos Doumas in the past.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHOR: McCoy, Floyd W.; Papamarinopoulos, Stavros; Doumas, Christos and Clairey Palyvou
TITLE: Probing the Minoan eruption on Thera with ground-probing radar; buried extent of Akrotiri, tephra stratigraphy and Late Bronze Age volcanic hazards
CONTEXT: in Abstracts with programs; Geological Society of America 24:7, 26. Summary. Geological Society of America, 1992 Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH, 26-29 October 1992
DATE: 1992
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Floyd's research at Thera also indicated that Thera could not be the location of the Atlantis that Plato described because the center of the island was a volcanic dome; Plato's island of Atlantis was supposed to have had a large plain in the center of it. He does not discount the possibility that the destruction of Akrotiri could have served as inspiration for Plato's Atlantis, but he does not believe that Thera was the location of Plato's Atlantis. He, too, thought that it was more likely that Plato's Atlantis was nothing more than allegorical.

I think that it can reasonably be said that quite possibly the greatest benefit of the conference was the evidence that was provided illuminating where Atlantis was not. This is how I have approached the conference, anyway.

I truly believe that the emphasis at the next conference will be on identifying whatever historical realities (facts) may or may not exist at the center of the Atlantis story, and disposing of its peripheral, fictional elements.

Warm Regards,

Erick

--------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   

[Tina Walter]

Erick Wright

Member
Member # 1145

Member Rated:
   posted 08-21-2005 01:56 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riven and Ian,

I’ve been watching what has passed between the two of you and Peter V. and, although it is a discussion that belongs in another thread, I feel compelled to provide the answers to some of the questions that you posed to Peter. Although I realize that your beliefs will probably never change no matter what evidence is provided for you, every serious student of science should always strive to provide exact, specific evidence and cite their sources in their arguments. That has always tended to be one of Peter’s failings; he tends to speak in generalizations and fails to cite the sources for his arguments. Peter also has a tendency, at least here in this forum, to resort to insults, a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad hominem, and a fallacy Peter probably should not still be making at his level of education. Very few of us here, however, can “cast the first stone”, as most of us are probably guilty of the very same thing at some point in time – including myself.

Irregardless, his failings aside, Peter is basically correct. I will strive to illuminate how and why this is so. Basically most of the answers to the questions you have posed to Peter are answered in one article from the September/October 1999 issue of Archaeology entitled Dating the Pyramids. The article was a collaborative effort written by the members of the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project. The members of the project were Shawki Nakhla, Zahi Hawass, and the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities; Georges Bonani and Willy Wölfli, Institüt für Mittelenergiephysik, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule; Herbert Haas, Desert Research Institute; Mark Lehner, The Oriental Institute and the Harvard Semitic Museum; Robert Wenke, University of Washington; John Nolan, University of Chicago; and Wilma Wetterstrom, Harvard Botanical Museum. The project was administered by Ancient Egypt Research Associates, Inc.

Ian asked the question

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
”Manetho's king's list is accepted by Egyptologists as the way the royal line progressed, and yet his "mythology" when the gods were said to rule Egypt is discarded. Why is that?”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter responded by saying

