Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#41

Post by ncmncm »

sintaxi wrote: post #39
jhgb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, the Valley of the Kings was only actively used for a comparatively short period throughout Egypt's entire history. What does it have to do with this? What do you think Egyptians did with their kings before the Valley of the Kings was established and after it ceased to be used? > First of all, nobody knows who built them, how they were built, nor why they were built. > and despite the Egyptians documenting everyth…

1) There are hundreds of Pyramids in that area. To my understanding no bodies were found in any of them. 2) Gold and copper are the metals available during Khufu's reign. Is it reasonable to you that copper (or even Iron) was used to cut granite? 3) 2.5 Million blocks were used in the construction of the Great Pyramid. Weight of blocks range from 1-10 tons each. 4) The granite for the "King's Chamber" was brought 934…

There is a fair bit of graffiti on the blocks themselves suggesting it was done on behalf of Khufu. (It would not be surprising if the King's Chamber and everything on top were Khufu's project, build over top of an older pyramid the way Mayans did.)

But the cases of the Sphinx and the Valley Temple are less persuasive. The deep tunnels, moreso.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#42

Post by wl »

sintaxi wrote: post #36
generalizations wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The official narrative that we were all taught in school of "Pyramids were built 4500 years ago as tombs by Khufu" I would say is understood to be highly inaccurate at this point by anyone outside of the Hawass circle. I never heard of that before. What is thought to be more accurate?

First of all, nobody knows who built them, how they were built, nor why they were built. We only have vague guesses at this point. No bodies were ever found in any of the Pyramids on the Giza plateau - and despite the Egyptians documenting everything, there are no claims by them that Khufu or anyone else in their documented history built the Pyramids. Pharaohs were buried in the Valley of the Kings. https://en.wikipe…

Few mummies from the Old Kingdom survive. It was probably a combination of comparatively few people being mummified in that era, the mummification process being immature and thus less effective, and extreme age allowing for more looting and decay. It's unsurprising that you wouldn't find bodies in an Old Kingdom tomb.

Tellingly, the pyramids at Giza contain the same simple, unadorned carved granite sarcophagi you find in other Old Kingdom tombs. If the pyramids weren't intended to be tombs, you need to explain why they'd place sarcophagi inside them or explain how the sarcophagi are really something else.

Kings and nobles weren't buried in the Valley of the Kings until the New Kingdom. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the Old Kingdom.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#43

Post by ncmncm »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #34
ncmncm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes the comparison pretty exact. But if you brought home any random chip of corundum and said, "look, a ruby", you might get funny looks. People can be pretty particular about their rubies and (not incidentally) sapphires.

They're only "right" in one of those cases. By definition, a ruby is red corundum, and a sapphire is corundum of any other color than red.

People do also like their rubies and sapphires transparent.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#44

Post by ncmncm »

wl wrote: post #42
sintaxi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, nobody knows who built them, how they were built, nor why they were built. We only have vague guesses at this point. No bodies were ever found in any of the Pyramids on the Giza plateau - and despite the Egyptians documenting everything, there are no claims by them that Khufu or anyone else in their documented history built the Pyramids. Pharaohs were buried in the Valley of the Kings. https://en.wikipe…

Few mummies from the Old Kingdom survive. It was probably a combination of comparatively few people being mummified in that era, the mummification process being immature and thus less effective, and extreme age allowing for more looting and decay. It's unsurprising that you wouldn't find bodies in an Old Kingdom tomb. Tellingly, the pyramids at Giza contain the same simple, unadorned carved granite sarcophagi you fin…

The Serapeum of Saqqara, 5 mi away, is full of empty stone sarcophagus-shaped boxes with 10-ton lids, not apparently looted.

They are among the mysteries that must await Hawass's retirement to explore properly. AFAIK, nobody knows when or how they were made, or moved into place.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#45

Post by sintaxi »

ncmncm wrote: post #41
sintaxi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) There are hundreds of Pyramids in that area. To my understanding no bodies were found in any of them. 2) Gold and copper are the metals available during Khufu's reign. Is it reasonable to you that copper (or even Iron) was used to cut granite? 3) 2.5 Million blocks were used in the construction of the Great Pyramid. Weight of blocks range from 1-10 tons each. 4) The granite for the "King's Chamber" was brought 934…

There is a fair bit of graffiti on the blocks themselves suggesting it was done on behalf of Khufu. (It would not be surprising if the King's Chamber and everything on top were Khufu's project, build over top of an older pyramid the way Mayans did.) But the cases of the Sphinx and the Valley Temple are less persuasive. The deep tunnels, moreso.

There does seem to be some evidence the Great Pyramid is be built on top of an older structure. However the bottom several layers are cut directly out of the bedrock which makes me hesitant on that theory since it fits so perfectly with the layers above.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#46

Post by sintaxi »

jhgb wrote: post #40
sintaxi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) There are hundreds of Pyramids in that area. To my understanding no bodies were found in any of them. 2) Gold and copper are the metals available during Khufu's reign. Is it reasonable to you that copper (or even Iron) was used to cut granite? 3) 2.5 Million blocks were used in the construction of the Great Pyramid. Weight of blocks range from 1-10 tons each. 4) The granite for the "King's Chamber" was brought 934…

I'm beginning to get serious crackpot vibes from your comments. Why is it surprising that looted tombs after thousands of years don't contain bodies? (Even though for example the presumed mummy of Djedkare Isesi was found in his pyramid, so "no bodies were found in any of them" is simply a lie.) What has gold and copper have to do with working hard stones? What is it with the Great Pyramid blocks? They are far from t…

1) Looters don't reseal pyramids.

