-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What's on your mind?
- By .Mikha'el.
- Singles (Only*)
- 32149 Replies
Do you mind if I ask what site or type of website you knew this person from? This is very sad indeed. There must have been a lot of hurting there.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By sjastro
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 615 Replies
This is your supportive evidence that granite obelisks were built in the Old Kingdom?I am doubling down because its a fact that old kingdom obelisks are made of granite lol. Why would I not when theres ample evidence. In fact as I keep saying the old kingdom specialised in using the hardest stones for just about everything like obelisks, statues, boxes, pillars ect. The are the originators of the granite works.
Towering Obelisks Are Everywhere. Here's Why They're So Awe-inspiring
Obelisks first appeared in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties of the Old Kingdom (circa 2494 to 2184 B.C.E.), the same era in which the pyramids of Giza were built. "The important central fact about obelisks is that they are monoliths, carved out of granite — most from the Aswan quarry in lower Egypt — as a single block of stone weighing several hundred tons,"
Obelisk Definition & Origin
The obelisk, originating during the Early Dynastic Period of ancient Egypt, crafted from a single piece of red granite,
Obelisk Definition & Origin
Explore the history, symbolism, architecture, and purpose of obelisks. Discover their origins, global spread, famous examples, and key facts.www.egypttoursportal.com
4,000-Year-Old Inscribed Obelisk Dedicated to Ancient Egyptian Queen Unearthed in Saqqara
4,000-Year-Old Inscribed Obelisk Dedicated to Ancient Egyptian Queen Unearthed in Saqqara
The Ministry of Antiquities in Egypt has announced the exciting discovery of the upper part of an Old Kingdom granite obelisk that dates back to around 2,000 BC. The ancient monument, which once had a top covered with copper or golden foil to shine in the sunlight, contains inscriptions that...www.ancient-origins.net
I am not saying that later dynasties could not produce great works. But most definitely we see the best examples as far as quality and precision in the early dynasties.
The first link is based on the ‘professional title’ howstuffworks, the second comes from a travel agency for crying out loud and the third link in the very first paragraph has a great big gaping hole by claiming it is an Old Kingdom obelisk dated around 2,000 BC.
The date puts it in the Middle Kingdom when granite carved obelisks first appeared.
Furthermore if you actually bothered to read the article the total height was only around 5 metres. If this an Old Kingdom construction it would also include a pedestal making the shaft height considerably less than 5 metres.
This is hardly a worthwhile comparison to make with either the limestone Old Kingdom or the granite New Kingdom obelisks in terms of technical skills and the logistics of transport.
Here is the actual data for comparison, not your travel agency nonsense.
Comparison of Obelisk Heights (Excluding & Including Pedestals)
| Period | Site / Ruler | Material | Shaft Height (m) | Pedestal Height (m) | Total Height (m) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Old Kingdom (5th Dynasty) | Userkaf’s Sun Temple (Heliopolis area, c. 2490 BCE) | Limestone (core + casing) | ~15–18 m (est.) | ~12–15 m (est.) | ~27–33 m | First sun-temple obelisk form; only foundations survive. |
| Old Kingdom (5th Dynasty) | Neferirkare’s Sun Temple, Abusir | Limestone (core + casing) | ~18–20 m (est.) | ~15–17 m (est.) | ~33–37 m | Rough estimate based on foundation size and later Niuserre’s proportions. |
| Old Kingdom (5th Dynasty) | Niuserre’s Sun Temple, Abu Ghurab (c. 2450 BCE) | Limestone (core + Tura casing) | ~20 m | ~16 m | ~36 m | Best-preserved Old Kingdom obelisk-like monument. |
| Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty) | Senusret I, Heliopolis (c. 1971 BCE) | Granite (Aswan) | ~20.4 m | (none — monolithic) | ~20.4 m | First true granite monolithic obelisk. |
| New Kingdom (18th Dynasty) | Hatshepsut, Karnak (c. 1470 BCE) | Granite (Aswan) | ~29.5 m | (none — monolithic) | ~29.5 m | Tallest surviving obelisk in Egypt today. |
| New Kingdom (18th Dynasty) | Thutmose III, Lateran Obelisk (Rome) | Granite (Aswan) | ~32 m | (none — monolithic) | ~32 m | Tallest surviving ancient obelisk overall. |
| New Kingdom (19th Dynasty) | Ramesses II obelisks, Luxor & Heliopolis | Granite (Aswan) | ~20–25 m | (none — monolithic) | ~20–25 m | Numerous examples; highly polished, finely inscribed. |
| New Kingdom (Unfinished, Aswan) | Likely Hatshepsut/Thutmose III era | Granite (Aswan) | ~42 m | (none — monolithic) | ~42 m | Largest attempt; ~1,200 tons, abandoned due to cracks. |
Key Takeaways
- Old Kingdom (5th Dynasty): Obelisk-like monuments were block-built limestone shafts on tall pedestals. Shafts themselves were ~15–20 m, but the total monument height reached 30–36+ m.
- Middle Kingdom onward: Shift to true monolithic granite shafts from Aswan, initially ~20 m, the same size as Old Kingdom limestone shafts but technologically far more advanced.
- New Kingdom: Ambition increased — granite shafts ~30–32 m, with the unfinished Aswan obelisk showing they aimed for >40 m monoliths.