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
”No, it isn't accepted as the way the royal line progressed. It is used in conjunction with other lists and archaeological evidence to uncover how the royal lines evolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egyptologists date the pyramids and other monuments using a detailed chronological framework based on king’s lists, regnal dates of the pharaohs, and the ancient Egyptian civil calendar. Allow me to explain further using a quote from the article.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The civil calendar, used for all official dating, had three seasons: Akhet or Inundation, Peret or Sowing and Growing, and Shemu or Harvest. Each season had four 30-day-long months with five additional days after the end of Harvest for a total of 365 days. The Egyptians used their civil calendar to date most events, but the astronomical year, the time it takes the earth to orbit the sun, is actually 365¼ days and the Egyptians did not compensate for the extra ¼ day as we do with Leap Year. So the Egyptian calendar constantly slipped about one day every four years and a whole month every 120 years. As a result, the civil seasons often had no relation to the natural events after which they were named, but every 1,460 years the civil and astronomical years would coincide, and the official New Year’s day would come back to the traditional beginning of the year marked by the rising of the star Sirius (called Sothis by the Egyptians) in the eastern horizon just before daybreak. We know from the Roman author Censorinus that the rising of Sirius and New Year’s day coincided in A.D. 139, and from this we can calculate that it also coincided in 1317 B.C. and 2773 B.C. Hieroglyphic texts that record risings of Sirius anchor the Egyptian New and Middle Kingdom regnal years and civil dates to our own calendar.
While Middle Kingdom dates are thus precisely fixed, there is a problem in just counting back king’s reigns into the Old Kingdom. Separating the Middle Kingdom—marked by national unity and culture, including a pyramid revival—from the Old Kingdom is the First Intermediate Period, a time of local principalities along the Nile, and then war between rival ruling houses in the north and south. We are not sure how long the First Intermediate Period was because king lists are unreliable and the sequence of regnal years and royal monuments is interrupted. It was perhaps less than a century, maybe more than 150 years. Beyond this chronological chasm the pyramid age stretches back into the third millennium B.C. with no astronomical footholds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manetho’s list of kings from the time when the gods were said to rule Egypt is not necessarily dismissed per se, but rather recognized for what it clearly is, which is to say mythological. One of the hallmarks of mythology is the use of gods to set a story. In addition, the fantastic and unrealistic time frames attributed to the kings of that time period further indicate its mythological nature.

When I get home from California I can pull an article from KMT and post some quotes regarding the reasons Manetho’s king lists are considered to be unreliable. But again, this really is a discussion that belongs in another thread.

Riven (I believe) wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Egyptology seems to be reluctant to date anything past 3000 B.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, the reason for this is the uncertainty regarding the length of the First Intermediate Period, due to the interruption in the sequence of regnal years & royal monuments and the general unreliability of the king lists. If Egyptologists are unable to fix dates for the Old Kingdom for the reasons mentioned above, then what makes you think that they would have any more success fixing dates within the Archaic Period? Dates become less clear the further back in time you go, not vice-versa.

One of the two of you (I’m not sure which) wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've also noted that Egyptologists seem eager to dismiss anything as a forgery that doesn't fit in with their conventional chronology. Of course, that may just be mere coincidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that it is just mere coincidence, considering this quote from the article:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1984 [radiocarbon dating] results left us with too little data to conclude that the historical chronology of the Old Kingdom was in error by nearly 400 years, but we considered this at least a possibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that the fact that Egyptologists were willing to consider the possibility that their historical chronology of the Old Kingdom was in error by nearly 400 years is fairly good evidence to suggest that they don’t just automatically dismiss as a forgery anything that doesn’t fit in with their conventional chronology.

Ian also wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the mortar dating to the traditional date that Egyptology places the Great Pyramid, true, far as I know, but Khufu never claimed to have been the builder of the Great Pyramid, he claimed to have done repair work on it, which would have naturally been repaired with mortar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So your argument is that the mortar samples from the Great Pyramid admittedly date the Great Pyramid to the time frame of the conventional chronology—a time frame in which Khufu lived and ruled—but that Khufu didn’t build the Great Pyramid, somebody else did? O.K., then who? Who else would have built it? And why isn’t their name found anywhere in it or on it? What is the evidence to back your argument that Khufu didn’t build the Great Pyramid? As Peter has pointed out numerous times, the discovery of Khufu’s name inside one of the previously unopened relieving chambers and especially on some of the core masonry stones on the exterior has led Egyptologists to reasonably conclude that the Great Pyramid was built during the reign of Khufu. The only point in time in which it would be reasonable for his name to have been written in these places is during the construction of the pyramid.

Allow me to just say that if you are inclined to once again bring up the argument that the mason’s markings inside the relieving chambers are forgeries created by Vyse and his assistants, I would ask that you first read Martin Stower’s book. Stower has been able to conclusively disprove Zachariah Sitchin’s forgery theory. Authors like Colin Wilson, Erik Von Daniken, and Graham Hancock brought Sitchin’s 1950’s forgery theory into the mainstream media during the 1980’s & 90’s, but even Graham Hancock has rejected the forgery theory since the release of the 1995 radiocarbon dating project results. He now only makes the claim that the layout of the pyramids was inspired by a plan from an earlier time (10,500 B.C.)

