Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
            Author                                        Posts          (Topic read 16192 times)
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline
Join Date: Jun 22, 2009
Posts: 69


« on: December 17, 2010, 11:41:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Based on the evidence I've correlated so far:

40,000 BCE:  Anatolian "stay-behinds" (ASB) split and develop separately from proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE) of the Gravettian Culture
20,000 BCE:  PIE cultures discover animal husbandry in the Don river valley
12,000 BCE:  animal husbandry techniques imported from the north are adapted and extended by ASB to include plant domestication and early agriculture
10,000 BCE:  Tur culture develops in eastern Anatolia:  metal casting is added to the previous animal husbandry and agriculture hallmarks of Anatolian civilization
 8,000 BCE:  Tur culture expands east into the Amu Darya river valley (Turan) and west into western Anatolia (Tyrhhe); double-headed axe development and incorporation into totemic cult
 6,000 BCE:  Tur expands into Crete (proto-Minoans) and Greece (Pelasgians)
 5,000 BCE:  Tur expands into Italy (Tyrhenians) and from there into Austria (Tyrol), Sicily, and Malta; repelled from coastal Lybia by the Caspian Culture
 4,500 BCE:  Tur expands into coastal West Africa (Atlas region) and southern Spain, displacing Celtiberians and southern Basques
 4,000 BCE:  Tur crosses into South America, founding of Atlantis
 3,500 BCE:  Without major regional rivals, Atlantis thrives in South America, developing sophisticated architecture; African colonies under constant attack by inland natives; first pyramids in Sechin Bajo and Caral; trade networks throughout the world
 3,000 BCE:  Megalithic construction spreads to coastal Atlantic trading posts managed by Atlantean client kings; Stonehenge; Temples of Malta;
 2,500 BCE:  Atlantean architect Imhotep "on loan" to Egyptian kingdom, constructs pyramids of Gizeh; other architects help Sumerians construct ziggurats;
 2,000 BCE:  Alliances formed with Hyksos/Phoenician/Danite trade cartel in east Mediterranean, for mutual defense, low trade tarrifs, idea exchange, etc.;
 1,500 BCE:  "Sea Peoples" alliance including some Atlanteans attack Egypt and Egypt's allies in Athens; generalized by Platon as an "Atlantean" invasion; reign of Ramses III (Medinet Habu inscription);
 1,490 BCE:  River flood disaster wipes out Atlan in South America; Atlantean component of Sea Peoples disperse to search for survivors and salvage back home;
 1,400 BCE:  Neo-Atlantean settlements established in North America (Algonquian-Mississippian) and Central America (Maya, Mexica); extant Atlanteans in South America become "Incas" (Yupanki, "Kings"); some establish "Thule" in Iceland (later wiped out by volcano);
 1,200 BCE:  Defeat in Trojan War severely diminishes Tur cultural hegemony in east Mediterranean (Turoas, Turiakos, Tyrhe, the "Trident" of three Tur non-Indo-European Caucasian kingdoms along West Anatolia)
 1,000 BCE:  Neo-Atlantean hero-king believed to inspire legends of Quetzalcoatl
   500 BCE:  Neo-Atlanteans in Mediterranean fully merge with Phoenicians; Tyre, Carthage, etc.  Old mutual defense treaties maintained with Etruscans, which gets Carthage involved in Roman wars;
    50 BCE:  Etruscan neo-Atlanteans assimilated into Roman Empire; Druidic neo-Atlanteans continue to oppose Rome by fomenting attacks by Gallic tribes;
   500  CE:  Neo-Atlanteans establish Saudeleur culture in Micronesia; proto-Polynesians in Java; contruction of Nan Madol and Philippine Rice Terraces; Moai statues in Easter Island;
 1,000  CE:  Neo-Atlanteans of Hudson Bay area repel Viking invasions, North America to remain uncolonized for a time; (Vikings recount seeing mysterious "white people" among the natives who look like them but talk like the natives)
 1,500  CE:  Beginning of the end for American Neo-Atlantians with the Spanish and English colonial era

=============

"By a route obscure and lonely, Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named Night, On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly From an ultimate dim Thule —
From a wild weird clime, that lieth, sublime, Out of Space — out of Time." --Edgar Allen Poe
Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2010, 09:54:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello ciggy,

You offered quite a bit here, of course one thing that was immediately clear is that you are pushing back some dates well beyond accepted views.

