Dendera lamp idea

[unwashedmasses]

Hey guys,

As we all know, the Dendera "lamps" are an object of much controversy. Anyways, I think I might have come across a possible way they may have worked. Might be a bit of a stretch, but who knows?

http://www.wisebread.com/how-to-turn-a- ... -lightbulb

If I understand this right, they take empty soda bottles, fill them with clear water and bleach, then mount them in the cieling with the cap end exposed to the outside, and sunlight gets projected inside the bottle, acting as a light, and it makes an equivalent to 50 watts!

Now if we extend the cap end of the bottle with a hose of some sort (stem of the lotus flower) and expose the end to sunlight outside (think similar principle as fiber optics) and I think we might have a portable lighting solution for working around in the pyramids and other dark places. And Egypt certainly has no shortage of sunshine. This would explain the apparent lack of an electrical power source and lack of soot, etc.

Still doesn't explain the Djed pillar with the arms or the snake "filament" but I think this would explain why no electrical power sources have been discovered in the area that I'm aware of (there were the baghdad batteries, but I don't think anything like that has been found in Egypt).

I think this is a possible alternative to the electric lamp idea. I'm not saying I don't think electricity is a possibility, but we have to remain open to all possible solutions.

What do you guys think?

[Moon]

I have seen a few websites and areas where they made a working Dendera Lamp. I can't remember them now, but I think you got it right. The lotus flower explanation is a nice way to ignore the ideas that the Egyptians were much more advanced than previously thought.

[Hearte]

I have seen a few websites and areas where they made a working Dendera Lamp. I can't remember them now, but I think you got it right. The lotus flower explanation is a nice way to ignore the ideas that the Egyptians were much more advanced than previously thought.

Especially if you ignore the inscriptions the Egyptians carved on the walls right next to these pictures explaining they are lotus bulbs.

Of course, they were Egyptian. What did they know?

Hearte

[Moon]

Especially if you ignore the inscriptions the Egyptians carved on the walls right next to these pictures explaining they are lotus bulbs.

Of course, they were Egyptian. What did they know?

Hearte

The possibility of the Dendera drawings are lamps is just an idea. This is a forum where we discuss such ideas with open minds. I have seen where some have made working lights from the drawings shown. That does not mean the Dendera inscription was a lamp, but there is a possibility the Ancient Egyptians had them.

When someone comes to a site that is about alternative ideas, they should expect some threads that deal with common subjects, but with a twist like the Dendera lotus bulb possibly being a light bulb.

Also, it is good to use a more civil tone in this forum. It is appreciated by the members here. If you have any questions, you can pm me or any of the moderators. Thank you.

[lunarwing]

If the "bulbs" were the only technical looking glyphs illustrated on the Egyptian temples.... one could assume they were an anomaly.... but we have to take in the other technical looking glyphs throughout the temples as a whole. There are those glyphs that really do look like a depiction of a submarine, a helocopter, and other advanced looking mechanical devices. Taking all the "technical glyphs" a whole... it is obvious to anyone with a IQ that there is something more going on here than just pretty pictures on a wall.

[nippur10]

Good post! I truly believe that the ancient egyptians were trying to depict what they saw while running what they saw through their limited technological perception. Also, it may be posible that the "gods" left depctions that could be interpreted in any stage of human development. I'm in favor of the latter. Also why at Dendera? Was there something "humanly" special about Dendera?

[Hearte]

The temple at Dendera isn't all that "ancient."

It was erected under the Ptolemaic kings. These were the kings put in place by Alexander the Great after his conquest of Egypt.

The conquest was in 332 BC. The temple of Hathor at Dendera, with the lotus bulb depictions, was built sometime during the later years of Greek rule in Egypt (called the Ptolemaic Period.) Likely around the beginning of the new Millenium ("0" BC.)

Harte

[upperworld]

The temple at Dendera isn't all that "ancient."

