me to, sadly going to be for paying customers only in the future so this will be the last one for me. happens to alot of channels it seems, getting alot of video recomendations that i then need to pay to view so in the end i just unsubscribe to the chanel all together, a sad development indeed.
@@totobeni I'm sorry to hear this. Please bear in mind that this - creating presentations and delivering lectures - is how I, and no doubt lots of others here on RUclips, make a living. It's not a great living but combined with other things - writing, TV, tours to Egypt and charity work in my case - earning money from RUclips helps me to continue to doing Egyptology professionally. There is a lot of free content on this channel which I gave up countless hours of my time to create. Having initially asked for payment for most of these lectures via Zoom registration fees (I only subsequently made the recordings available for free via RUclips after hundreds of people had already paid for them!) I am now experimenting to see if asking for subscription fees via RUclips is a better solution all round. If it isn't, I'll find another way - which I will have to do because I need to pay the bills. Thanks for watching up to now!
@@ChristopherNaunton i understand, i just can't afford to pay $5 a month for every youtube chanel i want to watch, then RUclips would become super expensive and i don't feel it would be RUclips anymore. it used to be that you like and subscribe maby leave a comment to suport the chanel, chanel grows and make revenue like that somehow, im not so in to the nitty gritty of it but something like that. i understand that you and other creators put in alot of time and effort in to your work and $5 might not seem like a lot at all to charge for that and in a way that is true. but this is just for one chanel and one month, it adds up fast and most people can't afford that. ill keep watching the free stuff sins i like learning, but it's sad that so much is hidden behind a pay wall.
On the "water" weathering of the Great Sphinx which geologist Robert Schoch attributed to the monument being carved during a wetter climatic period, he forgot about the effects of "wind" erosion. Years ago I had an opportunity to visit the Giza Plateau and look for myself and what I see is stronger evidence for wind erosion which one would expect in an arid climate. Also, the Sphinx was carved from limestone which is a porous rock, so even an occasional, once a century rainstorm would be very damaging as evidenced by washed out tombs in the Valley of the Kings in the recent past. The Great Sphinx was built at the same time as the pyramids, so no need to speculate a prehistoric age. Seems to me some "New Agers" want to resurrect some long lost Atlantian past rather than give the Ancient Egyptians their due as Master builders.
Thank you Chris so very interesting and insightful. I’ve just managed to catch up on the programme so interesting especially about what was written in the 90’s about the Giza plateau and the Sphinx. I’m so so gutted I can’t join your December tour my brother has now confirmed his wedding on 6 December 🙄, but hopefully your tour is a success and you’ll repeat it next year. It is an amazing itinerary with Ancient World Tours.
A wonderful lecture giving a good overview of the subject. It's a vast subject, but this lecture addresses the most acute questions. 40:30 and later: Snefru's "Red Pyramid" and Djedefre's largely dismantled pyramid are missing. 2:12:00 Queen Hetepheres partially intact tomb? Question: What do you think of the work of "History for Granite"?
Many thanks! On the image of the various pyramids at 40:30, it's not intended to be complete - there are several others I could have included in addition to those you mention including Userkaf, Unas, Teti etc. On intact tombs, yes, of course you;'re right that Hetepheres is the obviously intact burial of the 4th Dynasty - please forgive this oversight, I think it was mentioned in the comments at the time and I subsequently mentioned it myself. this is perhaps something to elaborate on in a part 2! Thanks again 🙏 I don't know the 'History for Granite' channel very well. The owner asked me to look at a video on the 'air shafts' in the Great Pyramid (as you may have seen in the comments elsewhere on this page) which I did and the ideas seemed credible to me.
I appreciate all the debunks. Very nice, elaborate and verifiable info presented excellently. What I though do find kind of weak is the argument for pyramids being a tomb or not with the metaphor with a Bank with no money. Firstly it is highly likely due to the value of money that a bank would be cleaned out, as is the case of the many tombs that have been found, with mummies in it, but without anything of value left; then again maybe the body pieces of a Pharaoh were also valuable as was with the Catholic Saints? I'm not a Egyptian scholar, and my knowledge does not extend to this info, but my critique more on the analogy used. Secondly, as opposed to banks, I could also argue that the Pyramid, like a crematorium, is the place were the rituals took place, but then the bodies were put to rest in the graves around it, as is now often with cemeteries.
Thanks for watching and for your thoughts! On the tomb / bank analogy, the absence of the mummy / money can be explained in more or less the same way - the money is missing from the bank because it has value; the mummy does too, or rather the jewellery etc that was attached to it does. In the case of Tutankhamun, 150 items of jewellery, amulets etc were placed inside the mummy wrappings. That's an extreme case perhaps, but it was standard practice for valuable objects like these to be placed on the mummy, and in fact this might have been the best place for robbers to look as it's the one place where such portable and recyclable items - ideal for thieves - would be found. Moreover, such things were sometimes difficult to remove from the mummy without unwrapping it or even taking it apart - Howard Carter was unable to remove all items of jewellery etc from Tut's mummy because they were stuck fast with resin (although they were subsequently robbed in the mid-20th century - see 1:19:54 onwards in this talk: ruclips.net/video/ixIFV-NpNO4/видео.htmlsi=zgn5b3DgxGYLOpDp). I was part of an excavation team some years ago that found a mummy with once hand cut off at the wrist presumably as this was the simplest way of removing a bracelet or similar. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that robbers might have removed entire mummies from the tombs so that they could be stripped somewhere the robbers felt they would be safe to do so. You could argue that the pyramid intending for emblaming and related rituals while the burials took place elsewhere but for me this would be nowhere near as persuasive as the argument that they were tombs, given the sarcophagi, canopic chests, *human remains*, decoration etc found within them, all of which would suggest that pyramids performed the same function as other kinds of tombs.
Something that occurred to me regards the Great Pyramid; Egyptian tomb robbers were usually quite persistent in that if they thought they were being misdirected (by a false wall or similar), and having not found a royal mummy, they would continue probing and excavating. But although the portcullis slabs were likely breached by robbers in antiquity, there doesn't appear to be further damage done to the walls in the King's Chamber (apart from more modern efforts). Might this suggest the original plunderers found what they were looking for, as in, a royal mummy?
Thank you Chris. I got up at 3am Melbourne time to watch but i only lasted 15mins before i fell asleep again! Whilst i cant contribute financially, i do let the advertisements run and i hit the like button.
@@ChristopherNauntonfinishing it now. We're off to the exhibition at the National Gallery tomorrow which I believe is a collab with the British museum. I am excited!
Was looking for this video yesterday and couldn’t find it; I was worried i had imagined seeing it. Guess I was just looking on the wrong tab. Very much looking forward to watching this.
Extremely key points missed at 25:00 that there was no access to the relieving chambers until they tunneled into them in modern times. Also many of the writings extend behind the blocks so they could not have been added later. This is often a line of attack that they are not from original construction.
@ChristopherNaunton I would also suggest that the 2 carbon dating studies showing the age of the mortar in the old kingdom pyramids aligns with the kings lists is extremely strong evidence
@@ChristopherNaunton There's also the luminescence dating, that shows our dating of the Giza group of pyramids is, pretty much, bang on. Naturally, the "alternative" advocates claim this could be because the Egyptians renovated the pyramids, after finding them left there by someone else, but this does beg the question of just how practical it would have been to remove the masses of stone above the chambers and passages, add the revised interior and put it all back again; one of their favourite claims being it would have been impossible just to put all the stone in place once, within the span of Khufu's reign.
49:00 Hey there, where can I find pictures of similar water erosion in Giza or Egypt to the Sphinx? I've been Egypt 3 times and have only seen similar water erosion near the Osireion in Abydos? Of course I may well have missed it and I am no Geologist but very interested in seeing these pictures? Liking the presentation by the way.
Thanks for watching! I'm not a geologist either but the best place too see very similar erosion that I can think of would be, for obvious reasons, also at the Giza, the Central Mastaba field. Several images appear in the presentation and I've posted quite a few more to social media in the last year or two, e.g. here: instagram.com/p/Cz3dUzvKJcy/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
One of the few "alternative" hypotheses concerning the pyramids that is not completely bonkers is that they were cenotaphs. The fact that Senusret III had a tomb at Abydos and also the whole affair of the pyramid of Sekhemkhet would add a certain amount of fuel to such a notion. What are your thoughts?
This is an interesting thought, thanks! It seems quite likely that there were cenotaphs in Egypt. The most obvious examples are those at Abydos, including the monument of Senusret III, but also those of Ahmose I and Tetisheri, and arguably the temple of Sety I, and Ramesses II(?). In most if not all of these cases it's clear that there were alternative funerary monuments/tombs elsewhere. That's not the case for most of the Old Kingdom pyramids. Furthermore Abydos would have been a highly appropriate place for such monuments as the cult place of Osiris, and the place where his very tomb was thought to lie, while the royal cemeteries of the time of the kings we've mentioned were elsewhere i.e. in the Faiyum region during the 12th Dynasty, and in Thebes during the early 18th. In both cases the royal cemeteries were close to the capital cities of the day. In the case of, say, Khufu's pyramid there is no alternative monument, and no reason to think of Giza as having the same significance as Abydos, or of it having been separate from the royal cemetery / capital city as it was clearly part of the Memphis 'zone'. Lastly, the main reason anyone seems to think that the pyramids might not have been tombs is the absence of any mummies, but as I hoped to show during the talk, such remains were found in a number of pyramids, and in any case their absence is well explained by the looting we know was almost universal. So, nice idea, for which, again, thanks! But I still prefer to see the pyramids as tombs!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for such an in-depth answer. Yes, the vast majority of tombs from the ancient world no longer contain their original occupant/grave goods and when people use that reason for saying the pyramids were not tombs I always feel they're getting a bit desperate. I get your point about a cenotaph being more likely found at Abydos and that Khufu's pyramid was exactly where one would expect his tomb to be, adding weight to the likelihood of it being his tomb.
Hi Chris, I'm very much enjoying the lecture so far... I just want to point out that Edresi (1236-45 AD) wrote, having visited the Queen's Chamber, that 'On the roof of the room are writings in the most ancient characters of the heathen priests'. So it does look like hieroglyphs did once adorn that chamber at least but have since worn away.
