The origin of the Stargate genre

[Beatrice Otter]

Von Daniken is on crack, all archaeologists and skeptics know this.

I have read his book, City or Dawn of the Gods?, and his theories...they are just horrible. First off, he mentions how almost every single god or figure wears a helmet! It can be a traditional garment, and I remember he pointed to one object being a ship or helmet, that was obviously traditional to the people.

I beleive that aliens probablly visited Earth, but he points to every single thing and says its proof! He's like the father from My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 'give me anything and I can tell you it came from the aliens...'

Sorry, but I would definitely ignore his works...

Oh, yeah. I took one archaeology class in college, and Von Danniken was mentioned. One of the things they pointed out was that his interpretation of inscriptions and such is extremely selective. Gorex, he showed us a picture of a picture carved on some South American ancient monument or other (can't remember what, off the top of my head; it's been a while, and the class was just a filler so I wasn't paying that much attention). It was of some mythic king, portrayed on a stylized background. Von Danniken claims that the background is a depiction of a rocket-type spaceship, and is therefore proof that the aliens visited. However, when you compare the background to the legends of that king, it's fairly clearly a representation of one of the key events in the legend (something about the king falling down into the underworld). To make it look ermotely like a spaceship, you kind of have to turn your head sideways and squint real hard. Not exactly what I'd call rock-solid proof, there. But VonDanniken claims it as such.

Besides, all his arguments boil down to "That was a long time ago and ancient Egyptians/Mayans/whoever were too primitive and stupid to build such great monuments." Again, not very convincing, at least not to me.

[Atlantisluva]

Exactly.

I wish I had the book on me now so I can list some things, but I remember cleary that he was pointing to an amulet ( which actually looked exactly like a DHD disc sans the little line things on the sides ) as some sort of spaceship model.

Anyone who uses his theories as a backup on their ideas are dismissed immediately in my book.

[Beatrice Otter]

If I understand [i rarely do], pyramids are also found around the world, they are not exclusively egyptian - south american cultures also built pyramids. Albeit at a later date and less prolifically (Please correct if I am wrong).

Pyramids are, indeed, found all over the world. For the very good reason that as you start to build on such a huge scale, they are the easiest shape to build. Each successive layer is smaller (and thus less heavy) than the one beneath it, requiring less structural integrity to support it than a cube of the same height would require, which is important when you consider how much weight is involved in dealing with that much stone, without any kind of iron or steel girders or anything else but stone to hold it together. And everywhere they were made, they started small and grew more elaborate, and then declined in both quality and quantity as the descendants of the early pyramid builders lost interest in the project and turned their resources to other things.

Take the Egyptian pyramids as an example. Early pharaohs were buried in large rectangular tombs (I forget what they're called). Then one pharaoh (Djoser, iirc)decided they weren't imposing enough, and made several for himself, one on top of the other (the Step Pyramid). The next pharaoh wanted something even grander, so he made the walls smooth, not steps. Except the angle was too steep, and the outer shell collapsed under its own weight (I don't know what that one's called). That happened while they were in the middle of building the third pyramid, and they realized the same thing was going to happen to it so they reduced the angle of the sides in mid-construction (it's called the Bent Pyramid, because it looks, well, bent). After that they were pretty good at this pyramid-building thing--soon, the Great Pyramid was up, followed by the rest of them. But then there was a political/economic change in the Egyptian ruling class, accompanied by the realization that the pyramids were glowing neon signs for grave robbers, and that no amount of security could keep them out. After that they hid royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings, near a pyramid-shaped hill.

Societies wax and wane naturally--it's just something that happens; nothing stays the same forever. Architectural styles and attitudes change with them. It's not proof of aliens or Atlantis, just of the passage of time. Doesn't disprove it, either, but I have yet to see any proof of such things that can't be countered one way or another, much as I'd like to believe in them. So at this point I remain a skeptic.

[Unas]

Early pharaohs were buried in large rectangular tombs (I forget what they're called).

Theyre called mastaba(s).

[Seastallion]

We seem to have gotten caught up with Von Daniken, who I personally don't give all that much credit to. Remember, I also included Sitchen and others who may or may not be more credible.

The point of it all is this; History hasn't followed the nice little 'text-book in a box' we've been given. I'm not referring only to 'alien' influence, but also the possibility that human civilization may be far older than we currently recognize. I have a few examples.

