Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
WVK

Frequency of "A"

206 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Lord Harry
9 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

apart from the stone sarcophagus what other remains suggest that the pyramids were burial places?

Remains of mummies discovered in the Red Pyramid, the Fifth Dynasty Pyramid of Unas, the Sixth Dynasty pyramid of Djedkare Isesi. And the Pyramid Texts which were clearly magical spells intended to gain the deceased ruler access into the afterlife.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
4 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Remains of mummies discovered in the Red Pyramid, the Fifth Dynasty Pyramid of Unas, the Sixth Dynasty pyramid of Djedkare Isesi. And the Pyramid Texts which were clearly magical spells intended to gain the deceased ruler access into the afterlife.

thanks. but the pyramids at giza were the 4th dynasty and they have no magical spells on their walls, or am i mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

thanks. but the pyramids at giza were the 4th dynasty and they have no magical spells on their walls, or am i mistaken?

Not mistaken. But to deny the Giza pyramids were tombs is to ignore more than 500 years of royal mortuary architecture evolution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, Lord Harry said:

Not mistaken. But to deny the Giza pyramids were tombs is to ignore more than 500 years of royal mortuary architecture evolution.

well maybe they were meant as symbolic tombs. surely the Pharaohs would have wised up to the fact that all other pyramids were robbed and this was more of a memorial of their kingship and dynasty to survive time than a actual resting place. Herodotus mentions that they were an unpopular dynasty and much hatred by the population. the Pyramids are aligned with each other and surprisingly neither tried to out do the other. thats my theory at least.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 hour ago, WVK said:

Pointless to discuss without  acoustical study. The reason I referenced the goofy websites is because that all their is.

if the pyramids were neither tombs OR monuments to a dynasty then they would have been spiritual in nature. either a temple of a place of learning. all other options you have suggested are kooky. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Harry
9 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

well maybe they were meant as symbolic tombs. surely the Pharaohs would have wised up to the fact that all other pyramids were robbed and this was more of a memorial of their kingship and dynasty to survive time than a actual resting place. Herodotus mentions that they were an unpopular dynasty and much hatred by the population. the Pyramids are aligned with each other and surprisingly neither tried to out do the other. thats my theory at least.

 

None of the pyramids would likely have been robbed during the Old Kingdom. They would have been protected by armed necropolis guards and under the constant maintenance of the royal court. Most of the Old Kingdom pyramids were likely robbed during the First Intermediate Period which is precisely what the contemporary Inpuwer Papyrus indicates.

Edited by Lord Harry
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

None of the pyramids would likely have been robbed during the Old Kingdom. They would have been protected by armed necropolis guards and under the constant maintenance of the royal court. Most of the Old Kingdom pyramids were likely robbed during the First Intermediate Period which is precisely what the contemporary Inpuwer Papyrus indicates.

sorry mate, but i disagree. the looting of tombs was not some thing that just occurred hundreds of years latter. wars, new dynasties, economic diseases and new religions and temple strife would have made robbing the Pharaohs a necessity. there is a reason that tombs became elaborate and full of sealed and secret passengers. structures and traps were part of the design. to keep people out.  

Edited by Captain Risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
23 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

sorry mate, but i disagree. the looting of tombs was not some thing that just occurred hundreds of years latter. wars, new dynasties, economic diseases and new religions and temple strife would have made robbing the Pharaohs a necessity. there is a reason that tombs became elaborate and full of sealed and secret passengers. structures and traps were part of the design. to keep people out.  

There are no traps in Egyptian tombs. That's the stuff of Hollywood. I know that sounds kind of cheeky, but I'm being serious.

I think it was in the First Intermediate Period. Not many pyramids were made then, but some have winding, twisting corridors to try to confuse robbers. The burial chambers in some were built in such a way that the sarcophagi were cut from the living rock, and were integral to the construction; it was nearly impossible to get inside them. And in the Middle Kingdom, when pyramid building started up with enthusiasm again, some had their entrances situated completely different from tradition (this was usually on the north face); it was another ay to try to fool robbers.

And after all of that effort, robbers still almost always worked their way in. They were relentless. About the only thing that kept them out of the burial chambers were the integral sarcophagi.

But no traps.

About the best academic paper I've ever read placed the robbing of the Giza pyramids much later in history. It was a well-reasoned argument. I can't remember the details, but I believe the author placed the raiding in the Early Islamic Period.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
15 hours ago, WVK said:

Fine, I accept that. However considering that this forum is for "Discussing the mysteries of the ancient world"  what was it about the following that deserved the pile on ridicule? 