I also was surprised by this claim:
Quote
2,500 BCE:  Atlantean architect Imhotep "on loan" to Egyptian kingdom, constructs pyramids of Gizeh; other architects help Sumerians construct ziggurats;

I would like to see how you arrived at this conclusion. I think I have heard individuals attempt to credit aliens as being responsible for sudden advancements in technology, but I think this is the first time I have heard anyone claim Imhotep and his achievements were Atlantean.

Quote
1,490 BCE:  River flood disaster wipes out Atlan in South America; Atlantean component of Sea Peoples disperse to search for survivors and salvage back home;

This is far more practical than most dating, many people don't realize Critias' mistake on the 9,600 BCE date. Critias had no idea when the war took place or the destruction of Atlantis and made a very poor and incongruous assumption. Personally, I favor at least a 1,700 BCE or prior date and an event more significant than merely a river flood.

The rest of your work is well outside my knowledge base. Did a little research and I am still at a loss.   Read  Huh?
Did not find out a lot about the Tur culture.

-Doug

Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2010, 11:48:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I have heard individuals attempt to credit aliens as being responsible for sudden advancements in technology, but I think this is the first time I have heard anyone claim Imhotep and his achievements were Atlantean.

Just wanted to get back in here and clarify my meaning. I obviously consider linking aliens to sudden advancements in technology to be quite absurd, but I do not mean to suggest that shared technology or skills from an advanced contemporary culture is absurd by any means. Both Egypt and Israel are recorded as commissioning Phoenicians to build and commandeer fleets sailing thousands of miles beyond the Mediterranean for trade and exploration, extending both nations well beyond their own capabilities.

If the Atlanteans did exist and had acquired advancements in working with stone, it would definitely be possible that this knowledge was shared with other cultures, so I am very much intrigued by the concept. Still, I am unsure as to how a person could present a strong case proving that Imhotep was Atlantean. I don't think the case can be made based merely on the man's prominent abilities that seem to distinguish him from the rest of Egypt. Newton, Edison and others have similarly stood out throughout history. Of course, it is interesting to consider the possibility that Imhotep played a somewhat similar role in Egypt as Hiram to Israel, but I would certainly like to see if you have more evidence to corroborate this theory.

-Doug

Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Join Date: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 12


« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2010, 12:12:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
I have always hated those stupid timelines the loonies come up with. Sorry, but how can that one below be anything but complete rubbish?

Doug, Is that Abraham Ortelius on your avatar ?
Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2010, 01:46:01 PM »
ReplyReply

It's hard to judge much of the above since like many timelines they're merely outlines that require a lot of gaps to be filled. Ciggy's a pretty knowledgeable guy and I am sure the dates are not completely arbitrary, but it would be great to see how he arrives at each. I really have very little knowledge of the Tur culture, so I would find that portion of the timeline especially interesting.

Quote
Sorry, but how can that one below be anything but complete rubbish?

Which one below?

Quote
Doug, Is that Abraham Ortelius on your avatar ?

Yes it is. It's a tie-in with earth dynamics and Ortelius' early recognition that the America's broke from Europe and Africa.

And by the way, thanks for asking. I have been dying to ask you about your avatar, but never found a good opportunity. So what are we looking at?

-Doug

Newbie
*
Offline Offline
Join Date: Nov 23, 2010
Posts: 12


« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2010, 11:32:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Doug ,
Well all those timelines I think are rubbish in general. Like the ones that say things like the Atlanteans expanded their empire in 250,000 BC etc etc.
It's amazing to see how much time and effort people evidently put into these types of timelines but I can't help seeing anything but gibberish in them.

