Fresh Batch #161: Unravelling the Mummification of History

Exposing the Fake Cadaver Drawn from Prophetic Books of the Bible

Thomas Joseph Pettigrew wrote (History of Egyptian Mummies, p. xvi.), “For the convenience of accommodating a few friends whom I had invited to witness the interesting exhibition of bringing to light the form which had been hidden for perhaps two or three thousand years, I undertook the task at the Charing Cross Hospital on the 6th of April, 1833, in the presence of Prince Cimitile, Viscount Boringdon, Lord Hotham, Lord Henley, Sir Henry Halford, Bart., Sir David Barry, Drs. Shearman, Copland, Sayer, Crawford, Richardson, Elliotson, Clutterbuck, Golding, &c., Messrs. Barrow, Lockhart, Gage, Hawkins, Barnwell, II. Bosanquet, L. II. Petit, Cabbell, Ottley, Douce, Delafield, Lemon, Westmacott, Howard, &c. &c. The more immediate envelopes of the mummy, as I have stated, alone remained; I was therefore unable to observe those peculiarities in the mode of bandaging which have been noticed by M. Jomard, Dr. Granville, and some other writers. It was a task of no little difficulty, and required considerable force to separate the layers of bandage from the body. These consisted of envelopes of cloth extending from the head of the feet, under the soles of which they were wrapped up, and there presented a fringed appearance. Between the cloths, a quantity of pitchy matter had been applied in a heated state, so that it was impossible to separate them from each other, and levers were absolutely necessary to raise the bandages, and develop the body. This, however, was most effectively and perfectly done—the feet were first made out, the soles of which were perfectly soft and yielded to the impression of my nails. The nails of the toes were all entire, and the upper surfaces of the feet were found to have been gilt—the same occurred on the legs, thighs, abdomen, chest, and head. The specimen was ascertained to be that of a male, and from its appearance rather of an advanced age—the beard was perfect and full, the hairs being about half an inch in length. It was of a reddish-brown colour, and similar in appearance to their hair of the head, which was scanty in quantity. The colour of the whole body was of a brownish black, and on various places it could be perceived that a quantity of resinous varnish had been smeared and applied while hot.”

Again(Ib. p. xx.), “After the preceding pages of this introduction had been committed to the press, I received an obliging invitation to attend the unrolling of a male Egyptian mummy in the Museum of the London University, to which collection it was presented by James Morrison, Esq., M. P. The body had not been embalmed in the best manner, but sufficient attention had been paid to its preservation to display the form and features of the individual. According to the hieroglyphics on and within the case in which it was contained, it appears to have been the mummy of Kannopos or Cannopus, the son of Osiri-Pasht, and Tatiosiri or Tattiosiri or Tattosiri.”

Canopus is significant to the constellation Argos, so without any interpretation at all we see astrotheology encoded. Not only that, Osiri is linked to Osiris and O’Sirius, or O’Ceres, which may be a play on Sirius, the Dog-Star, and Ceres, the goddess of the grain (Virgo, and the sun in that sign), both Greek and Latin-based, which betrays youth rather than antiquity. Tati-Osiri, while anecdotal, looks like Thoth-Osiris (Thoth is pronounced Tot, a deity used by Roman Gauls and other Celts), and if you recall my work on Asiatic studies in the Spirit Whirled series, Tat is another name for Buddha. The Dog-Star is likely linked to Anubis, given that noub signifies gold, and, in a Greek context, Anoub-is, would signify without gold, or in other words, the absence of sunlight, because this is indicative of the winter half of the zodiac when Sirius is best viewed.

He continued (Ib.), “The name Cannopus has no relation to the word noub (gold), but is taken from the word canop, which appears to signify strength or power, victory, or something of similar import, being among the beneficent gifts of the gods to the kings mentioned in the hieroglyphics: nor is this name Canopus related to the city of that name in the Delta. The bandages of the mummy were in good preservation; but presented nothing remarkable, with the exception of the name of the individual, which was repeated in five or six places in various ways, and giving a date of the seventeenth year; but the application of this, either to the age of the individual embalmed, or to the sovereign during whose reign he lived, is uncertain; the latter conjecture I believe to be the most probable. No cartouche to show under what dynasty the Egyptian had his existence appears upon the case to guid us in the enquiry. One of the names on the bandages was written Kannop, on another Knnp, and on another Knps or Kanopos (the final s is the Greek termination), followed by the figure of a man. This mode of abbreviating the name agrees with that noticed on the bandages of the mummy of Horseisi, and appears to me to prove very satisfactorily the stages of the preparation of the mummy.”

So if one portion of the name conforms to Greek, doesn’t that demonstrate it is of a Greek era, even if authentic? Might it open the door to being criticized as an example of Greek mythological imperialism?

G. W. Prothero the editor of Universal History, by Leopold von Ranke, wrote (p. vi), “In the transliteration of Greek names it is very difficult, if not impossible, to be quite consistent; and I do not pretend to have solved the problem. The most important departure from the Greek is caused by the substitution of the Latin C for the Greek K.”

This obfuscation, which I suspect is product of the Middle Ages, people who had nothing to do with the ancient Latin speakers, is especially accented by Biblical accounts. How many times have you heard names like Cyrus or Cyprus, where the C is pronounced like S instead of K? These details correspond to Slavic-Byzantine Greek, not the ancient cultures that would’ve spoken these languages.

Ranke wrote in his preface (Ib. p. ix, translated), “History cannot discuss the origin of society, for the art of writing, which is the basis of historical knowledge, is a comparatively late invention. The earth had become habitable and was inhabited, nations had arisen and international connexions had been formed, and the elements of civilisation had appeared, while that art was still unknown. The province of History is limited by the means at her command, and the historian would be overbold who should venture to unveil the mystery of the primeval world, the relation of mankind to God and nature.”

Yet, the study of the mapping out of language, a priestly invention, and as Ranke described it, a comparatively late invention, debunks the majority of significant history the “civilized” world is taught, especially the chronological order and the direction in which cultural diffusion occurred. For those interested in these subjects, and who are new here, invest in yourself with the Spirit Whirled series and The Real Universal Empire. There is no point in being here or delving into these subjects if you have not made your way through all of them. One cannot know that the cadaver of history is fake if he is not willing to first open the sarcophagus and undress it. Only then will he see how modern it is and how easy it was to fake. These types of articles should not be consumed as entertainment, and that warning is for your own good: save yourself the time. It’d be akin to watching workout videos but never going to the gym to lift weights and get the results for yourself.

Many of you, who haven’t gone through these books, suffer from the effects of religion, just like the historians of the last few centuries. Ranke described this (Ib. pp. x, xi.), “The historians of by-gone days were satisfied with conception of the four great empires of the world, drawn from the prophetic books of the Bible. As late as the seventeenth century this conception prevailed, but in the eighteenth it was upset by the general progress of civilisation.”

Scholars didn’t use BCE (Before the Common Era) to substitute BC (Before Christ) because they had an aversion to Christianity or an anti-Christian worldview. There is nothing to corroborate the existence of Jesus Christ in the alleged first century AD. There is nothing to suggest his existence during the era where it matters, and he shows up as a work of fiction far after the time he is claimed to have existed. So dating an era under the title Before Christ is problematic for serious scholars who have reputations to maintain. My work excels because I stand on the shoulders of those learned men of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, who departed from religious beliefs and allowed the evidence to guide them.

Become a member to access the rest of this article.