"We have very unusual acoustics reported. Assuming the report is accurate the first question is was it intentional. If not intentional, was it noticed and used in some way.  For example might Khufu have used the effects in some way to convince his subjects that he was touched by the divine? ' 

I don't mean to be so flippant. I've just grown weary of the fringe theories saying the Great Pyramid was a giant tuning fork (and related themes). First you must observe context. What in research suggests the Egyptians were into this type of accoustics? You have to study their written texts and material culture, Without a doubt we know music was essential to their religious rituals, and in fact they later developed a whole class of women who took on the roles of "chantresses." We know the instruments they used, and while we can't know exactly how their music sounded, we do have hymns and songs committed to writing. So we have all of that information, but nothing—nothing—in their history suggests an attention to accoustics like you've been telling us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

There are no traps in Egyptian tombs. That's the stuff of Hollywood. I know that sounds kind of cheeky, but I'm being serious.

I think it was in the First Intermediate Period. Not many pyramids were made then, but some have winding, twisting corridors to try to confuse robbers. The burial chambers in some were built in such a way that the sarcophagi were cut from the living rock, and were integral to the construction; it was nearly impossible to get inside them. And in the Middle Kingdom, when pyramid building started up with enthusiasm again, some had their entrances situated completely different from tradition (this was usually on the north face); it was another ay to try to fool robbers.

And after all of that effort, robbers still almost always worked their way in. They were relentless. About the only thing that kept them out of the burial chambers were the integral sarcophagi.

But no traps.

About the best academic paper I've ever read placed the robbing of the Giza pyramids much later in history. It was a well-reasoned argument. I can't remember the details, but I believe the author placed the raiding in the Early Islamic Period.

i don't think that it right, sesh. the ancient Egyptians could also have employed chemicals to guard the tombs that over time dissipated. 

Ancient Egyptian engineers would cover the tomb floors with hematite powder, a sharp metallic dust designed to cause a slow and painful death to those who inhaled enough of it. 

And that stuff has quite the shelf life: When Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Egyptian real-life Indiana Jones, entered the Bahariya Oasis tomb in 2001, his team found the sarcophagus booby trapped with 8 inches of the stuff, forcing them to abandon their expedition until they could come back with hazmat suits and respirators.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tombraider/8-tomb-raider-style-traps-that-totally-exist-in-real-life?utm_term=.uxjYxq5eo#.kmk8Pjm3e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

my understanding is that Herodotus never mentions that the pyramids were tombs. further more, Herodotus say's that Cheops and the others were buried underneath the giza plateau.

 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32417238/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/cave-complex-may-lie-beneath-giza-pyramids/#.W0FJiUyB29Y

 

Which translation of The Histories are you referring to?

The version I have - The Landmark Herodotus, edited by RB Strassler and translated by AL Purvis - says they're burial vaults in paragraph 2.124.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
35 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Which translation of The Histories are you referring to?

The version I have - The Landmark Herodotus, edited by RB Strassler and translated by AL Purvis - says they're burial vaults in paragraph 2.124.

is that all your sources say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

is that all your sources say?

What do you mean?  Though it was your understandung Herodotus never mentions pyramids are tombs.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
20 hours ago, danydandan said:

It's all apophenia man.

In that case one can only imagine the surprise when it was discovered that an end to end conversation in a normal speaking voice was possible. All the more surprising since the speakers can barely see one another (525ft). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
3 minutes ago, WVK said:

In that case one can only imagine the surprise when it was discovered that an end to end conversation in a normal speaking voice was possible. All the more surprising since the speakers can barely see one another (525ft). 

https://roundme.com/tour/1160/view/2633

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
15 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

well maybe they were meant as symbolic tombs. surely the Pharaohs would have wised up to the fact that all other pyramids were robbed and this was more of a memorial of their kingship and dynasty to survive time than a actual resting place. Herodotus mentions that they were an unpopular dynasty and much hatred by the population. the Pyramids are aligned with each other and surprisingly neither tried to out do the other. thats my theory at least.