As for my avatar. that is the famous 'priest-king' statuette made of steatite that was excavated at the site of Mohenjo Daro in Pakistan. I thoroughly recommend the biography of Thor Heyerdahl by Christopher Ralling in which the statuette is shown to be associated with some kind of maritime culture of the Indian Ocean ( Kon Tiki Man,p 283 - 298).
 The band around the the priest king's forehead and arm is found on various other kings of the Indian ocean region but dating from a range of eras. The earliest example being the Mohenjo Daro figure at about 1700BC, others date from Buddhist times and others from early in the common era.
I think it is info like this that shows the big picture is going to be very complex because there may have been many different maritime cultures that had their own 'golden ages' of discovery that adds to the confusion of just who discovered what ,and when.

If you have not heard of that book, it really is a must read
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 02:06:53 AM by Geo »
Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2010, 12:09:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Geo,

I used to be a big fan of Heyerdahl's work. Kon Tiki Man doesn't appear to be a popular book, but the reviews are impressive. I may have to add it to my reading list.

-Doug

Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline
Join Date: Jun 22, 2009
Posts: 69


« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2010, 12:07:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I also was surprised by this claim:
I would like to see how you arrived at this conclusion. I think I have heard individuals attempt to credit aliens as being responsible for sudden advancements in technology, but I think this is the first time I have heard anyone claim Imhotep and his achievements were Atlantean.

I'm inferring this as a matter of chronological pattern-recognition, taking as a given that items found in the Caral and Sechin Bajo pyramid complexes carbon-14 date to make them the earliest in the world.  Empirically pyramid-building was a South American export (which would make it Atlantean by the Atlantis-in-South-America working hypothesis).  The time estimated for the appearance of Imhotep in Egyptian legend is not long before the purported construction of the pyramid complex at Gizeh.  While it's possible Imhotep died before completion of the work, it seems to fit the chronology for him to have been a South American (Atlantean) arrival and a great teacher of architecture there, if not the actual planner of the work itself.  Keep in mind that the pyramid of Kufu was over 1,000 years later than the pyramid found at Caral in Peru, which gives a 1,000 year period for pyramid-building and architecture and technology in general, to have evolved even further in its South American "mother culture".  This validates Kufu as being the most advanced of all the pyramids and the culmination of technological innovation that did not originate in Egypt.

This is far more practical than most dating, many people don't realize Critias' mistake on the 9,600 BCE date. Critias had no idea when the war took place or the destruction of Atlantis and made a very poor and incongruous assumption. Personally, I favor at least a 1,700 BCE or prior date and an event more significant than merely a river flood.

I'm pinning the "Atlantean invasion" to the "Sea Peoples" recorded at Medinet Habu mainly because I don't think such an invasion, if it were real and taking place during dynastic times, would have gone without triumphant recording in Egypt in some way--at least a mention on a stele if nothing else.  The reign of Ramses III is a fairly close approximation to 9000 LUNAR cycles prior to the time of Solon, as it happens.

And I didn't intend the river flood of Atlantis to be a "mere" river flood.  It mainly was a disaster sufficient to wipe out all civilization outside of Peru (where it more easily regrouped into the Tiwanaku culture and then later, the "Incas"), but not a permanent sinking of the eastern seaboard of South America.  This could also have involved a tsunami, earthquakes, etc.

Did not find out a lot about the Tur culture.

"Tur" is my name for it.  This follows the arrangement of clues I initially picked up on with Aztlan, Tulan, Atlan, Tyrhenian, Tyrol, Taurus, etc.  (The linguistics thread).

In mainstream academic theories it would more properly correlate to the "Mediterranean component of the neolithic expansion".  Strictly speaking the mainstream academics focus more on the Caspian Culture, but genetic data shows other possibilities.  While Caspian was primarily y-haplogroup J, it's possible that a y-haplogroup Q group could have migrated west out of Anatolia, crossed the Mediterranean and southern Atlantic, and landed in South America, where Q is prevalent (which it also is in K. Margiani's stomping grounds of Caucasian Georgia, as luck would have it).  The only conflict between that and mainstream theories is the method of how they got there.  The mainstreamers have them rounding the long way around via the Bering Straight and shooting straight south overland before bothering to expand and populate into North America, which if anything beggars Occam's Razor (across the southern Atlantic is a straighter shot, eliminating more unnecessary entities from the theory).  The chief rebuttal against the seafaring route is the question of maritime technology, but then the arrival of the Clovis Culture in North America from Europe via simple fishing coracles at a far earlier time (13,000 YBP versus my Atlantean arrival of 6,000 YBP) is widely accepted.  Either primitive boats can float, or they can't.  They need to decide.  But there ARE rock paintings found if west coastal Morocco that are well over 6,000 years old, so boats, qua boats, did exist at that time.

