Pyramids - Egypt/Yucatan Connection?

[Checkmite]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Introduction by moderator Luke T.: Link to original topic:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=21966
</font></td></tr></table>





The ancient Egyptians and the Mayans both built pyramids - including some impressively large ones. Could the Mayans have been inspired by the Egyptian pyramids? Could there be a common cultural link between the two - a source independent of either, yet inspiring to both?

The short answer is no. The long and more detailed answer follows.

First of al, in case anyone wants to contest the Egyptians' claim to being the original pyramid builders, or that the Great Pyramid itself was built by them, let's take a look at how pyramids in Egypt evolved.

Thus, we begin in Egypt, around the year 2600 BCE. It's only the 3rd Dynasty; united Upper and Lower Egypt is still a fresh concept. Up until this point, Egyptians had been burying their noble dead in mastabas - low brick monuments which distinguished the upper class from the common class - who were buried under piles of rocks. After a few kings had passed on and been laid to rest in their mastabas - well, there were a number of mastabas about. Kings started having bigger and bigger mastabas built for them, so that people who walked by would be able to tell the difference between this king and his weaker predecessors. However, one day a king named Djoser had a rather inspired plan - one that was sure to make people remember his name for years. Something huge, and tall. He set his architects to work, and they drafted a plan for the first step pyramid - essentially a series of progressively smaller mastabas built on top of each other. The result was - for its time - magnificent.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/arth/zoser/16.gif

Of course, it wasn't really a pyramid - but it was the beginning of a beautiful friendship between Egyptian kings and big stone pointy things. After Djoser's first step pyramid, several others were built by him and a couple of kings afterwards. Djoser had started a trend!

Flash forward about 90 years. It's now the 4th Dynasty, and a king named Sneferu - probably seeing the fame that the step pyramid builders earned themselves - embarked on something grander. Instead of a rough mastaba, he wanted a smooth, even, and sharply-pointed monument. He also wanted it to be much bigger than anything that had ever been built before. So he sent his planners and laborers feverishly to work. The result was the Pyramid of Meidum, the first true pyramid:

http://www.guardians.net/egypt/meidum/images/s_meidum.gif

Wait a second, you say...that doesn't look any kind of pyramid at all, much less a true pyramid!

Well, it used to look like a pyramid. Or at least it was about to look like a true pyramid - but something terrible happened. Due to a serious design flaw, the Meidum pyramid collapsed during the final stages of, or soon after, construction. The sides of the pyramid literally slid off, leaving only the zuggerat-shaped stone core we see today. The huge piles of debris seen surrounding the core are the pulverized remains of the pyramid.

But Sneferu was a persistent old chap, and, having corrected his architects, commissioned a second pyramid. This one was built without any serious design flaws...okay, maybe a couple. Halfway up the pyramid, the architects realized that this pyramid would be too steep, too expensive, and take too long to build. So, they abruptly changed the slope of the pyramid, making it more gradual. The stress was still too great, so the engineers designed interior spaces with corbelled ceilings, to help relieve pressure:

http://www.guardians.net/egypt/cyberjourney/dahshur/bentpyramid/images/bentchamb4.jpg

Of course, at the top (and several other places in the pyramid), there was still more pressure than the engineers were comfortable with; however, by this time they were tired of expending so much effort correcting their mistakes, that they just braced some spots in the interior with cedar beams:

http://www.guardians.net/egypt/cyberjourney/dahshur/bentpyramid/images/bentport2a.jpg

Yes, boys and girls - that cedar timber in the above photo is original - direct to you from 2570 (or so) BCE.

The result was worth the trouble, however. The Bent Pyramid of Sneferu:

http://www.guardians.net/egypt/cyberjourney/dahshur/bentpyramid/images/Bent-NW-2001-2.jpg
Bent Pyramid. Height: 105m. Base: 188.6m Slope: 54º, 42º

Sneferu had yet one more pyramid built before he finally gave up the ghost - the Red Pyramid. It was the first complete true pyramid, with corbelled ceilings and the design flaws from the previous pyramid corrected. The Red Pyramid seems a bit flatter than most Egyptian pyramids, because it has a shallower angle - the slope used on the top half of the Bent Pyramid was used for the entirety of the Red Pyramid.

After good old Sneferu died, the king Khufu took the reigns. Khufu literally outdid himself with the biggest "I'll show you!" project of them all - the Great Pyramid.

Some people don't think Khufu built the Great Pyramid. Many people still believe the only thing which attaches Khufu's name to the Great Pyramid is quarrymen's graffiti up high in the King's Chamber. Actually, this isn't true. A nearby "mastaba village" dated to the 4th Dynasty contained many remains and inscriptions, complete with mentions of King Khufu, and titles like "Director of the King's Project", "Overseer of the Side of the Pyramid", and similar titles. A huge work camp near the site of the Giza monuments also dates to the 4th Dynasty and shows evidence of over 50 years of occupation - for good reason; Khafre and Menkaure had their pyramids built right next to Khufu's, in succession. Khafre's and Menkaure's names are all over their pyramids, so it's obvious who built them. Now, Khufu predated Khafre and Menkaure, and heiroglyphic evidence indicates that he commissioned a huge pyramid project. The only pyramid on site that predates Khafre's and Menkaure's pyramids is the Great Pyramid. 2 + 2 = 4, and all that. Plus, the interior of the Great Pyramid features galleries, portcullises, and corbelled ceilings - all methods and features developed - through much trial and error, I hasten to add - by Sneferu's architects. So why wasn't Khufu's body found within his pyramid? Who knows - it could've been stolen, or perhaps he died before the pyramid was completely complete. The latter theory would explain why there's a distinct lack of inscriptions on the walls inside the burial chambers...

http://www.guardians.net/egypt/GP/images/gpext98a.jpg
Great Pyramid of Khufu. Height: 146.6m. Base: 230.37m. Slope: 51º

Khafre's pyramid was built on higher ground to make it look taller than Khufu's. It's actually a little shorter. The pyramid also features no corbelled ceilings, because it has only one hall and chamber - at ground level. The rest of the pyramid appears solid. Khafre's pyramid (foreground), interestingly, still has some of its original limestone casing at the top:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/khafrep2.jpg
Great Pyramid of Khafre. Height: 136.4m. Base: 215.25m. Slope: 53°

And of course, next comes Menkuare's pyramid, only about 1/4 the size of the others:

http://www.guardians.net/images/menkno.jpg
Pyramid of Menkuare. Height: 62m. Base: 105m. Slope: 51º[/b].

You've been able to see how the Egyptians developed their pyramids, and what they were used for - elaborate tombs. You've seen how they grew from extravagant piles of rock to smooth and precisely-shaped wonders, and you've seen the trial and error their designers went through to reach the pinnacle - the Great Pyramid of Khufu.

With Giza, our trip to ancient Egypt ends. Next, off to Mexico - to compare Egyptian and Mayan pyramids.

Unfortunately, our knowledge about the Maya is limited - and the sort of specifics we have about how particular pyramids were built in Egypt simply doesn't exist for Mayan structures. However, we do know a few things. For example, we know that Mayans never built true pyramids. All their pyramids were of the step variety, and almost exclusively were used as temples for the living, rather than tombs for the dead - the sole exception being the tomb of king Pacal, who was buried beneath the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque.

"Temples for the Living" is perhaps a bit of a misnomer, as services at the top of the temples often culminated in rather gruesome and abrupt sacrifices of human victims to please the gods. Mayan temples started out as simple low raised platforms, becoming taller and taller, with varying slopes and bases and heights - in fact, there seems to be no set "paradigm" for Maya pyramids, with the exception that they all had flat tops where the temples were, and of course they all had stairs.

