Egyptologists of the 'orthodox' school of Egyptology put an age on civilsation of about 6,000 years. Before that, they say, there was no civilsation - humankind was tribal, nomadic, disparate. The advent of agriculture was the big bang of civilsation and this happened in Egypt at that time. There could be no possibility, they say, of a coherent civilisation before that.
There are many 'clues' however, to suggest otherwise:
1. It is claimed that the sphynx is way older than that, not only by virtue of the weathering on it, but also by way of a reasonable hypothesis as to why it is there, why it faces east and why it's a lion. I'll look at these ideas shortly.
2. The age of the pyramids at Giza is hotly contested and the 'clue' that they may be older than orthodoxy allows, is in their (near) perfection, compared with younger ones, whose ages are recorded, which are like garden sheds in comparison.
3. Agriculture itself, according to Egyption Lore, was handed down to them - along with architecture, geometry, a written notation and other marks of 'civilisation'. - By whom?
4. The bible tells us that God flooded the whole world, wiping out everyone buy Noah and his family. This story has echoes in the Lore of many ancient civilisations (contemporary with Egypt, Sumaria etc). We know the flood occurred (though whether it flooded the entire planet is very doubtful) and we also know that all of humankind are descended from just five 'families' - suggesting a catastrophic wiping out. However, which 'civilisation' did Noah (and his four mates) come from? They obviously had the technology to build a big boat capable of crossing seas bigger than any on Earth today.
5. The comparison of pyramids in Egypt with pyramids in Mexico and other places has been ridiculed. But there are many instances of 'similar' thoughts and ideas in all parts of the world, when there was (supposedly) no communication between them.
6. The Piri Reis maps exist.
Let us start with the Sphynx. The weathering suggests that for many many years, it was rained on. The climate for that to be possible has not been anywhere near Egypt for long enough, if the thing is less than 6,000 years ago. Some say the effects could be due to sand, rather than water. As far as I'm aware, most 'experts' dispute that.
The hypothesis that exists to suggest why it is there, why it faces East and why it's a Lion goes along these lines:
A civilisation exists. It has trade routes all around the planet, conveying ideas as well as goods. Assume that this civilisation knows it is doomed; that a major catastrophe is about to occur. Whilst steps would be taken to preserve as much as possible, it would be foolish to presume a continued existence and so some marker should be placed so that any intelligence looking at it later would be able to work out who, or what put it there. And Why. If OUR civilisation faced a certain end, I'm sure we would want to leave a mark - something to say 'We were here'.
Why a Lion? You have all heard the song from Hair, whose chorus line is : This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius. For those of you that do not know, this means that when the sun comes up at the Spring Equinox, the constellation 'behind' it, will be Aquarius. At the moment we are on the cusp of Pisces and Aquarius, as the atrological constellations move around us due to a slight 'wobble' in the Earth's orbit. This 'wobble' causes the sky to 'revolve' around us once every 26,000 years. This is called the Precession of the equinoxes. Each astrological 'sign' lasts about 2,000 years. As we're leaving Pisces, it's interesting to note that 'the sign of the times' is a fish - a sign that Christianity has used throughout its existence - 2,000 years. Jesus lived on the previous cusp. If you were faced with anihilation and wanted to place a marker that not only said 'We were here', but also said 'WHEN we were here', a ruddy great fish, pointing East, would be a good way of doing that. Leo, incidentally, would have been the suns rising partner approximately 12,500 years ago - about half way round the precession.
Egyption tombs, as you know, contain pictures and other decorations. A lot of pomp, circumstance and colour. Egyptologists maintain that the pyramids at Giza are tombs. If this is true, why are they not decorated? At all? Egyptologists maintain that a single instance of the word 'khufu', scrawled garffitti-like on a block of stone proves that it is the tomb of this ancient pharoh. It has been suggested that this was written by an explorer desperate to find a reason for the pyramid. The internals of the Great Pyramid make no sense. There are a series of rooms in the centre, one above the other, all above the so-called burial chamber. They are empty and have not been decorated. There is no evidence to show that anyone entered these rooms in the thousands of years since the place was sealed. So what were they all about? I do have a hypothesis of my own, to which I'll arrive shortly.