We've been told that the Pyramids of Egypt were built without using any wheels, (maybe they weren't but there really is no way to know that) because 'classical' archaeologist say the Egyptians didn't have wheels during that time. That is nuts. We know that the Mesopotamians, just a few miles to their north, had had wheels for a couple thousand years before the archaeologist say the pyramids were built.

We know that the Zodiac was transmitted from the Mesopotamians to the Egyptians well before the Pyramids were built. If they could share an idea as complex as Astrology, surely the Egyptians would've also noticed the wheels the Mesopotamians were using..?!?

Another example, even more fascinating really...

There have been ruins of cities found underwater in several places around the world. At least one Monolithic city was found off the coast of Japan, another in Malta, and a couple off the coast of India.

These are all 'facts', which can be found by reading Graham Hancock's book "Underworld". Those cities have not seen the free air in at least 10,000 years. There are underwater structures, that are obviously artificial that have been found all over the world. However, subaquatic archaeology has been slow to mobilize. Mainly because of the sheer difficulty, and the expense necessary for such undertakings. However, there seems to be much we could learn from our own past if we would simply do so.

At the very least, these cities (predating all known history) give absolute indications that human civilization is older than it is currenly recognized. We know that the reason these cities were drowned, is because at the end of the last Ice Age, the water levels around the world rose dramatically burying all evidence of their existence beneath the waves.

We also know that there are over 500 'flood' stories from all over the world, (many, most even, have nothing to do with the Biblical story) that all have striking similiarities. Great civilizations, suddenly lost and the world in cataclysm and great floods destroying the world. Those stories come from every Continitent on Earth (except for Antartica, of course). If the stories just came from a few people and no more, we might ignore it. Yet the sheer magnitude of the volume of stories on just that one subject would indicate their is more to it. *If your interested, I recommend Graham Hancock's book, "The Fingerprints of the Gods"*

One can only wonder...what secrets of humanity lay hidden at the bottom of the seas..?!?

[Mr Prophet]

Nothing that you read in a book by Graham Hancock should ever be given the unqualified name of 'fact'. Hancock's research is slipshod, his methodology poor and his conclusions, at best, questionable. He also takes and visibly distorts expert opinion. Somehow he manages to make a geologist's claim that 'the Sphinx could be closer to 6000 years old' to mean 'the Sphinx could be as much as 10,500 years old'.

I'm also not prepared to take seriously any claim which states that Mesopotamia was 'a few miles to the North' of Ancient Egypt. Try a few hundred north-east across seas and/or desert and you'll be nearer the mark and that's a long way by horse or camel.

[Seastallion]

Mr Prophet- Nothing that you read in a book by Graham Hancock should ever be given the unqualified name of 'fact'.

Specifically, I'm referring to the 'fact' that those cities DO exist. They aren't fiction, and have been well documented. They were in fact found by the Indian government while doing research on coastal polution I believe. They weren't looking for them, they just stumbled onto them.

I've seen documentaries about it on the Science Discovery channel, as well. So there is no question as to the 'fact' that they exist. The real question then, is what does it mean in terms of human history?

I'm familiar also, with the sphinx question. The sphinx has been examined by geologist, and the erosion was found to be 'vertical' as opposed to 'horizontal'. This is indicative of 'water' erosion (because water runs downwards- i.e.- Rain) Horizontal erosion would have indicated wind and sand striking the sphinx. Keep in mind, that the sphinx has been buried in sand for much of the thousands of years it has existed. The point Graham Hancock, and John A. West have made is simply that for the erosion to have had time to form, the sphinx would have had to have been exposed to rain for many years. However, the last time it rained at often intervals in Egypt was around 10,000 years ago near the end of the last Ice Age. That was why they believed it was possible that the sphinx may be older than generally is accepted.

[QOUTE]I'm also not prepared to take seriously any claim which states that Mesopotamia was 'a few miles to the North' of Ancient Egypt. Try a few hundred north-east across seas and/or desert and you'll be nearer the mark and that's a long way by horse or camel.[QOUTE]

Not to split hairs ( ), but when I said a 'few' miles, I was speaking in relative terms. The Egytians and Mesopotamian peoples had a LOT of interaction. There was trade and cultural exchange all the time, and that is not in dispute. There were caravans that travelled between the two lands all the time, in the space of a few weeks travel. You could walk from Egypt to modern day Israel within a week.

In any case, my point was that the Egyptians were certainly intelligent enough to take advantage of the 'wheel' at the time of the construction of the pyramids. Logic dictates they would have HAD to have known about the wheel because it had already existed as a tool for several thousand years by their neighbors to the north in Sumeria. They weren't stupid.