"By a route obscure and lonely, Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named Night, On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly From an ultimate dim Thule —
From a wild weird clime, that lieth, sublime, Out of Space — out of Time." --Edgar Allen Poe
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline
Join Date: Jun 22, 2009
Posts: 69


« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2010, 12:54:01 PM »
ReplyReply

If the Atlanteans did exist and had acquired advancements in working with stone, it would definitely be possible that this knowledge was shared with other cultures, so I am very much intrigued by the concept.


There is evidence that stone masonry evolved in Anatolia at a very early time, e.g. Gobleki Tepe at 11,500 YBP:

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=gobleki+tepe&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

This would have been brought with the original arrivals of my "Tur culture" (proto-Atlanteans) and then further refined in South America.

Still, I am unsure as to how a person could present a strong case proving that Imhotep was Atlantean. I don't think the case can be made based merely on the man's prominent abilities that seem to distinguish him from the rest of Egypt. Newton, Edison and others have similarly stood out throughout history. Of course, it is interesting to consider the possibility that Imhotep played a somewhat similar role in Egypt as Hiram to Israel, but I would certainly like to see if you have more evidence to corroborate this theory.

-Doug


I'm leaning more on the enigmatic "sudden" appearance of advanced technology in Egypt where there is no evidence of any gradual development of that technology.  You have cave men with hand axes and in the blink of an eye they're building Kufu--makes no sense from an archaeological perspective, and there needs to be an explanation somehow.  Ancient alien theorists reach immediately by knee-jerk to the most outlandish possible explanation (which itself is full of contradictions and things that simply don't add up, such as "well genius, where did they GO after all that?  Decided they didn't like earth anymore?")  An Atlantean origin of the technology has a woo-woo new age school of thought to it that I personally avoid, but there is a very real possibility that this could have been a culture with at least Bronze Age if not Iron Age technology, which would have seemed "godlike" to cave men with hand-axes trying to chase rabbits around the savannas for their daily food.

Imhotep himself is merely a suggestion of a possibility, an exemplar of how that arrival of technology from the West (the Garden of the Hesperides in Greek myth, and the Home of the Gods in Egyptian legend), may have arrived.  The timing looks peculiar to me, as do a few more clues:

1)  The name means "the one who COMES in peace" (emphasis mine).  If he were Egyptian he would already be there, wouldn't be "coming" from some other place.

2)  His title list in full is:  "Chancellor of the King of Egypt, Doctor, First in line after the King of Upper Egypt, Administrator of the Great Palace, Hereditary nobleman, High Priest of Heliopolis, Builder, Chief Carpenter, Chief Sculptor, and Maker of Vases in Chief."  That last title is interesting in that many Egyptian vases have found to have been of an extra-hard concrete which chemist Joseph Davidovits, author of "Why the Pharaohs Built the Pyramids with Fake Stones", claims was also the material used in the construction of most of the blocks in the pyramid of Kufu.  So here we have an architect and builder who extends his abilities in geopolymers for making special hardened jars and vases for elite customers when commissioned to do so, with the same chemical technology.  There is, once again, no evidence of a developing or evolving technology of this nature within Egypt--all indicators point to it having been imported from outside Egypt.  So Imhotep here is given as a grand master of a patently *foreign* technology.

3)  Imhotep was one of very few mortals to be depicted as part of a pharaoh's statue. He was one of only a few commoners ever to be accorded divine status after death.  This would be extremely unusual for a native Egyptian to rise through their caste system in that manner, but for a foreigner bringing amazing technology, not so startling a phenomenon.

