DENDERA ANALYSIS

The Dendera “lighting” hieroglyphs, see below, are another example of the attitudes surrounding puzzling archaeological finds. The hieroglyphs were of course known for a long time in archaeological circles, but only when technologically minded people in the modern era came across them, an alternative interpretation came into view, being that the images displayed some kind of lighting device. This interpretation was quickly seized upon by the fantasists, and seen as a proof of technological capabilities stemming from extraterrestrials or an unknown civilization.
 

To underline their point, the fantasists supplemented the lighting interpretation with all kind of arguments, like that it explained the fact that the builders of pyramids and underground structures could have worked in what otherwise would be the dark. The regular explanation that the builders used familiar lighting techniques like burning oil, candles, or the like, wasn’t possible, they purported, because the soot associated with this kind of lighting wasn’t present.

The sceptics have gone thoroughly through these arguments, proving them largely incorrect, at least to their own satisfaction, and they consider the entire Dendera case closed, see here.

A scientific analysis of the discussion around the lighting interpretation would agree with the arguments of the sceptics. The images have some likeness with present day lighting technology, however the arguments the proponents use, like pointing to the similarity between the snakes on the objects and the lightning symbol used nowadays to denote electric equipment, is poor.

However, what the skepticists have refuted is the lighting interpretation, but not the technological interpretation. Any technologically educated mind, sceptical or not, immediately sees the arguments for a technological interpretation: firstly, the way the bulb-like object is held by the man is very similar to the combination of ‘equipment’ and ‘operator’. Secondly: there are two objects: the bulb and the box, which are clearly connected by a third object, something resembling a tube, wire, or a similar structure. This suggests a functional relation between these objects, and thereby an overall purpose. The possibility of an overall purpose is enhanced by the ape-like figure with the knives which, according to Egyptologists, denotes danger. They also say that the relative size of the parts in such images denotes their importance, and the large size of the ape thereby denotes a great danger.

The arguments against drawing more definite conclusions from these clear impressions are that the images are singular in nature, with no similar ones found at other places, and secondly that no images have been found that point to related technology, as one would expect. For example: would an electric lighting explanation be true, one would expect to see other electric equipment depicted somewhere.

However, these arguments also have a counter argument. The Egyptian museums also hold a large number of artefacts like bowls and vases, made from the hardest kinds of stone like diorite and alabaster, and made to a high degree of precision, see here. Clearly their manufacture was an object of pride to those who made them, and rightly so, because with our present day technology we would have a hard time copying them (stone, being very brittle, is notoriously hard to work upon with our regular mechanical tools). Yet no single image of this method of manufacture is known.

So where the ancient Egyptians did not depict their manufacture of prized stone artefacts, they might also not depict other technological capabilities like electric lighting.

This last remark does not mean that electric lighting is the most plausible technological explanation of the Dendera images. Where it would seem so on first impression, further analysis makes other explanations more probable. For example: taking the danger symbol at face value, it would be a very clumsy method of lighting if it would pose such a great danger. Secondly, lighting is hardly the most the essential application of electricity, there being viable alternatives. This goes in conjunction with the argument that a rare depiction of technology is expected to be an important one.

As far as the facts are concerned, this is where the matter rests. A technological explanation is possible, but far from a certainty, that is: probably fifty-fifty at most. The kind of possible technology is an even wilder speculation, at least in this context. In a wider context it is possible to say something, but this will be done elsewhere.