The concept of Astrology was a shared ideaology all over the ancient world, and my only point is that if something as abstract and complicated as that could be communicated between the Sumerians and the Egyptians...something as concrete and simple as a 'wheel' most certainly would have been shared between them as well.

[Mr Prophet]

The last time it rained on the Giza plateau was about 6000 years ago, which is what the geological evidence suggests. Hancock stretched it to 10,500 to fit his own theories.

The underwater forms do exist, but as you say they haven't been studied because underwater archaeology is a vastly expensive process and there are only about a dozen properly trained teams in the world. This being so, claiming that they are definitely anything is speculative at best.

Modern Israel is not in the same place as ancient Mesopotamia.

Cultural exchange - and for the most part trade exchange - between Mesopotamia and Egypt took two main forms: Kicking the crap out of each other and the intervening neighbours, and prestige exchange between nobles. The ruling classes of ancient empires don't much care about wheels, but they tend to be the intellectual elite and so they care about science.Also, wheels aren't much use for pyramids building. The materials of the time simply couldn't build a wheel or an axle capable of bearing the weight of the blocks involved. It's like suggesting log rollers for Stonehenge; a Stonehenge upright would crush a log to matchwood in seconds.

[Seastallion]

Mr Prophet- The last time it rained on the Giza plateau was about 6000 years ago, which is what the geological evidence suggests.

I'd have to check the info myself. You might be right, but I don't know either way for certain on that point. Where did you get your info on the meteorological conditions of Egypt at that time?

The underwater forms do exist, but as you say they haven't been studied because underwater archaeology is a vastly expensive process and there are only about a dozen properly trained teams in the world. This being so, claiming that they are definitely anything is speculative at best.

Keep in mind, that there is more than one. Some of them are still under question, however others are without question, man-made. I don't claim that they are anything other than that. However, given the amount of time they've been underwater, is clear evidence that humans had a civilization far into the distant past.

Modern Israel is not in the same place as ancient Mesopotamia.

LOL... I never said it was. I was merely pointing out an example of travel time in the region. Of course Mesopotamia is further away (modern Iraq), and would of course take a bit longer to reach.

Cultural exchange - and for the most part trade exchange - between Mesopotamia and Egypt took two main forms: Kicking the crap out of each other and the intervening neighbours, and prestige exchange between nobles. The ruling classes of ancient empires don't much care about wheels, but they tend to be the intellectual elite and so they care about science.

They certainly didn't have the level of international exchange we have today, but you make it sound as though they were all but completely ignorant of each other, until they stepped on each others toes. That simply isn't the case. Yes, they fought wars and had petty differences (not entirely unlike today) but there was also a lot of trade. Trade Caravans were common place, trading not just goods, but ideas and sometimes technology. (i.e- the wheel)

The materials of the time simply couldn't build a wheel or an axle capable of bearing the weight of the blocks involved. It's like suggesting log rollers for Stonehenge; a Stonehenge upright would crush a log to matchwood in seconds.

Wheels do more than just have things sit on them. It isn't beyond the realm of imagination to believe they could've used pulleys, and ropes to help them move the stones about. The fact is, the Egyptians were cutting stone vases, that to this day, no one knows how they did it. Some of those stone vases would give modern stone-workers even with modern machine-tools a serious challenge. Some of their stone works, were made using stone with a hardness index greater than current evidence would suggest that they should've been able to work with. The point is there is a lot we don't know.

There have been a plethora of artifacts around the world that have seemed out of place given what was believed to be the capabilities of the local peoples at the times. In South America, there is an ancient city (the one with the Elephants, that Atlantisluva mentioned, I think), where the stones were held togethor with metal tabs, that were made by metallurgical process that wasn't discovered until the the first half of the 1900's. How does one explain it? Skeptism is good within reason, but like most things is never good when it is over done.

I'm glad there are still mysteries, that we can't just explain away. I'm a fairly analytical person, and I don't just take anything at face value. That is why I said earlier, that I would allow the works of the authors I've mentioned to stand on their own. I think people should look stuff up for themselves when it is possible. My other subjects of interest are physics, cosmology, and quantum mechanics. On the other hand, I believe in spirits. I try to maintain a balance between the explainable, and the unexplained. I've had experiance with both. Science can only explain what it can observe. Everything else falls into the realm of metaphysics, which sometimes requires that we allow for the possibility that things aren't always as they seem.

[Mr Prophet]

I'd have to check the info myself. You might be right, but I don't know either way for certain on that point. Where did you get your info on the meteorological conditions of Egypt at that time?