 

Except that there's no reason for the 4th dynasty to make them cenotaphs when part of the 4th made them tombs (as did the 5th dynasty and 6th dynasty and others up until the time of Cleopatra (smaller pyramids, mind you, but pyramids.)  Their own version of cenotaphs were the mortuary temples (each pyramid has an attendant mortuary temple.)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
11 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I don't mean to be so flippant. I've just grown weary of the fringe theories saying the Great Pyramid was a giant tuning fork (and related themes). First you must observe context. What in research suggests the Egyptians were into this type of accoustics? You have to study their written texts and material culture, Without a doubt we know music was essential to their religious rituals, and in fact they later developed a whole class of women who took on the roles of "chantresses." We know the instruments they used, and while we can't know exactly how their music sounded, we do have hymns and songs committed to writing. So we have all of that information, but nothing—nothing—in their history suggests an attention to accoustics like you've been telling us.

Admitedly I'm taking a Devils advocate position on this.  I would argue that the soundscape was very different then, much quieter and simpler consisting of natural sounds. No post-industrial racket.   Also odd sounds do not surprise us ie movies sound designers can create all sorts of  unnatural sounds. We hardly notice.  A modern person exposed to the (reported) coffer acoustics might regard it as "Cool" . An engineer might find the  acoustical coupling between the coffer and the room (if that is what is going on) as interesting. 

How would such unnatural sound be preceived by an AE, for lack of a better word, initate.   But as you state there is no evidence for any of this. As I have an interest in archaelacoustics any report on unusual acoustical  phenomema gets my attention. Better to discuss the issue with experts than with fools which is why I'm here. (or Hear)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
6 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Except that there's no reason for the 4th dynasty to make them cenotaphs when part of the 4th made them tombs (as did the 5th dynasty and 6th dynasty and others up until the time of Cleopatra (smaller pyramids, mind you, but pyramids.)  Their own version of cenotaphs were the mortuary temples (each pyramid has an attendant mortuary temple.)

I don’t doubt your research but the facts are that the great pyramid shows little evidence of being a tomb. The pyramids at Giza are aligned and neither try to out compete in size, design 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
16 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

i don't think that it right, sesh. the ancient Egyptians could also have employed chemicals to guard the tombs that over time dissipated. 

You must admit, that's completely speculative and borne from your own opinion. Just because you think it doesn't make it valid. If you believe there were such chemicals (what chemicals, exactly?), you'll have to delve pretty deeply into numerous levels of real-world research to prove it. I've studied pharaonic Egypt for around thirty-five years and am not familiar, myself, with any such findings.

Quote

Ancient Egyptian engineers would cover the tomb floors with hematite powder, a sharp metallic dust designed to cause a slow and painful death to those who inhaled enough of it. 

Again, completely speculative and unevidenced. But I understand your reasoning, and if you think about it, you'll see why it would be a particularly ineffective measure. Yes, eventually these men might have succumbed to this poisoning, but even before that they would've escaped with the tomb bling. We see this with the mummified remains of stone masons. Particularly dangerous was working with granite. Analyses of their lung tissues shows a preponderance of microscopic granite fragments that they inhaled during the course of their carving. This probably resulted in a notably shortened lifespan, but it still took years to become fatal.

Quote

And that stuff has quite the shelf life: When Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Egyptian real-life Indiana Jones, entered the Bahariya Oasis tomb in 2001, his team found the sarcophagus booby trapped with 8 inches of the stuff, forcing them to abandon their expedition until they could come back with hazmat suits and respirators.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tombraider/8-tomb-raider-style-traps-that-totally-exist-in-real-life?utm_term=.uxjYxq5eo#.kmk8Pjm3e

To be honest, I don't know how seriously I would take this. Hawass always had an unusual fascination with ancient microscopic "boobytraps" (in his case especially molds and fungi). I've read the excavation reports of dozens and dozens of tombs—none of them revealed this sort of deposit inside sarcophagi. But it's not uncommon for excavators to have to wear breathing apparatuses inside freshly opened tombs, but that's usually due to bat guano, which can be highly toxic. 

What am I missing here? I didn't see the Hawass information in your link,

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
14 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Which translation of The Histories are you referring to?

The version I have - The Landmark Herodotus, edited by RB Strassler and translated by AL Purvis - says they're burial vaults in paragraph 2.124.

I haven't read The Histories in a long time. The section on Egypt is Book II, I believe. But I think Risky is on to something here. As I recall, Herodotus does intimate that Khufu is buried somewhere else (at Giza?) I really should read that section again.

