Archive 2727

Some people consider blocks weighing 200 tons in temples at Giza, site of the Great pyramid, as a sure sign of ancient high technology because of the difficulties a modern crane has maneuvering such weights.

Attempts to date the Great Pyramid before Egypt’s 4th Dynasty reign of Khufu have not been successful. However, the discussion of high technology during early dynastic times in Egypt has been fueled in recent years by a study of ancient artifacts by machinist Christopher Dunn. Chris Dunn’s claims of advanced machining in ancient Egypt provide what many in the new age movement consider a major breakthrough in proving the existence of ancient high technology.

For instance, Chris Dunn asserts that the blocks of the Great Pyramid were cut with machine tools, and that the granite sarcophagus in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid exhibits features proving that it was made with advanced machining equipment.

Chris Dunn investigated other items, including hard stone vases associated with the early pyramids and granite sarcophagi dating from the New Kingdom and later in the Serapeum at Saqqara. The manner in which the ancient Egyptians made hard stone vessels is one of the mysteries of Egyptology.

Why is Chris Dunn wrong about the existence of advanced machining in ancient Egypt? The links below answer this question.

The Giza Power Plant Meltdown!

Some Specific Reasons Why Dunn Is Dead Wrong

Schoch asserts that the erosion is water damage. Although the Sphinx is located in the desert, the severe water damage suggests to Schoch that the Sphinx was built when the area received abundant rainfall, i.e., thousands of years before Egypt became a nation.

The estimate for the rainy conditions in the area dates from 7,000 B.C. to 9,000 B.C. If the Sphinx can really be shown to date to those times, then Egypt built monuments in prehistoric times.

If Schoch could prove a prehistoric date for the Sphinx, the construction date of other monuments would come into question because the Sphinx sits in the quarry used to extract limestone to build Khafra’s pyramid at Giza, known as Giza’s Second Great Pyramid. In other words, Khafra’s workers removed about 60 feet of limestone and sculpted the Sphinx from a 60-foot-high protrusion they left on the quarry floor. Thus, Schoch’s theory must also be weighed against all of the evidence associated with Khafra’s Great Pyramid complex that suggest it was built in the 4th Dynasty.

A critical question is how long it would take for the severe water erosion on the Sphinx to occur. The range is estimated at hundreds of years to perhaps thousands of years. However, the soft quality of the Sphinx’s body and surrounding bedrock, and the violence and number of incidents of huge amounts of hard, sudden rainfall and the length of such damaging rains during historic times, must also be considered.

The link below challenges the theory that there was a dearth of rain during dynastic Egyptian times. Former director of the Geological Survey of Egypt W.F. Hume described violent “sheet floods” in Cairo and its suburbs in his book “Geology of Egypt” (1925).

Hume described violent rains in the area of Cairo, between A.D. 1891 and 1919, which cut ravines, razed villages to the ground and tore away parts of a railway.

Thus, the burden is upon Schoch to demonstrate that the thousands of years of dynastic Egyptian history did not similarly experience instances of highly damaging rains sufficient to cause the water damage on the soft limestone comprising the Sphinx and its enclosure.

To read Richard Hume’s description of the highly damaging rains, click on the link below:

The Problem of Re-dating the Sphinx

“When we say that the Sphinx, the three Great Pyramids, the causeways and other associated monuments of the Giza necropolis form a huge astronomical diagram we are simply reporting a fact. When we say that this diagram depicts the skies above Giza in 10,500 BC we are reporting a fact. When we say that the Sphinx bears erosion marks which indicate that it was carved before the Sahara became a desert we are reporting a fact.”

Clearly, a prehistoric date for the Sphinx is not a proven fact. Furthermore, in 1996, when “The Message of the Sphinx” was published, Dr. Schoch did not consider his findings conclusive.

Dr. Edwin C. Krupp, Director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, California, responds to the above-quoted statement by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, “When we say that this diagram depicts the skies above Giza in 10,500 BC we are reporting a fact.”

Dr. Krupp is particularly qualified to address this claim. Edwin Krupp is one of the few astronomers whose training extensively extends to ancient monuments and their relationship to the celestial bodies. Dr. Krupp contributed the statement below to my book titled “The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery is Solved!” Krupp indicates that, among other problems, Hancock and Barval had to turn the map of Egypt upside down to prepare a diagram supporting their views:

“Although Hancock and Bauval assert the equinox sunrise configuration of Leo and Orion in 10,500 B.C. explains the disposition of the Sphinx and the primary pyramids on the Giza plateau, astronomy actually contradicts the Orion Mystery and the “message” of the Sphinx. In the sky, Orion is separated from Leo by the Milky Way, the “celestial Nile,” but the real Nile is east of both the pyramids and the Sphinx. Twelve and a half thousand years of precession can shift the vernal equinox sun back among the stars of Leo the Lion, but the Sphinx is still on the wrong side of the river for matching heaven to earth.