The grand-daddy of Mayan pyramidity is the Temple of the Sun, located at Teotihuacan, where Mexico City now stands.

http://www.climb1.com/pyramid_sun.jpg Pyramid of the Sun. Height: 65m. Base: 228m x 216m. Slope: Unavailable

The Temple of the Sun is huge - it's the 3rd largest pyramid in the world. However, it is most unlikely that the Great Pyramid of Khufu and the Pyramid of the Sun were inspired by the same source. Their bases are similar, to be sure - however, the building method is different, the materials used are different, the applications and reasons for building the pyramids are different, and they don't even look similar - in fact, the Temple of the Sun is less than half the height of Khufu's pyramid.

To summarize - the only true similarity between Egyptian and Maya pyramids is that they start out wide and end narrow. Photos, specifications, and purposes suggest no remote link between the two. Of course, if there's some linking evidence I haven't been made aware of...then by all means, I would be happy to examine it.

[fishbob]

Cool.

[Russ]

That's an interesting summary. Not sure there's much room there for debate. Now explain how the designs on the Nazca plain were created without help from our alien overlords.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Russ
That's an interesting summary. Not sure there's much room there for debate. Now explain how the designs on the Nazca plain were created without help from our alien overlords.

*sigh*. No rest for the weary... :D

Maybe later.

[MRC_Hans]

Very good summary! You omitted a lot of Egyptian pyramids (for simplicity I'm sure) included several unfinished and a couple of more that have collapsed. All together, they have provided us with excellent insight into the cronology and development of Egyptian pyramid architecture.


Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Mmm, and after all, it is not so surprising that Mayan and Egyptian pyramids have a lot of features in common: Once you've decided to build a large stone monument that is supposed to stand forever, then without access to mortar and concrete, the pyramid shape is really the only feasible option.

Hans

[BillyJoe]

.....waiting for frostbite to set in. :cool:

[Kullervo]

One small quibble: The Temple of the Sun is Aztec.

Palenque, Chichen Itza, Uxmal, etc are Mayan.

If Chiapas is ever safe again, I recommend a trip to Palenque. It's one of the most spectacular places on the planet.

[Larspeart]

A few things,

Evidence that there was at least SOME connection between the two cultures, besides their propensity for pyramids.

In mummies in Egypt, there has been numerous traces of Cocaine found, along with tobacco and Cacao (yes, chocolate) in the bindings and bandages. NONE of these are found in the old world, and at the time (we thought) were only found in the america's. How did it get there. I FIRMLY believe that the phoneceins (sp?) had far greater trade routes, and could/were trading with the New World at a time when most of science believes that Britain was as far as they got.

The Nazca lines. Forget aliens. I have read/seen evidence that the Nazca were using balloons (of the hot air variety, lol) to get them up high enough to see/sketch the shapes and drawings. I even watxhed them make one of said balloons on the History channal using only materials that they had (mostly a very strong, lightweight fabric they made) to do it, and they found it was entirely doable.

Back to the mesoamericans and the folks in Egypt. I think it is very likely thatthey had contact with each other at that time (and not via Atlantis or aliens, or whatnot). Their cultures just seem to have too many similarities.

hehe, cocaine mummy's! Middle Kingdom drug dealers. I love it!

[Larspeart]

Oh, also, I have been to Chichen Itza and Kohunlich. Both were GREAT visits if you like Mayan ruins. Kohunlichis much more undeveloped and remote, so if you like it 'natural' you'll like it there. If you like a soda machine, flush toilets and a taco stand nearby, go to Chichen, :)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Larspeart
The Nazca lines. Forget aliens. I have read/seen evidence that the Nazca were using balloons (of the hot air variety, lol) to get them up high enough to see/sketch the shapes and drawings. I even watxhed them make one of said balloons on the History channal using only materials that they had (mostly a very strong, lightweight fabric they made) to do it, and they found it was entirely doable.
Joe Nickell has demonstrated that they didn't need hot air balloons, but rather stakes and rope, both of which were available.
Check out his articles in Skeptical Inquirer. In one, he recreates a full sized Nasca figure without the use of a flying saucer, or an almost equally improbable hot air balloon.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Kullervo
One small quibble: The Temple of the Sun is Aztec.

Palenque, Chichen Itza, Uxmal, etc are Mayan.

If Chiapas is ever safe again, I recommend a trip to Palenque. It's one of the most spectacular places on the planet.

Actually you're right - my mistake. The Temple is Aztec, possibly begun as a Toltec structure at first

[Dancing David]

Yeah cocaine in mummies ,yeah right. Care to cite that source, or were they smuggling?

My father a rather famous anthroplogist would like to be able to prove that the Asians and the mesoamericans had contact.

There isn't reallt that much similarites between egypt and maya, did the egytians ritualy torture the pharohs?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Joe Nickell has demonstrated that they didn't need hot air balloons, but rather stakes and rope, both of which were available.
Check out his articles in Skeptical Inquirer. In one, he recreates a full sized Nasca figure without the use of a flying saucer, or an almost equally improbable hot air balloon.

http://www.mtharris.freeserve.co.uk/peru/nazca/nazca2.jpg
"Sirius 1 on final approach..."

Yes, most archaeologists are of the opinion that neither the alien nor hot air balloon theories are likely; rather, it was most likely done entirely on the ground. The figures are huge, to be sure, but not so huge that one would need a high vantage point to direct their contruction. As Mr. Corey mentions, stakes and rope arranged in a specific fashion would do the trick. The lines themselves were easy to fashion:

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/nazca3.jpg

All the Nazca had to do was brush away all the dark rock and gravel along the line, exposing the light sand beneath. It should be obvious that any spaceship trying to land on or near such a figure would blast the lines into oblivion. Even landing a small plane on the lines would be disastrous, and several lines have already been severely damaged because tourists drove cars over them.

[Larspeart]

sure. . .

http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/coctrans.htm

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf111/sf111p01.htm

http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/buckland01.html

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~wayfarer/anomaly/archaeology/cocaine_trans.htm

[Larspeart]

Dancing. . .

Torture them? Not sure on that, but they sure didn't like Nefertiti's corpse.

smashed in the side of her face/head, and tore out her chest cavity. I'd say that is a harsh treatment for a ruler/god.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited out one sentence to maintain level of taste preferred for this sub-forum which did not affect context of post.</font></td></tr></table>

[Phaycops]

Regarding the purpose of the Nazca lines, I read somewhere that someone had the idea that they might be used as sort of prayer aides. The idea being you walk along the path of, say, the sacred monkey, and you pray. Does anyone else know anything about this? I can NOT for the life of me remember where I read it! Argh!

[Larspeart]

Sounds very Hindu. /shrug

[RichardR]

Great summary. Thanks.

What do you say to the people who claim the Sphinx is older than is conventionally claimed? (Apart from the obvious. ;) )

Is there any reason to think this might be true?

[Frostbite]

Joshua...

What's new about what you wrote? Good post, but it still doesn't prove or disprove anything. I'm still not convinced that there's no correlation.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by RichardR
Great summary. Thanks.

What do you say to the people who claim the Sphinx is older than is conventionally claimed? (Apart from the obvious. ;) )

Is there any reason to think this might be true?

Water weathering and erosion patterns. The body is way more eroded than the face, even if the head was sticking out from the sands most of the time and was exposed to wind and occasional rain. One possibility is that the body is older than thought, and that someone carved his face on it.

[Larspeart]

I don't buy that. the fact is, the body was protected by stationary sand for the last 2-3,000 years, whereas the face was exposxed to the elements the entire time. That will make a HUGE difference in regards to erosion.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Joshua...

What's new about what you wrote? Good post, but it still doesn't prove or disprove anything. I'm still not convinced that there's no correlation.

Due to the factors I've presented, I'm not convinced that there is any correlation. Aside from the fact that the bases of the two pyramids in question are nearly the same size...what else is there?

[Checkmite]

The Sphinx's age is contested because some stones appear to have been exposed to a lot of water erosion. The arguments in this case are very in depth and technical, and not even one of my long-winded diatribes could cover them all. Instead, I refer you to a website which has a collection of various professional refutations of the water-erosion theory.