4)  The location of Imhotep's self-constructed tomb was well hidden from the beginning and it remains unknown, despite efforts to find it.  For this to be an Egyptian location is highly unlikely--heavily as it gets researched and explored and excavated to feed the voracious appetite of egyptologists for new discoveries.  But if he went back to South America to be buried, there is a near infinite list of possibilities for what may have happened to his tomb.  Vegetation growth nearly hid all the cities of the Mayans from visibility to the naked eye, in a short matter of a few hundred years.  4,500 or so years could make such a tomb merely a bump in the rainforest, never to be noticed.

5)  As Imhotep was considered the founder of medicine as a discipline, he was sometimes said to be the one who held up the goddess Nut (the deification of the sky), as the separation of Nut and Geb (the deification of the earth) was said to be what held back chaos.  This is strikingly similar to the Greek myth about Atlas "holding up the world" on his shoulders, an allegory Diodorus Siculus explains as deriving from Atlas' legendary discovery of astronomy.  This "holding up the world" motif may have been extended to Atlantean innovators by Greek and Egyptian reckoning, to denote their place in a particularly Atlantean class of scientists.  It's also consistent with the notion Greeks and Egyptians had that Atlantis and/or the Garden of the Hesperides existed at the extreme western edge of the world, where Heaven and Earth come together.  

I don't consider the sum of all that probative toward the proposition that Imhotep was Atlantean, but it seems to be the identity for the architect that best explains the known phenomenae surrounding his existence.  There's also the possibility that he was Atlantean-trained if not Atlantean himself.  One thing that is certain is that pyramid-building is a South American export, now accepted in mainstream academe, and that can't be emphasized enough.

Of interest, part 1 of 5:
The Lost Pyramids of Caral. 1/5 Small | Large

The Lost Pyramids of Caral. 2/5 Small | Large

The Lost Pyramids of Caral. 3/5 Small | Large

The Lost Pyramids of Caral. 4/5 Small | Large

The Lost Pyramids of Caral. 5/5 Small | Large


"By a route obscure and lonely, Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named Night, On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly From an ultimate dim Thule —
From a wild weird clime, that lieth, sublime, Out of Space — out of Time." --Edgar Allen Poe
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline
Join Date: Jun 22, 2009
Posts: 69


« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2010, 01:21:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Doug ,
Well all those timelines I think are rubbish in general. Like the ones that say things like the Atlanteans expanded their empire in 250,000 BC etc etc.
It's amazing to see how much time and effort people evidently put into these types of timelines but I can't help seeing anything but gibberish in them.

As for my avatar. that is the famous 'priest-king' statuette made of steatite that was excavated at the site of Mohenjo Daro in Pakistan. I thoroughly recommend the biography of Thor Heyerdahl by Christopher Ralling in which the statuette is shown to be associated with some kind of maritime culture of the Indian Ocean ( Kon Tiki Man,p 283 - 298).
 The band around the the priest king's forehead and arm is found on various other kings of the Indian ocean region but dating from a range of eras. The earliest example being the Mohenjo Daro figure at about 1700BC, others date from Buddhist times and others from early in the common era.
I think it is info like this that shows the big picture is going to be very complex because there may have been many different maritime cultures that had their own 'golden ages' of discovery that adds to the confusion of just who discovered what ,and when.

If you have not heard of that book, it really is a must read


You just gave a timeline for Mohenjo Daro.  Am I to understand that, then, as "rubbish"?

"By a route obscure and lonely, Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named Night, On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly From an ultimate dim Thule —
From a wild weird clime, that lieth, sublime, Out of Space — out of Time." --Edgar Allen Poe
Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2010, 10:37:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello ciggy,

You present an interesting case for Imhotep being Atlantean or having Atlantean influence, but it does require us to accept extreme assumptions without any clear historical declaration.

The only evidence that I see as a possible Egyptian admission would be in the name of Imhotep's father Ptah-Ta-Tanen, Tanen meaning 'submerged land'. Of course that would mean that the name was either prophetic or possibly assigned later in Egyptian lore to acknowledge Imhotep's possible link to Atlantis...or our time-lines are off.

And thanks very much for posting the videos. The documentary and information was new to me and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It makes you wonder how many more pyramids are hidden away in hills or mounds and I now understand the rationale for the Bosnian faux pyramids.