It was a prog by Graham Hancock. He had his geological expert witness on and it ran like this:

Geologist: I'd say that's water erosion and there hasn't been enough rain up there for almost 6000 years.
Hancock (VO): So the sphinx could be as much as 12,500 years old...

I swear, it was that blatant (and it was 12,500; his 'key date' is 10,500BC)

Keep in mind, that there is more than one. Some of them are still under question, however others are without question, man-made. I don't claim that they are anything other than that. However, given the amount of time they've been underwater, is clear evidence that humans had a civilization far into the distant past.

I don't begin to question that, but there's a vast distance between claiming an ancient civilization and saying that there was a world-spanning empire that built all the great monuments; as Hancock pretty much does. I mean, he's no Velokovski...

They certainly didn't have the level of international exchange we have today, but you make it sound as though they were all but completely ignorant of each other, until they stepped on each others toes. That simply isn't the case. Yes, they fought wars and had petty differences (not entirely unlike today) but there was also a lot of trade. Trade Caravans were common place, trading not just goods, but ideas and sometimes technology. (i.e- the wheel)

Your average international trade caravan had little to do with wheels at the time. Mostly you'd send camels and boats. Wheels were primarily used on chariots.

Wheels do more than just have things sit on them. It isn't beyond the realm of imagination to believe they could've used pulleys, and ropes to help them move the stones about.

Exactly the same thing goes for pulleys as for chassis and it isn't beyond the realm of imagination to imagine that they used A-frame hoists and blocks to help them move the stones around without using wheels. The wheel is not the be-all and end-all of civilization.

I mean, let's be clear here: The ancient Egyptians built the snecking pyramids and that's pretty damn good going! If I'd built the pyramids, I wouldn't lose much sleep over the wheel. Doesn't it strike you that, just because they might not have been using something that we consider to be key to our civilization, anyone who can build those things has still got a pretty impressive thing going? They do not have to have had alien help, weird Atlantean superscience or anything else of the sort.

The assumption that the known histories are 'too primitive' annoys me. The average Daniken-a-like is just repeating, perhaps unknowing, the age-old myth that there's no way a bunch of semi-literate darkies could have built the pyramids and that therefore there must have been a superior civilization - be it Tellurian or extra-Terrestrial - preceding them and now lost to history. The lost civilization is the Moundbuilder culture; the kingdom of Prester John. It's the o mighty Aryan empire that built the structures which later came to be occupied by inferior races. In that sense, Hancock and his ilk aren't forward -looking, they're actually far more akin to the eugenic fantacists who populated European archaeology in its infancy and went looking for druids in all the wrong places. Maybe they're not looking for the great white hope anymore, but the implication is still there that a bunch of no-wheel-having Africans weren't up to snuff.

The fact is, the Egyptians were cutting stone vases, that to this day, no one knows how they did it. Some of those stone vases would give modern stone-workers even with modern machine-tools a serious challenge. Some of their stone works, were made using stone with a hardness index greater than current evidence would suggest that they should've been able to work with. The point is there is a lot we don't know.

Have they asked stone cutters? Because often people don't. Everyone thought that neolithic stone tools were crude until they got a butched to cut up the carcass. I can't speak much more of this, since I've never even heard of these indestructable vases.

I'm glad there are still mysteries, that we can't just explain away. I'm a fairly analytical person, and I don't just take anything at face value. That is why I said earlier, that I would allow the works of the authors I've mentioned to stand on their own.

At which point, I have to question your mention of Hancock's work. Hancock's work does not stand up and it actually seeks to explain away the mysteries with a convenient blanket explanation. It isn't analytical and it isn't any kind of good scholarship. It's not even well-written. Graham Phillips makes a lot less money but he spins a much better yarn of ancient calamity and mystery.

I hate the idea that a rational explaination is 'explaining away' some kind of wonderous mystery. Maybe it's the depth of time involved, but sometimes I feel that people lose the scale of achievement involved. The pyramids don't need any mystical alignments or inhumanly accurate measurements to be impressive. The simple fact is that the lengths of the sides of the Great Pyramid are only a pretty good match, the angles are a damn fine estimation to square and the three main pyramids at Giza are aligned the way they are because a straight line would have left the smallest one falling off the sandstone platform they are built on.

Mystical alignment? No. Good surveying? Can I get a hell yeah?