Ma'at's Sphinx (http://www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/search.php?query=&topic=35)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I don't buy that. the fact is, the body was protected by stationary sand for the last 2-3,000 years, whereas the face was exposxed to the elements the entire time. That will make a HUGE difference in regards to erosion.

No, it wasn't. The Sphinx has been covered and uncovered and recovered and reuncovered several times during its existence. The body is also very severely damaged, and has been the focus of several restoration efforts, beginning with King Thutmosis the Fourth in around 1400 BCE. The body is made of several different types of stone, gotten from several different places, applied during several different time periods. It's a big mess, and most proponents of either side of the debate tend to stay away from the body, referring instead to the stonework surrounding the Sphinx.

[Frostbite]

Not to mention that the Sphinx was probably submerged in water by cultists, which could explain the water weathering on the Sphinx's lower edges and the surrounding area.

(Don't worry, I'll bring my Mexico-Egypt correlation arguments later today, kinda busy at work at the moment) :)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Larspeart
sure. . .

http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/coctrans.htm

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf111/sf111p01.htm

http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/buckland01.html

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~wayfarer/anomaly/archaeology/cocaine_trans.htm

The appearance of nicotine in Egyptian mummies is easily accounted for because of its presence in food items the Egyptians used, as well as tobacco-based insecticides many museums (from which the mummy samples were taken) during the 19th century. The presence of THC in Egyptian mummies isn't mysterious at all, because cannibis is indigenous to the region - the Egyptians used it to make rope, and it's also known that the burning of incense produces THC in small amounts which can add up when inhaled over time.

In fact, the only difficult-to-account-for finding is the presence of cocaine in the Egyptian mummies. However, it isn't suggestive of trans-atlantic travel; any plant of the genus Erythroxylum produces cocaine, and several of these plants are present in southern Africa and Asia, particularly India. Lapis Lazuli - a stone native to Afghanistan - has been found in some Egyptian tombs, indicating trade with those areas.

If we are to accept the existence of a trans-Atlantic trade route between the Egyptians and South America, we need better evidence than chemical residues which can be accounted for otherwise. It seems almost humorous that such a route could be established, but the only things the societies traded with each other were recreational drugs.

[TillEulenspiegel]

--So the smile we see in mummies is not rictus, but evedance that the Egyptians knew how to party!:)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
--So the smile we see in mummies is not rictus, but evedance that the Egyptians knew how to party!:)

:D

[chance]

Joshua KorosiWhat are your opinions on Thor Hyadale(sp) theories linking the 2 cultures. He used reed boats to show at least in theory the Atlantic could be crossed and allowed the possibility of the idea of pyramid building to migrate.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Great Post Joshua. :)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by chance
Joshua KorosiWhat are your opinions on Thor Hyadale(sp) theories linking the 2 cultures. He used reed boats to show at least in theory the Atlantic could be crossed and allowed the possibility of the idea of pyramid building to migrate.

Thor actually had a couple of advantages here - for example, a support team always nearby, and general knowledge of which direction he needed to go and what lay ahead. But that doesn't matter and ultimately isn't the problem.

The problem, again, is simple lack of evidence. The pyramids in South America are so unlike the pyramids in Egypt, any connection between the two is going to be difficult to prove. No other cultural or physical artifact has been found which supports the link, which can't be more easily explained without a transatlantic voyage. It would've taken more than one single trip on a boat to transfer something like pyramid construction techniques (there would've been quite a language learning curve involved), and besides that, there's the time differences - the Egyptians stopped building pyramids by the end of the Old Kingdom (it's very likely by that by the Middle Kingdom, they may have completely forgotten how to build them, because they no longer cared). Whatever indigenous people lived in South America during the pyramid age of Egypt would've been extremely primitive. Why would it have taken 2,000 years for the South Americans to finally start building pyramids? If the primitive people simply waited until they were financially or technologically able to build pyramids, would the knowlege passed on over 2,000 years still be viable? Why wasn't anything else passed on from the Egyptian visitors? Why couldn't the South Americans have figured out such a simple, obvious, and practical structure as the pyramid for themselves?

In addition, the premise is shaky. The Egyptians were excellent river sailors. The Nile was predictable and easy to navigate. They simply did not like risking an ocean voyage - and if they did have to use the ocean, they hugged the shore. A trip past Libya (most of which they never explored), into and across the Atlantic just wouldn't make sense, with all this territory in between to expand into. And if the chances one ship would dare venture out on such a voyage are slim, the chances that among the crew would be one of the privileged few educated in the ways of pyramid construction is practically astronomical.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So where exactly do the Martians fit in? :confused:

[Russ]

Well, the pyramids on Mars are almost exactly the same of course.

[chance]

Joshua Korosi Thanks for the reply, I’m not certain if Thor was ever convinced of a pyramid link or was just out to prove a point (it’s been a while since I read his books). I think he also tried to show reed boat building methods could also have been passed on.

But to counter both arguments, both cultures would find a similar solution to boat weaving and pyramid building as there must be a limited number ways either could be designed.

Still have to admire Thor’s reed boat crossings if just for the adventure.

[LW]

Originally posted by Larspeart




I'd say that is a harsh treatment for a ruler/god.

Well, you can go to Maya mythology page (http://www.create.org/myth/mayamyth.htm) and read the section about Bloodletting & The Vision Quest to see what Mayan kings did to themselves. Warning: someone may find the description quite uncomfortable.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
So where exactly do the Martians fit in? :confused:

They don't! :mad:

[Frostbite]

I was thinking more of a trans-pacific boatride. ;)

I'll start by disproving that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu. The only evidence pointing to that conclusion are 1) inscriptions up in the Construction Chamber and 2) a statuette of Khufu which was found in the temples surrounding the pyramids. Records indeed say that Khufu built mortuary temples and mastabas on the plateau, yet there is no mention of him actually built one of the seven wonders of the old world! I do not dismiss the possibility that such records could have been destroyed due to jaelousy or Khufu's cruel ways.

Concerning the Construction Chambers red ochre paint writings, there was a certain amount of secrecy during Vyse's excursions. Many men were fired from his team for knowing too much, the name Khufu is mis-spelled "Re-ufu", and I believe Vyse wrote these himself. All of the Construction Chamber's walls feature writings, except for the east wall, which was partly blown apart by Vyse with dynamite.

There is enough evidence however to believe that Khufu adopted the Great Pyramid as his own.

- Cement found between some of the Great Pyramid's blocks contained straw particles carbon-dated back to 3,100 BC, right around when Upper and Lower Egypt were unified under Narmer.

- Unlike Menkaure and Sneferu, Khufu and Chephren are never credited for building their pyramids. They are however credited for building mortuary temples.

- The Great Pyramid does not fit Egyptian dynastic history. The builders used revolutionary features (such as advanced portcullis systems, a "King's Chamber" surrounded by granite walls, an all-around over-engineered design, etc.) which were never found in later pyramid designs. In some cases, features were found to replicate those at Giza, but with a negligeable quality.

- The use of monoliths is contrary to practical uses, and is found exclusively at Giza. The weight of the blocks average at 2.5 tons, and the biggest blocks are made of granite and reach 80 tons. Other pyramids throughout the world use much smaller blocks and mud bricks.

- A pyramid design can be found on the Narmer palette. Some say it depicts a raft (?) but it appears clear to me that a rectangle (Upper and Lower Egypts united) containing a pyramid symbol in its upper part could mean the Giza plateau.


Anyway, here's an incomplete list of similarities between the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan and the Great Pyramid of Giza. I _will_ include evidence which is nothing more than speculation, for the sake of the argument.

- Both pyramids were places where "men became gods", which means they were both burial places or at least an instrumental part of a burial ceremony.

- Both pyramids have the same base measurements, which makes me believe that 230x230 meters somehow "means" something.

- A universal flood myth present in practically all of the old world's mythologies, which could link whatever cultures are responsible for building both pyramids. Charles Hapgood's book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, is a good place to start.