-Doug

Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline
Join Date: Jun 22, 2009
Posts: 69


« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2010, 03:49:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Well it's not a core tenet of my theory for Imhotep to have been Atlantean.  It just seemed to fit with the pattern of the evidence as arranged in chronological order.  It could also fit for him to have been "Atlantean-trained" or a member of a school of science established there.

Facts as we know them today, and as widely accepted in archaeology, show South America to have been home to the "Mother City" in terms of the establishment of civilization.  Some are of the hypothesis that other civilizations randomly built the exact same things independently, but that beggars belief to me, especially since it didn't happen simultaneously, but rather as a matter of progression, initially from west to east until you hit India, at about 1500 BCE, and then from east to west from that point on, with China being the most *recent* addition to the "pyramid club" in the progression.  The "random-independent" hypothesis is inconsistent here because of all the ancient known civilizations China had the greatest advantage of supporting technologies to have "randomly" come up with pyramid-building.  They had codes of laws, metalcasting, astronomy, etc., everything the other pyramid-building civilizations had, yet for thousands of years they did NOT build the same pyramids the others built, that is, until about 200 BCE, well after even the Mesoamerican pyramids were built.  The causative factor of pyramid-building has no correlation with development of supporting technologies, but rather shows a geographic progression as stated before.  What the evidence supports is a diffusion of technology, with South America as the source. 

I could lecture on all that at any university and not be booed off stage by any mainstream scholars.  The area where I would run into some conflict is in my new hypothesis that these South American "civilizers" may have come from Asia Minor (which is also mainstream accepted) but via maritime travel across the Atlantic rather than the mainstream-accepted Bering Strait theory.  An extremely minor quibble with the accepted theory today in the grand scheme of it, but enough of a quibble that I'll need to get my p's and q's together to show that such maritime travel was at least possible, and preferably to show evidence supportive of the proposition.

Ironically a lot of the evidence to support my theory is being developed for me by those who believe Atlantis was located in west coastal Morocco.  The same prehistoric ship-building industry they say could have accounted for the Atlantean maritime trading empire, could have been the exploration fleet my haplogroup-Q people would have needed to cross the southern Atlantic from there to the Rio de la Plata. 

I think I'll let them continue working for me, and see if I can stand on the shoulders of those giants some more.  Smiley

 Cool

"By a route obscure and lonely, Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named Night, On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly From an ultimate dim Thule —
From a wild weird clime, that lieth, sublime, Out of Space — out of Time." --Edgar Allen Poe
Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2010, 02:20:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I have never been entirely sold on the theory of independent pyramid development, but the pyramid is the most basic and logically sound structure for achieving great heights in a stacked structure, and we are talking about civilizations that were already familiar with the basics of stacking stone and brick, making the independent development theory extremely plausible.

And there are some key differences in the structures including the use of cut stone on stone, cut stone with mortar and of course brick and mortar. The pharaonic stone masonry exhibited in Giza pyramids is unequaled by anything found on pyramids in the Americas, although we find stone masonry a few millennia later with similar use of metal cramps in Pumapunku, but not on pyramidal structures. So it does suggest a possible long range sharing of technologies.

There are also key differences in pyramid usage. Caral pyramids look to be community driven—communal high-rises—while pyramids of Imhotep's time are merely tombs, monuments to the pharaohs.

So in my opinion, Caral would have been a natural development in achieving the type of communal dwellings that could only be otherwise constructed on an existing hill or mound and therefore could have arisen naturally and completely independent of other influences. Likewise building the largest possible structurally sound monument in Egypt to honor a personage would have naturally lead to the pyramidal design.

It would be great to see an in-depth analysis of masonry and stonework on a chronological global scale detailing similarities in structure and usage. I think in this regard it would be hard to shake the independent theory, but we might find compelling evidence that the pyramid as a sacred monument could be a possible Egyptian export.

-Doug

Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline
Join Date: Jun 22, 2009
Posts: 69


« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2011, 07:54:08 PM »
ReplyReply

It would be great to see an in-depth analysis of masonry and stonework on a chronological global scale detailing similarities in structure and usage. I think in this regard it would be hard to shake the independent theory, but we might find compelling evidence that the pyramid as a sacred monument could be a possible Egyptian export.