Allow me to also just say that if you are inclined to once again bring up the Inventory Stele as evidence to support your argument that Khufu didn’t build the pyramid but, rather, merely performed repairs on it, I would remind you that the Inventory Stele is written in a later style of writing and is therefore not contemporary with the Great Pyramid—whose date has been established through repeated radiocarbon dating results. The fact that the stele is written in a different, later style of writing brings into question the accuracy and legitimacy of the claims it makes.

In regards to radiocarbon dating, Ian wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also can't date a block of stone, which means no one really knows how old the Great Pyramid is. Even the graves of the workers found there could have been workers doing simple repair work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which Peter replied:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comforting guesses for you, eh? No, it can't date stone, but it can date the straw in the mortar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although straw can be radiocarbon dated, straw was typically used to temper mud brick and the Great Pyramid was not built of mud bricks. The following quotes from the article give a more detailed description as to exactly what was dated and from where those samples were obtained.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pyramids were originally cased with fine white limestone brought from the quarries to the east across the Nile Valley, cut into blocks and laid with exquisitely fine joins. Today one sees the stepped, slumped, or eroded cores of pyramids, left after the outer casing was stripped away to be used for building stone or made into lime in later centuries. Smaller pyramids had cores of small stone and mud retaining walls and dumped fill, or, in the later Middle Kingdom pyramids (1897-1797 B.C.), mud brick tempered with large quantities of straw. The cores of the largest pyramids, like those at Giza, were made of crudely cut limestone blocks. Builders filled the large seams between the blocks with irregular limestone pieces and globs of gypsum mortar. This mortar includes fired reddish clay particles, and occasionally fragments of stone tools, green copper flecks from chisels, and pottery sherds. More often it contains small bits of charcoal, probably derived from fires used to heat the gypsum. Given that the Giza pyramids were built with great quantities of such mortar, we have to imagine many smoky fires dotting the work area. We believed that suitable samples for radiocarbon dating could be extracted from secure contents within the fabric of these pyramids, the mortar or mud brick, material that was probably deposited during the reigns of kings for whom the pyramids were built.

In 1984 we extracted 80 samples from ten pyramids, including those of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure at Giza, and six mortuary temples all thought to be from the Old Kingdom (ca. 2686-2181 B.C.). We also took one sample from a tomb of Dynasty 1 (ca. 3100 B.C.).

During 1995 more than 300 samples were collected, mostly by team members Robert Wenke and John Nolan. We sampled monuments ranging from the Dynasty 1 tombs at Saqqara to the Djoser pyramid, the Giza Pyramids, and a selection of Dynasty 5 and 6 and Middle Kingdom pyramids. Samples were also taken from excavations on the Giza Plateau where two largely intact bakeries were discovered in 1991. In a provisional laboratory at our field house near the Giza Plateau, Wilma Wetterstrom of the Harvard Botanical Museum identified selected samples. An abundance of acacia in the mortar was not surprising. One of the few common trees in Egypt, acacia burns slowly and at high temperatures, making it an ideal fuel for manufacturing mortar or other tasks requiring high, steady heat.

For 1984 and 1995 we now have a total of 235 dates, including 42 for Khufu’s Pyramid. In general, the calibrated dates from the 1995 Old Kingdom pyramid samples tended to be 100 to 200 years older than the historical dates for the respective kings and about 200 years younger than our 1984 dates. The disparity is particularly glaring for Khufu’s Pyramid. In 1984, 20 dates on charcoal produced a calibrated average age of 2917 B.C. In 1995 we had 18 dates on charcoal from this pyramid giving an average date of 2694 B.C., closer to the pharaoh’s historical dates, 2589-2566 B.C., but still a century older. The number of dates from both 1984 and 1995 was only large enough to allow for statistical comparisons for the pyramids of Djoser, Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure. There are two striking results. First, there are significant discrepancies between 1984 and 1995 dates for Khufu and Khafre, but not for Djoser and Menkaure. Second, the 1995 dates are scattered, varying widely even for a single monument. For Khufu, they scatter over a range of about 400 years.
By contrast, we have fair agreement between our historical dates, previous radiocarbon dates, and our radiocarbon dates on reed for the Dynasty 1 tombs at North Saqqara. We also have fair agreement between our radiocarbon dates and historical dates for the Middle Kingdom.