- The Pyramid of the Sun is associated with Quetzalcoatl, the winged serpent god. The Pyramid of Giza is associated with Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge and wisdom. There are many similarities between the two dieties, mainly that they were teachers of mathematics, architecture, numerology, etc. Both share the symbolic number of 52, both gods are sometimes associated with a serpent or winged serpent. Allow me to speculate that both dieties were the same person.

- Alignments: As far as alignments go, I couldn't find anything that linked Teotihuacan with Giza. Using Photoshop, I played around for an hour, overlaying both pyramids and trying to see if other things matched up. All I was looking for was 3 aligned objects, but I couldn't find it. I tried rotating the whole thing by 15.28 degrees due north; I tried overlaying the Jaguar temple with the Sphinx; I tried matching the Khufu pyramid with the temple of Quetzalcoatl... nothing worked. So far, nothing there.

I'd just like to close this post by saying that I am biased in believing that there is indeed a correlation between both pyramids. Whatever link exists could lead thousands of years before they were actually built, which would explain the discrepancies in building material and techniques.

What we're dealing here is a puzzle old as civilization itself, and I find it foolish to dismiss certain theories because the status quo does not agree with them. Just look at what happened to independent researchers like Rudolf Gantenbrink, Robert Schoch and Graham Hancock when they tried to investigate the structures at Giza: they got kicked out, and the director of Egyptian antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass, deals with "alternative views" with something that resembles religious zeal. I just think that he should stop dealing with people as if they were children and start answering questions.

[LW]

Originally posted by Frostbite

I'll start by disproving that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu.

You use very strong words here. I'll leave answering to your points to Joshua because he'll do it better than I would, but I just have to comment on one thing:

A pyramid design can be found on the Narmer palette. Some say it depicts a raft (?) but it appears clear to me that a rectangle (Upper and Lower Egypts united) containing a pyramid symbol in its upper part could mean the Giza plateau.

I have been staring at the Narrmer palette (well, a picture of it) for several minutes and I can't see any pyramid figures in it. Could you explain what you mean by it.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by LW


You use very strong words here. I'll leave answering to your points to Joshua because he'll do it better than I would, but I just have to comment on one thing:

Well it's not like anyone ever proved Khufu built the Great Pyramid in the first place anyway. There still is a debate about the two Great Pyramids and the Sphinx. Bad choice of words on my part though.

I have been staring at the Narrmer palette (well, a picture of it) for several minutes and I can't see any pyramid figures in it. Could you explain what you mean by it.

http://www.ptahhotep.com/articles/narmer2.gif

On the upper-left corner, left of king Narmer wearing the crown of unified Egypt, there's a rectangle with a pyramid symbol in it. According to dynastic egyptian history, pharaohs didn't start building pyramids until many generations later. The symbol could mean anything else though, but I can't find anything.

Edit: Problems with that idea is the triangle symbol could very well represent the Nile Delta, and that ancient Egyptians reversed north and south, so technically the pyramid symbol should've been on the bottom of the triangle.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Frostbite
I was thinking more of a trans-pacific boatride. ;)

I'll start by disproving that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu. The only evidence pointing to that conclusion are 1) inscriptions up in the Construction Chamber and 2) a statuette of Khufu which was found in the temples surrounding the pyramids. Records indeed say that Khufu built mortuary temples and mastabas on the plateau, yet there is no mention of him actually built one of the seven wonders of the old world! I do not dismiss the possibility that such records could have been destroyed due to jaelousy or Khufu's cruel ways.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, one that a lot of people make. The misunderstanding is that pyramids usually contained a lot of text, specifically mentioning the king himself, or making references to him. The opposite is actually the truth - that is, after Djoser's step pyramid in the early 3rd Dynasty, and until Unas's pyramid at the end of the 5th Dynasty, there were no pyramids with decorations or inscriptions in them anywhere in Egypt. The oft-touted "lack of inscriptions" in the Great Pyramid is by no means unique - it's to be expected, and the very lack of interior decorations would indeed place the construction of the pyramid squarely in one of the three dynasties between Djoser's and Unas's reigns. But with no identifying marks, how do we know which king built which pyramid?

A second misunderstanding, held by even more people, is that pyramids are monuments in and of themselves. Pyramids were actually built as complexes - the pyramid itself, the satellite pyramids, the mortuary temples, and all related statuary, stelae, causeways, and related works are all part of the self-same monument. The pyramid's builder is identified by the inscriptions adorning the structures in front of his pyramid. Khufu's mortuary temple is worn down to the foundation, but the remains of the connecting causeway and the secondary mastabas clearly identify Khufu by name; therefore, the pyramid connected with them should be his.

Originally posted by Frostbite
Concerning the Construction Chambers red ochre paint writings, there was a certain amount of secrecy during Vyse's excursions. Many men were fired from his team for knowing too much, the name Khufu is mis-spelled "Re-ufu", and I believe Vyse wrote these himself. All of the Construction Chamber's walls feature writings, except for the east wall, which was partly blown apart by Vyse with dynamite.

Vyse's wheelings and dealings are not necessarily indicative of fraud on his part; but it doesn't matter. His findings are of subdued importance now that more definitive evidence in the form of the mastaba village and causeway inscriptions identifying Khufu (using his properly spelled name) has been unearthed and studied.

Originally posted by Frostbite
There is enough evidence however to believe that Khufu adopted the Great Pyramid as his own.

- Cement found between some of the Great Pyramid's blocks contained straw particles carbon-dated back to 3,100 BC, right around when Upper and Lower Egypt were unified under Narmer.

I'd need a source before I can argue this point.

Originally posted by Frostbite
- Unlike Menkaure and Sneferu, Khufu and Chephren are never credited for building their pyramids. They are however credited for building mortuary temples.

Menkaure and Sneferu are associated with their respective pyramids in the exact same way Khufu and Khefren are - related stelae, mortuary temples, and/or valley temples which feature their names. If mentions of Khufu's name on structures outside his pyramid are not enough to identify the pyramid as his, then no pyramid built between Djoser's and Unas's can be positively identified as belonging to any particular king. The pyramids are all identified through objects associated directly with them. There is enough independent evidence that this is simply the way things were in the Old Kingdom.

Originally posted by Frostbite
- The Great Pyramid does not fit Egyptian dynastic history. The builders used revolutionary features (such as advanced portcullis systems, a "King's Chamber" surrounded by granite walls, an all-around over-engineered design, etc.) which were never found in later pyramid designs. In some cases, features were found to replicate those at Giza, but with a negligeable quality.

This is indicative of nothing but old-fashioned R&D and subsequent results. And Khefren's pyramid cannot compare in the least to Khufu's - the internal layout is completely different, and the pyramid is imperfect. This makes it obvious that two different sets of engineers built those two pyramids.

Originally posted by Frostbite
- The use of monoliths is contrary to practical uses, and is found exclusively at Giza. The weight of the blocks average at 2.5 tons, and the biggest blocks are made of granite and reach 80 tons. Other pyramids throughout the world use much smaller blocks and mud bricks.

This is easily explained by the presence of nearby quarries and the ambitious designs of the planners involved.

Originally posted by Frostbite
- A pyramid design can be found on the Narmer palette. Some say it depicts a raft (?) but it appears clear to me that a rectangle (Upper and Lower Egypts united) containing a pyramid symbol in its upper part could mean the Giza plateau.

The entire symbol, including the rectangle, is of indeterminate meaning. The rectangle certainly is not known to represent Upper and Lower Egypt united, as it appears nowhere else in that context.


Originally posted by Frostbite
Anyway, here's an incomplete list of similarities between the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan and the Great Pyramid of Giza. I _will_ include evidence which is nothing more than speculation, for the sake of the argument.

- Both pyramids were places where "men became gods", which means they were both burial places or at least an instrumental part of a burial ceremony.

