> You rock! Thanks for all the information and links, they were
> very informative. I knew the case for Khufu constructing G1 was
> pretty weak, but I had no idea it was *THAT* weak!
Right on. [www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk] is a site I refer back to often. Lots of good stuff there and they take a relatively sober view of the material. You should really wander around there when you have the time.
Another thing about the weakness of Khufu as builder of G1, something as far as I know I'm the first to point out the obvious, is that the much ballyhooed "pyramid builders" workers town excavated by Lehner has zero evidence of Khufu though numerous artifacts attest to Khafre and Menkaure. Hmmm. How can there be no evidence of Khufu, the alleged greatest pyramid builder of them all, at the very same workers camp attributed to Giza pyramid building? And the equally ballyhooed "Tombs of the Pyramid Workers"? They make no mention of any of the Giza pharaohs and there is no direct evidence it even dates to the 4th Dynasty with all so far pointing squarely to the 5th Dynasty. Which is interesting. Also worth noting is the fact the overwhelming majority of tombs at the adjacent Giza cemeteries are also from the 5th Dynasty. Hmmm. So, Khufu the supposed greatest builder of them all isn't even mentioned at the "pyramid builders" workers camp and none of the Giza pharaohs are mentioned at the supposed "tombs of the pyramid builders" and it dates to the 5th Dynasty regardless as do most of the rest of the cemeteries there. Go figure. Not going to see that on a Nova special.
Also something to think about is why did Khufu's son Djedfre blow off Giza, no doubt laid out to a master plan that surely would have included a spot for his son's pyramid, but instead built way the hell away at Abu Roash? No room perhaps? And it is likely Abu Roash was never a pyramid and pre-dates Djedfre anyways.
I would also make note that the whole "dynasty" thing is a purely arbitrary creation of Manetho built on by modern scholars as a matter of convenience. There is no actual "line" between dynasties the Egyptians gave themselves, so when thinking of the 4th or 5th Dynasties what does this really mean especially considering the overwhelming majority of the peripheral activity at Giza dates to the 5th Dynasty and end of the "4th Dynasty". I am of the mind the 5th and 6th Dynasties require much greater attention.
> One of the points I found particularly intriguing was the
> possibility of some of the fourth dynasty Memphite kings being
> Hyksos, who then left to construct the city of Jerusalem.
> Mainly because Hancock talks about the ancient Hebrews and the
> mysterious 'shamir' in his book 'The Sign and the Seal', an
> object which could easily cut any stone without generating
> heat. Not to mention, the Temple Mount features a couple of the
> largest megalithic stones ever quarried (although the orthodox
> opinion is that these stones date from the time of Herod, there
> are others who have argued they are much older.) Because *if*
> G1, G2, G3 were constructed during the fourth dynasty, then at
> least this explains why they are so different
> aesthetically/technologically. (However, that's a pretty big
> *if* at this point, as I would need to do quite a lot of more
> research before speculating about any theories...) Anywho, much
> appreciated and thanks again!
The Hyskos are high on my research list, but I've been dragging my feet because I need to go in deep. My thinking is leading me to the conclusion the Hyskos and the peoples of the Caucasus region they come from are an integral part of the mystery which likely dates back to well before pre-dynastic times. You might find these threads interesting:
The Temple Mount blocks remind one of the blocks at Baalbek, obviously not built by the Romans either.
Post Edited (24-Feb-13 18:38)