It was erected under the Ptolemaic kings. These were the kings put in place by Alexander the Great after his conquest of Egypt.

The conquest was in 332 BC. The temple of Hathor at Dendera, with the lotus bulb depictions, was built sometime during the later years of Greek rule in Egypt (called the Ptolemaic Period.) Likely around the beginning of the new Millenium ("0" BC.)

Harte

Assuming your dates are correct (i'm too busy at work to check) this is still an incredible feat considering it beats modern electricity by almost 2,000 years. In addition, they Dendera depictions could have been documenting technology that came before, previously kept alive by stories, in an effort to preserve it (for people like us to decipher). If that is the case it could be far older than 2,000 years. Either way i consider it "ancient technology" and not to be taken lightly.

[Hearte]

Assuming your dates are correct (i'm too busy at work to check) this is still an incredible feat considering it beats modern electricity by almost 2,000 years. In addition, they Dendera depictions could have been documenting technology that came before, previously kept alive by stories, in an effort to preserve it (for people like us to decipher). If that is the case it could be far older than 2,000 years. Either way i consider it "ancient technology" and not to be taken lightly.

It shouldn't be taken lightly, true. But it should be taken along with the writing right there on the wall next to the depictions.

This writing was put there by the Egyptians when they did the artwork. It states clearly what the pictures show, and it ain't lightbulbs.

I believe John Anthony West has commented on these writings. Have you ever heard of him?

Harte

[upperworld]

Assuming your dates are correct (i'm too busy at work to check) this is still an incredible feat considering it beats modern electricity by almost 2,000 years. In addition, they Dendera depictions could have been documenting technology that came before, previously kept alive by stories, in an effort to preserve it (for people like us to decipher). If that is the case it could be far older than 2,000 years. Either way i consider it "ancient technology" and not to be taken lightly.

It shouldn't be taken lightly, true. But it should be taken along with the writing right there on the wall next to the depictions.

This writing was put there by the Egyptians when they did the artwork. It states clearly what the pictures show, and it ain't lightbulbs.

I believe John Anthony West has commented on these writings. Have you ever heard of him?

Harte

Yes i have heard of him and he did not comment on the writings. He commented on the reliefs. This was his opinion/interpretation :

"There is no reason to ascribe fantastic meanings, such as electric light bulbs, to the reliefs in the Dendera temple. Such an interpretation would be especially suspect in the absence of any associated artifacts or supporting technology, such as wires or power supplies." John Anthony West-The Travelers Key to Ancient Egypt

He is of course entitled to his opinion just the same as the rest of us.

[Hearte]

Assuming your dates are correct (i'm too busy at work to check) this is still an incredible feat considering it beats modern electricity by almost 2,000 years. In addition, they Dendera depictions could have been documenting technology that came before, previously kept alive by stories, in an effort to preserve it (for people like us to decipher). If that is the case it could be far older than 2,000 years. Either way i consider it "ancient technology" and not to be taken lightly.

It shouldn't be taken lightly, true. But it should be taken along with the writing right there on the wall next to the depictions.

This writing was put there by the Egyptians when they did the artwork. It states clearly what the pictures show, and it ain't lightbulbs.

I believe John Anthony West has commented on these writings. Have you ever heard of him?

Harte

Yes i have heard of him and he did not comment on the writings. He commented on the reliefs. This was his opinion/interpretation :

"There is no reason to ascribe fantastic meanings, such as electric light bulbs, to the reliefs in the Dendera temple. Such an interpretation would be especially suspect in the absence of any associated artifacts or supporting technology, such as wires or power supplies." John Anthony West-The Travelers Key to Ancient Egypt

He is of course entitled to his opinion just the same as the rest of us.

John Anthony West, in his book "The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt:"

The splendid but enigmatic reliefs of the crypt are cosmogonical and depict the serpent (dualizing principle underlying all creation: In Genesis the separation of heaven and earth) borne aloft by the lotus, the symbol of creation as a manifestation of consciousness.