But while the Egyptian pyramid was in fact a tomb for a king, the Aztec structure was a place where common sacrifices were performed - though I suppose one could call the actual act of killing an "instrumental part" of a burial ceremony...

Originally posted by Frostbite
- Both pyramids have the same base measurements, which makes me believe that 230x230 meters somehow "means" something.

The Sun Temple is ever-so-slightly longer than it is wide. In any case, the width today is the result of unfortunate and inept "restoration" attempts - these attempts have enlarged the base of the pyramid, and even added a new "top level" that was originally never there.

Originally posted by Frostbite
- A universal flood myth present in practically all of the old world's mythologies, which could link whatever cultures are responsible for building both pyramids. Charles Hapgood's book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, is a good place to start.

Perhaps...if you want to discuss the maps of Piri Reis, Oronteus, and Bauche - as far as their inaccuracies, and how they don't depict the coast of Antarctica "without ice", I'm perfectly willing to do that also, in another thread.

Originally posted by Frostbite
- The Pyramid of the Sun is associated with Quetzalcoatl, the winged serpent god. The Pyramid of Giza is associated with Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge and wisdom. There are many similarities between the two dieties, mainly that they were teachers of mathematics, architecture, numerology, etc. Both share the symbolic number of 52, both gods are sometimes associated with a serpent or winged serpent. Allow me to speculate that both dieties were the same person.

There are many assertions in this point that are simply incorrect.

First, Quetzalcoatl actually has his very own temple pyramid at Teotihuacan, but I'll allow the possibility the Pyramid of the Sun was also dedicated to him, or that he was somehow associated with it.

The pyramid of Giza is not associated with Thoth; in fact, no pyramid in the whole of Egypt is associated with Thoth or any other god for that matter, save the king himself, who was considered to be the son of Re in the Old Kingdom. However, while Re or Horus may have had cameos as statues in the king's mortuary temple, the pyramid itself would've been associated only with the king whose body resided therein.

Thoth was the teacher of writing, but not architecture; I cannot find any relation between Thoth and any specific number, and Thoth was represented most often as an Ibis-headed man, or occasionally as a baboon, but never a snake. The only Egyptian deity represented by a snake was the cobra goddess Wadjet, who was the tutelary goddess of Lower Egypt (she appears together with Nekhbet the Vulture on the crown of Egyptian kings). She had nothing to do with wisdom or architecture, nor had she wings.

In addition, Quetzalcoatl was the chief diety of the Aztecs, while Thoth was subservient to Osiris, Horus, and Re.

Originally posted by Frostbite
I'd just like to close this post by saying that I am biased in believing that there is indeed a correlation between both pyramids. Whatever link exists could lead thousands of years before they were actually built, which would explain the discrepancies in building material and techniques.

What we're dealing here is a puzzle old as civilization itself, and I find it foolish to dismiss certain theories because the status quo does not agree with them. Just look at what happened to independent researchers like Rudolf Gantenbrink, Robert Schoch and Graham Hancock when they tried to investigate the structures at Giza: they got kicked out, and the director of Egyptian antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass, deals with "alternative views" with something that resembles religious zeal. I just think that he should stop dealing with people as if they were children and start answering questions.

It is foolish to dismiss any theory simply because it finds itself at odds with the mainstream; however, it is equally foolish to abandon the mainstream explanation in favor of a theory which has little supporting evidence, absolutely none of which is definitive.

[chance]

Joshua Korosi A little off topic (but pyramid related). What if any consensus is there re the ‘Orion theory’. Basically The Orion Theory was published a few years ago, and stated that the 3 pyramids of Giza represent the belt in the constellation of Orion, while the red and bent pyramids form the 2 next brightest stars in the same constellation. The 2 ‘vents’ of the great pyramid were aligned with the pole star and Sirius (I think), also formed part of the theory.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by chance
Joshua Korosi A little off topic (but pyramid related). What if any consensus is there re the ‘Orion theory’. Basically The Orion Theory was published a few years ago, and stated that the 3 pyramids of Giza represent the belt in the constellation of Orion, while the red and bent pyramids form the 2 next brightest stars in the same constellation. The 2 ‘vents’ of the great pyramid were aligned with the pole star and Sirius (I think), also formed part of the theory.

Well, that the "shafts" in the Great Pyramid had an astronomical significance is probably likely. I'm not certain that the southern shaft points toward Sirius, however. See, the northern shaft always pointed toward Alpha Draconis (which was the pole star in 2500 BCE), because Alpha Draconis never moved. But the sky the southern shaft aims at is constantly moving, with so many stars being intercepted by the shaft over the course of the year. Sirius was only one of those stars, so the significance pertaining to Sirius isn't definitive.

The problem with the Orion theory, though, is one of direction. Yes, we've seen photos of Orion's belt superimposed over the pyramids, and they do tend to fit; however, you'll notice as you stand at Giza that the arrangement of the pyramids, compared to Orion's actual belt, is upside down! In order to get the pyramids to "fit", you have to spin the earth 180 degrees. It's easy to do with an aerial photo, of course - but standing at Giza, it's difficult to do. Take a look at the following photos:

http://www.alien.de/doernenburg/Fotos/ORALT.gifhttp://www.alien.de/doernenburg/Fotos/pyr_vo.jpg

You'll notice that in the Orion photo, north is at the top; but in the Giza photo, north is at the bottom.

In other words, if the Giza pyramids were lined up with Orion, then they confused celestial north with celestial south, and the shafts in the Great Pyramid shouldn't point where we know they point. Chances are, they weren't intended to match up with Orion's belt. They may have been, of course - it wouldn't change anything, really, about our understanding of Egypt - but at the moment it seems sort of incidental.

The kicker here is that even taking the directional differences into account, the pyramids of Giza - set at an angle of 38 degrees from perpendicular to true north - differs from the angle at which Orion's belt lined up with celestial north in 2500 BCE - and here's where the "woo" factor comes in. Proponents of the Orion link theory declare that the angle of Giza against north would match the angle of Orion's belt against celestial north in 10500 BCE, which indicates that the pyramids were built not by Egyptians, but by a long lost civilization! Well, that won't work. See, the angles of Giza and Orion's belt in 10500 BCE do not match up; the angle of Orion's belt against celestial north in 10500 BCE is about 50 degrees, not 38. Well, it was fun while it lasted...meanwhile, you'd expect such an advanced "lost civilization" to get their cardinal direction points right.

[chance]

Joshua Korosi Thanks for the most informative reply (again). I was never sure if the ‘Orion Theory’ every got debunked (or accepted), or if the Author was a bit selective with his facts. Well, it was fun while it lasted indeed, which is a pity because the book was quite a good read.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by chance
Joshua Korosi Thanks for the most informative reply (again).

Anytime - anytime at all! Me loves ancient history - and Egypt in particular. I get a sort of odd pleasure out of doing the research, locating images, and typing out the posts...even the really long ones.

[BillyJoe]

.....waiting for frost to bite. :cool:

[Frostbite]

Well, what else is there to say? You can either look at every single piece of evidence out of context and dismiss them, or you can look at the big picture and see the pieces start to fit. It's all about interpretation, and I've never been satisfied by the answers and general "we'll take it from here" attitude I get from the experts. I want answers and I want them now. I thought I'd get some answers when I watched FOX specials about the opening of the Gantenbrink door or the Tomb of Osiris, but it was just a big joke.

[Larspeart]

The 'Orion Theory' was the one I was sort of refering to myself, albeit badly.

Thank you to guys like Frost that support me.

Thank you to guys like Josh that make the give-n-take more enjoyable, and spice up my day.

:)

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Frostbite
I thought I'd get some answers when I watched FOX specials about the opening of the Gantenbrink door or the Tomb of Osiris, but it was just a big joke.