If the Middle Kingdom radiocarbon dates are okay, barring mistaken sampling, why are the Old Kingdom ones from pyramids so problematic? We should be aware of evidence that the pyramid builders used older cultural material whether out of expedience or to make a conscious connection between their pharaoh and his predecessors.

Could we be dating charcoal that derived from wood fuel that had been long used for other purposes? The Egyptians did reuse wood from large trees in a variety of ways. At the Middle Kingdom pyramids at Lisht, the Metropolitan Museum excavations uncovered tracks of acacia and tamarisk wood beams laid at intervals like railroad ties with an overlay of mud and gypsum for hauling stone blocks and other materials. The beams were reused parts of boats. It is also well-known that the Egyptians imported long-lived cedar trees from Lebanon. It is conceivable that they used them for more than one generation as parts of boats or other structures, reused the wood as transport levers and tracks, and eventually broke up the wood and used it as fuel in the fires of gypsum preparation. However, it seemed highly unlikely that this was occurring with the regularity suggested by our study.

Samples randomly collected from many trees without knowing from which part of the tree they originate—older near the heart of the wood, or younger toward the bark—will yield dates scattered within a range defined by when the trees began growing and when they were cut. The older parts of long-lived trees will pull the average of these dates older. Most of the identifications that Wilma Wetterstrom could do on wood or charcoal were acacia. The acacia variety that grows today in Egypt and the Sudan is said to grow rapidly, although we have not yet learned of maximum recorded ages for this or other Egyptian trees. It is also reputed to be resistant to decay, and herein lies another confounding old wood effect.
In a 1986 article, University of Arizona archaeologist Michael Schiffer pointed out that “firewood is commonly collected as dead wood.” Iron wood and mesquite that he collected in the Sonoran desert radiocarbon dated from 200 to 1,500 years before present! Schiffer thought that old wood contributed to “the great dispersion exhibited by any extensive series of radiocarbon dates on wood, as well as many ‘anomalous dates.’” The various aspects of old wood, he concluded, generally bias “archaeological chronologies toward an excessive antiquity.” (emphasis is mine)

This evidence, combined with the pyramid radiocarbon dates, suggests it may have been premature to dismiss the old wood problem in our 1984 study. Do our radiocarbon dates reflect the Old Kingdom deforestation of Egypt?

The giant stone pyramids in the early Old Kingdom may mark a major consumption of Egypt’s wood cover, and therein lies the reason for the wide scatter, increased antiquity, and history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results from the Old Kingdom, especially from the time of Djoser to Menkaure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, as you can see, more reasonable explanations for the increased antiquity of the radiocarbon dates for the Great Pyramid do exist. I realize that you probably find these boring and mundane, but such is usually the case when searching for the answers to mysteries such as this. Fantastical explanations sell books, to be sure, but they are ultimately shown to be nothing more than the product of an author’s rich imagination which has neither a basis in science, nor any foundation in reality. You would do well to abandon the wild, fantastical theories of authors like Hancock, Wilson, and Von Daniken and pick up a book written by a serious scholar, trained in that field of study, who possesses years of actual field experience. Try to learn something about the development of the pyramid complex, as a whole; learn how they evolved and changed over time. Better yet, read something about the construction methods and practices of the ancient Egyptians. I think you’ll be surprised by just how mundane and common sense it all really is.

I really do hope this extremely long posting has helped you to understand this particular topic a little better. If you are interested in reading some books written by serious scholars in the field, I’m sure both Peter and I would be willing to recommend some titles for you.

If you wish to discuss this topic further, however, I would ask that you please start another thread devoted to this topic, so that this thread can stay on track.