Thanks, that's very interesting! It has been suggested that there would have been additional structures made of perishable materials e.g. wood within the pyramid. It seems clear that there must have been something like this in the Grand Gallery for example, and possibly also the burial chamber, and of course elsewhere. In that case, it could explain the absence of decoration i.e. if everything was inscribed on the wooden structures. We can't know this now of course... One other thought on this is that in tombs that are decorated, there are very rarely hieroglyphs on the ceiling - of course that's not to say that it's not therefore possible but it makes what Egress says less likely to be accurate perhaps.
@@ChristopherNaunton Quite, however that is predicated on comparison to tombs; If it served some other function the hieroglyphics may not have been out of place. For example, if the chamber was used in the mummification process, there might well have been magical spells to protect the deceased against spiritual attack until the process was completed...
@@tonygarcia0072 Well, I hoped to have shown in the talk the it is overwhelmingly likely that the pyramids were tombs - in my view, based on the evidence we have there is no credible alternative idea. But secondly, even if you extend the question to other types of building (temples), ceilings are less likely to bear hieroglyphs than other surfaces. Ptolemaic temples are an exception of course.
Sorry to hear this. I don't control the RUclips notifications - I should think whether or not you get anything depends on how you have set your account up. I did post reminders here, and on Facebook, X/Twitter and Instagram, and the recording is available now of course!
G'day Chris many thanks for the interesting lecture. I watched it on delay, 2.20am Adelaide time was too early for us old age pensioners! I look forward to your next talk. Regards Les Dicker.
Many thanks Les, I really appreciate you taking the time to watch the recording and sorry the live event has to be at such a difficult time for you! Thanks for your support!
An excellent presentation. Certainly interesting and informative. Just a minor note. You did say that you might not remember every detail. The Khufu pyramid in addition to the three auxiliary pyramids also had a satellite pyramid in its complex. Hawass excavated it. Inside it was a strange arrangement of four stones, as one on top of three. Interedting. Khafre also had a satellite pyramid but no auxiliaries. I mention it because I think the two satellites were related. Also, is there any idea why the causeways (@1:13:35) of the three main pyramids had different alignments? It always catches my attention. Finally, archaeologists do amazing work. Sometimes accidentally destructive? Yes. But, they produce vast amounts of intrcate information that otherwise would never have seen the light of day.
Thank you for watching and for all your kind and helpful comments here. You're quite right about the satellite pyramid - it was in my mind but I couldn't recall all the details and of course it doesn't appear on my plan which dates to before Hawass' work. But it would have been better if I had mentioned it - thanks for bringing it up here! On the causeways, I don't know what say Lehner and Hawass' view on this is, but my guess would be that follow the most practical route down off the plateau, although looking again at the topography, it's not immediately clear why they couldn't have taken a different - straighter? - route. Knowing more about the buildings and infrastructure closer to the river might well help us to understand, but of course in the case of Khufu's buildings in particular very little is known in archaeological terms. Thanks again!
Do you think/suspect the city will encroach more and more on to the archeological site(s) in egype, such that it could become a serious source for concern?
Yes, I do, but this is an issue that authorities face everywhere, not just in Egypt - land is needed for buildings of all kinds and archaeological sites are not always important enough to keep. Obviously Giza is massively important, and the site - a very large area - is protected. It would be great if a larger area could be kept free of development but in the modern world that's just not realistic. I would be more worried about less famous sites elsewhere I think!
I'm not, but my intentions for this lecture are very similar in spirit to those of Flint Dibble and co i.e. to counter the 'alternative' ideas that are not in any way based on the archaeological evidence or sound expertise in the subject.
Hi Chris. Excellent as ever. Ive always been interested if not convinced by alternative theories and youve clarified some if not most of the ideas. Thank you
Thank you for a brilliant lecture, lots of wonderful information n confirmation. The Ancient Egyptians were amazing. One question, not exactly related, but I think John Romers book The Great Pyramid Revisited, briefly mentioned a smaller scale of Khufus chambers, built under the plateau, I have never seen or heard any other mention of this, Have you?
Thank you! I think you might be referring to the 'trial passages'? More info here: www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2020/03/11/a-theory-on-the-great-pyramids-trial-passages-sees/ Does that help?
The ones from the TV documentary? If I remember rightly it took about 10-15 minutes to split the block of limestone, which was really incredible - once all the right grooved had been cut and the stone tapped in the right places it just fell apart. Smoothing the surface down - which was all done by the masons entirely by eye - took another 10 minutes or so. Really humbling to see these guys doing their expert work!
Really appreciated the effort put into making this video and I found the supporting material to be of the highest quality, however I fear the biggest elephant in the room for me is never addressed by the traditional theory and I would love to hear your take on it. In short, why is one royal cubit and 1 meter = exactly 5 feet? Is this not significant?
My understanding is that while the cubit was a way to introduce a standard of measurement in Egypt and was used in the design and construction of some very large and important monuments, the evidence we have including measuring rods (e.g. www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA23078) show the length of the cubit varied. It was generally a little over 50cm, so approximately two to the modern metre, which is also approximately 3 feet in imperial measures. But none of these measurements are exactly the same as one another.
Thank you Chris! I made notes on certain pictures, so I can use them in my History classroom. Good to get the students looking and practice with primary sources. And btw, overrunning....? I could have listened much longer.
Whilst the more bizarre theories have been excellently debunked, Chris, it still intrigues me how the pyramids were actually built and why they didnt celebrate and record more details of their incredible achievement.
Well, I suspect they probably did! What the Wadi el-Jarf / Merer papyri show is that they did keep detailed records of some aspects of the construction process and there may well have been papyri that show exactly how the blocks were lifted into position etc but it's a fairly safe assumption that the papyri the have survived are only a tiny fraction of what there would have been. And the discoveries at Wadi el-Jarf show that there is still hope that some thing more might turn up!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thanks for these videos btw. My partner is Kenyan and I was shocked to here a young Kenyan man pushing the Ancient Aliens rubbish about the Pyramids. I told him that any Nilot from Kenya should be personally afronted by those "theories". That is typically white people saying your ancestors were not capable of doing what they did. I wish this and your history of the Kushite Kingdom was taught in Kenyan schools in the same way us whities talk about Athens, Sparta, Macedon and Rome. To think how advanced their civilisations were, while the ancestors of Rome were still learning how to ride a horse in Ukraine! I intend to watch your one on Akenhatten too. The development of monotheism is fascinating for me. I also wish there was a project where experts in all different areas and times got together to try to write an overarching story about the history of humanity, along with all forms of archeology, climate reconstruction, ecological studies etc. Sorry, I got monologuing ... and I haven't even had my coffee yet. I'll put the laptop down as mercy for us all!
Just a thought: The word mastaba probably derives from the greek ancient word αστοίβη (astivi) or αστοιβιά (astivia), which means a pile of rumble placed in a somehow symmetrical way. For example, the ancient and modern greek word στίβος (stivos), means stadium, which, by the way, is also equally separated in lines for the athletes. I know it's probably never written anywhere officially, but mastabas might be a greek word.
Thanks! I don't know the etymology of the Arabic word, but it's widely understood in Egyptology that it's application as a byword for the rectangular structures surmounting elite tombs of the first few Dynasties is the result of their similarity in shape to the 'mastabas' i.e. mud or wooden benches outside traditional Egyptian houses. If there is an alternative explanation it would be worth publishing as the conventional interpretation is very well established listed in Egyptology!
@ChristopherNaunton You're very welcome. I will have further research on this and let you know here as soon as I find something helpful. Thank you as well!
for debunking the ridiculous ancient aliens BS, Frank Dörnenburg did a good job there ( Däniken, Sitchin etc)..Also Dr Michael Heise, he did the 'ancient aliens debunked' docu.
the stupid stuff Däniken and sitchin wrote was archeologically ( Däniken) and linguistically ( Sitchin) debunked decades ago. even if acient alien 'theory' isnt a real theory, right.
Assuming that the ancient alien aficionados ascribe some sort of advanced capabilities exceeding even our current advancements compared to the ancient Egyptians why aren't the pyramids made of titanium or something unknown to mankind?
Ha! That's a good thought! Perhaps they *are* made of titanium or something but those dastardly Egyptologists have made them look like they're made of limestone to protect their secrets / reputations? 😂
Dr. Naunton, Thank you for your fine work. I have a question. Fletcher infers that Snefru's Queen, Hetepheres' burial in a shaft grave on Giza is why the pyramids are located there, or at least why her son Khufu built there. Yet she never gets a mention elsewhere. Would you please, "fit her in," to the history of the plateau? Is she the cause of the selection of the site in your opinion?
I haven't come across this idea before. I very much respect Prof Fletcher of course but, although I should reserve judgement until I know more about the argument, I would be surprised if the presence of her burial at the site was the only/main reason Khufu built his pyramid there. It would also raise the question of why Hetepheres herself chose to be buried there. Up to now I prefer the ideas that Giza is 1) close to Memphis and visible from the city, 2) on naturally high / prominent ground which, we now know, was eminently accessible from the river, and 3) visible from Heliopolis which sites further south were not.
@@ChristopherNaunton Fletcher's comments on Hetepheres: 7:07in ruclips.net/video/iupsqdg_D44/видео.htmlsi=MGmy-7kRnj3N6Uye "This is where it all began... Hetepheres... I believe it was this mother's life giving force that shaped this entire plateau, forever... The rest of the acropolis unfolded as a result of her being here." The logic of Hetepheres being the, "origins of the whole, entire site," seems to be founded on the observation that, "in Hetepheres' day... at her time, this entire plateau had nothing on it." - all quotes, Joann Fletcher, "EGYPT'S LOST QUEENS" (2014)
@@ChristopherNaunton Fletcher's comments on Hetepheres: 7:07in ruclips.net/video/iupsqdg_D44/видео.htmlsi=MGmy-7kRnj3N6Uye "This is where it all began... Hetepheres... I believe it was this mother's life giving force that shaped this entire plateau, forever... The rest of the acropolis unfolded as a result of her being here." The logic of Hetepheres being the, "origins of the whole, entire site," seems to be founded on the observation that, "in Hetepheres' day... at her time, this entire plateau had nothing on it." - all quotes, Joann Fletcher, "EGYPT'S LOST QUEENS" (2014)
@@ChristopherNaunton Fletcher's comments on Hetepheres: 7:08in ruclips.net/video/iupsqdg_D44/видео.htmlsi=MGmy-7kRnj3N6Uye "This is where it all began... Hetepheres... I believe it was this mother's life giving force that shaped this entire plateau, forever... The rest of the acropolis unfolded as a result of her being here." The logic of Hetepheres being the, "origins of the whole, entire site," seems to be founded on the observation that, "in Hetepheres' day... at her time, this entire plateau had nothing on it." - all quotes, Joann Fletcher, "EGYPT'S LOST QUEENS" (2014) One question is, was it the absence of sand that left the area clear until the late 2500s or did the area have some other use or significance? The gathering of large crowds for festivals? Meetings? Army training?