I believe it was Osiris who brought civilisation to Egypt. Osiris of course is an Egyptian God. In the days of unenlightenment that preceded civilisation (or superceded the anihilated one), anyone who, in the space of what was left of his lifetime, created civilisation, would be elevated to God status, by the time he'd passed from legend into myth. We do it now, creating saints from special people. So where did Osiris come from - could his other name have been Noah?
It is easy to imagine that there were several 'Noah's'. Just because God told one Noah to build a boat does not mean thare were no other boats. If Noah's boat survived, it's safe to assume others did too. The people on these boats would have known about agriculture, geometry (you need that to drive a boat) and architecture etc.
The similarity of architecture and other ideas in disparate places only remains a mystery if you assume no communication - or you refute the possibility that seperate Noah's came from the same preceding civilisation. Boats were invented by stoneage man. Crude, true, but boats. Man is a clever animal, refining, improving everything he invents. It is silly to assume people were using dug-outs for a hundred thousand years. They had good boats 12,000 years ago - boats that would allow them to travel across to other lands. The disparate locations in which architectural similarites occur suggest these people crossed the entire globe.
And the tour-de-force, my favourite 'clue'. I actually see it as proof, and I am happy with that proof. The Piri Reis map, for those of you who do not know, is a map of the world. It shows shipping routes all round the globe. It has the middle East as its centre point, its 0 degrees of longitude and latitude, its Greenwich. It shows, with remarkable accuracy, all of the coastlines of all of the continents - including Antarctica, which is a seriously neat trick, because the coast it shows is not only accurate, more so than any we could produce before satellites, has been covered with a kilometre of ice for - wait for it - at least 8,000 years.
Here is my hypothesis:
That there was a civilisation 12,500 years ago. It was a worldwide civilisation engaging in commerce, exchange of ideas and ideals and most probably, engaging in a lot of warfare too. Knowing that their civilisation was about to be destroyed, the sphynx was created as a marker to say who and when they lived. The Great Pyramid was built to house books and other things - matches, food, that sort of thing. The ice caps melted and the flood happened. The few survivors returned to the pyramid, which was sealed against the flood waters and retrieved the 'stuff'. This gave them the tools to reintroduce civilisation and also explains why the damn thing was empty when we came to look in it. It is even possible that these 'Noah's' stayed within the pyramid whilst the flood was in progress - that might explain those funny little bird hatches 2/3 of the way up that they keep trying to send robots up.
In true Monty Python style: This is my theory and what it is too. And it's mine.
Discuss?
snak
10 Comments
So, how did the polar caps melt anyway? Could it have been global warming? heh, heh. OK, forget I said that. I don't want to touch off another GW firestorm!
Most of what you said makes sense -- except the pyramid thing. If the flood was caused by melting ice caps, I would think that the floodwaters would have lasted a very long time (like decades or hundreds of years or maybe 6500 years?), before the cycle reversed and the caps froze again. (6500 years between the proposed building of the sphinx and the rise of civilization). This would have put the pyramids under water too long to be useful. I'd find this more believeable if you could describe a mechanism that would lead to a much shorter flood duration -- or find a scenario that fits in with a very long flood duration.
I always thought it strange that civilization seemed to suddenly appear 6000 years ago. Something obviously happened. I think Sitchen would attribute this to the Annunaki :-) From what I remember, his theories also incorporated a flood.
Never heard of the Piri Reis Map before. That's quite interesting. Do you have some good references on that one?
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_1.htm
I'm happy with the idea that the flood receded relatively quickly (otherwise Noah etc would not have been able to survive) as the evidence shows a polar ice melt (3, actually) which would have flooded low-lying areas but, once the water stopped coming, it would quite happily have settled back into lower-lying areas.
Question: Do you compare the knowledge required to build the pyramids by the humans of the time equal to the knowledge required to build a skyscraper by the humans of this time?
I want to make it clear that as I attempt to pick your theories apart, it's done with the best intentions. Being skeptical, and forcing you to support your hypotheses will lead to better understanding. It's what scientists and engineers do. I'm guessing you already know that. The comment is mainly for those observers that don't understand how our minds work. :-)
OK. I'll accept as face value for now that a flood due to ice-cap melting could have had relatively short-term, localized effects (do you have any references btw?) In that case, there would have been 6500 years between the flood and the rise of civilization. That would seem to negate the theory that Osiris/Noah was responsible for the rise of civilization. Could there have been another catalyst 6500 years after the flood?