This is the same mistake many posters make: thinking that because Herodotus was an old educated dude who wrote stuff a really, really long time ago, everything he wrote must be hard-core accurate. That's not a healthy way to think. Herodotus' writings are certainly worth reading, if just to see how people of late antiquity were interpreting their region's own ancient history. But anyone today who's versed in the ancient history of that region knows how wildly inaccurate Herodotus is in so many accounts. Consider that he was writing about a monument constructed over 2,000 years before his own time; he was a visitor to a land whose people spoke a language he didn't even know, so he worked through translators who were trying to relate a history that they themselves could not have well know. Try to imagine some Egyptian priest talking with Herodotus thought translators around 450 BCE and answering questions about a pyramid built around 2500 BCE. Not terribly realistic, eh?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
6 hours ago, WVK said:

Admitedly I'm taking a Devils advocate position on this.  I would argue that the soundscape was very different then, much quieter and simpler consisting of natural sounds. No post-industrial racket.   Also odd sounds do not surprise us ie movies sound designers can create all sorts of  unnatural sounds. We hardly notice.  A modern person exposed to the (reported) coffer acoustics might regard it as "Cool" . An engineer might find the  acoustical coupling between the coffer and the room (if that is what is going on) as interesting. 

How would such unnatural sound be preceived by an AE, for lack of a better word, initate.   But as you state there is no evidence for any of this. As I have an interest in archaelacoustics any report on unusual acoustical  phenomema gets my attention. Better to discuss the issue with experts than with fools which is why I'm here. (or Hear)

 

You are correct about the sounds sarcophagi can make. In our exhibit we display a large granite sarcophagus, probably dating to around Dynasty 19. It weighs around four tons and is fully inscribed on the outside. A fellow I work with in the exhibit somehow developed the odd habit of amusing children by slapping the side of the sarcophagus hard so they could hear the clear tone it rendered. Sounded almost like a soft bell. Nine times out of ten the children would start slapping it, too.

This really p***ed me off. I mean, slapping a sarcophagus that's over 3,000 years old! Many people don't understand how delicate and friable granite becomes over the millennia. I had to chew out this colleague rather sternly so he would never do it again. Worse was how the children would quickly follow his lead, as children do. Believe me, had our boss or one of the security officers caught him doing this, he most likely would've been fired.

Don't mistreat the monuments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I haven't read The Histories in a long time. The section on Egypt is Book II, I believe. But I think Risky is on to something here. As I recall, Herodotus does intimate that Khufu is buried somewhere else (at Giza?) I really should read that section again.

This is the same mistake many posters make: thinking that because Herodotus was an old educated dude who wrote stuff a really, really long time ago, everything he wrote must be hard-core accurate. That's not a healthy way to think. Herodotus' writings are certainly worth reading, if just to see how people of late antiquity were interpreting their region's own ancient history. But anyone today who's versed in the ancient history of that region knows how wildly inaccurate Herodotus is in so many accounts. Consider that he was writing about a monument constructed over 2,000 years before his own time; he was a visitor to a land whose people spoke a language he didn't even know, so he worked through translators who were trying to relate a history that they themselves could not have well know. Try to imagine some Egyptian priest talking with Herodotus thought translators around 450 BCE and answering questions about a pyramid built around 2500 BCE. Not terribly realistic, eh?

Yes.  You what you say is reflected in the appendix to book two; what's right and wrong with Herodotus' Egypt.

Here's an online version.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#link22H_4_0001

Para 2.127 speaks of Cheops' successor and burial. Now, I only picked up the copy, I was gifted, to confirm what @Captain Risky said. I have questions about Herodotus' description of what oid within the Pyramid but I think he says Cheops is buried there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
47 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Yes.  You what you say is reflected in the appendix to book two; what's right and wrong with Herodotus' Egypt.

Here's an online version.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#link22H_4_0001

Para 2.127 speaks of Cheops' successor and burial. Now, I only picked up the copy, I was gifted, to confirm what @Captain Risky said. I have questions about Herodotus' description of what oid within the Pyramid but I think he says Cheops is buried there. 

@Golden Duck please by all means put up a quote from your favourite Herodotus translation and let’s read all of it and see whether any differences in the translations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
26 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

@Golden Duck please by all means put up a quote from your favourite Herodotus translation and let’s read all of it and see whether any differences in the translations.

That sounds like a pretty good idea, but I would suggest starting a new thread about that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
Just now, Captain Risky said:

@Golden Duck please by all means put up a quote from your favourite Herodotus translation and let’s read all of it and see whether any differences in the translations.

 

I don't have a favourite. But, I did give a link to an online version. And, I identified the paragraph by number. 

I gave the details of the copy I have at home. 

Most of my posts here are by phone. If you really want me to copy the quotes here, can it wait until I get home? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.