posted 28 December 2003 03:43 PM            

"My conjecture is that the whole riddle is linked in some way to the legendary civilizations spoken of in all the mythologies of the world . You know . that there were great catastrophes , that a few people survived and went wandering around the earth and that a bit of knowledge was preserved here , a bit there ...

My hunch is that the Sphinx is linked to all that . If I were asked to place a bet I´d say that the end of the Last Ice Age and is probably older that 10.000 BC , perhaps even older that 15.000 BC . My conviction - actually it´s more that a conviction . It that it´s vastly old "

Plato.

“Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilised life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence comes pouring down, and leaves only, the herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, those of you who are destitute of letters and education, and so you have to begin all over again, like children, and know nothing of what happened in the ancient times, either among us or amongst yourselves”

I think it is very possibel for such a thing to happen, we knew nothing of the great nations that existed thousands of years ago of which we have only in the last few hundred years begun to discover. Its interesting that genetic research has come up with what they call a bottel neck of human populations at variouse dates, although dates are highly contaversial and differ considerably, it shows that populations have without a doubt decreased in ancient times rather than continualy expanding.

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 28 December 2003).]

posted 28 December 2003 06:16 PM            

Dr Zahi Hawass, so far, will not allow Dr Robert Schoch a respected stratigrapher (a geologist who studies layers of rock) to take a sample of the rock. "Radioisotope analysis of surface interactions with cosmic radiation, a new technique, would date the rock's first exposure to the sky. The Egyptian Government has not permitted the taking of microsamples from Giza monuments for radioisotope dating."

posted 29 December 2003 06:26 AM            

Kem-Au, yes I think so. In my opinion, the Sphinx Hieroglyphic symbol [E23] and the three pyramid symbols [O24-O24-O24] constitute together one very important cultural significance to the Ancient Egyptians. Carving the Sphinx face in human form is a must in this case. I have my own discoveries in this regard based on true reading of some Pyramid Texts. I need only sometime to find a proper chance to declare it. The Giza complex was a National Ancient Egyptian Project. It was a Must for the AE civilization especially for the Old Kingdom. The Pyramids and the Sphinx were built by simple scientific and practical techniques. Only the Egyptian soldiers were allowed to do the job. The man workforce was no more than 2000 men. The AE's were pioneers in handling gigantic Nile floods and they made excellent use of it to establish such giant monuments. On the other hand, I think that the real dating for building the AE Giza complex was round 5000 years BC, which follows the pre-Greek Egyptian historian Manethon who has his own AE records. Meanwhile, this date is supported by many Egyptian Egyptologists according to their own investigations.

Alsaadawi 4

posted 29 December 2003 01:12 PM            

There are also megalithic structures in Upper Egypt around Abu Simbel called Nabta Playa. These settlments date to around 10,000-6,700 B.C. Are you aware of these settlments and megalithic structures,Dr. Alsaddawi?

Have you read Fekri Hassan's Pre Dyanstic Egypt?

F.A. Hassan ‘The Predynastic of Egypt’, Journal of World Prehistory 2(2): 135-185, (1988),

posted 29 December 2003 03:40 PM            

I have the original Egyptian version of Fekri Hassan book. I'll reread it once more. Thank you so much for your important and significant notes.

posted 30 December 2003 05:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alsaadawi-4:
In my opinion, the Sphinx Hieroglyphic symbol [E23] and the three pyramid symbols [O24-O24-O24] constitute together one very important cultural significance to the Ancient Egyptians. Carving the Sphinx face in human form is a must in this case. [/B]

---

Can you explain why carving the sphinx face in human form was a must in this case please Dr Alsaadawi.?

posted 30 December 2003 09:52 PM            

Have you noticed how many times in AE history the Egyptian kings depicted themselves in the form of a sphinx whose face is carved to look like their human faces? Why they insisted to do that?