[Bomber]

Prophet, thanks for submitting the arguments of Hancock, Von Daniken et al to some form of scientific scrutiny. One of the problems with the Von Daniken genre is that it does not submit itself to the same scrutiny that 'mainstream' archaeology does. Virtually every TV doco and every The-aliens-built-the-pyramids-and-landed-on-Ayers-Rock-on-their-way-to-Easter-Island-and-I-know-because-of-pi pulp paperback starts out with a rejection of received history/archaeology. Do these authors then allow the same cut and thrust arguments of archaeological scholarship to refine, modify, reject or confirm their theories? No. They reiterate with their next TV doco! People then believe their theories because of either malcontent with 'experts' or because the docos and paperback sound persuasive.

All that having been said, I love the genre. I might put my historian/archaeologist battered felt hat on and call it the lunatic fringe, but it's creative. It's left field, and it keeps the populace interested in the past. Speaking as someone with a vested interest in people being interested in history, that's gotta be a good thing. Folks love a mystery, they love to think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, that textbook they read at school might just be wrong. The wilder and more outrageous the alternative the better. Curiosity about what went before is the guts of the historian's and the archaeologist's trade. If the populus have that curiosity, I say hurray!

The challenge is to ensure that enough of the non-academic world (ie. most people) have at least enough of an understanding to say "Geez, it's an interesting idea, wouldn't it be great if that were true? I'm pretty sure this guy on the doco's a bit whacked, but hey, I wonder what the reality of the situation actually was". I think that's where Seastallion's coming from, and I say good on ya mate, and I think Prophet's doing a great job of keeping us grounded in reality. Stargate is wonderful because it gives us the alternative reality in which to explore these myths of our time without putting that ol archaeologist's hat back on and saying "No you're wrong because..."

Anyway, to end my rant, I love Von Daniken's myths, I am curious about Hancock's ideas, I want to believe in plausible deniability (saw that on another thread recently... geez don't get me started on conspiracies!), but I'm also skeptical. I ask "Where's the evidence?", and I know that I'll find in most cases there's a pretty straightforward terrestrial explanation for most phenomena. Doesn't take the mystery away, though, and doesn't stop me being curious.

Okay... work calls.

[Atlantean]

Heres my 2 cents. I disagree with the fanatic "OMG the pyramids are big so the Gods are coming back tomorrow" perspective, but I also have read Hancock and Robert Bauval's works and I still think there is much to be learned. For one, there actually are Egyptian vases that are carved out of granite. Also, I have read from several different sources that there are some works of art carved from stone that would either be difficult or IMPOSSIBLE to do today. For example, large stone pillars with perfectly circular holes bored right through them have been discovered. Apparently, that would be highly difficult with diamond-bit drills...

Anyway, another topic which I find disturbing is the sphinx, and the supposed "Hall of Records" in the supposed chambers below it. What I find odd is that every survey team to come close to discovering anything meaningful has their escavation license canceled immediatly by the Eygptian government.

Need I even mention the Cydonia complex? I should make clear that the only compelling evidence I see there is that the pyramids have similar mathematical relationships and also point at Orion.

I would suggest reading the book "The Stargate Conspiracy". It outlines some of the most dominant theories that have shaped the last couple decades, and is really cool.

[Master Chief Jack O Niell]

Could it be true?

[Klems]

A couple months ago, I read a book (ok, more like a really, really long essay) about another possible constuction method for the pyramids. Instead of the traditional "cut and heave" idea with huge stone blocks or the the "magical" layering of blocks using aliens or whatever, it was proposed that the ancient Egyptians had a sort of set of instuctions on how to make strong cement.

Wooden forms were used to hold the mixture in place until it set and then the forms were taken away, thereby having the block right where you wanted it without having to heave it around. Makes more sense to me than heaving a 50 ton stone up a ramp. I forgot what the name of the book is. I'll try and find it.


Mr. Prophet, I'm not accusing you of anything, but what do you think the so called "star shafts" in the great pyramid are for? I know they aren't air shafts because neither of the 4 actually piered through to the outside. It was only in like the 1990's that they were opened up and fans were added, I think. I'm just curoius on this.

Also, how come the body of Khufu, or any body for that matter was found inside the sarcoufagus (sorry for the spelling) when that one guy from Arabia opened up the pyramid for the first time since it was sealed?

One last thing, how do you explain the picturing of Antarctica on some European maps, before it was 'discovered' in 1818?

I have some others, but do you think you could do me the favor of answering me these, becuase you sure know a hell of a lot more than I do.

[DaMan05]

ya, i only figured that out last year, it really helped me out in history class, i got an amazing mark cause of Stargate