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for your considered reply. I keep publishing a comment containing the Prof. Fletcher quote & reference but it keeps disappearing. I'll wait for my new device before I try again.
Isn't nice to have facts rather than looking for alternative theories. Great presentation; thanks Chris! I really enjoyed reading the Red Sea Scrolls too, which shoots alternatives out of consideration. Your final summary was worth waiting for and made a great finish😂😂😂
I never doubted human creativity and never gave an ear to alien- anunaki- blah blah blah - speculations. Considering the amount stone to construct Angor Vat or The Imperial palace / forbidden city of China, which both I understand has more stone material than the pyramid of Khufu. People were industrious and used the resources around them: sand and water. How they exactly did the work Im not quite sure, there's several options. Yet to be revealed. Didnt they just recently found papyri in the quarries, depicting amounts of material and labour... Use of dolerite pounders, quartzite and feldspar rich sand and man hours and boom! 20 years later a shining white, Tura limestone- clad pyramid mirrored in beautiful blank black basalt piedestal.
Your description and part of the presentation regarding pyramid evolution quite clearly shows it really wasn't an evolution but devolution. How did the Old Kingdom make such a complex structure as the Great Pyramids are and thousands of years later devolve into making mud brick structures that have already fallen apart? Also you mentioned all the pottery but you didn't mention the stone vases and vessels many of them made of granite and made to tolerances other than a couple thousands of an inch. That is using granite as a material we can't even make one of these today with all our technology. I do like the presentation you don't know because it's very informative of the history but you haven't debunked the major issues. And finding Pottery shards in the Sphinx does not prove its age with radiocarbon dating. We all know that the Sphinx had undergone many repairs and it's obvious to anyone that the head was completely reworked given its tiny size and compared to the body
I'm not sure that 'devolution' is the right word but I understand what you mean. That the Old Kingdom Egyptians may have had skills that were subsequently lost (or appear to be) should not be surprising - it's clear that abilities came and went (see for example in relief carving in the subsequent First Intermediate Period) many times in history on Egypt and also elsewhere, but that may not be the only explanation for the changes in architecture / design. E.g. the pyramids of the Fifth Dynasty were smaller and less solidly built than those of Khufu and Khafra of the Fourth Dynasty, but the pyramid temples of the Fifth were lavishly decorated with extremely fine hard stone sculptures - it seems there was a deliberate choice to shoot investment away from massive pyramids to a greater number and variety of monuments. Also, during the Middle Kingdom, although the core of the royal pyramids were built of mud brick, these same monuments are much more complicated internally than those of the Old Kingdom and feature some superb stone-cutting feats e.g. in the stones dressing the burial chambers at Lahun or Dahshur (Black Pyramid), or in the introduction of massive granite burial chambers and ceiling blocks at Hawara and elsewhere. I'd argue that the stone-cutting feats of the Middle Kingdom are as impressive as those of the Old Kingdom, just deployed differently. There were of course many things I didn't say - this was a long enough lecture as it was! On the pottery around the sphinx, it's not only the presence of 4th Dynasty material, but the absence of any material from almost any other period. The important thing is not what any one piece or group of material can tell us, but what the totality of the evidence makes most likely. Thanks for watching!
The issue quite often is that whereas you correctly state that you consider it the best interpretation of known facts, others present it as incontrovertible truth with no other possible interpretation, thereby misrepresenting the situation entirely.
Yes, I think you're right about this, and I think we Egyptologists should accept some of the responsibility for some of the craziness - we could do a better job not just articulating the consensus view but showing why we think what we do. There's a lot of evidence to bring to the table and it's not easy to distill it down to something that is comprehensive but without getting too detailed and, frankly, boring. Formats like TV don't really allow for much detail, which is really what made me want to do this - to try to introduce some more of the evidence than we could really cover in the series I was involved with recently. I suspect the debate will never go away but there's definitely room for improvement on the side of the conventional Egyptologists. Thanks for the thought! By the way I will be writing something about this shortly - watch this space!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for the well thought-out response, and for responding in the 1st place. My views on the topic under discussion do differ from yours, inter alia in that I consider that Khufu's interment in the pyramid that bears his name is probably accidental as opposed to deliberate, but that is a personal opinion and I am open to revising it as further evidence becomes available. My chief complaint about Egyptology as a discipline is that certain obvious matters (in my opinion) remain uncorrected, viz the statement that Herodotus mentioned that Khufu's intended tomb was under the Great Pyramid, whereas the correct statement is that it was on the hill where the Pyramids stand, expanding the area encompassed by the description to the entire Giza Plateau including, by the way, the so-called Osiris Shaft that matches his description to a remarkable degree...
I went to a really old cemetery the other day; it had a huge mausoleum in it with a hole in the side where you could get in. There were no coffins or bones inside so I was forced to conclude it had been a Tupperware factory from the Middle Ages.
You know the very first warning that this video has nothing new to say nor any idea at all about any of the mysteries of Egypt were done? He used aliens in the title of his pathetic clickbait. If he had anything of interest to say or add to this topic that would be his title. But as you can plainly see he does not. Nothing about engineering or lost technology both of which should be heavily featured as the current historical model has zip, absolutely nothing . So don’t waste your time listening to regurgitated nonsense. Instead seek some channels that are genuinely asking some important questions. As for aliens im pretty confident compared to anything this guy is going to tell you , they’re the better bet.
Since you ended the Q&A right as you arrived at my question, I will reiterate it here. Why does the tomb of Khufu need air channels? Perring, the primary source discovering the King’s Chamber southern air channel exit point, wrote that it bends horizontal and was not pointed at the sky. You can see my presentation on this topic with over a million views if you want further elaboration. Are you willing to engage serious ‘alternative’ ideas about the pyramids, rather than the silliest ones such as those presented in the recent TV series you made?
The pyramids don't "need" anything. You've fallen prey to apophenia. You've also shown your true colors with that final insulting sentence -- and denied yourself the chance to have a good faith discussion with Dr. Naunton.
I'm sorry but I didn't see your question at the time - as you could probably tell I was struggling to get through all the questions and comments. I haven't had a chance to look at your presentation in its entirety yet, but as far as I can tell from dipping in here and there, it seems credible. I didn't really deal with the shafts in the talk - they are one of the topics I would have liked to have covered but didn't get time for, and I wanted to prioritise the things that seemed most in urgent need of correction, specifically the 'alternative ideas' (which I called 'myths') that 1) the Great pyramid was to built by Khufu but much earlier than his time, 2) that it could not have been built by the Old Kingdom Egyptians given the tools and technology etc we know they had at the time, 3) that the pyramids were not tombs, and 4) that establishment Egyptologists have something to hide. Despite all this my particular specialism is not Giza, pyramids, construction techniques etc. I'm certainly not unwilling to entertain new ideas - as I mentioned in the talk, in my area of specialism - Third Intermediate Period - new ideas have had to be considered and have now been adopted as the consensus - but in the case of your ideas about the shafts I couldn't really give an expert view. To get such critique, if you haven't already, I would strongly recommend you submit your ideas for publication in an established journal, perhaps the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (www.ees.ac.uk/our-cause/publications/journal-of-egyptian-archaeology.html). Even if your submission is not accepted the editors should provide constructive criticism, and if your work gets to the peer-review stage you would get even more feedback from anonymous reviews specially chosen for their expertise in pyramid construction etc (I would not be called on for this!). I suspect a lot of people would think that only established scholars would be allowed to submit things to such journals but this isn't true - it's the work submitted that is judged not the person.
@@ChristopherNaunton I appreciate the response, even though you did not feel comfortable offering an opinion on the air channels as requested. I encourage you to watch my presentation in full, the details really do matter - not just the physical evidence but the reaction of Egyptology to them for the past 150 years. As the former director of the EES, you are probably aware that the JEA includes standard submission guidelines notably 3.1.2 and 3.2 ‘prior publication’ & ‘Contributor’s publishing agreement’ which combine to make work presented on RUclips excluded from submitting to the journal. I have heard the excuse ‘not my area of specialization’ offered many times by Egyptologists - I expect by the time it gets whittled down the only individuals left will be the ones cited in my video who also show up on TV programs and have a conflict of interest over whose ideas are presented as credible to the public. These are the same individuals who are appointed to every ‘special committee’ by the Ministry and wield a great amount of soft power over organizations like the EES/JEA. Let’s not pretend like these things don’t matter - they obviously do. If you disagree - then ask yourself why you don’t feel comfortable offering your opinion on the air channels. The facts are very straightforward - the evidence is visible seen, and the sources are all well-cited including in the video description. If you, being an independent Egyptologist beholden to no institution feel uncomfortable voicing an opinion on the subject - how can you tell me I should expect to get a fair shake elsewhere? PS Sadly there are a few trolls who lie about and harass me anywhere I comment, as seen below. Such is the price of a large audience. It's easy to block them from further commenting on your channel, and I recommend doing so.
As a Chris Naunton fan and HFG fan, this is a fascinating back and forth haha. Doug, I think Chris would probably be better responding via email. This comment might get missed otherwise
History of Granite again... I've never seen anyone more pathetic on this website. The constant trolling around youtube seeking some validation from the people you strawman regularly in your videos instead of just focusing on your work. If you don't like that nobody listens to some youtuber, then change that.