Page 402

He was commenting on the writings carved right there on the wall next to the artwork.

Hearte

[upperworld]

John Anthony West, in his book "The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt:"

The splendid but enigmatic reliefs of the crypt are cosmogonical and depict the serpent (dualizing principle underlying all creation: In Genesis the separation of heaven and earth) borne aloft by the lotus, the symbol of creation as a manifestation of consciousness.

Page 402

He was commenting on the writings carved right there on the wall next to the artwork.

Hearte

He may be dead on accurate as to what the glyphs read but from that text there is much to interpret. It just depends on how you wish to interpret it, in association with related reliefs. For instance, let's pretend it was in fact a giant lightbulb, and the technology was from generations before and passed down by spoken word. Now here in this temple they are going to draw it and give some sort of explanation to the picture based on second hand information. How would they explain technology they didn't understand, or even see first hand?

It is unlikely the glyphs would have read "Here is a picture of an ancient light bulb, note the filament inside of the glass encasement."

They had to explain what they could with whatever frame of reference they had. To them unexplained technology is comsic, magical, and of the gods. So it is not unlikely that they would have described them as such.

I'm not stating that i know for a fact they are indeed light bulbs, i'm no more sure of that then anyone else. I'm not discounting it either based on John Anthony West's opinion.

[Hearte]

I'm not stating that i know for a fact they are indeed light bulbs, i'm no more sure of that then anyone else. I'm not discounting it either based on John Anthony West's opinion.

That seems like a reasonable argument to me.

Here's what a lotus bulb looks like - I don't know this particular variety:


Hearte

[nippur10]

All of us have to be careful in assigning a date to any of the "temples" or any other architecture. I know; I have a B.A. in Architectural History and have seen, in all too many instances, dates assigned and then reassigned. Just because there is any writing of a period does not mean that a "temple" or pyramid was constructed during that time. The pyramid of Snefru has no writing whatsoever. The Egyptologists assigned it to Snefru because his name appears in the mastabas of his concubines nearby. Ditto with the Great Pyramids. The "temples" along the Nile show stone construction beyond the sophitication of the Greeks or the Romans. The "temples" are a problem to be solved by geologists and construction engineers. The Egyptologists are probably the least qualified in those areas. Let's all be patient and commit to more study.

[Bob137]

If it looks like a monkey, and smells like a monkey, then it probably is a monkey! If it looks like a light bulb, etc.. I believe it is a light bulb, if it isn't, then maybe it is one of those pod thingy's coming out of the lotus flower, you know like the ones from old sci fi movies. Wrong, it is obviously a light bulb! A very large light bulb, but a light bulb! That for the protrusion of the lotus flower to simply be the smell, is illogical in my book, yu cannot see a smell! A snale maybe, but not a smell!

[Hearte]

So, you're saying that, to you, it doesn't look like a lotus bulb?

Hearte

[Bob137]

No, I am stating the obvious, it looks just like a light bulb. flowers do not have a globe around them! Anyway, none that I have ever seen, and certainly not lotus's! go to the Fiction Writer's Corner, and then the Sky People Comic Strip, it will have a lead to my Comic Strip on Face Book, I have a drawing on the first page of the Lamp, of what I think of it!

[ilacewords]

Here's what a lotus bulb looks like - I don't know this particular variety:


Hearte

I would like to know if you can find out. When I google for images, I come up with nothing that looks like this. I'd be very interested in looking into this further if you can provide. Thanks!

[Bob137]

Now we just got to find a giant one, like one that is depicted, and dissect it, to see if their is an electric eel inside it!

[upperworld]

Now we just got to find a giant one, like one that is depicted, and dissect it, to see if their is an electric eel inside it!

Lol

[Serene]

Now we just got to find a giant one, like one that is depicted, and dissect it, to see if their is an electric eel inside it!

[Hearte]

I would like to know if you can find out. When I google for images, I come up with nothing that looks like this. I'd be very interested in looking into this further if you can provide. Thanks!