Warm Regards,

Erick

[ 08-21-2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Erick Wright ]

--------------------
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots."

www. despair.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 770 | From: Columbus, Ohio U.S.A. | Registered: Sep 2002   

[Tina Walter]

Riven

Member
Member # 1495

  posted 08-21-2005 06:47 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legends are told when the Truth is too dangerous.

Everyone has their opinion but here is mine for you all to do with what you like.

Remember, it's just one man's opinion against the World!

The reason archaeologists stop at Menes is most likely because they would be taken back to the real Lower Egypt, before the less intelligent Nubian Thinites migrated up to Memphis and Sais and Buto.

They don't want Egypt to lose it's heritage and to keep it separate from the much detested Libyans and Northerners, such as your Sea Peoples,Erick.

Knowing, as we do, that the Nubian roots of Egypt around Lake Victoria 700,000 years ago formed. But, the Egyptians didn't want to be called Nubians either.

Where does this word Egypt come from? Khem or maybe a truer form from Djet or Djenni?

To get "gipped" is to get ripped off in today's slang such as they ripped off the true history of Lower Egypt.

There is no way any avid Egyptologist,like Zawi et al. is going to admit the pride of Egypt to Libya or Northerners who brought their advancements from the Papyrus lands of Tritonis and from the advanced Islanders of Tarxien,Malta.

Just like their is no way I would denounce Atlantis, a strong etymological root carried throughout the entire world, hidden in myths and legends.

I often wonder Erick, how your Homonyms would translate if you never knew about the Sea Peoples?

To myself it seems that this was the subconscious guiding force behind your work.

In my opinion Erick, you could have saved a lot of work by simply looking at the word Atlantis and how it's Heiroglyph would look based solely on that beautiful word ATLANTIS.

Nothing else, no elephants, no white chapels, no Sea Peoples, etc.

I posted my Heiroglyphic translation of Atlantis in TOA II, which the Heiroglyphs in themselves told us of how to get to Atlantis and the Legend that would follow.

Simply from one word.

Let me recall from the Goddess, Mnemosyne to hasten laziness.

A Falcon faces West
A risen half circle (land/island)
A Lion below
Another Falcon
A water symbol (N/Nu,Nun/Oceans,Seas)
A lower half circle (sunken land)
A Reed (abundance,papyrus)
A Staff (discipline,knowledge,Spirituality)

So we translate it as;

Solon: "Tell me Udjahor, where lies Atlantis?

Egyptian Priest; "Certainly Solon for the benefit of your kind who is dear to us. West, to where the Falcon flies, over the Empire of Lions(Avila/Africa) and further West OVER the realm of Nun,(Oceans), there lies a sunken inundated land where the teachings of Knowledge and Spirituality came from with Thoth." -Riven

As you also know, my belief is that Solon, seeing the RISEN land glyph, thought of this word in ancient Greek as "epanateilantos" which is also the true meaning of Atlas and mountains to RAISE the sky, not so much to endure.

Linear A compendium for Atlantis by Riven.

A-T-L-A-N-T-I-S

A-TA-LA-NA-TA-IA-SA

A = God (Ah)
TA = is the/there
LA = land
NA = so high,risen
TA = is the/there
IA = sacred
SA = knowledge/knowing.


God is the land so risen is the Sacred Knowledge

We also saw my Basque translation of Atlantis broken into syllables of;

"The main evergreen forest is born a joyous miracle at dawn the abundant monument increases to unite the future arrival and remain loyal to the secret of creation."


This my friends, burns the heart of Zawi to know that Ships and Temple building came from the Tarxiens of Tarraconensis who voyaged to Crete and Malta and also formed Lower Egypt with Libyans before the Thinites were there to discover the great works they left behind.

If the Palermo Stone is True, then we should know the missing Dynasties of at least 12 other Pharaohs, although I believe it was 14-16 and pushing them to a truer 5000.bC as we also see they knew of their Calendar to 4241.bC.

Wouldn't the Egyptians have passionately wanted to chronologize their history to the birth of their Calendar?

Me thinks so.

The other VERY important and eluding factor Erick, is that it looks like the TIMAEUS should be the factual account,CLEVERLY hidden amongst Astrological Genesis records which came first and a more believable account of 12000 years ago to the times of known Agriculture.