@random22026 awesome. Put your hands together for this comment. Crushes the narrative to what this clown is saying in the presentation. Dr I know sweet f a should be the presenters name. I didn't even watch mare then 10min to know this was rubbish. No one can refute what I said earlier in comments and what this person has done is spot on and on point. Even tho I only watch a tiny bit. Congrats again.
I've always wondered, what is the real reason a people decline? Could modern day Egyptians equal the accomplishments of the ancients? Or modern Greeks the ancient Greeks. Will the same happen to the Germanic peoples who are now at their apex? If so why?
People don't decline, i.e. there is no evidence that humans in general, or an ethnicity in particular, have experienced a decline in their intellectual capacities. Modern day Egyptians like the rest of humanity are just as able as their ancestors. Also, the concept itself is the pernicious basis for racism
Monuments are indices of cultural priorities, not cultural apexes. The Egyptians couldn't build Chartres, or the Eiffel Tower, or the Saturn V. We're far beyond the technical capabilities of the ancient Egyptians - and we have been since the 19th century.
@@SoviCalc we got steel in the 1300s. until abt 100 years ago, we couldnt build the monuments of megalitic times, even with steel and steam, and oil. in particular baalbek. so yea, roughly 1900 or so. far beyond copperchisels, roundstones and rolling logs or dripping water on sand. archeology is what happens when pure academics try their hand at understanding practicallity. 95% of all old buildings are temples or mausoleums. they manhandled 4-5000 kilo pr man, using hemp, and carried it a few hundred miles pr day. lived in scuallor and died in style. if ever a science needed an einstein or darwin, its history.
Apologies for my pronunciation, I am aiming at 'Kha-f-ra', but perhaps putting rather too much emphasis on separating the 'f' sound. We don't really know how the Egyptians pronounced these words and in any case as an Anglophone I wouldn't have all the right sounds so my pronunciation is always going to be a bit off - as it is for lots of other names/words theatre foreign to me!
@@ChristopherNaunton Well, I've only ever heard it said as "Khaf-ray". Later you say no one knows if the accepted academic pronunciations are correct, so I wondered if academia had changed the accepted norm. But then, I have heard Amun Ra and so on pronounced as "Rah" and "Ray". It reminds me of when Latin scholars decided Caesar was Kaiser and Cicero Kikero! Thanks for the reply. Cheers! {:o:O:}
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 I can assure you that pronouncing the last part of the name as 'rah' is entirely conventional! Our understanding of the sounds used in Egyptian suggests that 'rah' would be right. the reason you often also hear 'ray' is that this is how the name of the sun-god is pronounced in Coptic, the latest form of the ancient egyptian language. We don't know that the way it was pronounced in the Late Antique Period (when Coptic was in use) would have been the same as the way it was pronounced alsmot three thousand years earlier during the 4th Dynasty. And while the word was 'ray' in Coptic, it is certainly 'rah' elsewhere as in, for example, 'Ramesses', not 'RAYmesses'.
I think the likeliest explanation is that it's a very human thing to want to build bigger and higher, and one of the simplest ways to do this is to build things that are large at the base and get smaller as you get to the top. I'm not an anthropologist, but I suspect that idea, of building things that reach up to the sky is common to people in lots of different places. And while the buildings we call pyramids in e.g. Egypt and also Meso-America are superficially similar, they are also quite different in the details.
I believe as has been stated by researchers I hold in highest regards that to having coded such things as mathematical constants and the ratio of our planets into the pyramids with such precision which we could not manage today we at least would have a society which would have circumnavigated the globe
Moving 50-to-1000-ton stones was easy between 4500 and 4700 years ago, then we forgot how to do that, so it was never done again for constructing anything except statues. 12 ton stones and smaller are big enough for walls and buildings.
The word you are looking for is, "Egyptologist". And furthermore, if they are claiming that Kafre is the father of Khufu then I would harbour doubts as to their eligibility for such a title.
The precise nature of the relationships between the various members of the Fourth Dynasty royal family are not all known, but the consensus if that Khafra is the son of Khufu (and as per the comment below I;d be very surprised if you found any specialists claiming the reverse!). For more info see Dodson and Hilton, The Complete Royal Families...: amzn.to/3AeGkDh
And the very fact alone that you brought up hawas as a reference to anything makes me want to mention to you to please delete this video and stop wasting people's times with this BS
That's not how you age the pyramids you don't find debris up and around it and assume my association this is the most ridiculous podcast and far stressed claims of ridiculousness that I've ever heard regarding anything which describes the Egyptian pyramid
I'm sorry if you don't like this but using associated material to help interpret / date sites and monuments is absolutely standard practice in archaeology in Egypt and elsewhere (everywhere in fact!). Human activity typically leaves traces, and we see this everywhere on archaeological sites. When such material relates to a certain period or activity, it's entirely reasonable to date or interpret the context in which it is found accordingly. And in this case, the abundant archaeological evidence of human activity at Giza points to a peak of activity in the Fourth Dynasty. This *corroborates* the other kinds of evidence we have - inscriptions, later histories, development of funerary monuments during this period etc. In other words all these various kinds of evidence all lead to the same conclusion. And meanwhile, there is far less material / evidence, if any, to connect the construction of the major monuments at Giza with any other period.
@@ChristopherNaunton in cases where material associated with sites has been dated the distinction has been made so that one understand it is the material which dates back to such time not the monuments...ie pottery located near a particular monument has been found today back to such and such dates... But to claim that the monument shares that same date is fully and misspoken facts
@@memogap88 I think we might just have to agree to disagree here. There is of course a distinction to be made between the material and the monument, but the material can be and is often used as one means - not necessarily the only one - of dating the monument. I can tell you this based on my own experience of working as an archaeologist in the UK and Egypt!
@@ChristopherNaunton fundamentally we have to agree because they're exist logic for example Authority is not the truth Hawass all mighty dismisses tangible facts so that his narrative can follow the agenda which benefits only his credential status and ego Truth is the authority ultimately this works everywhere Due to the fact that we have found such ancient things that the further back the more precise it is because with such precision that history needs to be rewritten When stacked up all the fax point to one and only one conclusion... And these facts are the tangible out of place artifacts which continue to turn up the more that they can continues
The Orion Theory? You messed up big-time. Everything you said was wrong. You didn't bother reading it or the pointers I gave you in the appendix of 'Origins of the Sphinx' which tackles the Ed Krupp foolishness that you repeated. Every single point you raised on it was incorrect. You can't be helped. You regurgitate others before actually looking into it. You're a nice guy. I'd never want to be mean, but these are facts.
Even if the buildings are arranged to match a constellation . . . you've proved precisely zilch about lost tech. Ancient Egyptians were great, but they couldn't even make reading glasses, bud. Find a tomb with rayguns in it and you'll be taken more seriously.
@Iammrspickley So you still have nothing but insults? If you can't attack the theory, attack the man... You just embarrassed yourself again. I'm sure you'll do it again. But please, we're all waiting for you to explain in detail, your view on the issue. But being a fan is easier than being a rock star. You just go, "woo!"
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Please keep over-running Chris. I could watch these for hours on end!
Ha, you're very kind, thanks! 🙏
me to, sadly going to be for paying customers only in the future so this will be the last one for me. happens to alot of channels it seems, getting alot of video recomendations that i then need to pay to view so in the end i just unsubscribe to the chanel all together, a sad development indeed.
@@totobeni I'm sorry to hear this. Please bear in mind that this - creating presentations and delivering lectures - is how I, and no doubt lots of others here on RUclips, make a living. It's not a great living but combined with other things - writing, TV, tours to Egypt and charity work in my case - earning money from RUclips helps me to continue to doing Egyptology professionally. There is a lot of free content on this channel which I gave up countless hours of my time to create. Having initially asked for payment for most of these lectures via Zoom registration fees (I only subsequently made the recordings available for free via RUclips after hundreds of people had already paid for them!) I am now experimenting to see if asking for subscription fees via RUclips is a better solution all round. If it isn't, I'll find another way - which I will have to do because I need to pay the bills. Thanks for watching up to now!
@@ChristopherNaunton i understand, i just can't afford to pay $5 a month for every youtube chanel i want to watch, then RUclips would become super expensive and i don't feel it would be RUclips anymore. it used to be that you like and subscribe maby leave a comment to suport the chanel, chanel grows and make revenue like that somehow, im not so in to the nitty gritty of it but something like that.
i understand that you and other creators put in alot of time and effort in to your work and $5 might not seem like a lot at all to charge for that and in a way that is true. but this is just for one chanel and one month, it adds up fast and most people can't afford that.
ill keep watching the free stuff sins i like learning, but it's sad that so much is hidden behind a pay wall.
Very enjoyable and interesting lecture. Thanks 👍
No need to apologize going over on the time. Your talks are wonderful.
Thank you! 🙏
Thank you!
Thank you!
Thanks!
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks. For future videos, how about the Second Intermediate Period and Ramses IV to VIII? As well as Dynasties 26 and 30?
Thanks for your talks! I learn so much from you. Greetings from down under 🦘
Thank you!!
Thanks Chris, great talk. Looking forward to upgrading to Lapis and watching more lectures.
Thank you Lyn, really appreciate all your support! 🙏
Smashing, thx! Greetings from Belgium
love your lecture videos
Thank you! 🙏
An interesting and informative summary as always - I so appreciated listening to your talks.
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks
On the "water" weathering of the Great Sphinx which geologist Robert Schoch attributed to the monument being carved during a wetter climatic period, he forgot about the effects of "wind" erosion. Years ago I had an opportunity to visit the Giza Plateau and look for myself and what I see is stronger evidence for wind erosion which one would expect in an arid climate. Also, the Sphinx was carved from limestone which is a porous rock, so even an occasional, once a century rainstorm would be very damaging as evidenced by washed out tombs in the Valley of the Kings in the recent past. The Great Sphinx was built at the same time as the pyramids, so no need to speculate a prehistoric age. Seems to me some "New Agers" want to resurrect some long lost Atlantian past rather than give the Ancient Egyptians their due as Master builders.
I saw an interesting proposal that the erosion of the sphinx is caused by water wicking up from the high water table around the flood times
Thank you Chris so very interesting and insightful. I’ve just managed to catch up on the programme so interesting especially about what was written in the 90’s about the Giza plateau and the Sphinx. I’m so so gutted I can’t join your December tour my brother has now confirmed his wedding on 6 December 🙄, but hopefully your tour is a success and you’ll repeat it next year. It is an amazing itinerary with Ancient World Tours.