Don't give up yet. It's true, there was absolutely nothing behind the shaft door, and Osiris's tomb was bare. But how were these "big jokes"? When what you expect to happen doesn't happen, "it was faked" is not the only explanation.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Don't give up yet. It's true, there was absolutely nothing behind the shaft door, and Osiris's tomb was bare. But how were these "big jokes"? When what you expect to happen doesn't happen, "it was faked" is not the only explanation.

No, no, I'm not saying anything was faked. Just that it was a great big joke because the show was marketed as something that would answer a lot of questions. So you got a 2-hour show with Hawass acting like he's Indiana Jones or something, jumping around like a complete boob, saying it's the first time he's getting inside the Queen's pyramid when it's obvious it's not the case, and in the last 5 minutes they show us absolutely nothing but a second Gantenbrink door and tell us it'll be months before they open it. I understand it's a very delicate process, but I don't understand why it should take another 6 months to drill a hole in the second door and take a peek on the other side.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Frostbite


No, no, I'm not saying anything was faked. Just that it was a great big joke because the show was marketed as something that would answer a lot of questions. So you got a 2-hour show with Hawass acting like he's Indiana Jones or something, jumping around like a complete boob, saying it's the first time he's getting inside the Queen's pyramid when it's obvious it's not the case, and in the last 5 minutes they show us absolutely nothing but a second Gantenbrink door and tell us it'll be months before they open it. I understand it's a very delicate process, but I don't understand why it should take another 6 months to drill a hole in the second door and take a peek on the other side.

LOL! I'll give you that, old Zahi sure loved to ham it up. In reality, he's very serious and passionate about his work. Think of Dr. Hawass as like the Steve Irwin of Egyptology.

I'll also admit that the end of the show was rather anticlimactic, and I'm equally eager to see what's on the other side of Door Number Two (watch it be another door). But it's not just as simple as fitting a longer drill bit on the end of the robot's arm and drilling another hole. My guess is that they'll want to bring the first door down as intact as possible - it's been damaged enough already. There's also another apparent concern. See, placing a single door in the shaft to keep air from coming in and deteriorating the body of whomever was to lay within makes sense - but now there's two doors, and possibly more. There must be some symbolic significance here. Perhaps the shaft doors are false doors, of the type prevalent in other tombs of the period? Perhaps the shaft doesn't even penetrate all the way to the surface of the pyramid. In any case, whatever waits behind Door Number Two will have been waiting patiently for over 4,000 years now - a few more months won't hurt. There's still broadcasting contracts to be worked out I guess...

[LW]

Originally posted by Frostbite

What we're dealing here is a puzzle old as civilization itself, and I find it foolish to dismiss certain theories because the status quo does not agree with them.

Yeah. The way how the establishment treats The Pharaoh's Pump Foundation (http://www.thepump.org/) is just reprehensible. And they also claim that Enoch (http://www.greatpyramid.net) didn't build it. Or the Atlanteans (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/soph/sopqa11.htm#ageofthe). Or that the stones were placed using sonic levitation (http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/SonicStoneLevitation.html). Actually, pretty much every theory presented in the following links has been unjustly ignored without consideration:

http://www.crystalinks.com/gparc.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/gpellie.html
http://www.new-universe.com/pythagoras/secrets.htm
http://stargazers.home.pages.at/heaven/gm/pyramid/pyramid.htm
http://home.globalcrossing.net/~kjohnson/
http://www.wwatching.net/cgi-bin/pgsrvr.cgi/cgi_stubs/enigma/pyramid
http://greatpyramid.org/aip/index.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/pyramid.htm
http://www.hunkler.com/pyramids/pyramid_symbolism.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9007/RMS699.html
http://www.worldtrans.org/lyssa/tape131.html
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword12q.htm
http://24.141.54.174/Ahatmose.html
http://gpblueprint.users.btopenworld.com/
http://members.hometown.aol.com/_ht_a/williammeegan/myhomepage/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2191/GreatPyramid.htm
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1a.html

There are a lot of kooks with their Solution for Age-Old Mysteries of Pyramids and who would like to run around the Giza plateau. I'm not surprised that the authorities presiding over it are rather unresponsive to unorthodox theories.

And about the alleged pyramid in the Narmer palette: it is rather blunt-tipped compared to the Giza pyramids. It is not because of the medium prohibits sharp angles as the walls of the town in the bottom have some. I find it also strange that someone would have drawn a pyramid with side walls implying that the inside would be empty.

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


LOL! I'll give you that, old Zahi sure loved to ham it up. In reality, he's very serious and passionate about his work. Think of Dr. Hawass as like the Steve Irwin of Egyptology.

I'll also admit that the end of the show was rather anticlimactic, and I'm equally eager to see what's on the other side of Door Number Two (watch it be another door). But it's not just as simple as fitting a longer drill bit on the end of the robot's arm and drilling another hole. My guess is that they'll want to bring the first door down as intact as possible - it's been damaged enough already. There's also another apparent concern. See, placing a single door in the shaft to keep air from coming in and deteriorating the body of whomever was to lay within makes sense - but now there's two doors, and possibly more. There must be some symbolic significance here. Perhaps the shaft doors are false doors, of the type prevalent in other tombs of the period? Perhaps the shaft doesn't even penetrate all the way to the surface of the pyramid. In any case, whatever waits behind Door Number Two will have been waiting patiently for over 4,000 years now - a few more months won't hurt. There's still broadcasting contracts to be worked out I guess...

That is interesting. Actually, I've had the idea for some time that they created a void of air to slow down the decomposition of whatever was in that box in the King's Chamber. By sealing it with portcullises and the shafts with many layers of granite, you can use the Queen's or King's Chamber as a boiler room and burn up the oxygen, killing most of the bacteria that's inside the pyramid and lowering air pressure dramatically. For the next three thousand years, oxygen could've gradually leaked inside until it was reopened in the middle ages. Now I wonder what role the Underground Chamber had in all this; it was probably used as a water tank.

I've seen pictures of the pyramid's interior and it pretty much seems like it has as much functional purposes as it has symbolic meanings. Its measurements certainly are symbolic, some researchers have established a bunch of relationships. But the way things are arrayed inside make it appear like some kind of huge machine. Whatever it did certainly could help figure out why it was drawn with a glowing apex, and why the apex itself is missing. Perhaps the apex was some kind of lighthouse, maintained alive at all times using the pyramid itself as a fuel tank or engine.

[King of the Americas]

...in History AND Architecture in these points made:

- Both pyramids were places where "men became gods", which means they were both burial places or at least an instrumental part of a burial ceremony.

- Both pyramids have the same base measurements, which makes me believe that 230x230 meters somehow "means" something.

- A universal flood myth present in practically all of the old world's mythologies, which could link whatever cultures are responsible for building both pyramids. Charles Hapgood's book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, is a good place to start.

- The Pyramid of the Sun is associated with Quetzalcoatl, the winged serpent god. The Pyramid of Giza is associated with Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge and wisdom. There are many similarities between the two dieties, mainly that they were teachers of mathematics, architecture, numerology, etc. Both share the symbolic number of 52, both gods are sometimes associated with a serpent or winged serpent. Allow me to speculate that both dieties were the same person.

*Not the same PERSON, but representing the same entity.

The two pyramids ARE too smililiar to ignore their likenesses.

The flood myth IS an enduring one, even though they had come from many far away people seperated for many years.

---

But while the Egyptian pyramid was in fact a tomb for a king, the Aztec structure was a place where common sacrifices were performed - though I suppose one could call the actual act of killing an "instrumental part" of a burial ceremony...

*The 'funcion' was the same. "Men becoming Gods."

The Sun Temple is ever-so-slightly longer than it is wide. In any case, the width today is the result of unfortunate and inept "restoration" attempts - these attempts have enlarged the base of the pyramid, and even added a new "top level" that was originally never there.

*So you AGREE that the two pyramids were originally built to the same dimensions?

