Did Ancient Egyptians visit Australia ?
This site raises some very interesting possibilities..
http://www.pyramids.co.nz/Hie.htm
Most of the rest of the world doesn't even know of these heirogyphic carvings...
The jury is out on their authenticity or otherwise...
It makes for some facinating speculations...
Here is a taster...
http://www.pyramids.co.nz/Hie.htm
Most of the rest of the world doesn't even know of these heirogyphic carvings...
The jury is out on their authenticity or otherwise...
It makes for some facinating speculations...
Here is a taster...
Comments
-- edit: snipped as I mentioned young earth and that's a sure fire thread hijack.
I'm going to have a sniff. I love this stuff.
For what it's worth, on first impressions, it looks like bollocks to me.
an excellent read
Originally posted by segovius
[B the virtually proven redating of the Sphinx to predate the Egyptians being but one example.. [/B]
The Sphinx was (according to current prevalent thinking) carved on top of an older monument built by people who predate the 'Egyptians' ... and the rock on which it is based predates all humanity.
So in a sense, oh yes, there was probably a monument there before old nose-job came along.
The Sphinx mind you, she's Eeeegptshun.
Saw a wonderful interview with the geologist that realized the dating couldn't be right... he took photographs of the base, showing the weathering, but without enough context to show that it was specifically the Sphinx, then distributed them amongst geologists. Not archeologists, geologists. He asked them to deduce the means of erosion. Every single one said 'rain'. The erosion patterns are vertical water channels, not horizontal, as would be for floods.
So the Sphinx *body* was eroded by large amounts of rain. Cool beans.
Except that the last time that area had that much rain was about 12,000 years ago.
And archeologists contend that the Sphinx (body and all) was carved 3500 years ago.
Sliiiiiiiiiiight discrepancy.
Since the geologists are working from hard evidence, and the archeologists are working from speculation based on semi-complete historical records, I tend to go with the geologists on this one.
It's *rock* folks... ask the rock experts.
Basically, the Egyptology community has not ignored this guy, but have done everything they can to drown him out. Sorry, but unless they can produce equally valid evidence to the contrary, they're just blowing smoke to protect their egos. Poor things.
Originally posted by segovius
My bet would be aboriginal carvings of more or less antiquity based on genuine images received through 'dreamtime' occurences or remote viewing - hence the discrepancies in execution.
Yeah! Damn those smug, stodgy, academic-turf protecting so-called scientists who refuse to take into account solid, proven phenomenon like remote viewing when they analyze archeological findings. Unforgivably close-minded of them.
segovius said:
I know that certain rug and carpet motifs can be found repeated almost exactly in Peruvian Nazca cultures and middle eastern nomadic ones. The same thing happens with stories and folktales too.
Indeed they are. They?re known as ?entoptics?. They appear to be hard-wired into your nervous system. Shamanic cultures can?t get enough of them. You?ll see them in European rock paintings of the Upper Paleolithic, for a start, all the way to rock art from Southern Africa and North America by way of wall decorations in the Argentinian Amazon - for the Huichol Indians of the Mexican Sierra Madre spirals and concentric circles mean ?yagé?, which is their particular hallucinogen of choice.
Entoptics, though, are dots, zig zags, ?mandalas?, connected squares and nested u-shapes, stuff like that: if you?ve done enough acid you?ll have seen them too, I? um, imagine. Glyphs like these are pretty specific representative shapes that don?t fit into the visual syntax of hunter-gatherer parietal art. They were either made by Egyptian sailors or fakers, I?d say.
I?d question the ?remote viewing? thing, too: in thousands of years of the production of rock art, no culture?s ever reproduced the art or writing of another culture as specifically as this. There?s a lot of Southern African rock art that looks ?a bit Egyptian?...
...but writing that makes grammatical sense? If it were possible we?d have seen it in the Americas or in Africa too, surely?
I?ve seen lots of recent carved engravings in rocks in South Africa right next to the real deal and you can tell in a second which is real and which isn?t. Faking the style of the things is almost impossible. These engravings really remind me of those copies and fakes. They just ?look wrong?; they look recent, but it?s hard to tell without seeing the things in the flesh, I suppose, and I?m not an Egyptologist anyway.
It?s perfectly standard practice when paintings and engravings are found to send in a specialist with a microscope to study how the engraving was made, to determine its authenticity, and the patina on the rock to suggest (roughly) how old it might be. I?d be amazed if there weren?t an archeological study like this somewhere.
Finally: about the Sphinx. Be careful what you read: there?s a bunch of charlatans and frauds writing, Graham Hancock being about the worst. Facts don?t matter to these people. I?d be really interested if you could point me in the direction of some proper evidence because as far as we can tell, I believe, the immediate ancestors of the Egyptians were herding people who didn?t build any permanent structures at all.
Originally posted by segovius
the Sphinx body is not so much carved on top but actually is the older monument. This was proved by the water weathering researches of Bloch (who was duly castigated by academia for his pains).
The Sphinx face does appear to be a much later recarving of what would have presumably been a lion's head. Interestingly the monument is aligned to Leo but I wouldn't put much store in that.
Yes and no. The body of the Sphinx is part of the original monument, but the original 'face' was not that of a lion, but probably of a jackal or other canid, as the body is clearly canine in origin and not feline.
I'm of the opinion that these are indeed representations of something other than elephants, possibly birds.
http://www.delange.org/Copan1/Copan1.htm
The Egyptians-in-Australia example? I vote "bogus".
The Aborigine people? Now that's a bunch of folks that I'm super-duper-duper interested in......
Originally posted by segovius
Yep. I see no elephants. Apparently there is a turkey on the Bayeux tapestry which is pretty out of place but I can't find a pic of it.
Someone told me that George Lucas's special effect guys put a sandshoe in one of the flying space battle scenes..but like all urban myths....yada yada..
Re :the hieroglyhs, an interesting point to consider is that not all egyptians were as literate or fully familiar with the royal glyphs as scribes & members of the priesthood would have been.