Thanks for watching! I hope to see you in Egypt at some point soon!
A wonderful lecture giving a good overview of the subject. It's a vast subject, but this lecture addresses the most acute questions. 40:30 and later: Snefru's "Red Pyramid" and Djedefre's largely dismantled pyramid are missing. 2:12:00 Queen Hetepheres partially intact tomb? Question: What do you think of the work of "History for Granite"?
Many thanks! On the image of the various pyramids at 40:30, it's not intended to be complete - there are several others I could have included in addition to those you mention including Userkaf, Unas, Teti etc. On intact tombs, yes, of course you;'re right that Hetepheres is the obviously intact burial of the 4th Dynasty - please forgive this oversight, I think it was mentioned in the comments at the time and I subsequently mentioned it myself. this is perhaps something to elaborate on in a part 2! Thanks again 🙏 I don't know the 'History for Granite' channel very well. The owner asked me to look at a video on the 'air shafts' in the Great Pyramid (as you may have seen in the comments elsewhere on this page) which I did and the ideas seemed credible to me.
I appreciate all the debunks. Very nice, elaborate and verifiable info presented excellently.
What I though do find kind of weak is the argument for pyramids being a tomb or not with the metaphor with a Bank with no money.
Firstly it is highly likely due to the value of money that a bank would be cleaned out, as is the case of the many tombs that have been found, with mummies in it, but without anything of value left; then again maybe the body pieces of a Pharaoh were also valuable as was with the Catholic Saints?
I'm not a Egyptian scholar, and my knowledge does not extend to this info, but my critique more on the analogy used.
Secondly, as opposed to banks, I could also argue that the Pyramid, like a crematorium, is the place were the rituals took place, but then the bodies were put to rest in the graves around it, as is now often with cemeteries.
Thanks for watching and for your thoughts! On the tomb / bank analogy, the absence of the mummy / money can be explained in more or less the same way - the money is missing from the bank because it has value; the mummy does too, or rather the jewellery etc that was attached to it does. In the case of Tutankhamun, 150 items of jewellery, amulets etc were placed inside the mummy wrappings. That's an extreme case perhaps, but it was standard practice for valuable objects like these to be placed on the mummy, and in fact this might have been the best place for robbers to look as it's the one place where such portable and recyclable items - ideal for thieves - would be found. Moreover, such things were sometimes difficult to remove from the mummy without unwrapping it or even taking it apart - Howard Carter was unable to remove all items of jewellery etc from Tut's mummy because they were stuck fast with resin (although they were subsequently robbed in the mid-20th century - see 1:19:54 onwards in this talk: ruclips.net/video/ixIFV-NpNO4/видео.htmlsi=zgn5b3DgxGYLOpDp). I was part of an excavation team some years ago that found a mummy with once hand cut off at the wrist presumably as this was the simplest way of removing a bracelet or similar. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that robbers might have removed entire mummies from the tombs so that they could be stripped somewhere the robbers felt they would be safe to do so.
You could argue that the pyramid intending for emblaming and related rituals while the burials took place elsewhere but for me this would be nowhere near as persuasive as the argument that they were tombs, given the sarcophagi, canopic chests, *human remains*, decoration etc found within them, all of which would suggest that pyramids performed the same function as other kinds of tombs.
@@ChristopherNaunton thx for your follow-up, happy new year.
@@paulvanlit And to you!
Something that occurred to me regards the Great Pyramid; Egyptian tomb robbers were usually quite persistent in that if they thought they were being misdirected (by a false wall or similar), and having not found a royal mummy, they would continue probing and excavating. But although the portcullis slabs were likely breached by robbers in antiquity, there doesn't appear to be further damage done to the walls in the King's Chamber (apart from more modern efforts). Might this suggest the original plunderers found what they were looking for, as in, a royal mummy?
Thank you Chris. I got up at 3am Melbourne time to watch but i only lasted 15mins before i fell asleep again! Whilst i cant contribute financially, i do let the advertisements run and i hit the like button.
Thanks for trying! Hope you get to see the rest at some point!
@@ChristopherNauntonfinishing it now. We're off to the exhibition at the National Gallery tomorrow which I believe is a collab with the British museum. I am excited!
@@wensday21 Great, hope you enjoy it!
Presentation starts at 9:42
Was looking for this video yesterday and couldn’t find it; I was worried i had imagined seeing it. Guess I was just looking on the wrong tab. Very much looking forward to watching this.
Hope you enjoy it!
Fantastic, so we'll presented and easy to follow, cheers Chris 😊
Lovely, many thanks! 🙏
as always great presentation
Thank you! 🙏
Extremely key points missed at 25:00 that there was no access to the relieving chambers until they tunneled into them in modern times. Also many of the writings extend behind the blocks so they could not have been added later. This is often a line of attack that they are not from original construction.
Very good point, thank you!
@ChristopherNaunton I would also suggest that the 2 carbon dating studies showing the age of the mortar in the old kingdom pyramids aligns with the kings lists is extremely strong evidence
@@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks Yes, another good point!
@@ChristopherNaunton There's also the luminescence dating, that shows our dating of the Giza group of pyramids is, pretty much, bang on. Naturally, the "alternative" advocates claim this could be because the Egyptians renovated the pyramids, after finding them left there by someone else, but this does beg the question of just how practical it would have been to remove the masses of stone above the chambers and passages, add the revised interior and put it all back again; one of their favourite claims being it would have been impossible just to put all the stone in place once, within the span of Khufu's reign.
@@glenparry5045 Excellent point, very well made, many thanks Glen!
49:00 Hey there, where can I find pictures of similar water erosion in Giza or Egypt to the Sphinx?
I've been Egypt 3 times and have only seen similar water erosion near the Osireion in Abydos?
Of course I may well have missed it and I am no Geologist but very interested in seeing these pictures?
Liking the presentation by the way.
Thanks for watching! I'm not a geologist either but the best place too see very similar erosion that I can think of would be, for obvious reasons, also at the Giza, the Central Mastaba field. Several images appear in the presentation and I've posted quite a few more to social media in the last year or two, e.g. here: instagram.com/p/Cz3dUzvKJcy/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
@ChristopherNaunton Okay thank you for your response, I'll take a look 👍
Thank you for this brilliant talk!
Thank you for watching!
One of the few "alternative" hypotheses concerning the pyramids that is not completely bonkers is that they were cenotaphs. The fact that Senusret III had a tomb at Abydos and also the whole affair of the pyramid of Sekhemkhet would add a certain amount of fuel to such a notion. What are your thoughts?
This is an interesting thought, thanks! It seems quite likely that there were cenotaphs in Egypt. The most obvious examples are those at Abydos, including the monument of Senusret III, but also those of Ahmose I and Tetisheri, and arguably the temple of Sety I, and Ramesses II(?). In most if not all of these cases it's clear that there were alternative funerary monuments/tombs elsewhere. That's not the case for most of the Old Kingdom pyramids. Furthermore Abydos would have been a highly appropriate place for such monuments as the cult place of Osiris, and the place where his very tomb was thought to lie, while the royal cemeteries of the time of the kings we've mentioned were elsewhere i.e. in the Faiyum region during the 12th Dynasty, and in Thebes during the early 18th. In both cases the royal cemeteries were close to the capital cities of the day. In the case of, say, Khufu's pyramid there is no alternative monument, and no reason to think of Giza as having the same significance as Abydos, or of it having been separate from the royal cemetery / capital city as it was clearly part of the Memphis 'zone'. Lastly, the main reason anyone seems to think that the pyramids might not have been tombs is the absence of any mummies, but as I hoped to show during the talk, such remains were found in a number of pyramids, and in any case their absence is well explained by the looting we know was almost universal. So, nice idea, for which, again, thanks! But I still prefer to see the pyramids as tombs!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for such an in-depth answer. Yes, the vast majority of tombs from the ancient world no longer contain their original occupant/grave goods and when people use that reason for saying the pyramids were not tombs I always feel they're getting a bit desperate. I get your point about a cenotaph being more likely found at Abydos and that Khufu's pyramid was exactly where one would expect his tomb to be, adding weight to the likelihood of it being his tomb.
Great information and where to find more. Thanks!
Thanks! And my guide to further reading etc is now here: chrisnaunton.com/pyramid-mythbusting/
Brilliant discussion. Thanks much.
Thank you! 🙏
Excellent work!!!
Thank you!
A talk about hyksos and their effect on egyptian culture.
Hi Chris, I'm very much enjoying the lecture so far...
I just want to point out that Edresi (1236-45 AD) wrote, having visited the Queen's Chamber, that 'On the roof of the room are writings in the most ancient characters of the heathen priests'.
So it does look like hieroglyphs did once adorn that chamber at least but have since worn away.
Al Idrisi also mentioned a coffer in the Queen's Chamber, which no other writer has mentioned to my knowledge.
Thanks, that's very interesting! It has been suggested that there would have been additional structures made of perishable materials e.g. wood within the pyramid. It seems clear that there must have been something like this in the Grand Gallery for example, and possibly also the burial chamber, and of course elsewhere. In that case, it could explain the absence of decoration i.e. if everything was inscribed on the wooden structures. We can't know this now of course... One other thought on this is that in tombs that are decorated, there are very rarely hieroglyphs on the ceiling - of course that's not to say that it's not therefore possible but it makes what Egress says less likely to be accurate perhaps.
@@tonygarcia0072 Very interesting!
@@ChristopherNaunton Quite, however that is predicated on comparison to tombs; If it served some other function the hieroglyphics may not have been out of place. For example, if the chamber was used in the mummification process, there might well have been magical spells to protect the deceased against spiritual attack until the process was completed...
@@tonygarcia0072 Well, I hoped to have shown in the talk the it is overwhelmingly likely that the pyramids were tombs - in my view, based on the evidence we have there is no credible alternative idea. But secondly, even if you extend the question to other types of building (temples), ceilings are less likely to bear hieroglyphs than other surfaces. Ptolemaic temples are an exception of course.
Hi Chris, sorry I missed the live session. I did not get any notification from you tube? 😢
Sorry to hear this. I don't control the RUclips notifications - I should think whether or not you get anything depends on how you have set your account up. I did post reminders here, and on Facebook, X/Twitter and Instagram, and the recording is available now of course!
Hi Chris, Thank you for your wonderfully interactive and joyful lecture, and for the ability to inspire us to learn more 😀
Thank you Steven! 🙏
Havent heard this one yet...just await the Djoser pyramid/ water power publication to get pedr reviewed!
G'day Chris many thanks for the interesting lecture. I watched it on delay, 2.20am Adelaide time was too early for us old age pensioners! I look forward to your next talk. Regards Les Dicker.
Many thanks Les, I really appreciate you taking the time to watch the recording and sorry the live event has to be at such a difficult time for you! Thanks for your support!
An excellent presentation. Certainly interesting and informative.
Just a minor note. You did say that you might not remember every detail. The Khufu pyramid in addition to the three auxiliary pyramids also had a satellite pyramid in its complex. Hawass excavated it.
Inside it was a strange arrangement of four stones, as one on top of three. Interedting.
Khafre also had a satellite pyramid but no auxiliaries.
I mention it because I think the two satellites were related.
Also, is there any idea why the causeways (@1:13:35) of the three main pyramids had different alignments? It always catches my attention.
Finally, archaeologists do amazing work. Sometimes accidentally destructive? Yes.
But, they produce vast amounts of intrcate information that otherwise would never have seen the light of day.
Thank you for watching and for all your kind and helpful comments here. You're quite right about the satellite pyramid - it was in my mind but I couldn't recall all the details and of course it doesn't appear on my plan which dates to before Hawass' work. But it would have been better if I had mentioned it - thanks for bringing it up here! On the causeways, I don't know what say Lehner and Hawass' view on this is, but my guess would be that follow the most practical route down off the plateau, although looking again at the topography, it's not immediately clear why they couldn't have taken a different - straighter? - route. Knowing more about the buildings and infrastructure closer to the river might well help us to understand, but of course in the case of Khufu's buildings in particular very little is known in archaeological terms. Thanks again!
@ChristopherNaunton
Sorry about the error. I asked about the causeways (@1:13:35), but provided the wrong timestamp that should have been (@1:15:35).
Do you think/suspect the city will encroach more and more on to the archeological site(s) in egype, such that it could become a serious source for concern?
Yes, I do, but this is an issue that authorities face everywhere, not just in Egypt - land is needed for buildings of all kinds and archaeological sites are not always important enough to keep. Obviously Giza is massively important, and the site - a very large area - is protected. It would be great if a larger area could be kept free of development but in the modern world that's just not realistic. I would be more worried about less famous sites elsewhere I think!
PART 2 !!!!!!!
Fantastic - thank you ! 👏👏👏👏👍
Thank you!
I was wondering if you were part of the group at the real-archaeology group advertised by Flint Dibble.
I'm not, but my intentions for this lecture are very similar in spirit to those of Flint Dibble and co i.e. to counter the 'alternative' ideas that are not in any way based on the archaeological evidence or sound expertise in the subject.
This lecture was awesome.
@@Eyes_Open Thank you! 🙏
Hi Chris. Excellent as ever. Ive always been interested if not convinced by alternative theories and youve clarified some if not most of the ideas. Thank you
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it! 🙏
Thank you for a brilliant lecture, lots of wonderful information n confirmation. The Ancient Egyptians were amazing. One question, not exactly related, but I think John Romers book The Great Pyramid Revisited, briefly mentioned a smaller scale of Khufus chambers, built under the plateau, I have never seen or heard any other mention of this, Have you?
Thank you! I think you might be referring to the 'trial passages'? More info here: www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2020/03/11/a-theory-on-the-great-pyramids-trial-passages-sees/ Does that help?
@@ChristopherNaunton thank you for link, very interesting n intriguing.
Love the stone cutting pictures on stone. How long did all this take?
The ones from the TV documentary? If I remember rightly it took about 10-15 minutes to split the block of limestone, which was really incredible - once all the right grooved had been cut and the stone tapped in the right places it just fell apart. Smoothing the surface down - which was all done by the masons entirely by eye - took another 10 minutes or so. Really humbling to see these guys doing their expert work!
Excellent!
Many many thanks !!!
Thank you🎉
Really appreciated the effort put into making this video and I found the supporting material to be of the highest quality, however I fear the biggest elephant in the room for me is never addressed by the traditional theory and I would love to hear your take on it. In short, why is one royal cubit and 1 meter = exactly 5 feet? Is this not significant?
My understanding is that while the cubit was a way to introduce a standard of measurement in Egypt and was used in the design and construction of some very large and important monuments, the evidence we have including measuring rods (e.g. www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA23078) show the length of the cubit varied. It was generally a little over 50cm, so approximately two to the modern metre, which is also approximately 3 feet in imperial measures. But none of these measurements are exactly the same as one another.
Thank you Chris! I made notes on certain pictures, so I can use them in my History classroom. Good to get the students looking and practice with primary sources. And btw, overrunning....? I could have listened much longer.
Thanks so much Maaiken, lovely to know some of the talk may have been of use to you! If I can ever send any pics please let me know :)
Whilst the more bizarre theories have been excellently debunked, Chris, it still intrigues me how the pyramids were actually built and why they didnt celebrate and record more details of their incredible achievement.
Well, I suspect they probably did! What the Wadi el-Jarf / Merer papyri show is that they did keep detailed records of some aspects of the construction process and there may well have been papyri that show exactly how the blocks were lifted into position etc but it's a fairly safe assumption that the papyri the have survived are only a tiny fraction of what there would have been. And the discoveries at Wadi el-Jarf show that there is still hope that some thing more might turn up!
Surely "erosion theory never held water for me" was a pun.
Unintentional! 😂
@@ChristopherNaunton Thanks for these videos btw. My partner is Kenyan and I was shocked to here a young Kenyan man pushing the Ancient Aliens rubbish about the Pyramids. I told him that any Nilot from Kenya should be personally afronted by those "theories". That is typically white people saying your ancestors were not capable of doing what they did.
I wish this and your history of the Kushite Kingdom was taught in Kenyan schools in the same way us whities talk about Athens, Sparta, Macedon and Rome.
To think how advanced their civilisations were, while the ancestors of Rome were still learning how to ride a horse in Ukraine!
I intend to watch your one on Akenhatten too. The development of monotheism is fascinating for me.
I also wish there was a project where experts in all different areas and times got together to try to write an overarching story about the history of humanity, along with all forms of archeology, climate reconstruction, ecological studies etc.
Sorry, I got monologuing ... and I haven't even had my coffee yet. I'll put the laptop down as mercy for us all!
I know you over-ran again but irt is such a LARGE subject - definitely a part 2 or part 3 needed,
Thanks for the encouragement, I will think about what parts 2 and 3 should be about!
So did the aliens try to stop the construction of the pyramids, or were they only passive observers?
😂
Just a thought: The word mastaba probably derives from the greek ancient word αστοίβη (astivi) or αστοιβιά (astivia), which means a pile of rumble placed in a somehow symmetrical way. For example, the ancient and modern greek word στίβος (stivos), means stadium, which, by the way, is also equally separated in lines for the athletes. I know it's probably never written anywhere officially, but mastabas might be a greek word.
Thanks! I don't know the etymology of the Arabic word, but it's widely understood in Egyptology that it's application as a byword for the rectangular structures surmounting elite tombs of the first few Dynasties is the result of their similarity in shape to the 'mastabas' i.e. mud or wooden benches outside traditional Egyptian houses. If there is an alternative explanation it would be worth publishing as the conventional interpretation is very well established listed in Egyptology!
@ChristopherNaunton You're very welcome. I will have further research on this and let you know here as soon as I find something helpful. Thank you as well!
Thank you very much for your lecture!❤
We have the harbor, the ramps,.the quarries....but where are the spaceships. Those must still be buried.
😂
I remember Johnny Auten...
for debunking the ridiculous ancient aliens BS, Frank Dörnenburg did a good job there ( Däniken, Sitchin etc)..Also Dr Michael Heise, he did the 'ancient aliens debunked' docu.
Not remotely possible to debunk anything older than 5000 years as no language to record. The pyramids could have been built anytime before that.
the stupid stuff Däniken and sitchin wrote was archeologically ( Däniken) and linguistically ( Sitchin) debunked decades ago. even if acient alien 'theory' isnt a real theory, right.
Assuming that the ancient alien aficionados ascribe some sort of advanced capabilities exceeding even our current advancements compared to the ancient Egyptians why aren't the pyramids made of titanium or something unknown to mankind?
Ha! That's a good thought! Perhaps they *are* made of titanium or something but those dastardly Egyptologists have made them look like they're made of limestone to protect their secrets / reputations? 😂
Dr. Naunton, Thank you for your fine work. I have a question.
Fletcher infers that Snefru's Queen, Hetepheres' burial in a shaft grave on Giza is why the pyramids are located there, or at least why her son Khufu built there. Yet she never gets a mention elsewhere. Would you please, "fit her in," to the history of the plateau? Is she the cause of the selection of the site in your opinion?
I haven't come across this idea before. I very much respect Prof Fletcher of course but, although I should reserve judgement until I know more about the argument, I would be surprised if the presence of her burial at the site was the only/main reason Khufu built his pyramid there. It would also raise the question of why Hetepheres herself chose to be buried there. Up to now I prefer the ideas that Giza is 1) close to Memphis and visible from the city, 2) on naturally high / prominent ground which, we now know, was eminently accessible from the river, and 3) visible from Heliopolis which sites further south were not.
@@ChristopherNaunton Fletcher's comments on Hetepheres:
7:07in
ruclips.net/video/iupsqdg_D44/видео.htmlsi=MGmy-7kRnj3N6Uye
"This is where it all began... Hetepheres... I believe it was this mother's life giving force that shaped this entire plateau, forever... The rest of the acropolis unfolded as a result of her being here."
The logic of Hetepheres being the, "origins of the whole, entire site," seems to be founded on the observation that, "in Hetepheres' day... at her time, this entire plateau had nothing on it." - all quotes, Joann Fletcher, "EGYPT'S LOST QUEENS" (2014)
@@ChristopherNaunton Fletcher's comments on Hetepheres:
7:07in
ruclips.net/video/iupsqdg_D44/видео.htmlsi=MGmy-7kRnj3N6Uye
"This is where it all began... Hetepheres... I believe it was this mother's life giving force that shaped this entire plateau, forever... The rest of the acropolis unfolded as a result of her being here."
The logic of Hetepheres being the, "origins of the whole, entire site," seems to be founded on the observation that, "in Hetepheres' day... at her time, this entire plateau had nothing on it." - all quotes, Joann Fletcher, "EGYPT'S LOST QUEENS" (2014)
@@ChristopherNaunton Fletcher's comments on Hetepheres:
7:08in
ruclips.net/video/iupsqdg_D44/видео.htmlsi=MGmy-7kRnj3N6Uye
"This is where it all began... Hetepheres... I believe it was this mother's life giving force that shaped this entire plateau, forever... The rest of the acropolis unfolded as a result of her being here."
The logic of Hetepheres being the, "origins of the whole, entire site," seems to be founded on the observation that, "in Hetepheres' day... at her time, this entire plateau had nothing on it." - all quotes, Joann Fletcher, "EGYPT'S LOST QUEENS" (2014)
One question is, was it the absence of sand that left the area clear until the late 2500s or did the area have some other use or significance? The gathering of large crowds for festivals? Meetings? Army training?
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for your considered reply.
I keep publishing a comment containing the Prof. Fletcher quote & reference but it keeps disappearing. I'll wait for my new device before I try again.
I’d love to tee off in the shadow of the great pyramid!
Buckle up... It's going to be a bumpy ride. 🫏💥🌟👀
Isn't nice to have facts rather than looking for alternative theories. Great presentation; thanks Chris! I really enjoyed reading the Red Sea Scrolls too, which shoots alternatives out of consideration. Your final summary was worth waiting for and made a great finish😂😂😂
Thank so much!
I never doubted human creativity and never gave an ear to alien- anunaki- blah blah blah - speculations. Considering the amount stone to construct Angor Vat or The Imperial palace / forbidden city of China, which both I understand has more stone material than the pyramid of Khufu. People were industrious and used the resources around them: sand and water. How they exactly did the work Im not quite sure, there's several options. Yet to be revealed. Didnt they just recently found papyri in the quarries, depicting amounts of material and labour... Use of dolerite pounders, quartzite and feldspar rich sand and man hours and boom! 20 years later a shining white,
Tura limestone- clad pyramid mirrored in beautiful blank black basalt piedestal.
Your description and part of the presentation regarding pyramid evolution quite clearly shows it really wasn't an evolution but devolution. How did the Old Kingdom make such a complex structure as the Great Pyramids are and thousands of years later devolve into making mud brick structures that have already fallen apart? Also you mentioned all the pottery but you didn't mention the stone vases and vessels many of them made of granite and made to tolerances other than a couple thousands of an inch. That is using granite as a material we can't even make one of these today with all our technology. I do like the presentation you don't know because it's very informative of the history but you haven't debunked the major issues. And finding Pottery shards in the Sphinx does not prove its age with radiocarbon dating. We all know that the Sphinx had undergone many repairs and it's obvious to anyone that the head was completely reworked given its tiny size and compared to the body
I'm not sure that 'devolution' is the right word but I understand what you mean. That the Old Kingdom Egyptians may have had skills that were subsequently lost (or appear to be) should not be surprising - it's clear that abilities came and went (see for example in relief carving in the subsequent First Intermediate Period) many times in history on Egypt and also elsewhere, but that may not be the only explanation for the changes in architecture / design. E.g. the pyramids of the Fifth Dynasty were smaller and less solidly built than those of Khufu and Khafra of the Fourth Dynasty, but the pyramid temples of the Fifth were lavishly decorated with extremely fine hard stone sculptures - it seems there was a deliberate choice to shoot investment away from massive pyramids to a greater number and variety of monuments. Also, during the Middle Kingdom, although the core of the royal pyramids were built of mud brick, these same monuments are much more complicated internally than those of the Old Kingdom and feature some superb stone-cutting feats e.g. in the stones dressing the burial chambers at Lahun or Dahshur (Black Pyramid), or in the introduction of massive granite burial chambers and ceiling blocks at Hawara and elsewhere. I'd argue that the stone-cutting feats of the Middle Kingdom are as impressive as those of the Old Kingdom, just deployed differently. There were of course many things I didn't say - this was a long enough lecture as it was! On the pottery around the sphinx, it's not only the presence of 4th Dynasty material, but the absence of any material from almost any other period. The important thing is not what any one piece or group of material can tell us, but what the totality of the evidence makes most likely. Thanks for watching!
All is good
Let's go bro
The issue quite often is that whereas you correctly state that you consider it the best interpretation of known facts, others present it as incontrovertible truth with no other possible interpretation, thereby misrepresenting the situation entirely.
Yes, I think you're right about this, and I think we Egyptologists should accept some of the responsibility for some of the craziness - we could do a better job not just articulating the consensus view but showing why we think what we do. There's a lot of evidence to bring to the table and it's not easy to distill it down to something that is comprehensive but without getting too detailed and, frankly, boring. Formats like TV don't really allow for much detail, which is really what made me want to do this - to try to introduce some more of the evidence than we could really cover in the series I was involved with recently. I suspect the debate will never go away but there's definitely room for improvement on the side of the conventional Egyptologists. Thanks for the thought! By the way I will be writing something about this shortly - watch this space!
@@ChristopherNaunton Thank you for the well thought-out response, and for responding in the 1st place. My views on the topic under discussion do differ from yours, inter alia in that I consider that Khufu's interment in the pyramid that bears his name is probably accidental as opposed to deliberate, but that is a personal opinion and I am open to revising it as further evidence becomes available. My chief complaint about Egyptology as a discipline is that certain obvious matters (in my opinion) remain uncorrected, viz the statement that Herodotus mentioned that Khufu's intended tomb was under the Great Pyramid, whereas the correct statement is that it was on the hill where the Pyramids stand, expanding the area encompassed by the description to the entire Giza Plateau including, by the way, the so-called Osiris Shaft that matches his description to a remarkable degree...
@@tonygarcia0072 Again many thanks for your thoughts, very interesting!
If the abandoned building has all the components of a BANK. THEN IT'S OBVIOUSLY A POWER PLANT!!!
😂
I went to a really old cemetery the other day; it had a huge mausoleum in it with a hole in the side where you could get in. There were no coffins or bones inside so I was forced to conclude it had been a Tupperware factory from the Middle Ages.
@@TankUni 😂
@@TankUni
They really made Tupperware to last back in the Stone age. Oh you said Middle Ages. My sundial stopped. It needs a new battery.
No just human sacrifice
Yes yes yes
You know the very first warning that this video has nothing new to say nor any idea at all about any of the mysteries of Egypt were done?
He used aliens in the title of his pathetic clickbait.
If he had anything of interest to say or add to this topic that would be his title. But as you can plainly see he does not.
Nothing about engineering or lost technology both of which should be heavily featured as the current historical model has zip, absolutely nothing .
So don’t waste your time listening to regurgitated nonsense.
Instead seek some channels that are genuinely asking some important questions.
As for aliens im pretty confident compared to anything this guy is going to tell you , they’re the better bet.
Thanks, my spider senses were going off big time. Thanks for saving me from this video. Down vote.
lol he’s an Egyptologist and you’re…..?
@@Oddball5.0, someone who saw another video twice because it was so good. Anything else you got to help this guys channel?
@@archaicrevivalsYTchannelA., I wasn’t replying to you. 2, the channel doesn’t need my help.
@@Oddball5.0and then?
Since you ended the Q&A right as you arrived at my question, I will reiterate it here.
Why does the tomb of Khufu need air channels? Perring, the primary source discovering the King’s Chamber southern air channel exit point, wrote that it bends horizontal and was not pointed at the sky. You can see my presentation on this topic with over a million views if you want further elaboration.
Are you willing to engage serious ‘alternative’ ideas about the pyramids, rather than the silliest ones such as those presented in the recent TV series you made?
The pyramids don't "need" anything. You've fallen prey to apophenia.
You've also shown your true colors with that final insulting sentence -- and denied yourself the chance to have a good faith discussion with Dr. Naunton.
I'm sorry but I didn't see your question at the time - as you could probably tell I was struggling to get through all the questions and comments. I haven't had a chance to look at your presentation in its entirety yet, but as far as I can tell from dipping in here and there, it seems credible. I didn't really deal with the shafts in the talk - they are one of the topics I would have liked to have covered but didn't get time for, and I wanted to prioritise the things that seemed most in urgent need of correction, specifically the 'alternative ideas' (which I called 'myths') that 1) the Great pyramid was to built by Khufu but much earlier than his time, 2) that it could not have been built by the Old Kingdom Egyptians given the tools and technology etc we know they had at the time, 3) that the pyramids were not tombs, and 4) that establishment Egyptologists have something to hide. Despite all this my particular specialism is not Giza, pyramids, construction techniques etc. I'm certainly not unwilling to entertain new ideas - as I mentioned in the talk, in my area of specialism - Third Intermediate Period - new ideas have had to be considered and have now been adopted as the consensus - but in the case of your ideas about the shafts I couldn't really give an expert view. To get such critique, if you haven't already, I would strongly recommend you submit your ideas for publication in an established journal, perhaps the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (www.ees.ac.uk/our-cause/publications/journal-of-egyptian-archaeology.html). Even if your submission is not accepted the editors should provide constructive criticism, and if your work gets to the peer-review stage you would get even more feedback from anonymous reviews specially chosen for their expertise in pyramid construction etc (I would not be called on for this!). I suspect a lot of people would think that only established scholars would be allowed to submit things to such journals but this isn't true - it's the work submitted that is judged not the person.
@@ChristopherNaunton I appreciate the response, even though you did not feel comfortable offering an opinion on the air channels as requested. I encourage you to watch my presentation in full, the details really do matter - not just the physical evidence but the reaction of Egyptology to them for the past 150 years.
As the former director of the EES, you are probably aware that the JEA includes standard submission guidelines notably 3.1.2 and 3.2 ‘prior publication’ & ‘Contributor’s publishing agreement’ which combine to make work presented on RUclips excluded from submitting to the journal.
I have heard the excuse ‘not my area of specialization’ offered many times by Egyptologists - I expect by the time it gets whittled down the only individuals left will be the ones cited in my video who also show up on TV programs and have a conflict of interest over whose ideas are presented as credible to the public.
These are the same individuals who are appointed to every ‘special committee’ by the Ministry and wield a great amount of soft power over organizations like the EES/JEA. Let’s not pretend like these things don’t matter - they obviously do.
If you disagree - then ask yourself why you don’t feel comfortable offering your opinion on the air channels. The facts are very straightforward - the evidence is visible seen, and the sources are all well-cited including in the video description. If you, being an independent Egyptologist beholden to no institution feel uncomfortable voicing an opinion on the subject - how can you tell me I should expect to get a fair shake elsewhere?
PS Sadly there are a few trolls who lie about and harass me anywhere I comment, as seen below. Such is the price of a large audience. It's easy to block them from further commenting on your channel, and I recommend doing so.
As a Chris Naunton fan and HFG fan, this is a fascinating back and forth haha.
Doug, I think Chris would probably be better responding via email. This comment might get missed otherwise
History of Granite again... I've never seen anyone more pathetic on this website. The constant trolling around youtube seeking some validation from the people you strawman regularly in your videos instead of just focusing on your work. If you don't like that nobody listens to some youtuber, then change that.
11:57 NB: I 12:57 cc 14:03 cc 19:16 I 22:06 I 🤣 23:11 ⛔🚫37:50 27:01 🙄🚫'NOSIR'
@random22026 awesome. Put your hands together for this comment. Crushes the narrative to what this clown is saying in the presentation. Dr I know sweet f a should be the presenters name. I didn't even watch mare then 10min to know this was rubbish. No one can refute what I said earlier in comments and what this person has done is spot on and on point. Even tho I only watch a tiny bit. Congrats again.
@@beaucameron5110What a load of bull. But I suppose taking potshots at an authentic intellectual gives you illusionary feelings of superiority.
What a brilliant response. Be sure to show it to your grammer school teacher. They will be much impressed.
@@timhazeltine3256 sure does dumbfk
@timhazeltine3256 look out we got a keyboard princess here
I've always wondered, what is the real reason a people decline? Could modern day Egyptians equal the accomplishments of the ancients? Or modern Greeks the ancient Greeks. Will the same happen to the Germanic peoples who are now at their apex? If so why?
People don't decline, i.e. there is no evidence that humans in general, or an ethnicity in particular, have experienced a decline in their intellectual capacities. Modern day Egyptians like the rest of humanity are just as able as their ancestors. Also, the concept itself is the pernicious basis for racism
culture. u can just look at 1950 vs modern usa. peak vs decline. one is uniform and selfconfident, the other scattered and selfloathing.
Monuments are indices of cultural priorities, not cultural apexes. The Egyptians couldn't build Chartres, or the Eiffel Tower, or the Saturn V. We're far beyond the technical capabilities of the ancient Egyptians - and we have been since the 19th century.
@@SoviCalc we got steel in the 1300s. until abt 100 years ago, we couldnt build the monuments of megalitic times, even with steel and steam, and oil. in particular baalbek. so yea, roughly 1900 or so. far beyond copperchisels, roundstones and rolling logs or dripping water on sand. archeology is what happens when pure academics try their hand at understanding practicallity. 95% of all old buildings are temples or mausoleums. they manhandled 4-5000 kilo pr man, using hemp, and carried it a few hundred miles pr day. lived in scuallor and died in style. if ever a science needed an einstein or darwin, its history.
@@sebastianbergstl4423 Steel is not why Chartres exists, but thank you.
That My PERPETUAL SUFFERING EXISTS
Why are you pronouncing Khafre as "Kye-fra"?
You are the first I've ever heard do that. I know hieroglyphs did not have vowels, but still...
{:o:O:}
Apologies for my pronunciation, I am aiming at 'Kha-f-ra', but perhaps putting rather too much emphasis on separating the 'f' sound. We don't really know how the Egyptians pronounced these words and in any case as an Anglophone I wouldn't have all the right sounds so my pronunciation is always going to be a bit off - as it is for lots of other names/words theatre foreign to me!
@@ChristopherNaunton
Well, I've only ever heard it said as "Khaf-ray". Later you say no one knows if the accepted academic pronunciations are correct, so I wondered if academia had changed the accepted norm.
But then, I have heard Amun Ra and so on pronounced as "Rah" and "Ray". It reminds me of when Latin scholars decided Caesar was Kaiser and Cicero Kikero!
Thanks for the reply.
Cheers!
{:o:O:}
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 I can assure you that pronouncing the last part of the name as 'rah' is entirely conventional! Our understanding of the sounds used in Egyptian suggests that 'rah' would be right. the reason you often also hear 'ray' is that this is how the name of the sun-god is pronounced in Coptic, the latest form of the ancient egyptian language. We don't know that the way it was pronounced in the Late Antique Period (when Coptic was in use) would have been the same as the way it was pronounced alsmot three thousand years earlier during the 4th Dynasty. And while the word was 'ray' in Coptic, it is certainly 'rah' elsewhere as in, for example, 'Ramesses', not 'RAYmesses'.
The pyramid in Giza And south America have a lot of similarities. Design wise
Why?
I think the likeliest explanation is that it's a very human thing to want to build bigger and higher, and one of the simplest ways to do this is to build things that are large at the base and get smaller as you get to the top. I'm not an anthropologist, but I suspect that idea, of building things that reach up to the sky is common to people in lots of different places. And while the buildings we call pyramids in e.g. Egypt and also Meso-America are superficially similar, they are also quite different in the details.
I believe as has been stated by researchers I hold in highest regards that to having coded such things as mathematical constants and the ratio of our planets into the pyramids with such precision which we could not manage today we at least would have a society which would have circumnavigated the globe
Moving 50-to-1000-ton stones was easy between 4500 and 4700 years ago, then we forgot how to do that, so it was never done again for constructing anything except statues. 12 ton stones and smaller are big enough for walls and buildings.
Pyramid shape?
Wait why isnt my alternative throry in here. Egyptologists are hiding the truth, Tutmoses I had 6 toes
...peer reviewed..
SOME EGYPTOLOGIST SAYING KHUFU FATHER OF KHAFRE , SOME SAID KHAFRE IS FATHER OF KHUFU ? WHO IS WHO ?
The word you are looking for is, "Egyptologist". And furthermore, if they are claiming that Kafre is the father of Khufu then I would harbour doubts as to their eligibility for such a title.
@@jahuti5065 😀
The precise nature of the relationships between the various members of the Fourth Dynasty royal family are not all known, but the consensus if that Khafra is the son of Khufu (and as per the comment below I;d be very surprised if you found any specialists claiming the reverse!). For more info see Dodson and Hilton, The Complete Royal Families...: amzn.to/3AeGkDh
And the very fact alone that you brought up hawas as a reference to anything makes me want to mention to you to please delete this video and stop wasting people's times with this BS
Boring
Your starting point is weak.
That's not how you age the pyramids you don't find debris up and around it and assume my association this is the most ridiculous podcast and far stressed claims of ridiculousness that I've ever heard regarding anything which describes the Egyptian pyramid
I'm sorry if you don't like this but using associated material to help interpret / date sites and monuments is absolutely standard practice in archaeology in Egypt and elsewhere (everywhere in fact!). Human activity typically leaves traces, and we see this everywhere on archaeological sites. When such material relates to a certain period or activity, it's entirely reasonable to date or interpret the context in which it is found accordingly. And in this case, the abundant archaeological evidence of human activity at Giza points to a peak of activity in the Fourth Dynasty. This *corroborates* the other kinds of evidence we have - inscriptions, later histories, development of funerary monuments during this period etc. In other words all these various kinds of evidence all lead to the same conclusion. And meanwhile, there is far less material / evidence, if any, to connect the construction of the major monuments at Giza with any other period.
@@ChristopherNaunton in cases where material associated with sites has been dated the distinction has been made so that one understand it is the material which dates back to such time not the monuments...ie pottery located near a particular monument has been found today back to such and such dates... But to claim that the monument shares that same date is fully and misspoken facts
@@memogap88 I think we might just have to agree to disagree here. There is of course a distinction to be made between the material and the monument, but the material can be and is often used as one means - not necessarily the only one - of dating the monument. I can tell you this based on my own experience of working as an archaeologist in the UK and Egypt!
@@ChristopherNaunton fundamentally we have to agree because they're exist logic for example
Authority is not the truth
Hawass all mighty dismisses tangible facts so that his narrative can follow the agenda which benefits only his credential status and ego
Truth is the authority ultimately this works everywhere
Due to the fact that we have found such ancient things that the further back the more precise it is because with such precision that history needs to be rewritten
When stacked up all the fax point to one and only one conclusion... And these facts are the tangible out of place artifacts which continue to turn up the more that they can continues
The Orion Theory? You messed up big-time. Everything you said was wrong. You didn't bother reading it or the pointers I gave you in the appendix of 'Origins of the Sphinx' which tackles the Ed Krupp foolishness that you repeated. Every single point you raised on it was incorrect. You can't be helped. You regurgitate others before actually looking into it. You're a nice guy. I'd never want to be mean, but these are facts.
Even if the buildings are arranged to match a constellation . . . you've proved precisely zilch about lost tech. Ancient Egyptians were great, but they couldn't even make reading glasses, bud. Find a tomb with rayguns in it and you'll be taken more seriously.
🤦🏼
@Iammrspickley Got no argument? Yes, it involves reading first.
@@JEKAZOL reading something goes nowhere without logic and critical thinking....but whatever dude....go crazy with the fantasising.
@Iammrspickley So you still have nothing but insults? If you can't attack the theory, attack the man... You just embarrassed yourself again. I'm sure you'll do it again.
But please, we're all waiting for you to explain in detail, your view on the issue. But being a fan is easier than being a rock star. You just go, "woo!"
Thanks!
Thank you so much, really appreciate it! 🙏
Thanks
Thanks!
Thank you so much, I really appreciate your support! 🙏
Thanks
Thanks!
Thank you!