“Also, zodiac constellations are not Egyptian, and there is no evidence that Leo was recognized as a lion by anyone, least of all Egyptians, 12,500 years ago. The Egyptian astronomical system was completely different from the Mesopotamian scheme that eventually gave us the zodiac. The oldest Egyptian representations of a lion constellation are New Kingdom, and there is good evidence that the Lion is not Leo. The zodiac we know was not introduced into Egypt until the Ptolemaic period, and it is a Graeco-Roman transplant.

“If the star-aligned shafts in the Great Pyramid tell us the Egyptians wanted the north sides of their pyramids to face the northern sky, and south sides of their pyramids to face the southern sky, why would they arrange Giza with the southernmost pyramid matching the most northern star of the Belt and vice-versa? If the Egyptians intended the Giza pyramids and the Sphinx to reflect the arrangement of the sky in 10,500 B.C., why is the Sphinx on the wrong side of the Nile? In fact, Bauval and Gilbert had to turn a map of Egypt upside-down to get the Giza pyramids to match the stars in the Orion Belt.”

Dating the Great Pyramid

Dr. Krupp finds a study published in the journal “Nature” in November of 2000, by Cambridge University Egyptologist Dr. Kate Spence, very promising with regard to the determination of a more precise date for the construction of the Great Pyramid. Spence theorizes that the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza dates to about 4,478 years ago (or within five years of 2478 B.C.), i.e., within Egypt’s 4th Dynasty. The date is reasonably close to the range of dates estimated by Egyptology.

Spence arrived at her date by analyzing the relative position of the Earth and two stars, the star named Mizar, in the handle of the Big Dipper, and Kochab, in the bowl of the Little Dipper.

Because the Earth wobbles on its axis, over the centuries these two stars gave different indications for north. Thus, Spence calculated when the two stars would have been in the northern alignment.

According to Spence, during the construction of the Great Pyramid, both of these stars orbited nightly around a point over the North Pole. Thus, when one star was seen directly over the other, the priest-astronomers could find north by using a simple plumb line. Spence theorizes that her calculation produces the approximate construction date for the Great Pyramid, which Egyptologists believe was built during the 24-year reign of Pharaoh Khufu.

For more information about the Orion Mystery debate, visit Examining “The Orion Mystery”.

Egyptologists protest that chipped plaster is responsible for the images. They explain that the hieroglyphics were carved into plaster applied over earlier hieroglyphics. When the plaster fell off, the original images overlapped the newer ones, and the result was the vague images being interpreted as war vehicles.

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, of the University of Alabama, in Birmingham, is also a member of both the American Research Center in Egypt and the International Association of Egyptologists. She translated the hieroglyphics in question as follows:

“It was decided in antiquity to replace the five-fold royal titulary of Seti I with that of his son and successor, Ramesses II. In the photos, we clearly see “Who repulses the Nine Bows,” which figures in some of the Two-Ladies names of Seti I, replaced by “Who protects Egypt and overthrows the foreign countries,” a Two-Ladies name of Ramesses II. With some of the plaster that once covered Seti I’s titulary now fallen away, certain of the superimposed signs do indeed look like a submarine, etc., but it’s just a coincidence. What is happening in the photographs is quite clear; just consult Juergen von Beckerath, Handbuch der aegyptischen Koenigsnamen, Muenchner aegyptologische Studien 20, pages 235 and 237. This issue comes up from time to time on such academic e-mail lists as the Ancient Near East (ANE) List and so on, so we’re all pretty familiar with it.”

Although many of the hieroglyphics in the Abydos Temple were documented by the famous French archaeologist Auguste Mariette (1821-1881) (“Abydos: description des fouilles executees sur l’emplacement de cette ville,” vol. I, Paris 1869), the theory that fallen plaster is responsible for the images has not been the focus of a new study to settle the issue. However, it was usual in the New Kingdom, when Seti and Ramses lived, for plaster to be used when new hieroglyphics replaced older writings. Erosion of the surface of the Abydos panel, similar to the erosion on the roof of the Abydos Temple iself, has also been offered as an explanation for the formation of the images being compared to war vehicles.

The idea that the Abydos hieroglyphics depict war vehicles produces a tremendous clash with the technological level archaeologists have uncovered from the time the Abydos panel was inscribed and with all previous historic and prehistoric findings. Airplanes demand a great deal of associated technology. Except for gliders, a knowledge of engines and fuels is also paramount.

What are the chances that Ramses II understood the significance of a tank with a gun barrel or a Star Wars anti-gravity vehicle? His own war vehicle was a horse-drawn chariot. His weapon included a bow and arrow.

Would the important discovery of prehistoric high technology by Ramses or his father appear only in one isolated panel? Would not the mighty technology appear in all of Ramses’s war scenes? Depictions like the horse drawn chariot above are painted on the temple walls showing Ramses II in battle.

Today, it is difficult for anyone to comprehend the technology that will exist in 50 or even 20 years because of the rapid speed at which technology is advancing. Could people in the 19th Dynasty understand technology so far removed from their own? When the Abydos panel was inscribed in the 19th Dynasty, iron was considered a precious metal because of its hardness and rarity. The best tools were made with stone, bronze or iron.

The evidence shows that people lived in mud-brick houses until Roman times. The pharaohs lived in beautifully adorned palaces made of mud-brick and wood. People rose and retired according to the hours of daylight. Open fires and oil lamps provided light at night. People bathed in the Nile River. Most people–even members of royalty–lived no longer than 35 years.

Tomb and temple depictions of chariots show wheels that are unacceptable for modern transportation. Reginald Engelbach, Chief Inspector of Antiquities of Upper Egypt early in the 20th century, described the wheels of the period of history when the Abydos hieroglyphics were inscribed:

“As far as is known, the wheel played a very small part in the life of the ancient Egyptian; the word for it is almost certainly of foreign origin, and it is not found applied to chariots or wagons until the New Kingdom, though this may well be because horses do not appear in Egypt much before that date. The wheels of the known Egyptian chariots are extremely flimsy affairs, and it is doubtful if any wheel built on lines similar to those which have come down to us would take any load or endure hard wear. …all known evidence of the methods of transport for building materials used by the Egyptians indicates that the sled alone was used.”

Today, even in the poorest of households of technologically advanced countries, there is abundant evidence of the prevailing technology. Indoor plumbing, electrical wiring, appliances and batteries are all common. The poorest neighborhoods exhibit factories, and gasoline stations are in almost every town. Buildings are made with steel support structures in most places. Stainless steel, rubber and plastic are everywhere. It would be impossible for future archaeologists not to find traces of the technology that supports the existence of modern tanks and other war vehicles.

Advocates of high ancient technology speculate that a polar shift destroyed all of the evidence of high technology. But they also speculate that the high technology existed from 6,000 to 13,000 years ago. There is no evidence of a polar shift dating from those times. If a great cataclysm destroyed an advanced culture, there would be evidence of the cataclysm. Where is the supporting evidence for such a cataclysm in Egypt?

For the idea of 20th-century-style war vehicles to hold, there must be other evidence of high technology. The Abydos panel has no strength in isolation. Proponents of advanced technology point to an object found at Saqqara, not far from the Great Pyramid of Giza, that was originally labeled as “a wooden bird model.” See the image located immediately below. It has neither a propeller nor any indication of an engine or engine compartment.

The ancient Egyptians possessed boomerangs and beautifully crafted game boards and toys. The model may show that, inspired by birds, the ancient Egyptians also crafted gliders, similar to today’s paper airplanes.

A larger issue concerning high technology in ancient Egypt has loomed since the beginning of Egyptology, the question of how the ancient Egyptians produced monuments that defy the most modern means of cutting and lifting stone. For instance, 1000-ton and heavier monolithic granite colossi were built for Pharaoh Ramses II .The earlier 18th Dynasty twin Colossi of Memnon, dedicated to Pharaoh Amenhotep III, are made of quartzite. It is very difficult to drill quartzite with the most advanced modern machinery. Positioning the colossi of Ramses II and the Colossi of Memnon would pose a tremendous challenge for today’s largest cranes.

Click here for an article titled “The Giza Power Plant Meltdown!,” which shows why cranes and super-drilling devices were not needed to make artifacts that have defied conventional explanation.

Proponents of the idea that prehistoric Egypt possessed 20th-century-style war vehicles, depicted during the 19th Dynasty, assert that it is a statistical improbability that four depictions of such craft exist together in one hieroglyphic panel as the result of missing plaster. However, we must reduce the figure to three because one is fictional i.e. the “Star Wars” anti-gravity “land speeder.”

We must also consider that if Seti or Ramses found such vehicles or depictions of them, the scribes who rendered them would have added more detail. It is also reasonable to suggest that, if the 19th Dynasty discovered advanced, prehistoric war vehicles or evidence of such vehicles, their images would appear in Ramses’s other battle scenes.

When considering statistical improbabilities, we must consider the odds that all actual physical traces of jet planes, tanks and helicopters have completely disappeared while artifacts of the Stone Age, Calcolithic, Bronze and Iron Age have survived. We must consider the odds of all traces of a cataclysm, like a polar shift, being wiped away. We must consider the odds of prehistoric people not only developing the same technology as the 20th century, but also the same fictional “Star Wars” design.

People commonly see vague images of faces and other objects on rocks, trees and clouds. In doing that, people are projecting their own perceptions (and sometimes agendas) onto the objects. In a like manner, people are projecting modern images onto the Abydos panel.

The burden of proof is upon those advocating radical revisions of ancient history and prehistory. At this point, their evidence, highly speculative and questionable as it is, is insignificant compared to the substantial evidence associated with accepted theories. Thus, at this point, a prudent person cannot regard these alternative revisionist theories as anything other than speculation.

Gordon Michael Scallion’s Visions of Pyramid Construction Debunked

Summary of Cayce’s Ridiculous Claims

This book is available exclusively at Margaret Morris Books.Com. Click on the ancient Egyptian barge below to navigate to the home page of Margaret Morris Books.