Frostbite got it wrong, in that these two entites were the SAME entity, as you point out their many differences, but they MAY have represented teh same entity,'a heavenly being'.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...in History AND Architecture in these points made:

- Both pyramids were places where "men became gods", which means they were both burial places or at least an instrumental part of a burial ceremony.

- Both pyramids have the same base measurements, which makes me believe that 230x230 meters somehow "means" something.

- A universal flood myth present in practically all of the old world's mythologies, which could link whatever cultures are responsible for building both pyramids. Charles Hapgood's book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, is a good place to start.

- The Pyramid of the Sun is associated with Quetzalcoatl, the winged serpent god. The Pyramid of Giza is associated with Thoth, the Egyptian god of knowledge and wisdom. There are many similarities between the two dieties, mainly that they were teachers of mathematics, architecture, numerology, etc. Both share the symbolic number of 52, both gods are sometimes associated with a serpent or winged serpent. Allow me to speculate that both dieties were the same person.

*Not the same PERSON, but representing the same entity.

The two pyramids ARE too smililiar to ignore their likenesses.

Well I think we've established that the only likeness is the area of their bases (in the present time at least). They have nothing else in common...

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The flood myth IS an enduring one, even though they had come from many far away people seperated for many years.

I hate to be so harsh, but it's time to slam the hammer down on this one. I think the interjection of the flood myth paradigm has nothing to do with this argument. Although the Egyptian creation story has the earth rising from the water (sort of like the bible), there is no catastrophic flood myth there. And the South American peoples had no flood myth either - they claimed to have originated from an "eden" in the north called Atzlan, and migrated down to the south - perhaps a passed down memory of the real migration from Asia down through North America. Several authors insisted that their cultures held a "flood" myth - that Atzlan was a "land in the eastern sea" that was flooded disastrously and forced them to flee. I think Berlitz was the first person to assert this (trying to suggest a link to Atlantis..."Atzlan", flood, get it?), and since then so many people have simply accepted Berlitz's interpretation. The fact is, it is complete invention. The Egyptians, Aztecs, and Mayans had no flood myths. Several cultures did - but that argument simply doesn't belong here.

---

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*The 'funcion' was the same. "Men becoming Gods."

Sacrifice victims did not become gods.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
*So you AGREE that the two pyramids were originally built to the same dimensions?

No, the Sun pyramid is less than half as tall as the Great Pyramid, even counting the Sun pyramid's brand new "top level".

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Frostbite got it wrong, in that these two entites were the SAME entity, as you point out their many differences, but they MAY have represented teh same entity,'a heavenly being'.

I won't be meanspirited toward Frostbite; I believe he read about the Quetzalcoatl/Thoth connection as proferred by Hancock (maybe?), but it is in fact Hancock who is mistaken - none of the links between the two that Frostbite posted are true - not one. If that's the case then, the only thing left connecting Quetzalcoatl with Thoth is the fact that they're both gods. How do we still go about connecting the former to the latter? Thoth wasn't the only god of the Egyptians. Since Thoth isn't represented or associated with the Great Pyramid after all, why is the old chap even relevant?

[Frostbite]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Frostbite got it wrong, in that these two entites were the SAME entity, as you point out their many differences, but they MAY have represented teh same entity,'a heavenly being'.

See, you lost me there. I don't believe in heavenly beings or gods or "entities". I think what we're dealing with here is a wandering teacher, and over time, stories get exaggerated and blown out of proportion. I'll have to dig back in my books, but I remember reading about similarities between Quetzalcoatl, Thoth, Ninghishzidda and Enoch. Wether they're founded or untrue, I don't know for sure, I'd have to check it out. I also read somewhere that some christians believe Quetzalcoatl to be St-Thomas; Quetzalcoatl who was kicked out of America sometimes and sailed westward on a magical "raft of snakes". Strange, because at around the same time, a god on a raft of snakes arrived in Asia (was it in Tibet or India, I forget). Also, Mayans had a prophecy about the return of Quetzalcoatl to a certain date, and that date was the gregorian equivalent of 1492, when the Spanish came to America. I don't believe in prophecies either, so I guess that date was somewhat significant.

Keep in mind that this is all speculative, but I think there's something there worth proving or disproving. I'll get to it when I get the time.

[Mark]

From the web site "Lost Civilzations Uncovered" ( A skeptic web site)...

"The United States has had many cases of mysterious stones and markers bearing writing variously attributed to Phonecians, Egyptians, Vikings and Celts. While the vast majority of these are obviously racist hoaxes designed to bolster Euro-American claims to Native American lands, at least a handful of these artifacts have not been explained. In addition, late twentieth-century research confirmed that Vikings had colonized a portion of eastern Canada, the famous Vinland, during the eleventh century.

An archaeological team announced in 2001 that Roman coins had been discovered underneath the floor of an Aztec temple, proving that Roman goods had been present in the New World before Columbus. This dovetailed on reports of a Roman-style sculpture discovered in Mexico and Roman amphorae in Brazil. While some of these goods could have arrived through ships blown off course or by conquistadors bringing a bit of home with them, this mystery remains unexplained. "

the web sitehttp://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/index.html

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Frostbite
I'll have to dig back in my books, but I remember reading about similarities between Quetzalcoatl, Thoth, Ninghishzidda and Enoch. Wether they're founded or untrue, I don't know for sure, I'd have to check it out.

No rush...I'm about to go to work soon. But, if you do get some spare time, do look for those books. I find these theories intriguing and would like to know more about them before I destroy them utterly!!!! (j/k :D)

Seriously though, I am interested.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Mark
From the web site "Lost Civilzations Uncovered" ( A skeptic web site)...
An archaeological team announced in 2001 that Roman coins had been discovered underneath the floor of an Aztec temple, proving that Roman goods had been present in the New World before Columbus. This dovetailed on reports of a Roman-style sculpture discovered in Mexico and Roman amphorae in Brazil. While some of these goods could have arrived through ships blown off course or by conquistadors bringing a bit of home with them, this mystery remains unexplained. "

the web sitehttp://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/index.html

Now that was some cool stuff, I must tell you. It's a developing development, though...we'll have to keep an eye on things and see where this new evidence leads.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Now that was some cool stuff, I must tell you. It's a developing development, though...we'll have to keep an eye on things and see where this new evidence leads. This (http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id18.html) was particularly amusing.
:D

[King of the Americas]

Joshua Korosi


Well I think we've established that the only likeness is the area of their bases (in the present time at least). They have nothing else in common...

*Their common base dimensions (as originally constructed) is suspect to me.


I hate to be so harsh, but it's time to slam the hammer down on this one. I think the interjection of the flood myth paradigm has nothing to do with this argument. Although the Egyptian creation story has the earth rising from the water (sort of like the bible), there is no catastrophic flood myth there. And the South American peoples had no flood myth either - they claimed to have originated from an "eden" in the north called Atzlan, and migrated down to the south - perhaps a passed down memory of the real migration from Asia down through North America. Several authors insisted that their cultures held a "flood" myth - that Atzlan was a "land in the eastern sea" that was flooded disastrously and forced them to flee. I think Berlitz was the first person to assert this (trying to suggest a link to Atlantis..."Atzlan", flood, get it?), and since then so many people have simply accepted Berlitz's interpretation. The fact is, it is complete invention. The Egyptians, Aztecs, and Mayans had no flood myths. Several cultures did - but that argument simply doesn't belong here.

*EXACTLY. Different histories to different people in different regions, and yet still you find several subsets of like tales. In fact, it is difficult to find a completely original tale of creation, without a sister society that suffered like events at about the same point in time.


Sacrifice victims did not become gods.

*Okay, 'religious cermony', then.


No, the Sun pyramid is less than half as tall as the Great Pyramid, even counting the Sun pyramid's brand new "top level".

*Okay, but do you find the base dimensions to be equal?