The sphinx does not represent here an animal or a real lion. It represents a lingual component in accordance with the famous AE Hieroglyph [E23] or the recumbent lion grapheme which has a phonetic value (rb). It could be used by this phonetic value to compose countless of Egyptian words with countless of meanings depending on the the context of the sentence and the associated or following Hieroglyphs. Other lion graphemes are [E22] and [F4]. The forepart of the lion [F4] could be included as a part of the Great Sphinx body. I'll reveal its true phonetic value to the first time on this highly respected board tomorrow as a New Year gift. Also the beard of the recumbent lion has a different phonetic value and the AE kings used it to decorate their faces to refer to certain words.

In the case of Great Sphinx of Giza the lion grapheme [E23] is associated with three pyramid graphemes [O24] to give an ultra important lingual significance that summarizes the whole human cultural beliefs of the Old Kingom era. Carving the Sphinx face in human form is a must because it emphasizes the fact that the Sphinx here is not an animal but it refers to that 'human' cultural belief. The whole Giza Plateau Complex, which was established in accordance with that certain lingual significance, was the Cultural Gravity Centre of the whole Ancient World at that immemorial time!

Another very important Old Kingdom construction is Zoser Step Pyramid which is established in accordance with the AE Hieroglyph [O41] to give another complementary ultra important cultural meaning. In fact, most of the AE pyramids were constructed internally in accordance with [O41] step pyramid then turned finally to [O24] mr-pyramid. This architectal transformation bears very important meanings to the AE desiners and peoples.

I hope that I might be able to reveal all that someday or done by some honest professional versed Egyptologists!

Alsaadawi 4

posted 31 December 2003 02:38 PM            

Thanks in advance

Ozzy

posted 01 January 2004 12:48 AM            

[E151], [E152], [E153], [E154], [E155], [E156], [E157], [E158], [E159], [E160] and [E161]

Please, revise Gardiner extended sign list library.

As long as there is an 'independent' Hieroglyphic grapheme for any sign depiction then it means that this sign was known since the dawn of Egyptian history. The Sphinx [E154] is a great monument from the Old Kingdom era, which is by itself a very ancient era! It is exactly like the 'mr' pyramid Hieroglyph [O24].

posted 01 January 2004 01:41 PM            

Questions

1. I will admit I have never seen the extended version, of Gardiners list. But can you tell me the first time the Sphinx [E154] or any of the other from E151 to E161 were recorded, and the period they are associated with?.

2. Is there any evidence that any of the glyphs above pre-date the great Sphinx?

3. Which or what Sphinx carving or monument pre-dates the great Sphinx?

4. Could you explain what you mean by an “independent Hieroglyphic grapheme” As you have already spoken of a progression from “[O41] step pyramid then turned finally to [O24]”, which means there has to be some glyph inclusions during history.

5. Are you saying that the Sphinx [E154] is a progression from an earlier glyph?

6. Although I do understand the connection you are making with the glyphs [E23], [E22] and [F4] with the monuments I still do not understand why it would make it a “must” to carve the face of a king on the monument. It would seem to me to be of greater importance to maintain the visual connection with the original glyphs, if this was the case, hence the face of a lion as in (E23). This may be, more clear when I know the origin of the glyphs E151 to E161. But if they are post- Sphinx and pyramid time period, then the connection is not clear.

Happy new year all!

posted 02 January 2004 01:27 AM            

For example:

**the human 'face' grapheme [D2] has a phonetic value (Hr). It could be used by this value to constitute countless of Egyptian words that include it**

For example, if we add one simple phoneme like 's' [O34] to the 'face' grapheme [D2] then we get:

[O34:D2] = sHr / siHr = magic.

Likewise you can make an infinite number of AE Hieroglyphic combinations without loosing the basic originality of the Hieroglyphic writing line. This principle could be clearly noticed in the extended sign library of Gardener where we can find wonderful examples.

The lion Hieroglyphic graphemes are very old in Egyptian history. If you revise predynastic texts you might find a lot of them. Some examples are:

**The 'Cities Palette' and the 'Battlefield Palette' from late predynastic era ca. 3150-BC**

Another wonderful example is:

**The ivory [E23] lion statues from the first dynasty, Egyptian Museum**

Please see 'Egypt the World of the Pharaohs, by Konemann', pages 26, 28 and 35.

Another amazing example that includes the three lion graphemes [E22], [E23] and [F4] in one text is:

**The wooden Panel of Hesyre** - the third dynasty, reign of Zoser.

Alsaadawi 4

posted 02 January 2004 08:12 AM            

Do you feel this date of 5,000 BC includes the pyramids in the Giza complex or the Sphinx "complex" itself? I have always thought of pyramid building as an evolutionary process beginning with the 'step pyramid' from mastabas to the mr-pyramid and the process of trial and error that occurred between (Sneferu's failed attemps Meidum and Dhashur and finally his succesful 'Red' pyramid).

If your date of 5000 BC does include the pyramids in the complex, do you contest the date of the step pyramid and Sneferu's pyramids or do you think they were attempts to replicate the design of pyramids built around this 5,000 BC date? Do you feel the step pyramid held a different meaning from the mr-pyramid all together? Since traditional Egyptology has linked the three main pyramids in Giza to the 4th dyansty Pharaohs Khufu, Khafre,and Menkhare, if your date of 5,000 BC is correct do you feel the association to these pyramids with these 3 Pharaohs is incorrect or do you feel that they themselves linked their names to these pyramids that existed from earlier times?

posted 02 January 2004 10:29 AM            

I don't agree the cartouche theory of Champollion because it is based on a wrong assumption and on a wrong analogy from the very beginning. Meanwhile it is a whole mess. If you write down the phonetic values of Hieroglyphs of any cartouche text (Cleopatra or Ptolemies for example) in light of Champollion deciphering (himself) you will reach 'nowhere'! I explained and proved definitely that cartouche texts are not 'names' but are selected statements or 'verses' from the AE Holy Scripture. Each text is selected by the king or the ruler himself on coronation to express his main 'idea' for his ruling era. The cartouche text 'may' include one or two Hieroglyphs (maximum) to refer to his original birth name. For example if the cartouche text includes the Hieroglyph 'mr' [U7] then his name 'may' be 'Amir', which means 'prince' in Egyptian, and so on. That's why you might find sometimes cartouche text found in different eras and sometimes in periods prior to the king ruling period.

Therefore, I think that the Giza Sphinx-Pyramid complex has nothing to do with some of the cartouches found here and there. It was a national AE great project as I explained before. It was above names and persons.

Alsaadawi 4

posted 02 January 2004 05:58 PM            

It would appear to me at this point, that any glyphs depicting the sphinx entered the language after the great sphinx construction, as did other carvings and monuments of the like. I would still be happy to be corrected.

For the sphinx as you say to hold true to its Hieroglyph value it would I feel need to have been in the image of a lion. I don’t feel anything has been shown to support the carving of a kings face to be a “must”. In fact I feel the opposite has been shown. If it was a as you say “a national AE great project” and “It was above names and persons”. Then I think it would have been even more inappropriate to display on a 3 dimensional Hieroglyph representation, the face of a king. The project as you have suggested would have been above that. If one would not put a name to the project how could one justify a face?

The face of the Sphinx also seems to be consistent with other statues of Khafra, which would support the possibility of it being a re-carving.

Further on this point, Most do believe now that the Pyramids and the Sphinx were a national project, but were the work of

. 1. Great Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops) 2549-2526 BC.
. 2. Khafra (Khephren, Rakhaef), 2518-2493 BC. Son of Khufu.
. Sphinx c.2500 BC
. 3. Menkaure (Mycerinus), 2488-2460 BC – the smallest of the three pyramids.

I believe as you do, that this is incorrect. But if they were a national project but not tombs to any individual can you supply a reason for the purpose of the prayers and spells in the burial chambers themselves, indicating a purpose. Do you have a translation of these which support your view? Or are these later additions to the project, and not part of the original design?

Thank you

posted 03 January 2004 01:39 AM            

>>It would appear to me at this point, that any glyphs depicting the sphinx entered the language after the great sphinx construction<<

No, this is not true. I explained before that the 'independent' or 'basic' grapheme that the Sphinx was designed in accordance with is the recumbent lion grapheme [E23]. But the final Sphinx compound Hieroglyph [E154] is a composition of the following 'basic' graphemes:

[E154] = [E23] + [D2] + [S1] + [S3] + [F4] = rb + Hr + nb + na + ga.