Maybe you didn';t know you can "right click" the pic with your mouse and get a menu. At the bottom is "properties."
Click on that and you get this:
http://marionr.smugmug.com/photos/7529438-L.jpg

Sorry I didn't link to the photo. I realize it's hard to find a pic of a lotus bulb online.

Note, this is the bulb. A bulb is the root, not the flower.

I'll hunt for the website later, if it's not the one shown above.

Hearte

[ilacewords]

I would like to know if you can find out. When I google for images, I come up with nothing that looks like this. I'd be very interested in looking into this further if you can provide. Thanks!

Maybe you didn';t know you can "right click" the pic with your mouse and get a menu. At the bottom is "properties."
Click on that and you get this:
http://marionr.smugmug.com/photos/7529438-L.jpg

Sorry I didn't link to the photo. I realize it's hard to find a pic of a lotus bulb online.

Note, this is the bulb. A bulb is the root, not the flower.

I'll hunt for the website later, if it's not the one shown above.

Hearte

Thanks for that, but I was looking really for the type of lotus flower it is, not where the picture is stored on the internet. I tried that and went to the base of the site http://marionr.smugmug.com and it's just a place people house pictures....so if you could find out the type that would be great as nothing I search for on the internet for lotus flower or lotus bulb looks anything like this picture you presented.

[Hearte]

Thanks for that, but I was looking really for the type of lotus flower it is, not where the picture is stored on the internet. I tried that and went to the base of the site http://marionr.smugmug.com and it's just a place people house pictures....so if you could find out the type that would be great as nothing I search for on the internet for lotus flower or lotus bulb looks anything like this picture you presented.

The pic came from Here: http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/bog/msg08085104743.html

Like I said, I don't know the variety.

Here's another one:

Source: http://www.bonniesplants.com/lotus/dividing_tubers/planting_lotus_tubers.htm

Hearte

[ilacewords]

Thanks for that, but I was looking really for the type of lotus flower it is, not where the picture is stored on the internet. I tried that and went to the base of the site http://marionr.smugmug.com and it's just a place people house pictures....so if you could find out the type that would be great as nothing I search for on the internet for lotus flower or lotus bulb looks anything like this picture you presented.

The pic came from Here: http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/bog/msg08085104743.html

Like I said, I don't know the variety.

Here's another one:

Source: http://www.bonniesplants.com/lotus/dividing_tubers/planting_lotus_tubers.htm

Hearte

Hmmm...that site you referenced above is a site that doesn't know what it is either...so that being said, I cannot assume that this is indeed a lotus bulb as all others that I have found online look vastly different. Not sure why you would have assumed it was as they are clearly unsure about it on the page you referenced as your proof of the lotus bulb.

The second site from bonniesplants lists others that they say, and I'm quoting them 'picture above shows what a lotus tuber might look like'...and they are sort of similar but I think there's enough differences to make them two seperate things entirely.

I will try searching online for 'lotus tuber' and see if that helps my search find others that look the same but I'm having no such luck so far.

[Hearte]

Hmmm...that site you referenced above is a site that doesn't know what it is either...so that being said, I cannot assume that this is indeed a lotus bulb as all others that I have found online look vastly different. Not sure why you would have assumed it was as they are clearly unsure about it on the page you referenced as your proof of the lotus bulb.

"Clearly unsure?"
From the site:

Looks like a lotus tuber to me, if it isn't damaged you can put it in a pot without drainage and add an inch of water over the top of the soil and it should do ok

The pic came from a person contacting that forum asking if it was a lotus tuber. Because tubers from different plants can look similar, nobody can say with certainty that something is a lotus tuber from a picuture alone. It could be from a lily.

The second site from bonniesplants lists others that they say, and I'm quoting them 'picture above shows what a lotus tuber might look like'...and they are sort of similar but I think there's enough differences to make them two seperate things entirely.