The CRITIAS is the "Buffered" account which "FOOLS" the initiates with Bronze Baffoons, so as Critias also said, " let us now transfer the civilizations into the WOrld of Reality", for surely we know, Brass was the result of a new bronze from hotter kilns around 1000.bC or so.

By the way, I still would like to commemorate Erick on a fine job he did on his Thesis which could hold clues to the legend of Atlantis in Priestly Chapels which the Tarxiens had Priests and Astrologers before the Lower Egyptians and the Chaldeans.

The search for the SANG REAL continues, elusively hidden by the Dark Brothers.

[ 08-21-2005, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Riven ]

--------------------
.111.[R].Riven The Seer and Royal Bloodline to Atlantis.[R].111.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4048 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003   

[Tina Walter]

Ian Nottingham

Member
Member # 2232

Member Rated:
   posted 08-21-2005 07:32 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not wedded to any particular belief system when it comes to Egypt, Erick & Peter. My only belief (if it is a belief) is that people who think they know all about what happened in the past are mistaken. Egyptology has yet to produce evidence to back up half of it's claims, especially where the Pyramids of Giza are concerned. I'm open to new interpretations, and willing to change my mind if the evidence presents itself.

If the two of you aren't, well, that's something you'll have to deal with.

C-14 isn't perfect, and, while Peter says that the C-14 shows the exact same date throughout the dating of the mortar throughout the pyramid, I've heard that the top has measured older than the rest, which seems odd.

I'd like to see a more detailed report of the last C-14 dating of the Great Pyramid. Specifically, which parts of the pyramid's mortar were sampled? Who was in charge of the testing? How far did they measure up?

I know they did some testing in the 1980's and the most recent date they achieved was still four hundred years before the reign of Khufre.

Anyone have the most recent detailed report so we can all see it, verbatim, without quoting from it?

Peter also said there is mounting evidence that Khufre built the Great Pyramid, but the only evidence I have seen is the inscriptions, which (sorry Peter), a lot of people still say are misspelled.

The first inscriptions discovered by Vyse were in 1837. What dates were the other inscriptions discovered, anybody know?

Does anyone also have a copy of Manetho's king's list?

I've been meaning to respond to all this in greater detail, but have been busy researching the earliest sources for the Great Pyramid. The Herodotus source for Khufre being the builder should be completely disqualified, in my opinion, because he got all of his information from the locals, who didn't really know themselves. Like today, they make up a lot of stories to amuse the tourists.

Erick and Ulf, you're right, this discussion doesn't belong here, but since it began here, it doesn't feel right to continue it someplace else.

You are right that each of us should be citing our sources when we'e quoting our information, and wish that Peter and Riven would both do that.

You're right, there is a lot of myth and folklore you have to wade through when discussing the Great Pyramid, and I've always believed the best thing is to be a little skeptical towards the outlandish (that aliens were somehow involved), but be open to the more believable (that an earlier civilization may have been responsible).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 240 | From: the void | Registered: Nov 2004 

[Tina Walter]

Ian Nottingham

Member
Member # 2232

Member Rated:
   posted 08-21-2005 07:38 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter, not to put you on the spot, but about a week ago Riven put these questions to you:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True or False.

The known advent of man was from the Aethiopian Valleys in/around Nubia and the lake Victoria regions going back to about 4 million years ago and giving rise to the "Out of Africa" theories?

The cultures spread north along the Nile into upper Egypt around 700,000.bC which the Egyptian Pharaohs bit the hand that fed them around 1900.bC with subjugations of Nubia?

The primordial Egyptians (Khem > Black) came from the Nubian cultures (Kush > Black).

The Tomb 100 map shows ships sailing around the med in relation to the Tarxien Ships around 3500.bC as also depicted by the Gebel-el-Arak Knife and the Narmer Palette also shows a Ship thought to predate Menes.

The art of building temples,Ships and stone structures was pre conceived by the Tarxiens ahead of the Egyptians?