2) Archeologists who unseal pyramids don't steal bodies and then simultaneously claim there were bodies in there. That would be self incriminating.

3) If pyramids were looted and found unsealed then the tomb theory is unsubstantiated.

4) Countless civilizations have done construction on the pyramids (including our own). Evidence of construction is not evidence of creation.

5) Copper & Brass can not reasonably be used to cut Granite. The Great Pyramid had impeccable precision. It is BY FAR the most precise Pyramid ever discovered.

6) The link you provided me is where the 200 men figure comes from.

You clearly have an interest in this topic. I suggest you do more research or if I'm wrong about something, be so kind as to provide supporting evidence with your claims.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#47

Post by wl »

ncmncm wrote: post #44
wl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few mummies from the Old Kingdom survive. It was probably a combination of comparatively few people being mummified in that era, the mummification process being immature and thus less effective, and extreme age allowing for more looting and decay. It's unsurprising that you wouldn't find bodies in an Old Kingdom tomb. Tellingly, the pyramids at Giza contain the same simple, unadorned carved granite sarcophagi you fin…

The Serapeum of Saqqara, 5 mi away, is full of empty stone sarcophagus-shaped boxes with 10-ton lids, not apparently looted. They are among the mysteries that must await Hawass's retirement to explore properly. AFAIK, nobody knows when or how they were made, or moved into place.

The Serapeum of Saqqara is a New Kingdom site at the earliest. (The name, suggesting a Greco-Roman context, is due to later activity at the site.) I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in an Old Kingdom context. And the decorated "sarcophagus-shaped boxes" are nothing like the Old Kingdom examples. For one, the empty Saqqara sarcophagi are inscribed with standard funerary texts we have no problems reading whereas the Old Kingdom examples are much more crudely constructed and entirely unadorned. It's curious the Saqqara sarcophagi are empty, but given the texts inscribed, the simplest explanation is that they just were never used.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#48

Post by ncmncm »

wl wrote: post #47
ncmncm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Serapeum of Saqqara, 5 mi away, is full of empty stone sarcophagus-shaped boxes with 10-ton lids, not apparently looted. They are among the mysteries that must await Hawass's retirement to explore properly. AFAIK, nobody knows when or how they were made, or moved into place.

The Serapeum of Saqqara is a New Kingdom site at the earliest. (The name, suggesting a Greco-Roman context, is due to later activity at the site.) I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in an Old Kingdom context. And the decorated "sarcophagus-shaped boxes" are nothing like the Old Kingdom examples. For one, the empty Saqqara sarcophagi are inscribed with standard funerary texts we have no problems reading whereas…

The inscriptions were very obviously not done in the same physical culture as produced the boxes.

The boxes are marvels that could not be produced even by the best modern stonecraft methods. The inscriptions are crude hammerings; one might equally-well equate genetic engineering with tattooing. Nobody knows how old the boxes are, or the tunnels they are in. All that is clear is that later people used the site.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#49

Post by wl »

ncmncm wrote: post #48
wl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Serapeum of Saqqara is a New Kingdom site at the earliest. (The name, suggesting a Greco-Roman context, is due to later activity at the site.) I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in an Old Kingdom context. And the decorated "sarcophagus-shaped boxes" are nothing like the Old Kingdom examples. For one, the empty Saqqara sarcophagi are inscribed with standard funerary texts we have no problems reading whereas…

The inscriptions were very obviously not done in the same physical culture as produced the boxes. The boxes are marvels that could not be produced even by the best modern stonecraft methods. The inscriptions are crude hammerings; one might equally-well equate genetic engineering with tattooing. Nobody knows how old the boxes are, or the tunnels they are in. All that is clear is that later people used the site.

I don't find your conclusion obvious. Yes, the construction seems better than older Egyptian examples. But that makes sense: the later date of construction in the Iron Age means more ubiquitous iron tools. The inscriptions don't seem crude to me. Better than the Rosetta Stone. Worse than the Stele of Thonis-Heracleion. In short: You don't give Saite-period stonemasons enough credit.

But this is a digression. You want to use the refined, elaborately decorated Saite-period empty stone sarcophagi from Saqqara to suggest that the crude, unadorned stone sarcophagi of the Old Kingdom aren't really sarcophagi and the pyramids weren't tombs. If you're going to talk about how the impossible perfection of the sarcophagi at Saqqara means the Saites didn't produce them, for the sake of argument, fine. But you can't use the same reasoning to suggest the sarcophagi in the pyramids, which are by no means "marvels" of stonecraft, come from a different culture than the Old Kingdom.

Re: Egyptologists uncover rare tombs from before the Pharaohs

#50

Post by wl »

throwaway17_17 wrote: post #13
sintaxi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Zawi Hawass retires virtually every existing Egyptology book will worth less than the paper it is printed on.

For someone who is unaware of Zawi Hawass and pretty uninformed about any serious Egyptology, can you explain what you mean. It seems a very interest topic for some medium reading while I wait in court tomorrow.

Zawi Hawass deserves a lot of criticism for being a fickle, controlling gatekeeper of archeological work in Egypt in his former role as Egyptian Minister of Antiquities. He often seems more interested in glorifying himself and promoting revenue than the scholarly exploration of the past.

That said, he no longer holds any official position with the government. The Ministry of Antiquities has continued some of his bad policy. He still probably has some influence. But the people in this thread seem more upset with his dismissal of crank theories that contradict the consensus chronology established through dendochronology, radiocarbon dating, and correlating written records. Hawass was not responsible for creating this chronology.

Post reply on HN