The double crown [S5] or [S1] + [S3] was removed at the end of the 4th century AD (nearly 390-AD) after the whole Sphinx was covered by a huge hill of sands, or in other words to 'bury' it!

All these basic Hieroglyphs are far predynastic Egyptian writing Hieroglyphs.

To combine a 'face' grapheme [D2] with a lion grapheme [E23] to get a basic sphinx grapheme [E151] is a sort of 'writing' technique that has nothing to do with any chronology. Suppose you want to write the English word 'Harbor', what should you do? You'll put the proper English alphabets such as (H+r+b+r) to give the final word 'Harbor'. The English alphabetical lingual elements (H, r, b) have nothing to do with English history or English chronology, but it is only an English writing technique that date back to when the English writing was initially founded!

Now let's do it in Hieroglyphs:

[D2] + [E23] = Hr + rb = Hrb / Harb = war (just an example).

The 'face' grapheme [Hr] could be also replaced by the falcon (Horus) grapheme [Hr] to give the same result:

[G5] + [E23] = Hr + rb = Hrb / Harb = war.

That's why there is a sphinx Hieroglyph or depiction that has the body of a lion and a head of a falcon as in [E162]!!

There are also other depictions for sphinx having heads of other animals like the head of a ram for instance. Again it is a sort of lingual writing.

According to the well-known Egyptian Archaeologist and Egyptologist Selim Hassan, he says in his book 'The Sphinx' page 75 that some predynastic kings used to picture themselves as lions having the face of a man! This means simply that this writing technique (combining two basic Hieroglyphs together) was quite known to the Egyptians since far predynastic periods, as in the famous Hieroglyph [D31] known as 'Hm-ka'!

>>The face of the Sphinx also seems to be consistent with other statues of Khafra, which would support the possibility of it being a re-carving<<

'khufu', 'kh3-f-r3' and 'mn-kaw-r3' are NOT names of peoples. I explained this many times before. They are some religious short texts put in cartouches to show their importance. In fact they are complementary and integrated 'textual' parts of the Giza Complex 'lingual' construction. It is only the misfortune of the modern Egyptians that the modern 'foreign' Egyptologists committed all those horrid fatal mistakes.

As for

>>the face of the Sphinx also seems to be consistent with someone<<

I don't see any peculiarity in that because it may be really so!!

>>But if they were a national project but not tombs to any individual can you supply a reason for the purpose of the prayers and spells in the burial chambers themselves<<

The Sphinx-Pyramid complex of Giza included a great Sphinx-Temple that was destroyed and razed by the Copts at the end of the forth century AD.

This great temple had been a focal place for the AE creed for long thousands of years. Peoples used to visit this place to fulfill their religious rituals. The burial chambers of the Pyramids are only 'symbolic'. The religious spells are some kind of 'recording' to the AE religious texts as in the case of Pyramid Texts of Unas and others, which they should be greatly appreciated for. The Pyramid Texts actually preserved the whole Ancient Egyptian historical story.

I hope that I made myself this time a little clearer than before!

Alsaadawi 4

posted 03 January 2004 12:39 PM            

I don't see any peculiarity in that because it may be really so!!"

What I meant by that, (I use the name Khafra as it is the only name familiar to me and others), is that it becomes peculiar when the face is consistent with the king of a certain time period who is not of the same time period suggested for the construction of the Sphinx.

RE: If the Sphinx was constructed 5000bc or even earlier, as I suggested, and it wears the face of a king who’s reign is calculated to 2500bc then it is peculiar to me.

But I would hazard a guess based on what you have said, that you would suggest the time line of kings would therefore be incorrect as well,(A suggestion I would support) and the king depicted on the Sphinx and other likenesses of the period are in actual fact from the 5000bc period. This would whoever, then bring us back to the carbon dating discussion.

RE: Could carbon dating be out by thousands of years?

As I do not believe the carbon dating can be out by that percentage, The only explanations for the similarities in the image of the Sphinx and the existing king is that, 1, they were carved at the same time, 2 the face is of a generic design or 3 the similarities are by coincidence only.

posted 26 March 2004 10:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
bump++

---

posted 27 March 2004 10:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
I get what you're doing Neo*geo....LOL

---