That may be fine Peter that the mixed up Archaeologists can't ascertain if Menes was Narmer, Aha, Scorpion or whoever, but they all teach us that he is the main Pharaoh which they set their Dynasty dates to around 3000.bC. Even though they also are dismissing Herodotus' account of Menes in 430.bC.

Now here's another interesting thought Peter which you said that no advanced technologies surfaced from your digs. (By the way, microlithic blades were an advancement)

In Timeaus, the Egyptian Priest said that in those times, they used Shields and Spears.

No mention of swords or anything as detailed as Critias which takes us into the Bronze Age.

The Atlantis legend spans 7500 years.
9000.bC to Deukalion's flood of 1500.bC

So we are talking not only of the advent of Atlantis, but also the evolution of Atlantis.

The Egyptians changed their calendar to Solar around 2700.bC from their lunar counts going back to the said advent of the calendar of 4142.bC.

Based on my research of Chaldean lunar cycles that the Greeks adapted and Egyptian Solar cycles,there was a difference of 345 years for every 1000 years gone by.

9 x 345 = 3105 years difference between Solar and Lunar calendars.

8000-3105=4895.bC.
9000-3105=5895.bC.

Egyptian priest says 8000 years ago from 570.bC. leaves 7430 years difference.

4142 (0 point to Egyptians) less 570 = 3572 years passed to Egyptian records of their calendar.

8000-3572=4428
9000-3572=5428


As I also believe, their are still about 16 Pharaohs to arise from Egypt since Menes that should take Egypt back also to around 5000.bC.

Also a main time when archaeologists believe that Humans reverted to organized Warrior/Army types from the evidence they gathered.

Archaeologists also believe that around 7000-6000.bC, their was a vast and sudden disappearance of cultures in Lower Egypt.

Most likely, something to do with the rise of the Eye of Ra myth.

[ 08-12-2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Riven ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you give us your educated opinion on them? Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 240 | From: the void | Registered: Nov 2004   

[Tina Walter]

Ian Nottingham

Member
Member # 2232

Member Rated:
   posted 08-21-2005 07:47 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, Peter, even though I notice you have gotten (as well as give) a lot of abuse around the forum, I would like you to know that I consider your presence here to everyone's benefit. It is really easy to get carried away by all the information one reads from authors of alternative history. I believe it is important to have our share of skeptics and non-believers here in order for the evidence, both pro and con, to get a more honest look. Erick, I would also say the same for your presence here.

We don't all have to agree on everything, we just have to start citing our sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 240 | From: the void | Registered: Nov 2004

[Tina Walter]

Riven

Member
Member # 1495

  posted 08-21-2005 08:09 PM                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/egypt/history/KLManetho.html


Manetho's King List
Manetho was an Egyptian priest from Heliopollis. Under the patronage of Ptolemy I, he started to compile an Egyptian history, titled Aegyptika. It was written in Greek and finished c.271 BCE. He attempted to describe Egyptian history from its inception to Alexander the Great. His original work was lost, however, and all we know is from short transcripts and summaries done by Christian historians in later centuries. A few different translations of his work exist:

Josephus Flavius, from the first century CE
Sextus Julius Africanus, third century CE
Eusebius of Cesarea, third/fourth century CE
George Syncellos (a Byzantine historian) from the eighth century CE.
Mistakes made in translation and by copiers reduces the value of Manetho's work as historical documentation. Most of the dates simply don't match.

However, Manetho is the basis for most of our chronologies and naming conventions for Egyptian pharaohs. His king list is often referenced by egyptologists, but many of them reject the dating and time periods for the pharaohs as "fanciful" -- there seems to have been some political hay to be made by exaggerating the reigns of some of the kings and minimizing others.

The entire concept of "dynasty" comes from Manetho, who broke apart the kings into reasonably logical groups -- by location or family or other identifying feature.

1st Dynasty
Flavius/Africanus.................. Eusebius
Pharaoh
Menes
62 ................................................... 30

Athothis
57 ................................................... 27

Kenkenes
31 ................................................... 39

Wenefes
23 ................................................... 42

Usafais
20 ................................................... 20

Miebis
26 .................................................. 26

Semempses
18 ................................................. 18


2nd Dynasty
Flavius/Africanus................... Eusebius
Pharaoh
Boethos
68 ..................................................-?