The rest of your post is incoherent babbling which as I have mentioned previously is either the result of a basic lack of comprehension skills or a deliberate effort of fabricating my post so you can make tailor made responses.Obviously if they are old kingdom works then he could not have made them. I alreadcy gave you evidence. I am not saying all works or that Ramesses II could not commission great works. That is also part of the greatness of Egyptian knowledge and tech.
I am saying we can see greater works in the earliest dynasties which is unusual, sort of back the front. Coming at a time when history paints the idea of gradual improvement from simple to advanced.
I thought I was giving you the evidence and you seem to not be seeing it. I will go through this step by step.
First part of the evidence I am saying is that at least some of the granite works your citing as new kingdom may actually be from the old kingdom. I gave you evidence. You say its from the middle kingdom but the signatures are very similar to old kingdom. If we are going by signatures. Which I think we should as it is the science of identifying pieces.
I gave you evidence that the one piece granite pillar at Karnak next to the new kingdom sectional pillars is almost an exact match of old kingdom pillars. So if there is evidence that old kingdom works were at these sites and the signatures match old kingdom works. Why is this not a possibility.
You have not once addressed this. Never mind what others think. What do you think of the possibility. The reasonablness or not for this possibility and in fact reality because like I said, where are the old kingdom works that were in these sites. Granite does not disappear into dust. You have not answered this.
It is a fact that old kingdom dynasties made one piece pink granite pillar that look remarkable the same as the one piece pink granite pillars at Karnak. You are ignoring the evidence I linked. Not only did the old kingdom dynasties build in granite they built almost the exact same thing standing in Karnak.
So yes they did specialise more than other dynasties in working with the hardest stones and have proved that they can create almost the same pillar. Thats unless that actually is an old kingdom pillar and the bigger sandstone ones were the new kingdom pillars built around them. Ever considered that possibility.
Meet Herishef
Inside the temple were six pink granite columns that contrasted with the rest of the building; because they belonged to someone else. By Ramesses' time the columns were already 1,200 years old. He had the six hauled from the ruins of an Old Kingdom pyramid temple at Saqqara or Abusir, near modern Cairo.
Whilst Ramesses II was clearly devout, he was also highly practical; why go to all the effort of carving his own columns when there are some perfectly good ones just lying about? Ramesses had the original owner's name scrubbed out and his own image offering to various gods emblazoned across them.
Thats old kingdom one piece granite columns reused by Ramesses II in a new kingdom site. Direct evidence of at least 6 pink granite columns from the old kingdom reused in new kingdom sites.
There are many many granite ruins at Giza, Saqqara, Dahshūr, Marhum, Maydūm, Hawara, Abusir, and Abu Rawash. Many damaged, broken but there would have been many good pieces like these columns reused.
Look at these works from the early dynasties. Granite sarcophagus of Kaiemnofret 4th Dynasty, 2613-2494 BCE.
View attachment 369524 View attachment 369549
These bowls and stone dishes/platters are some of the finest ever found, and they are from the earliest period of ancient Egyptian civilization.
View attachment 369526 View attachment 369527
Working with soft stone such as alabaster is relatively simple, compared to granite. Alabaster can be worked with primitive tools and abrasives. The elegant workings in granite are a different matter and indicate not only a consummate level of skill, but a different and perhaps more advanced technology.
Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Lathe Turning - Spirit & Stone
www.theglobaleducationproject.org
The Schist Disk: Egypt and “Advanced” Technology
Since discovered in 1936 in the Egyptian village of Saqqara, the so-called “Schist Disk” has been used to support the widely-held contention that the ancient Egyptian culture acquired technology far superior to their own at some point in their development from an outside source. And while this...www.historydefined.net
The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt
We find at many of the ancient sites in Egypt finely crafted works in basalt, granite, quartzite and diorite.
The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt | Ancient Origins
Most people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them...www.ancient-origins.net
https://unsigned.io/granite-artifact/
We see later new kingdom vases with much less precision and in softer stones. Once again I am not claiming anything as to what is going on and how this was done. Rather I am pointing out these (out of place) works and signatures and that they don't match the picture painted of our history from primiotive to advanced.
The first thing to note is that there is a question over whether the granite and hard stone works attributed to the later New Kingdom are actually not usurped works from the old kingdom. I gave you the evidence of this actually happening.
The second point is that all the works apart from the pyramids themselves for good reasons of practicality ( making the pyramids with 2.5 million blocks of granite is impractical considering the lack of granite. Whereas the New Kingdom often worked in sandstone and limestone.
The third point is that the idea that the old kingdom had greater precision is false. It is the other way around. The greatest precision and geometry come from the old kingdom works. Which also acts as a signature for identifying works in the New KIngdom as actually old Kingdom works as the New KIngdom works had less precision.
For example the granite vases above and others from Djosers time are unmatched by later new kingdom vases.
View attachment 369551
Astonishing Results: Ancient Egyptian Granite Vases Analyzed
Do 6,000-Year-Old Artifacts Reveal the Use of Lost Machinery in Predynastic Egypt?
A newly revealed private collection of ancient Egyptian hard-stone vessels has ignited intense debate among archaeologists, engineers, and alternative historians alike.
I am still undecided which one it is.
Upvote
0
SecDef Hegseth Drafting 600 Military Judges to Clear Backlog of Immigration Cases.
- By Vambram
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 35 Replies
Justice Barrett defends Jackson jabs as ‘warranted’ in rare public appearance
Justice Amy Coney Barrett spoke about her recent controversial opinion on universal injunctions, saying her stern words for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in it were appropriate.
Justice Barrett disagrees strongly with universal injunction from lower courts.
Upvote
0