You claim to be "quoting them," but the words you put in quotation marks do not appear on the page I linked.

On a seperate page, the site shows three different lotus varieties and what they "might look like" when they come in the mail. That page is here:
http://www.bonniesplants.com/lotus/lotus/mailed_lotus.htm

In other words, you've quoted the site out of context, no doubt to buttress some strange position that the Egyptians couldn't have known what lotus tubers look like, or that lotus tubers might not look like what the Egyptians depicted them as.

Can anyone here see the utter emptiness of this position?

The page I linked says this:

Please handle your Lotus tuber carefully, as they are fragile and can be easily damaged. The first thing we do is turn over the pot of Lotus over after the Lotus has gone dormant.
SNIP
This will allow you to see what is what. There are 2 main parts that you will see a runner and a tuber. Runners can turn into tubers but it is best to start with a tuber. Runners are long and thin. Tubers will have a growing tip that is pointed.

The second part of the above quote is the actual caption under the pic I posted.

Has it gotten so bad that people have to actually manipulate and misrepresent quotes in order to maintain an untenable idea?

I will try searching online for 'lotus tuber' and see if that helps my search find others that look the same but I'm having no such luck so far.

If you are so in need of absolute proof of what a lotus tuber looks like, I suggest you visit a nursery - particularly one that features water gardening supplies and plants. There are many varieties of lotus, various colors and shapes of tubers (and, of course, blossoms.) A few are shaped exactly like the ones in the temple at Dendera, as I have certainly shown here in this thread (whether you or anyone else wants to believe it.)

Hearte

[ilacewords]

The second site from bonniesplants lists others that they say, and I'm quoting them 'picture above shows what a lotus tuber might look like'...and they are sort of similar but I think there's enough differences to make them two seperate things entirely.

You claim to be "quoting them," but the words you put in quotation marks do not appear on the page I linked.


Hearte

Hover over the actual picture on the bonniesplant site, and that's what the picture discription will say! I am not misquoting.

You yourself say you don't even know what they are yet you present that they are so. I should not need to go to a nursery to find out that you don't know what they are either when you admit it.

In addition these tubers are way too small to be the same thing that is represented in the ancient drawings/heiroglyphs because what it there and being represented - is supposed to be way larger than 2 to 3 inches.

Lastly - here are the quotes from the page in it's entirety:

Is this a lotus bulb?
I retired a little bog garden in my backyard and found this about 3" long bulb. I remember the previous owner telling me there is a lotus among the cattail, but I've never seen in the past 1 1/2 years. If this is indeed the lotus, what can I do to save it now? I have a small pond (one of those plastic shells), but it is pretty much covered with water hyacinth. Thanks

And the one comment/answer to the person asking is this:
Posted by fredsbog z5/6 NE Ohio (fbess7600@msn.com) on Tue, Aug 24, 04 at 22:06
Looks like a lotus tuber to me, if it isn't damaged you can put it in a pot without drainage and add an inch of water over the top of the soil and it should do ok. They can be rather touchy if they've been damaged. They apparently don't like to be disturbed.
end quote-

That in my opinion is not an answer either because they aren't sure either. If in fact it is a lotus tuber as the original poster is not sure of, the person that answered isn't sure of, and you are not sure of, then it's not for sure, is it?

And that is my point.

Other than that... I've still no luck on finding anything that resembles the picture you present certainly labeled as a lotus tuber. Nor any lotus tuber large enough to represent what we are talking about. I'm only seeing pictures you are presenting that do nothing more than muddy this topic.

[upperworld]

Hearte i'm not denying the dendera relief looks like a lotus bulb. I'm not even wondering why it takes several people to hold it up or why the "root" end of the bulb appears to be attached to some other device like a power cable would be. The part of the relief that raises questions for me is on the right side under the head of the second "lotus bulb", the arms connecting to a coil anchored in the ground. That looks far too much like misrepresented technology as opposed to a metaphysical lotus bulb representing spiritual awakening.