The following is just for fun, not my scientific analysis...
Do you buy into the possibility of a "planet X" -- otherwise known as Marduk/Nibiru -- home of the Nefilim/Annunaki? 6500 years is a little less than 2 of the 3600-year theoretical periods of revolution -- but we're guessing about the exact times here. Isn't the Sitchin theory that a close pass of Nibiru caused the flood? If Noah had advanced warning, seems that this would make perfect sense. Not sure why it would have taken 2 more passes of Nibiru for the Nefilim to get civilization jump started again. I can't remember what Sitchin said. Been a few years since I read his stuff. Maybe Noah's boat was really a spaceship, and humanity spent 7200 years on Nibiru before conditions were good again.
BTW, if there were such a thing as Nibiru, we're almost due for another pass. :-) There was some hype about this a couple of years back. A lot of nuts came out of the woodwork.
JB - give me a bit of time to look into the Planet X thing and I'll get back to you. Will also find a ref or two re the flood(s).
I am considering the possiblility that Osiris/Noah was not actually a surviver of the catastrophe, but perhaps the one(s) who discovered the stuff left behind 6,000 years later.......
The Piri Reis map is a 16th century map, it doesn't show the coastlines of all the continents ( although it does show the west coast of africa and the east coast of South America.) It was reputedly based on some Egyptian maps, but a map by Christopher Columbus was also used as a reference. Whether it shows the coastline of Antactica is hotly disputed, as many contemporary and earlier maps show a large southern land mass just because people assumed it would be there. (It's interesting to note that the map states that that southern region is hot and inhabited by large snakes...)
As for the coincidence of pyramid-building cultures existing around the world. To me there's nothing surprising in it. Many ancient civilisations studied and worshipped the stars. Such a civilisation may wish to construct a structure that will get them closer to' heaven' or their gods, and for an ancient civilisation, the easiest way to build the tallest possible structure is to build a pyramid.
Apocalyptic stories of floods appear in many cultures it's true, but it does not follow that they are all describing the same flood.
It's a good yarn though, maybe I shouldn't take it so seriously.
Yes, you're correct, the Piri Reis map is a 16th Century map. Never disputed that. The idea that it does not present the North coast of Antarctica accrately is nonsense. In fact (and I quote) The Hydrographic Office couldn't believe what they saw: [when showed the maps] they were even able to correct some errors in the present days maps!!
The idea that Antarctica had a hot climate and large snakes is not a problem. We all know that mammoths have been found there so there's no problem with a varied fauna. In fact, according to one theory, Antarctica may well have been close to the equator and some catastrophe flipped the Earth, moving the continent to the South Pole - explaining along the way, why mammoths were found killed instantly, with grass they were eating still in their mouths and why various sources use phrases like 'and the stars fell'. I'm at work and I'd need to check references for those.
I agree that many civilisations studied the stars and I also agree that similarities in architecture could be coincidental. Maybe they are. Without any 'proper' scientific evidence, we cannot say they are not either.
Apocolyptic flood stories do appear in many cultures and we know that there were three major floods of the middle east in the period under question. I can easily imagine that the three floods would be amalgamated into one in folklore. Or maybe not, perhaps the different recollections of floods refer to different ones. It doesn't really matter.
I mentioned the idea of an ancient civilisation predating the Egyptians to a science-minded researcher friend, who suggested that there could have been no pre-Egyptian technological civilisation because if so, there would be no coal, gas or oil left for us to use. This is a powerful argument if.. that's IF you accept that any technology has to rely on carbon-based fossil fuels. I don't.
There is evidence to suggest that elecricity was known 6000 years ago; just not very much about it. There's no reason to vehemently disagree that an earlier, recently destroyed civilisation may have used electricity, however generated. The Ark of the Covenant for example, by its description, reminds me of a huge capacitor (like a one-shot all-in-one-burst battery).
Finally, yes, of course I've read Hancock. Not exclusively though, and Hancock and I differ in some ideas. I'm very widely read and tend not to base my beliefs on one author.
Have you had a chance yet to look into the PlanetX / Nibiru / Marduk thing yet? There isn't any solid evidence of anything like that -- so I remain very skeptical on the subject. It would, however, explain some of the disasters we've been talking about here.
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)