Kaiechos
39 ................................................. -?

Binothris
47 ................................................ - ?

Thias
17 ..................................................-?

Sethenes
41 ................................................. -?

Chaires
17 ..................................................-?

Nefercheres
25 ................................................ -?

Sesochris
48 ............................................... 48

Cheneris
30 ............................................... 30

Necherophes
28 .............................................. 28


3rd Dynasty
Flavius/Africanus................. Eusebius
Pharaoh
Necherofes
28 ................................................. -?

Tosorthios
29 ................................................ - ?

Tyreis
7 .................................................... -?

Mesochris
17 ................................................ - ?

Suphis
16 ............................................... - ?

Toserfasis
19 .............................................. - ?

Aches
42 .............................................. - ?

Sephouris
30 .............................................. 48

Kerferes
26 ............................................... -?


4th Dynasty
Flavius/Africanus........... Eusebius
Pharaoh
Soris
28 ........................................... - ?

Suphis
63 ............................................ -?

Suphis
66 ........................................... - ?

Mencheres
63 ............................................-?

Ratoises
25 .......................................... - ?

Bicheris
22 ..........................................- ?

Sebercheres
7 .......................................... - ?

Tamphtis
9 ........................................... 48


5th Dynasty
Flavius/Africanus........ Eusebius
Pharaoh
Usercheres
28 lat ................................ - ?

Sephres
13 lat ................................. -?

Nepherchres
20 lat ................................ - ?

Sisires
7 lat .................................. - ?

Cheres
20 lat ................................ - ?

Rathures
44 lata ............................... -?

Mencheres
9 lat .................................. -?

Tencheres
44 lata .............................. -?

Onnos
33 lata ............................. - ?


6th Dynasty
Flavius Africanus.............. Eusebius
Pharaoh
Othoes
30 lat .................................. - ?

Phios
53 lata ................................ - ?

Methusuphis
7 lat .................................... - ?

Phiops
99 lat ................................... - ?

Menthesupis
1 rok ................................... - ?

Nitocris
12 lat ................................... -?


12th Dynasty
Flavius Africanus.......... Eusebius
Pharaoh
Amemenes
16 lat ................................. - ?

Sesonchosis
46 lat ................................. - ?

Ammanemes
38 lat ................................. - ?

Sesostris
48 lat ................................. -?

Lachares
8 lat ................................... -?

Ameres
8 lat .................................. -?

Ammenemes
8 lat .................................. -?

Skemiophris
4 lata ................................ -?


18th Dynasty
Flavius.........................Africanus............................ Busebius

Tethmosis 25/4 .............Amos................................Amoses 25


Chebron 13.................... Chebros 13....................... Chebron 13

Amenophis 20/7......... Amenophthis 24.............. Amophis 21

Amessis 21/9 ................Amensis 22 ........................?

Mephres 12/9............... Misaphres 13................. Memphres 12

Mephramuthosis 25/10.. Misphragnuthosis 26.. Misphamuthosis 26

Thmosis 9/8.................. Tuthmosis 9..................... Tuthmosis 9

Amenophis 30/10......... Amenophis 31................ Amenopthis 31

Orus 36/5........................ Orus 37........................... Orus 28

Acencheres 12/1............ Acherres 32.................... Achencheres 16

Rathotis 9 ........................Rathos 6............................?


Acencheres I 12/5 .........Chebris 12 .......................Acherres 8

Acencheres II 12/3 .......Acherres 12 ...................... Cherres 15

Harmais 4/1 ..................Amesis 5.......... .................Amais 5

Ramesses ¼ .................. Ramesses 1............................?

Harmesses Miamen 66/2 ..? - ................................. Ramesses (Aegyptus) 68

Amenopthis 19/6 ........Amenophath 19 ............... Amenophis 40

Sethos 59 ......................Sethos 51............................. Sethos 55

Rampses 66................. Rapsaces 61.......................... Rampses 66

--------------------
.111.[R].Riven The Seer and Royal Bloodline to Atlantis.[R].111.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 4048 | From: Azores Atlantis Isles. | Registered: May 2003