I won't be meanspirited toward Frostbite; I believe he read about the Quetzalcoatl/Thoth connection as proferred by Hancock (maybe?), but it is in fact Hancock who is mistaken - none of the links between the two that Frostbite posted are true - not one. If that's the case then, the only thing left connecting Quetzalcoatl with Thoth is the fact that they're both gods. How do we still go about connecting the former to the latter? Thoth wasn't the only god of the Egyptians. Since Thoth isn't represented or associated with the Great Pyramid after all, why is the old chap even relevant?

*I hold that these god-entities are connected in some way, but that there are as different and as diverse as we are.

---

Frostbite:

You say that you don't 'believe' in god or heavenly beings or entities...

Do you believe in my Oak tree? I mean If you picked up a man's writing that spoke in earnest of seeing "Star-like objects move with a constant velocity and make right angle turns", and then applying this known to what is also known about human flight capability. 'I' have seen things in the heavens that were not piloted by human hands. These thing, "came two, together to make a larger versions of themselves", something I have not seen earthly things do.

I testify that I HAVE seen the Oak tree, and that these notes are based on my first hand eye witness account. Although I have no pictures or evidence that I can present here, I tell you no less that these things are true.

[Frostbite]

I've read stuff about the "starships" of Ezekiel, the indu Ramayana and its flying chariots, the travels of Gilgamesh, etc. It's indeed intriguing, but I don't see how these could not have been created from scratch by an imaginative author; much the same way Da Vinci designed his flying engines and wrote about them. I think UFO's are intriguing, but they belong to a different debate altogether.

[Larspeart]

Forget the Kennsington Rune, and other such nonsense hoaxes. The Viking coin found in Mass. has been stupied and tested over and over, and is always found to be REAL and legit. It even has a date on (14-- something).

There was a lot more going on between the continents before Columbus, and I think a lot more of Europe knew of 'something over there' then we think.

[LW]

Originally posted by Larspeart
The Viking coin found in Mass. has been stupied and tested over and over, and is always found to be REAL and legit. It even has a date on (14-- something).

Do you have a link for information on that coin? I googled for a while but the only thing I found was a coin minted by Olaf Kyhre (http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/vinland/archeo.html) (1065-80) that was found in Maine. The 15th century date raises my suspicions since that is well after the end of the Viking era.

[Mark]

Originally posted by LW


Do you have a link for information on that coin? I googled for a while but the only thing I found was a coin minted by Olaf Kyhre (http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/vinland/archeo.html) (1065-80) that was found in Maine. The 15th century date raises my suspicions since that is well after the end of the Viking era.

What about the Roman coins? Anyone know more?

[Larspeart]

Well, there is talk about Phoenician coins found in Carthage that bear a map of North America on them. . .

Still, the Viking coin was found in Maine (sorry to mistake it for Mass) in an old indian villages' trash dump. The site has been studied for along time as a wealth of native american info. then, they find a Viking coin in it. There is no evidence of 'planting', or any kind of forgery.

Beyond that,

[daver]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Well, there is talk about Phoenician coins found in Carthage that bear a map of North America on them. . .

Extraordinary claims, and all that. The early Spanish maps didn't bear that great of a resemblance to north america. It seems much more reasonable that the squiggles on the coin originally represented something else entirely.



Still, the Viking coin was found in Maine (sorry to mistake it for Mass) in an old indian villages' trash dump. The site has been studied for along time as a wealth of native american info. then, they find a Viking coin in it. There is no evidence of 'planting', or any kind of forgery.

Beyond that,

How much circumpolar traffic was there? Was there traffic by the Inuit or Eskimo between Asia and North America? Anyway, i can see small things like coins, or useful things like knives, being carried as trade goods.

[LW]

Originally posted by Larspeart


Still, the Viking coin was found in Maine (sorry to mistake it for Mass) in an old indian villages' trash dump.

That Maine penny is not really so surprising. It was already known that there was at least one Viking settlement in North America around the 11th century (the 15th century date would have been a surprise). Also, it doesn't prove that Vikings themselves visited Maine. The coin had been used as a pendant by indians and it is possible that it had been acquired by trade.

[Cleopatra]

Have you ever heard of this monument? The Greek Pyramid? :)

Of course many people doubt the explanation archeologists gave...

If you do a google search you will find the most crazy things about this monument. Some people suggest that the Pyramids of Egypt were built by the Greeks, just because of this monument :rolleyes:

The Greek "Pyramid" (http://www.culture.gr/2/21/211/21104a/e211da11.html)

The link belongs to the official site of the Greek Ministry of Culture.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Have you ever heard of this monument? The Greek Pyramid? :)

Of course many people doubt the explanation archeologists gave...

If you do a google search you will find the most crazy things about this monument. Some people suggest that the Pyramids of Egypt were built by the Greeks, just because of this monument :rolleyes:

The Greek "Pyramid" (http://www.culture.gr/2/21/211/21104a/e211da11.html)

The link belongs to the official site of the Greek Ministry of Culture.

Funny!

There's nothing odd or special about pyramids in and of themselves. If you want something really, really tall, and your culture hasn't invented the butress yet, a pyramid is an obvious solution. And although some of the pyramids get really big, there is absolutely nothing within them or about them that their contemporary cultures weren't capable of doing or making.

The whole "pyramid" thing is sort of analogous to the evolution argument. When creationists argue against evolution, they present evolution as a theory held in question - something that the scientific community is leaning toward but not betting on. Of course, this is a misrepresentation; the fact of the matter is, scientists are as sure of the actuality of evolution as they are that the earth orbits the sun.

Likewise, people who have alternative theories about the pyramids present those theories as if their incidental and nebulous "suggestive" evidence can actually hold a candle to the evidence mainstream historians use to determine the truth. For example, in this thread it has been asserted that the only things linking the Great Pyramid to Khufu was a bit of graffiti and a statue - of course, that's not true. There are remains of mortuary temples, the causeway, and the nearby mastabas of nobles and architects whose incriptions cry out "I helped build the Pyramid for Khufu!". That Khufu had the pyramid built was common knowledge in Egypt for thousands of years, even up to Herodotus' time, when they even told him how it was built. The sheer size of the Pyramid led Herodotus to insist that Khufu must've been a horrid taskmaster who drove countless slaves to toil night and day for 23 years. Now we know it was probably more of a public works project, with the engineers and laborers bragging about their parts in the construction of the marvel. During the four months in which the valley farms were inundated by the Nile, farmers flocked to Giza to help earn themselves a place by their king's side in the afterlife - as well as grain and beer to last them and their families until the next planting season. The swollen river even allowed the quarry barges to bring the stone blocks closer to the construction site than was otherwise possible.

Many television programs, even of late, claim that it is unknown how the Egyptians "moved such huge stones" up inclined planes. The same thing has been asserted by such sources of the Easter Island statues, despite the fact that when Thor Heyerdahl visited there, the natives demonstrated how the statues were moved. At Giza, now we know that there is no mystery at all; the stones were moved by gangs of 12 to 20 men or so. Tomb and quarry incriptions indicate that the teams even gave themselves special names, like "The Strong-arms of Giza" and "Khufu's Drunkards".

To scientists, the fact that the Great Pyramid belonged to Khufu is, like evolution, as certain as the earth orbits the sun. There are many mysteries in archaeology - even in Egypt. The Great Pyramid is no longer one of them. For all their hard work, ingenuity, and perseverance - all their blood, sweat, and tears - these wonderful people are entitled to the credit. They built monuments that, barring no great calamity, will be enjoyed by our descendants a thousand years from now. Men fear Time....but Time fears the Pyramids.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Have you ever heard of this monument? The Greek Pyramid? :)

Of course many people doubt the explanation archeologists gave...

If you do a google search you will find the most crazy things about this monument. Some people suggest that the Pyramids of Egypt were built by the Greeks, just because of this monument :rolleyes:

The Greek "Pyramid" (http://www.culture.gr/2/21/211/21104a/e211da11.html)

For that matter, remember this thread about the so-called Italian Pyramids?

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18666

Something about pyramids seems to cause a shutdown of critical faculties in certain people.