[Bob137]

Not only is the object large, but look at the sizes of the two small people compared to the one holding the object, (Dendera Lamp), the guy holding it, is huge in proportion to the other people! A giant in the temples? We have no proof of giant's either, but does not mean they did not exist! I also searched the internet for this Lotus flower, tube, etc.. nothing anywhere close, and I only found the same information previously stated, that no one knows for sure, because they are only 2 to 3 inches compared to the object or Dendera lamp! Maybe they had giant people and giant lotus flowers back then, if so where is the proof? If there was a lotus bulb (tube as such as this and that big, it would have been all over the web by now, but so far nothing! I looked in a encyclopedia and nothing under Lotus Tubes!
also since I am an artist, it is obvious to me, what the artist was depicting in the carving. I guess that is crazy thinking, that would be like a scientist doing research work and completing his research, and expecting another scientist to understand it!

[Hearte]

Hearte i'm not denying the dendera relief looks like a lotus bulb. I'm not even wondering why it takes several people to hold it up or why the "root" end of the bulb appears to be attached to some other device like a power cable would be. The part of the relief that raises questions for me is on the right side under the head of the second "lotus bulb", the arms connecting to a coil anchored in the ground. That looks far too much like misrepresented technology as opposed to a metaphysical lotus bulb representing spiritual awakening.

The bulb is braced on the "root" end by a lotus blossom. On the other end, it is held up by a djed.

The djed pillar is a very common symbol for stability and can be seen throughout Ancient Egyptian artwork holding stuff up.

It is theorized that the djed is based on the spine of Osiris, who was chopped into several pieces by Set (IIRC) in the mythos of Ancient Egypt.

The "power cord" is actually the back end of a barge that the whole thing is floating on. Egyptian river barges often had stylized lotus blossoms decorating the back prows.

I should say that this is the Greek version of this depiction of the god Harsomtus and his two "kas." (The two smaller figures under the lamp in one of the pictures, I believe. Also - a "ka" is the worldly form of the god.) The snake/bulb is the "perfection" of Harsomtus, his soul, if you will, though they didn't think of it the way we do.

Harsomtus is seen near the "root" end in his godly form.

The Egyptian version of this depiction of the "perfection" Harsomtus is:



Hearte

[Vance]

Hearte,

You should have probably mentioned that the origins and use of the djed pillar is still an ongoing debate, as there are many theories postulated across the interwebz.

Saying "The djed pillar is" is a mistake. Starting off with "It is possible that" would have been better, for accuracy's sake and for the people on this forum who are not yet informed.

Also I think it should be a general rule that nobody here should quote from Wikipedia.

[Hearte]

I don't see any problem with quoting from wiki, depending of course on what you're quoting.

For example, wiki is as good a source as any for well-known facts like where a country is, who first dug up Troy, what a particular ancient myth is about, etc.

Did I quote from wiki?

You're aware that wiki is edited on a continuing basis. A recent bogus entry posted there was corrected within half an hour.

Also, the djed pillar is considered to be a symbol of stability. As far as what it actually is supposed to be (that is, where the iconography actually comes from,) I did say "it is theorized."

Other theories vary. Another one is that it is the spine of a bull.

Hearte

[Vance]

I didn't say you had; I was saying that to all members here. There are some pretty erroneous "facts" out there.

Thank you for correcting the djed comment; "considered" but not 100% proven (kind of how you made it seem) is alot better.

[Hearte]

I should add that Harsomtus is the Greek form of Horus. The name of Harsomtus appears in the texts associated with these frescoes (on the walls near the artwork) in that room of the Dendera temple complex. This is because, as I indicated, this temple was erected by order of the Greek King of Egypt at that time (Ptolemaic period.)

Hearte

[Vance]

That would make sense, seeing as how it was built in the times of the Diadochi. Do you have a source to that?

Also, isn't the Ptolemaic site built on top of a much, much older site? Several thousand years older, if I remember right.