-Doug


Again, if it's an export of anything it would be a South American one, as Caral and Sechin Bajo predate the Egyptian ones.  I admit that the independent theory is possible although my suspicions lean more toward it having been at least a cultural/symbolic export if not a technological one.  If it's "natural" for a civilization to build pyramids, why did China wait until 200 BCE to build their first one?

Anyway, that's not an enormously important aspect of my research, more of an interesting side-plot.  The bedrock of what I'm getting at is the establishment of prehistoric sea travel, and previous notions archaeologists had that early man had no ability to sail are crumbling.  This may have even been the "cradle" of the same culture that migrated westward to Atlantis:
Quote
Greek officials say 130,000-year-old tools on Crete point to early sea travel

ATHENS, Greece - Archaeologists on the island of Crete have discovered what may be evidence of one of the world's first sea voyages by human ancestors, the Greek Culture Ministry said Monday. A ministry statement said experts from Greece and the U.S. have found rough axes and other tools thought to be between 130,000 and 700,000 years old close to shelters on the island's south coast.

Crete has been separated from the mainland for about five million years, so whoever made the tools must have traveled there by sea (a distance of at least 40 miles). That would upset the current view that human ancestors migrated to Europe from Africa by land alone.

"The results of the survey not only provide evidence of sea voyages in the Mediterranean tens of thousands of years earlier than we were aware of so far, but also change our understanding of early hominids' cognitive abilities," the ministry statement said.

The previous earliest evidence of open-sea travel in Greece dates back 11,000 years (worldwide, about 60,000 years — although considerably earlier dates have been proposed).

The tools were found during a survey of caves and rock shelters near the village of Plakias by archaeologists from the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and the Culture Ministry.

Such rough stone implements are associated with Heidelberg Man and Homo Erectus, extinct precursors of the modern human race, which evolved from Africa about 200,000 years ago.

"Up to now we had no proof of Early Stone Age presence on Crete," said senior ministry archaeologist Maria Vlazaki, who was not involved in the survey. She said it was unclear where the hominids had sailed from, or whether the settlements were permanent.

"They may have come from Africa or from the east," she said. "Future study should help."

The team of archaeologists has applied for permission to conduct a more thorough excavation of the area, which Greek authorities are expected to approve later this year.

http://www.startribune.com/world/112804964.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiacyKUzyaP37D_ncyD_2yckUr

"By a route obscure and lonely, Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named Night, On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly From an ultimate dim Thule —
From a wild weird clime, that lieth, sublime, Out of Space — out of Time." --Edgar Allen Poe
Paradigm shift happens.
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline
Location: On the cusp of change.
Join Date: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 151

WWW

« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2011, 11:58:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi ciggy,

Just expressing my opinion, which probably has little worth regarding pyramids, as I haven’t really delved that deeply into the subject. But to provide a possible answer to your question:

Quote
...why did China wait until 200 BCE to build their first one?

Necessity.

Bridges, walls and canals are examples of structures that are easily understood as arising independently to fulfill the common and very specific needs of transportation, security and irrigation respectively and irrespectively. Pyramids and other monuments are societal luxuries by comparison. Once convinced of the need to have a tall monument however, the pyramid does become a 'natural' choice because of its sound structure that can be extended to ever greater heights by increasing the size of the base.

If we get down to the bricks used at Caral, they have a similar proportion to bricks used on pre-Giza pyramids. Did brick making arise independently? Why are the bricks wide versus tall or even square? It would not take long for masons to independently come to the same realization that the wider bricks stacked better with the overlay creating highly increased stability. So there is very clear logic in assuming independent establishment of similar structural design and methods.

Anyway, as I stated, like you I do not necessarily believe that pyramids arose independently and I am in fact very intrigued by the possibility that American pyramids might have influenced pyramids elsewhere. Further, I agree that the better we can establish the possibility of ancient intercontinental sea travel, the more the idea of shared design becomes not only possible, but key evidence as well. So I fully get the fact that this is an important side-plot and I find it very interesting.

And the linked article makes it clearer than ever that there are glaring errors in established history and is a significant addition to your theory. Great stuff.

-Doug

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to: