@@Rave_volution that doesn't make sense. This channel only uploads concrete evidence and proof whilst ancient architects uploads mainly hypothesis and theories.🤷♂️
Absolutely mine, too. No. 1 so far! Wish he would do videos a little more often, but can imagine the amount of work going into each one makes that too difficult. I learn something new w/every one. 🌞🌻
I'm so glad people have started doing independent research into the pyramids with thorough observation skills, because waiting for mainstream media to ever present the truth is a lost cause. This channel is incredible. Thanks for all these brilliant vids. 🎯
Yeah it seems they can make a lot more money making a stupid did aliens build the pyramids tv show then presenting a proper documentary with different opinions based on agreed facts. I miss the old kind of documentary ehich was an old man in a cardigan just telling you facts and not making bizzare conclusions.
It's human nature that one of the hardest things any of us can do is to not be blinded by a fond belief, even when there is contrary evidence. You want to find evidence of a sarcophagus in the queen's chamber and yet in all honesty you had to accept these accounts are not it. Many would not accept that. Thank you for another excellent video.
I think being proven wrong or right is equally exciting. Both are the same step toward the truth. So called disappointing explanations are fun because they are the closest we can determine to what is really there
Been waiting for a new video since watching the Ancient Architects collaboration. Loved both. Laughed when you stated ‘if you’re one of the few who haven’t watched that video”. You know your fans/subs well. I’m sure a majority of us had seen it. Looking forward to your next installment. 😊
When I look at the niche in the Queen's Chamber, specifically how it's asymmetrical with respect to the wall it's in, I get the feeling that this fact is a clue to something just out of reach. It's quite easy to see how those with an exploratory itch find this room so interesting.
A proper engineering or architectural study of its purpose, informed by culture and history, would probably be the best place to start. After all, significant blind excavation has already turned up nothing of note. The lack of study into such structures given the simplicity it would be with modern techniques is, to me, an astonishing blind spot. One really does wonder why so little such scrutiny is done, or perhaps, allowed.
my head-canon explaination for the sand is as follows. if you wanted to make a tomb as hard to break into as possible then you would want to surround and fill it with substances that are resistant to digging, while something like granite resists digging through it by being really strong and hard, sand is different. sand resists digging by being really loose and constantly flowing back down into the hole filling itself back in, if you don't sure up the sides then it's impossible to dig deep into sand. in short sand resists digging by being really annoying as opposed to being tough. for this reason i believe the sand was added and used to fill corridors as a mild form of defence to prevent digging. it would be really hard to remove requiring hundred or thousands of buckets being carried up through small corridors to do so but putting in in place would be easy as you could just pour it down the entrance and let the slope of the tunnels do the work. it could also explain the small chutes to nowhere inside the chambers.
Sand is better than nothing but that's it. Get 100 guys with buckets and they would have a passage plugged with sand excavated in no time. Now try doing the same thing when the corridor is filled with limestone blocks...now you can only use a few guys and they have slowly destroy their way in block by block...
@@JoelRSmith whether its stone or sand you'd still only get 1 person at a time digging due to the narrowness of the passageways. two people can't pass each other so they'd have to form a chain. with buckets going each way, empty one way full the other, that would be really awkward in such close confines. then consider the slope and the sheer volume that would need to be moved. it would be a very laborious process digging through yard after yard of sand.
Thanks to HFG and Matt at AA for continuing to bring new info and insight into the mysteries of ancient Egypt. The excitement and wonder of my trip there 30 years ago gets rekindled each time I see a new video on the subject.
It is already clear to me, that any further praise of your channel, and Matt's AA's channel, would be superfluous and redundant. However, both of you do deserve high praise for your intelligent analyses, respect for one another's work and recent collaboration. Bravo. This is to everyone's benefit. We "Happy Amateurs" are indebted to the both of you.
Discovered your channel on my own, but glad to see you know Matt. You guys really give the feeling the WE (meaning you, Matt AND the fans of your channels) will get to the bottom of these long thought questions. Kudos.
After doing some digging around, it turns out that Vyse's unpublished papers are at the Ashmolean and his notes and some small finds are still stored (unchecked!) by the British Museum in their main archive. Trying to get the Petrie Museum interested in going through his archive because some of the finds are listed as 'unidentified ceramics'.
This info seems pretty important...something to be actively by "experts" in the field...what's up with the lack of interest? is it simply labeling? Makes no sense to me...
@@laurah1020 It's mostly a matter of time and money. They have projects that get them funding which will always come before things that are just 'interesting'. They no longer have the fabulously rich patrons that previous generations could milk for large sums of cash. That and the fact that there are literally millions of documents and finds that have been catalogued and stored. You'd need an army of eagle-eyed researchers just to dent the backlog.
Man, your videos are awesome. It is great that you and Matt have worked together. I would love to see more collaborations in the future. Greetings from Austria.
This channel is so good, it can only be of others not yet discovering this treasure trove of information. I was led here through "Ancient Architects" channel, another fantastic channel on its own.
I am so glad that you and Matt are working together. A couple months back I left a comment suggesting that this collaboration would be great for those of us who religiously follow your videos. I’d like to think my suggestion planted the seed but even if it was merely coincidental I’d love to see you both sharing with each other and in turn with us. Your perspectives enrich us all. Thank you so very much for what you do.
What great videos. Just when I thought everything had been said on the subject of ancient Egypt and Giza.....along come your videos to make us think again.....
I love you and your work. You and Matt are amazing. This is like my 7th watch through on this but I saw something new at 15:39. Regardless of what happened behind it, those right angles are polished and finished. But also undamaged, as if they knew where to dig
At 8:20" Caviglia was always off digging in Mummy pits" . The Queen's sarcophagus was in the niche sitting on the granite or marble block and the treasure hunter brain of Caviglia figured the treasure she had was behind the sarcophagus so he destroyed it to find her treasure and left the ruble . Sometime around 1817.
Its so awesome to know that discussions between you and Ancient Architects exist and theres comradeship between you both especially on this cutthroat platform where everyone is fighting for views and channels that specialize in similar topics are more often competing than collaborating. If only all these young content creators knew that working together and building up others just increases the overall audience and will work in your favor too
Love both ancient architects and your channel of granite. Both using the same shared information, you haven't copied each other's approach explaining to the public making both your videos refreshing
I'm skeptical of this conclusion. It feels like more of a leap to me to say that someone could misconstrue the lack of a box for a box. I think it's pretty well understood, generally, what a sarcophagus is when that term is used. There's no reason to use that term otherwise. I'm not saying there was one and I'm not saying there wasn't, but to even lean toward "there wasn't" based on this explanation is a mistake imo. I don't buy the "knocking on the wall makes an echo in the tunnel" being the same as the sound created by knocking on a hollow box either-- two different acoustic experiences. An echo is not the same as a hollow thud.
Today, we know what that word means. Today you have a completely different understanding then most people in the past of any word, let alone one like that, contributed to by a century of entertainment media. So your bias can easily be a problem here. There are other sources from other parts of the world defining sarcophagus as a hole in the wall, a body placed in it and sealed, now empty of the latter two parts.
Thank you for yet another wonderful video. Your knowledge is exceptional but more importantly giving people time to view the Ancient Architects video 1st tells me that you are also a very exceptional human. I look forward to future videos.
Hello there again. I am going to take a "wild card" from the "Monopoly" board and give it my best guess. I may end up in "jail" but, ...here's my take on this highly intriguing subject. After watching this wonderful video over and over several times, I have a "hypothesis". It's in two parts. 1.) There was a Sarcophagus, BUT, (someone) messed up and broke it during their excavations. Our friends Al Adrizi, Weiss, Caviglia and Petri were not the first to enter the Great Pyramid as we know. (Not to mention the Circus Performer, Barzoni or Barboni, I can't recall, who was notorious for not being the most "gentle" or methodical of treasure hunters.) Over the millennia, who can say how many attempts were made to plunder the monument? Anyway, I believe the Sarcophagus was damaged and ended up as rubble. Who wants to come home to the British Museum with a pile of scrap and claim "It really is a Sarcophagus, if they just glue it together again?" Embarrassing, what? 2.) From the photographic evidence, one can estimate the the space in the Niche to be approximately large enough for a "modern" person to lay down horizontally. Approximately 5.5 Ft. from the photos. If this was truly a "Queen's" chamber / Sarcophagus / Niche, then I submit that it may have been a small Sarcophagus, as the average height of Ancient Peoples was less than that of the modern person. It therefore may have fit into the Niche horizontally more like an alter with the god peering from behind over the box, protecting it. So, to get deeper into the Niche, where they perhaps suspected to find "Booty", they may have attempted to move it and broke it in the process. All the rubble in the Niche, which we see in the photos, may actually be in part, the Sarcophagus itself? Do I go to "Jail" now? I can't wait to read your take on this and your upcoming special video. Thanks.
There are a few examples of 'coffers within coffers' - but it's uncommon and usually the stone is a different type in the two layers. I think the niche cavity being a back-up 'unused' coffer is a reasonable idea. But I think it's much less likely a 2nd coffer was actually embedded within and entirely lost to time.
I love ancient Architects and your Channel. As they are my two favorite channels to watch. You guys always put up awesome content keep up the great work!
I think you might be right with the sarcophagus theory. When looking at the niche with the tunnel visible, well, it look more like a tunnel than a sarcophagus. But on the old photos, half filled with sand and stones, it looks much more like a ( not fully excavated) sarcophagus than I expected. Since both reports you mentioned, were written during Vyse's excavation work in front of the niche, it is likely, that some debris would have been deposited inside the tunnel and after the backfill, left there.
As the report shown in the video describes how the writer crawled into the corridor until it became too narrow to advance (30 ft, if I remember correctly), I find that explanation unlikely.
you know... I stumbled on this video... the last time I had seen anything about the Great pyramid was something on netflix where they sent the bot and the found the blocks with the copper handles/pins. Thanks for these videos... It has given perspectives that I hadn't seen presented before, and it made my brain think of a few reason why there is like nothing written within the pyrmids... these videos are great!
Again an excellent analysis! Thank you for the effort you put into it. :)) There might be an additional explanation as to why the early explorers saw a sarcophagus in the structures. How boring is an empty queens chamber? So this structure has to be a sarcophagus for readers to be excited. We see the same principle in the media today. ;)
When I look at it, I can almost see where a statue was. I can't prove a statue was there but I can easily imagine what it looked like if it was there. I just see how thin the space is top down. So doub crown, head, shoulders, sitting on throne, legs and a square base that prob had all his names and info. I def wish I could go back in time and take a look. I have a good feeling that the outside of the pyramid especially towards the bottom prob had a bunch of hieroglyphics on the casing stones explaining so many answers to questions we ask now. The Great Pyramid is my favorite thing on Earth.
There’s actually a lot of circumstantial evidence that a statue was not there. It looks like a nice place to put a statue, but it’s the exact opposite of how Egyptians used to place statuary around chambers.
What, wait, at 1:36 people carried tables and chairs up there! I would have trouble carrying myself up to the top. But what a picnic that would of been, lucky ducks I have never been there and all I have to compare the great Pyramid to is The Sydney Harbour bridge which I have been to the top of its mighty arch many times(for a while the biggest steel arch bridge in the world) and that is an engineering marvel to see from the top and I am mighty proud my fellow countryman built and about the same height as the great Pyramid and that huge stack of stone was built 45 centuries ago, so they tell us. Amazing, stupendous just WOW BTW, I have watched a lot of this stuff and this this perhaps the best presentation of all. You ask questions without answers and that is beauty of it. Another thing. you mentioned around 2:42 that they are, in my words keeping things close to their chest. Can you really blame them when over the centuries their heritage was plundered. The British Museum would be the last plunders. Now I wait to be told that the Egyptians plundered from surrounding countries like Syria all those years ago.
Mat from ancient architects recommends you, so... 🖐 hello. Good stuff. I've liked what I've seen so far and expect to view more quality content as time moves forward. Thanks mate
marvelous to have 2 enthusiastic youtuber researchers with there own specialties to draw on. Always enjoy your precise presentations, so i dont want to take your personality for granite.
In the old photos, with all that rubble in it, the visible part of the square cavity inside the niche looks even more like a sacrophagus than it does today.
I really like the theory that all three chambers in the pyramid were meant for the pharoah and represent different stages of the building project enabling him to have a burial chamber ready in case he died before the work was finished. So there should not have been sarcophagi in either the "Queen's" chamber or the subterranean one - as no-one was ever buried in them
Ah !, I'd forgotten that older explorers would have been using oil lamps/candles etc, we're so used to led flood lamps illuminating everything perfectly. Great point.
Imho it looks as if the second sarcophagus was turned upside down and put in the excavation hole ( this would account for the discrepancy in depth ) in order that if anyone say the prince came along and re opened the excavation the bottom of the sarcophagus would appear to be a soild block therfore making it look like he was telling the truth this would also explain the large amount of rubble left over in the picture reportedly taken shortly after !
Man, when you mentioned the sarcophagus lost at sea I remembered a scene of that from a movie I couldn't remember... it was "The Old Guard" with Charlize Theron, they slap someone in an iron maiden and toss her overboard to drown over and over again, yikes!!!!
Just completed my 10th - 7 yr. circuit around the sun this month. Bought the ''Secrets Of The Great Pyramid'' by Peter Thompkins @ age 22 back in 1973, & have studied & referred to it's logic & mathematics many times over ever since. The most Integral explorer in my opinion, was Flinders Petrie.
Bom dia , A pirâmide de Khufu , magnífica !!! A teoria que sugere a câmara da rainha como um serdab possuindo uma estátua e um altar parece ser bem convincente . No meu ponto de vista isso implica em uma visitação constante a esta câmara para o culto a estátua do rei , pelos sacerdotes na antiguidade . Existe esta possibilidade ? O interior da pirâmide poderia ser visitado na antiguidade ou há indícios de que após o sepultamento do faraó a pirâmide foi selada totalmente ? Parabéns pelo trabalho !!! Sucesso sempre !!!
@@HistoryforGRANITE Ola , grato pelo contato e atenção , me sinto honrado neste momento , muito obrigado !!! Agora fui presenteado com mais uma curiosidade sobre a grande pirâmide ... O espaço existente no interior da câmara da rainha ( nicho ) , poderia ter outra finalidade ? Foi a melhor teoria que havia encontrado até o momento ... E se encaixava com os meus delírios sobre a grande pirâmide . Mil desculpas pela minha falta de conhecimento sobre o assunto . Essa parte da história demostrada por você é fascinante , tentar explorar o porquê , como e qual a finalidade em um ângulo diferente é sensacional e me interessa muito . O monumento em si é um enigma feito em pedra , mas entender como tudo funcionava é realmente maravilhoso ! Tenho uma paixão singular em relação a grande pirâmide . Gosto muito da cultura egípcia como um todo , porém a grande pirâmide alimenta os meus sonhos . Existe alguma simulação do sepultamento do faraó no interior da pirâmide e o processo de selagem do monumento ? Me intriga por de mais a passagem do poço , a sua motivação ... A câmara conhecida como gruta (Grotto) , poderia ser um antigo oráculo , um ponto de pelegrinação na planície de Gizé ... Amigo ... forte abraço felicidades infinitas para você !!!
Statues within burials were found inside the architecture of the “palace facade” or “false door” which facilitates the movement of a soul. The Queen’s corbeled niche is an entirely different design. I will provide a framework of understanding for it in a video coming soon.
@@HistoryforGRANITE Primeiramente gostaria de agradecer pela atenção , muito obrigado !!! Tudo bem , vou aguardar ansioso pelo seu vídeo , enquanto isso vou acistindo a todos os outros relacionados a grande pirâmide ! Entender a dinâmica da pirâmide seria incrívelmente interessante !!! Como se deu o sepultamento e o fechamento da pirâmide ? Pois a mesma possuía uma porta articulada ... isso seria um indicador de uso , de acesso as câmaras ... Realmente o nicho no interior da câmara da rainha é singular , tendo um espaço para o interior da pirâmide ... Mais uma vez , muito obrigado pelo retorno , para mim é um grande privilégio poder conversar com pessoas que possuem tanto conhecimento sobre este tema o qual me alegra a alma ! Obrigado !
Bom dia , Assistindo a mais vídeos sobre o assunto surgiu uma outra ideia sobre o nicho na câmara da rainha e gostaria muito de compartilhar como você . Olhando o nicho de frente e observando onde houve a retirada do bloco central me ocorreu ter visto o mesmo estilo na pirâmide vermelha . Não sei se vou conseguir me fazer entender , me perdoe por conta disso ... não gostaria de causar algum tipo de infortúnio , a minha intenção seguramente passa muito longe disso ... O formato do nicho em Khufu me lembrou o formato da parede da pirâmide vermelha onde foi retirado o bloco que deu acesso a câmara funerária . Será que não poderia ser uma evolução do tipo de fechamento de câmaras , tendo a mesma disposição porém com menor esforço ? O bloco tem o mesmo perfil frontal , area quadrada e poderia ser inserido na parede para fechar a câmara ou passagem por de trás do nicho ... Poderia ser também uma ideia que foi abandonada durante a construção da pirâmide , assim como ocorreu com a câmara subterrânea ... Obrigado , sucesso sempre !
Thanks for sharing your research! I look forward to your videos and am impressed with your work. I can’t remember what you thought the pyramids were built for and why the great pyramid has so many mathematical and scientific formulas built in? How old do you think Giza is? I love listening and learning what serious researchers think they are, when, and who built them. Looking forward to your next video! ⚡️🌎⚡️🐄🌔🌎⚡️
When you build something, everything is mathematical, for example to build a roof, I buy wood in four metters, but I have not so much choice to cut the wood, if I want two equal parts that's make 2 meters, four, 1 meter, but three parts makes 1.33 meter to have no loss. So you have the roof chosen in a way having no loss and you find always consequences of trigonometry, and of the initial choices you have made.an other example for angles, cycle is 360 degrees, the number of days in a year 12 x 30 days, in assyrian calendar, so this makes a link between days and angle. ''time is an angle'' as says an Astrophysicist friend .
Brien Foerster has been putting out some interesting videos and lectures about Egypt too. I've been a fan of Ancient Architects for years and Matt steered me to check out History for Granite. Very interesting material.......very interesting. What I most like about Matt is he updates his previous videos and hypothesizes as more information becomes available......that says a lot. History for Granite........good work, very good work.
I liked Forester's video walkthroughs but had to turn the audio off after he drones on about the predynastic nonsense. He thinks all the carved granite in Egypt is predynastic or something, makes no sense.
Brien Forester has been around the world documenting ancient sites. I don't believe he's a used car salesman. Most of what he hypothesizes is opinion I agree......but at least he has an opinion. Gather all the information you can, draw your own conclusions, and seek as many sources as you can. I do. I'm very critical when it comes to being convinced. Peace out.
You could also conclude that European catacombs might have influenced an explorer's idea of what a sarcophagus was. Grave niches underground would not have been an unusual practice in their minds and the niche tunnel in the Queen's Chamber could have been seen as a similar style to other examples in Europe.
"Left of the entrance, at the eastern wall, mostly inside the same, stands the somewhat smaller coffin made from marble, open, empty, simple." I somehow doubt he'd have used "stands" and "coffin" if he was talking about a burial shelf.
I read the page with Viscino's description that you show at 11:00 and as a native german speaker I think that it is very unlikely that what Viscino describes there is what we see today. Let me explain why. 1.) Viscino writes that the sarcophagus is "standing (!) on (!) the eastern wall, largely (!) in the same". If he was refering to the square cavity, this choice of words would be very crude and make little sense. The square cavity is not "on" but "in" the eastern wall and not "largely" but completly and the cavity is not "standing" at all. If he meant the cavity, you would expect a description along the line of "a sarcophagus was carved into the wall". 2.) Why would he assume that the cavity is a sarcophagus? The sarcophagus in the King's chamber is very clearly a sarcophagus, but while the square cavity could potentially be closed and used to store a corpse, it is far from obvious that this was the case and he would indulge in speculation there which does not seem to be in line with the rest of his purely descriptive text. 3.) His description of the sarcophagus as "standing somewhat smaller [...] open, empty, simple" refers back to the sarcophagus that he had seen in the King's Chamber before. Note that in this case the words "standing open, empty, simple" make perfect sense and are a very clear description of what we see in the King's chamber today. So when we take this context into account, the most likely interpretation of his words is that the sarcophagus in the Queen's Chamber is just like the one in the King's chamber except that it is "somewhat smaller" and standing largely inside a niche. But if he was refering to the square cavity assuming that this cavity was used as a sarcophagus, then comparing this sarcophagus to the one in King's chamber without mentioning the huge differences between these two completly different kinds of sarcophagi seems very strange and unlikely. 4.) The last paragraph of the page begins with "Above (!) the sarcophagus a shaft leads into the eastern wall." If he saw the square cavity as the sarcophagus, this description would make no sense. What he would have written in this case would be something like "behind the sarcophagus" or "at the other end of the sarcophagus". 5.) If he saw not the the square cavity itself as the sarcophagus, but the floor of the cavity as the lid of a sarcophagus, he could not have written that the sarcophagus was empty. To sum up, for your interpretation to make sense, you have to assume that Viscino's account is very crude, unprecise and speculative, and that assumption does not seem to be in line with the rest of his text. Edit: 6.) The kind of tomb that you think Viscino saw is called "Backofengrab" ("oven grave") in German and would never be called a sarcophagus, especially not by a priest. A sarcophagus is always a (at least potentially) free standing stone box.
I appreciate your analysis, and here's a few things to consider. 1) Visino is not writing this as he looks at it directly. It's from memory some time later, and no doubt the poor illumination did not help. 2) The tunnel is 'above' the sarcophagus if you interpret the rough chisel marks as tunneling distinct from the box itself. Most of the squared limestone does become the tunnel, - but the section that appears non-original to the pyramid is above the 'sarcophagus'. 3) It's common for people to adopt nomenclature they wouldn't normally use to describe something foreign. If someone tells you pharaohs are buried in a sarcophagus - you call it a sarcophagus even if it's not how you would usually describe it. 4) If there was a real free-standing sarcophagus, they way Visino describes it puts in the most awkward spot possible. It would have to be precariously set over the hole being dug in the floor - why would Vyse put it there? It doesn't disguise the hole (since Visino had a good look inside). It's just in the way and hazardous to people and the sarcophagus itself.
@@HistoryforGRANITE So Visino's book is a collection of letters that he wrote to another priest. I read the full 5th letter on Google Books and the more I read the more interesting this story becomes to me. The letter is dated with "Cairo, the 30th of March" and apparently his visit to the pyramids took place only three days earlier. So his memory must be fresh and given the amount of numbers he includes in his account like his counting of the stone courses, the dimensions of rooms and corridors and the exact dimensions of the coffin in the King's Chamber, I think it is fair to assume that he must have taken notes while he was on site. In his letter he also describes how he entered the "shaft above the coffin" in the Queen's Chamber, how he crawls through it and how he retreats backwards with his gun drawn when he meets "something living" in there, obviously refering to some kind of animal. So given the fact that according to this diagram upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Chambre-reine-kheops.jpg what you call the "square cavity" is about 4 meters long before it becomes a "forced passage" and given the fact that Visino did crawl through it, I really do not see how he could identify any part of this structure as a "somewhat smaller coffin" that "stands" "on the eastern wall". The only thing that would make remotely sense is if he called the part that is called "recess" on the diagram shown at 11:28 a "coffin". The width of the recess might fit his description and the height might fit as well if you assume that the lid was flush with the floor of the square cavity, which in that case would be described correctly as being "a shaft above the coffin". But in my view the problem with this interpretation is simply that this recess is obviously just that. It is a niche into which a coffin could be placed, but to call it a "coffin" really bends the words. And if he refered with "coffin" to this recess, what does his remark that the coffin is "largely inside the wall" mean? By definition the recess is fully inside the wall. My point is that I see no need to bend Visino's words like this when there is a way more likely interpretation available, being that he is simply saying there stands a "real" coffin inside the niche of the Queen's Chamber and that this coffin protrudes a bit out of the niche and that Vise is digging beneath it. To be clear, I am not saying that this coffin in the Queen's chamber must have existed. I am entirely prepared to dismiss this part of Visino's account as plainly wrong. Maybe he just strongly assumed that there once must have been a coffin inside the niche and he made up the present existence of this coffin to strenghten his hypothesis that the pyramids were nothing else but tombs. I am purely looking at his account from a hermeneutical perspective and to me it seems quite clear what he is saying and that he is indeed talking about a "real" coffin and not some niche or cavity that he calls "coffin" for whatever reason.
@@mikecassidy1623 I am not an expert, but the main problem with a box or coffin in the Queen's Chamber is I think that Caviglia cleared it in 1816 from rubbel and found nothing. So if Vyse found a coffin, he must have found it inside the hole that he was digging. Maybe he had just recently lifted the coffin out of that hole when Viscino arrived? Viscino does mention the hole, he does mention that it is empty and that it sounds hollow, but if the sarcophagus had recently come out of there, I would expect him to have noticed and mentioned that somehow.
Thank you again for digging deeper, and it's true that parsing words from so long ago can be maddening. Certainly Visino's words are not a perfect match to the niche cavity - but for me the similarities outweigh the differences. If one assumed a Queen's Chamber sarcophagus would be analogous to its chamber the way the King's Chamber sarcophagus is (granite box, granite room), then you'd expect it to be a bit smaller, made of limestone etc. But since Prince Kawab (Khufu's son) had a large granite sarcophagus - surely an original Queen's Chamber one is unlikely to have been smaller and made of limestone. It's another example of making a logical interpretation that happens to be inaccurate.
"The sand could have been used to aid the moving of slabs -the slab sits on top of the sand -The sand is moved away and the slab lowers into place -apparently this was used under the Sphinx for the temples found there "
Very nice video, thanks! Sarcophagus, from the Greek, means “flesh eating”, according to the American Heritage Dictionary. And when used in the context of a stone burial box, it means a type of stone that will hasten the decomposition of corpses. Roman historian Pliny the Elder says that the best sarcophagus stone in use in his day could “consume” a corpse in as little as 40 days. My guess is that reducing graveyard smell was the main motivation. Therefore, it does not necessarily refer to a box shaped stone object, but to any stone enclosure you’d put a dead body into. Egyptians, being obsessed with preserving the mortal remains, would naturally be repulsed by we moderns referring to their stone burial boxes as sarcophagi. So, and in line with your theory, your early 1800s dudes, being closer to the origins of the word “sarcophagus”, could have easily thought of both the box in the King’s chamber and the Queen’s chamber niche as sarcophagi. On the other hand, there may be some rich dude, even as I write this, smiling and gently patting the Queen’s chamber box-like sarcophagus in his secret lair. A Queen’s sarcophagus would naturally be smaller, because it’s for a female and would be of a size that could fit inside of the short original tunnel at the back of the niche and would not be elaborated upon too greatly by its discoverer since they, or parties soon after them, hauled it up and out in the dead of night to be sold on the black market.
Sure would like to hear your thoughts on The Queens Chamber, sand and other anomalies/finds your saving for a future presentation. Perhaps you may leave add that to the heading of your future disclosures (?). Thanks man
Those people lounging on the top of the pyramid, having lunch/ dinner, sitting on chairs with the rug and all comfy. Who are they? They have like no cares in the whole world, must be nice.
3:35 I'm not so shure about that, every historical sight and even most caves i have ever explored, had torches in them. Burning since ancient times, waiting for Lara.
Another great doc; thank you. In respect to the "sarcophagus", we, today imagine a stone box, either decorated or plain and made with some considerable care and skill befitting its profound significance. However, the word is derived from the Greek sarkophagos, "flesh-eater," referring to a stone coffin that devoured its occupant. The notion of a container that would devour the body inside it would have horrified the ancient Egyptians who used the name, "lord of life," because it was meant to protect and preserve the body in perpetuity. I think it is highly probable that the niche was indeed the "sarcophagus", and that the interpretation of this term has changed over millenia.
Famed Egyptologist Zahi Hawass is hoping to make an announcement, pending DNA confirmation, in October that two discovered mummies in tombs designated KV21 and KV35, are those of Nefertiti and her daughter Ankhesenamun, Tut’s Royal Wife. Also discovered along with the female mummies was a small boy’s mummy Dr. Hawass believes was Nefertiti and Ahkenaten’s son.
Given that the Kings Chamber has a reliving chamber on top of it. It could be that a similar such an structure exists below both chambers to support them? Indeed most internal diagrams of the pyramid do not show any internal structure other than a possible profile of the original bed rock. My thought with the sand is that perhaps the internal structure are also large granite slabs with similar voids, but the voids were filled with sand.
Thank you for sharing some great information and research. Do you know if there has been any translations of the hieroglyphs that are inscribed on the top face of the exposed blocks that are visible at the top of the Great Pyramid ? I saw a short video of someone hang gliding over the top of the pyramid and the camera clearly captures those hieroglyphs, I tried searching for any further information but I have had no luck so far. Thank you again 🙏
Excellent analysis, as usual! Thank you for the time and efforts you put into these videos, in order that we don't take our history of granite lightly!! :) @12:26 there is a picture of the niche (left side) and an adjacent wall, (right of niche), at the cornering wall. It has a chunk of rock etched out of it. Were there "facing" stones lining the walls of the chamber, and one was removed, or is it a section of stone block randomly burrowed into, to a depth of 4-5 inches?? Have not seen any description, or discussion of this interesting anomaly in that area. Perhaps it is nothing..??
Fun fact everyone forgets is that England used to pretty much eat Egyptian mummies. Look up "mummy powder" if you want to learn more. So just think some of the mummies we think are missing that could of been there where sold to some rich person in England and ate 😅
The pyramid roof appearing at 0:36 is displaying a sag caused by erosion and even by missing stones, those that have fallen down to the ground. This falling stone phenomenon should be taken seriously as stones might fall en masse sooner or later and tourists might be hurt.
The story of the Queens Chamber sarcofacus validate the modern psycological explanation of the working of the mind when we look at stuff. If we expect to see something it may well show up and other stuff won't be registred - which is also why when making a search for something or somebody have the search team walk the same area from opposite directions. You see something else when doing the second walk. ;)
Fantastic work. Great research as is always the case with your channel. Was great working with you on this. 👍
Amazing collaborations between these 2 channels! Keep up the good work 💯
Both of you smashing it
He's even better than you! Very elaborate, descriptive and precise.
@@Rave_volution that doesn't make sense. This channel only uploads concrete evidence and proof whilst ancient architects uploads mainly hypothesis and theories.🤷♂️
@@stalker-anoniem3515 hello you look looney want a sandwich?
My favorite channel on RUclips, and the only one that I let bother my phone with notifications! Thanks for making these
Absolutely mine, too. No. 1 so far! Wish he would do videos a little more often, but can imagine the amount of work going into each one makes that too difficult. I learn something new w/every one. 🌞🌻
One of my favorites on RUclips! Such a great video.
I'm so glad people have started doing independent research into the pyramids with thorough observation skills, because waiting for mainstream media to ever present the truth is a lost cause. This channel is incredible. Thanks for all these brilliant vids. 🎯
Yeah it seems they can make a lot more money making a stupid did aliens build the pyramids tv show then presenting a proper documentary with different opinions based on agreed facts. I miss the old kind of documentary ehich was an old man in a cardigan just telling you facts and not making bizzare conclusions.
It's human nature that one of the hardest things any of us can do is to not be blinded by a fond belief, even when there is contrary evidence. You want to find evidence of a sarcophagus in the queen's chamber and yet in all honesty you had to accept these accounts are not it. Many would not accept that.
Thank you for another excellent video.
please look at inticate carvings in granite on LUXOR OBELISK , please explain ?
I think being proven wrong or right is equally exciting. Both are the same step toward the truth. So called disappointing explanations are fun because they are the closest we can determine to what is really there
I just love the phrase, 'blinded by a fond belief'. That crosses time, miles and every mindset.
Been waiting for a new video since watching the Ancient Architects collaboration. Loved both. Laughed when you stated ‘if you’re one of the few who haven’t watched that video”. You know your fans/subs well. I’m sure a majority of us had seen it. Looking forward to your next installment. 😊
When I look at the niche in the Queen's Chamber, specifically how it's asymmetrical with respect to the wall it's in, I get the feeling that this fact is a clue to something just out of reach. It's quite easy to see how those with an exploratory itch find this room so interesting.
A proper engineering or architectural study of its purpose, informed by culture and history, would probably be the best place to start. After all, significant blind excavation has already turned up nothing of note. The lack of study into such structures given the simplicity it would be with modern techniques is, to me, an astonishing blind spot. One really does wonder why so little such scrutiny is done, or perhaps, allowed.
my head-canon explaination for the sand is as follows. if you wanted to make a tomb as hard to break into as possible then you would want to surround and fill it with substances that are resistant to digging, while something like granite resists digging through it by being really strong and hard, sand is different. sand resists digging by being really loose and constantly flowing back down into the hole filling itself back in, if you don't sure up the sides then it's impossible to dig deep into sand. in short sand resists digging by being really annoying as opposed to being tough. for this reason i believe the sand was added and used to fill corridors as a mild form of defence to prevent digging. it would be really hard to remove requiring hundred or thousands of buckets being carried up through small corridors to do so but putting in in place would be easy as you could just pour it down the entrance and let the slope of the tunnels do the work. it could also explain the small chutes to nowhere inside the chambers.
It's not a tomb
@@coreykoepsel
Anyone who tries to insist it's a tomb, is living in a fantasy world.
Sand is better than nothing but that's it. Get 100 guys with buckets and they would have a passage plugged with sand excavated in no time. Now try doing the same thing when the corridor is filled with limestone blocks...now you can only use a few guys and they have slowly destroy their way in block by block...
@@JoelRSmith whether its stone or sand you'd still only get 1 person at a time digging due to the narrowness of the passageways. two people can't pass each other so they'd have to form a chain. with buckets going each way, empty one way full the other, that would be really awkward in such close confines. then consider the slope and the sheer volume that would need to be moved. it would be a very laborious process digging through yard after yard of sand.
Your on drugs.
Thanks to HFG and Matt at AA for continuing to bring new info and insight into the mysteries of ancient Egypt. The excitement and wonder of my trip there 30 years ago gets rekindled each time I see a new video on the subject.
It is already clear to me, that any further praise of your channel, and Matt's AA's channel, would be superfluous and redundant. However, both of you do deserve high praise for your intelligent analyses, respect for one another's work and recent collaboration. Bravo. This is to everyone's benefit. We "Happy Amateurs" are indebted to the both of you.
Discovered your channel on my own, but glad to see you know Matt.
You guys really give the feeling the WE (meaning you, Matt AND the fans of your channels) will get to the bottom of these long thought questions.
Kudos.
After doing some digging around, it turns out that Vyse's unpublished papers are at the Ashmolean and his notes and some small finds are still stored (unchecked!) by the British Museum in their main archive.
Trying to get the Petrie Museum interested in going through his archive because some of the finds are listed as 'unidentified ceramics'.
This info seems pretty important...something to be actively by "experts" in the field...what's up with the lack of interest? is it simply labeling? Makes no sense to me...
@@laurah1020 It's mostly a matter of time and money. They have projects that get them funding which will always come before things that are just 'interesting'. They no longer have the fabulously rich patrons that previous generations could milk for large sums of cash.
That and the fact that there are literally millions of documents and finds that have been catalogued and stored. You'd need an army of eagle-eyed researchers just to dent the backlog.
@@Gainn The problem with that excuse is that the worthless pieces of shit never figure much out, everything is a mystery to the "experts".
@@v4skunk739 Yup, totally right, the little green men from Venus did. 🙃
@@v4skunk739 Okay. So where's your proof?
I love how collaborative you and Ancient Architects are. You and Matt are so wonderful and insightful
Man, your videos are awesome. It is great that you and Matt have worked together. I would love to see more collaborations in the future. Greetings from Austria.
This channel is so good, it can only be of others not yet discovering this treasure trove of information. I was led here through "Ancient Architects" channel, another fantastic channel on its own.
Thanks for doing these videos, HFG. Always good to get fresh, well-researched takes on these monuments. Should be more of it!
Your vids are top notch buddy. Well researched and your manner makes them easily digestible. I hope success finds you.Keep up the good work.
I am so glad that you and Matt are working together. A couple months back I left a comment suggesting that this collaboration would be great for those of us who religiously follow your videos. I’d like to think my suggestion planted the seed but even if it was merely coincidental I’d love to see you both sharing with each other and in turn with us. Your perspectives enrich us all. Thank you so very much for what you do.
What great videos. Just when I thought everything had been said on the subject of ancient Egypt and Giza.....along come your videos to make us think again.....
I love you and your work. You and Matt are amazing. This is like my 7th watch through on this but I saw something new at 15:39. Regardless of what happened behind it, those right angles are polished and finished. But also undamaged, as if they knew where to dig
At 8:20" Caviglia was always off digging in Mummy pits" . The Queen's sarcophagus was in the niche sitting on the granite or marble block and the treasure hunter brain of Caviglia figured the treasure she had was behind the sarcophagus so he destroyed it to find her treasure and left the ruble . Sometime around 1817.
I love the not so subtle derisiveness with which you always say "The Definitive History" always puts a smile on my face haha. Another great video 👊
What you said about reading people talking about their first sight of the pyramid when photography was not yet available is fascinating.
Its so awesome to know that discussions between you and Ancient Architects exist and theres comradeship between you both especially on this cutthroat platform where everyone is fighting for views and channels that specialize in similar topics are more often competing than collaborating. If only all these young content creators knew that working together and building up others just increases the overall audience and will work in your favor too
Gay
Love both ancient architects and your channel of granite. Both using the same shared information, you haven't copied each other's approach explaining to the public making both your videos refreshing
The Moses who was trained in all the knowledge of ancient Egypt called the location of the pyramid as the border and center of Egypt
I'm skeptical of this conclusion. It feels like more of a leap to me to say that someone could misconstrue the lack of a box for a box. I think it's pretty well understood, generally, what a sarcophagus is when that term is used. There's no reason to use that term otherwise. I'm not saying there was one and I'm not saying there wasn't, but to even lean toward "there wasn't" based on this explanation is a mistake imo. I don't buy the "knocking on the wall makes an echo in the tunnel" being the same as the sound created by knocking on a hollow box either-- two different acoustic experiences. An echo is not the same as a hollow thud.
Today, we know what that word means. Today you have a completely different understanding then most people in the past of any word, let alone one like that, contributed to by a century of entertainment media. So your bias can easily be a problem here. There are other sources from other parts of the world defining sarcophagus as a hole in the wall, a body placed in it and sealed, now empty of the latter two parts.
Another wonderfully researched, captivating and informative video. I always look forward to new material from you. Keep up the awesome work 👍
I've been waiting with bated breath for this episode!
Thank you for yet another wonderful video. Your knowledge is exceptional but more importantly giving people time to view the Ancient Architects video 1st tells me that you are also a very exceptional human. I look forward to future videos.
Hello there again. I am going to take a "wild card" from the "Monopoly" board and give it my best guess. I may end up in "jail" but, ...here's my take on this highly intriguing subject.
After watching this wonderful video over and over several times, I have a "hypothesis". It's in two parts.
1.) There was a Sarcophagus, BUT, (someone) messed up and broke it during their excavations. Our friends Al Adrizi, Weiss, Caviglia and Petri were not the first to enter the Great Pyramid as we know. (Not to mention the Circus Performer, Barzoni or Barboni, I can't recall, who was notorious for not being the most "gentle" or methodical of treasure hunters.)
Over the millennia, who can say how many attempts were made to plunder the monument? Anyway, I believe the Sarcophagus was damaged and ended up as rubble. Who wants to come home to the British Museum with a pile of scrap and claim "It really is a Sarcophagus, if they just glue it together again?" Embarrassing, what?
2.) From the photographic evidence, one can estimate the the space in the Niche to be approximately large enough for a "modern" person to lay down horizontally. Approximately 5.5 Ft. from the photos. If this was truly a "Queen's" chamber / Sarcophagus / Niche, then I submit that it may have been a small Sarcophagus, as the average height of Ancient Peoples was less than that of the modern person. It therefore may have fit into the Niche horizontally more like an alter with the god peering from behind over the box, protecting it. So, to get deeper into the Niche, where they perhaps suspected to find "Booty", they may have attempted to move it and broke it in the process. All the rubble in the Niche, which we see in the photos, may actually be in part, the Sarcophagus itself?
Do I go to "Jail" now? I can't wait to read your take on this and your upcoming special video. Thanks.
There are a few examples of 'coffers within coffers' - but it's uncommon and usually the stone is a different type in the two layers. I think the niche cavity being a back-up 'unused' coffer is a reasonable idea. But I think it's much less likely a 2nd coffer was actually embedded within and entirely lost to time.
@@HistoryforGRANITE OK, sounds reasonable. Thank you so much for your reply. At least Im' not I jail! But, I still can't afford Boardwalk!🙃
I love ancient Architects and your Channel. As they are my two favorite channels to watch. You guys always put up awesome content keep up the great work!
I feel so blessed to have found you and your show. Thank you.
Ancient Architects is who recommended your wonderful channel.
I think you might be right with the sarcophagus theory. When looking at the niche with the tunnel visible, well, it look more like a tunnel than a sarcophagus. But on the old photos, half filled with sand and stones, it looks much more like a ( not fully excavated) sarcophagus than I expected. Since both reports you mentioned, were written during Vyse's excavation work in front of the niche, it is likely, that some debris would have been deposited inside the tunnel and after the backfill, left there.
As the report shown in the video describes how the writer crawled into the corridor until it became too narrow to advance (30 ft, if I remember correctly), I find that explanation unlikely.
thank you so very much for sharing your knowledge in such a thorough, enlightening and entertaining manner.
Love your videos, I feel like its hard to watch videos about stuff like this that are level headed like yours.
you know... I stumbled on this video... the last time I had seen anything about the Great pyramid was something on netflix where they sent the bot and the found the blocks with the copper handles/pins. Thanks for these videos... It has given perspectives that I hadn't seen presented before, and it made my brain think of a few reason why there is like nothing written within the pyrmids... these videos are great!
Love your videos, your work is wonderful. Been watching Matt awhile now such a wealth of knowledge. Thanks
The objective analysis of this channel is stunningly good.
Again an excellent analysis! Thank you for the effort you put into it. :)) There might be an additional explanation as to why the early explorers saw a sarcophagus in the structures. How boring is an empty queens chamber? So this structure has to be a sarcophagus for readers to be excited. We see the same principle in the media today. ;)
When I look at it, I can almost see where a statue was. I can't prove a statue was there but I can easily imagine what it looked like if it was there. I just see how thin the space is top down. So doub crown, head, shoulders, sitting on throne, legs and a square base that prob had all his names and info. I def wish I could go back in time and take a look. I have a good feeling that the outside of the pyramid especially towards the bottom prob had a bunch of hieroglyphics on the casing stones explaining so many answers to questions we ask now. The Great Pyramid is my favorite thing on Earth.
There’s actually a lot of circumstantial evidence that a statue was not there. It looks like a nice place to put a statue, but it’s the exact opposite of how Egyptians used to place statuary around chambers.
A brilliant video mate ! Please do more often. Good work.
Great channel!!! So interesting, and the delivery of information with clarity and insight is really wonderful
Thank You
What, wait, at 1:36 people carried tables and chairs up there!
I would have trouble carrying myself up to the top. But what a picnic that would of been, lucky ducks
I have never been there and all I have to compare the great Pyramid to is The Sydney Harbour bridge which I have been to the top of its mighty arch many times(for a while the biggest steel arch bridge in the world) and that is an engineering marvel to see from the top and I am mighty proud my fellow countryman built and about the same height as the great Pyramid and that huge stack of stone was built 45 centuries ago, so they tell us.
Amazing, stupendous just WOW
BTW, I have watched a lot of this stuff and this this perhaps the best presentation of all. You ask questions without answers and that is beauty of it.
Another thing. you mentioned around 2:42 that they are, in my words keeping things close to their chest.
Can you really blame them when over the centuries their heritage was plundered. The British Museum would be the last plunders.
Now I wait to be told that the Egyptians plundered from surrounding countries like Syria all those years ago.
Mat from ancient architects recommends you, so... 🖐 hello. Good stuff. I've liked what I've seen so far and expect to view more quality content as time moves forward. Thanks mate
Thanks, you are a great detective, your precision is what is needed in further discoveries.
marvelous to have 2 enthusiastic youtuber researchers with there own specialties to draw on. Always enjoy your precise presentations, so i dont want to take your personality for granite.
In the old photos, with all that rubble in it, the visible part of the square cavity inside the niche looks even more like a sacrophagus than it does today.
I really like the theory that all three chambers in the pyramid were meant for the pharoah and represent different stages of the building project enabling him to have a burial chamber ready in case he died before the work was finished. So there should not have been sarcophagi in either the "Queen's" chamber or the subterranean one - as no-one was ever buried in them
Ah !, I'd forgotten that older explorers would have been using oil lamps/candles etc, we're so used to led flood lamps illuminating everything perfectly. Great point.
Imho it looks as if the second sarcophagus was turned upside down and put in the excavation hole ( this would account for the discrepancy in depth ) in order that if anyone say the prince came along and re opened the excavation the bottom of the sarcophagus would appear to be a soild block therfore making it look like he was telling the truth this would also explain the large amount of rubble left over in the picture reportedly taken shortly after !
Man, when you mentioned the sarcophagus lost at sea I remembered a scene of that from a movie I couldn't remember... it was "The Old Guard" with Charlize Theron, they slap someone in an iron maiden and toss her overboard to drown over and over again, yikes!!!!
This is a great channel, keep up the good work, your opinions are really interesting
The BEST Footage of the Pyramids I ever saw, Also VERY Interesting info Mate
Your Brother from Downunder
Peter
Just completed my 10th - 7 yr. circuit around the sun this month.
Bought the ''Secrets Of The Great Pyramid'' by Peter Thompkins @ age 22 back in 1973, & have studied & referred to it's logic & mathematics many times over ever since.
The most Integral explorer in my opinion, was Flinders Petrie.
Bom dia ,
A pirâmide de Khufu , magnífica !!!
A teoria que sugere a câmara da rainha como um serdab possuindo uma estátua e um altar parece ser bem convincente .
No meu ponto de vista isso implica em uma visitação constante a esta câmara para o culto a estátua do rei , pelos sacerdotes na antiguidade .
Existe esta possibilidade ?
O interior da pirâmide poderia ser visitado na antiguidade ou há indícios de que após o sepultamento do faraó a pirâmide foi selada totalmente ?
Parabéns pelo trabalho !!!
Sucesso sempre !!!
You are definitely on the right track, but the space isn’t designed for a statue.
@@HistoryforGRANITE
Ola , grato pelo contato e atenção , me sinto honrado neste momento , muito obrigado !!!
Agora fui presenteado com mais uma curiosidade sobre a grande pirâmide ...
O espaço existente no interior da câmara da rainha ( nicho ) , poderia
ter outra finalidade ?
Foi a melhor teoria que havia encontrado até o momento ...
E se encaixava com os meus delírios sobre a grande pirâmide .
Mil desculpas pela minha falta de conhecimento sobre o assunto .
Essa parte da história demostrada por você é fascinante , tentar explorar o porquê , como e qual a finalidade em um ângulo diferente é sensacional e me interessa muito .
O monumento em si é um enigma feito em pedra , mas entender como tudo funcionava é realmente maravilhoso !
Tenho uma paixão singular em relação a grande pirâmide .
Gosto muito da cultura egípcia como um todo , porém a grande pirâmide alimenta os meus sonhos .
Existe alguma simulação do sepultamento do faraó no interior da pirâmide e o processo de selagem do monumento ?
Me intriga por de mais a passagem do poço , a sua motivação ...
A câmara conhecida como gruta (Grotto) , poderia ser um antigo oráculo , um ponto de pelegrinação na planície de Gizé ...
Amigo ... forte abraço felicidades infinitas para você !!!
Statues within burials were found inside the architecture of the “palace facade” or “false door” which facilitates the movement of a soul. The Queen’s corbeled niche is an entirely different design. I will provide a framework of understanding for it in a video coming soon.
@@HistoryforGRANITE
Primeiramente gostaria de agradecer pela atenção , muito obrigado !!!
Tudo bem , vou aguardar ansioso pelo seu vídeo , enquanto isso vou acistindo a todos os outros relacionados a grande pirâmide !
Entender a dinâmica da pirâmide seria incrívelmente interessante !!!
Como se deu o sepultamento e o fechamento da pirâmide ?
Pois a mesma possuía uma porta articulada ... isso seria um indicador de uso , de acesso as câmaras ...
Realmente o nicho no interior da câmara da rainha é singular , tendo um espaço para o interior da pirâmide ...
Mais uma vez , muito obrigado pelo retorno , para mim é um grande privilégio poder conversar com pessoas que possuem tanto conhecimento sobre este tema o qual me alegra a alma !
Obrigado !
Bom dia ,
Assistindo a mais vídeos sobre o assunto surgiu uma outra ideia sobre o nicho na câmara da rainha e gostaria muito de compartilhar como você .
Olhando o nicho de frente e observando onde houve a retirada do bloco central me ocorreu ter visto o mesmo estilo na pirâmide vermelha .
Não sei se vou conseguir me fazer entender , me perdoe por conta disso ... não gostaria de causar algum tipo de infortúnio , a minha intenção seguramente passa muito longe disso ...
O formato do nicho em Khufu me lembrou o formato da parede da pirâmide vermelha onde foi retirado o bloco que deu acesso a câmara funerária .
Será que não poderia ser uma evolução do tipo de fechamento de câmaras , tendo a mesma disposição porém com menor esforço ?
O bloco tem o mesmo perfil frontal , area quadrada e poderia ser inserido na parede para fechar a câmara ou passagem por de trás do nicho ...
Poderia ser também uma ideia que foi abandonada durante a construção da pirâmide , assim como ocorreu com a câmara subterrânea ...
Obrigado , sucesso sempre !
Pretty convinced Hawas is a real life cinematic villain; secreting away and gate keeping a great deal of Egypt’s history!!
Watched both your video and Ancient Architects, and both excellent. Thank you.
I'd love to see your take on the tombs in the Valley of the Kings... they are fascinating too
Thanks for sharing your research! I look forward to your videos and am impressed with your work. I can’t remember what you thought the pyramids were built for and why the great pyramid has so many mathematical and scientific formulas built in? How old do you think Giza is? I love listening and learning what serious researchers think they are, when, and who built them. Looking forward to your next video! ⚡️🌎⚡️🐄🌔🌎⚡️
When you build something, everything is mathematical, for example to build a roof, I buy wood in four metters, but I have not so much choice to cut the wood, if I want two equal parts that's make 2 meters, four, 1 meter, but three parts makes 1.33 meter to have no loss. So you have the roof chosen in a way having no loss and you find always consequences of trigonometry, and of the initial choices you have made.an other example for angles, cycle is 360 degrees, the number of days in a year 12 x 30 days, in assyrian calendar, so this makes a link between days and angle. ''time is an angle'' as says an Astrophysicist friend .
@@patriciaoudart1508 rocks in head 😄🤷♂️
Brien Foerster has been putting out some interesting videos and lectures about Egypt too. I've been a fan of Ancient Architects for years and Matt steered me to check out History for Granite. Very interesting material.......very interesting. What I most like about Matt is he updates his previous videos and hypothesizes as more information becomes available......that says a lot. History for Granite........good work, very good work.
I liked Forester's video walkthroughs but had to turn the audio off after he drones on about the predynastic nonsense. He thinks all the carved granite in Egypt is predynastic or something, makes no sense.
Watch decoding sacred geometry he does good job of sorting out Brian's BS
My bad its SGD Sacred Geometry Decoded
@@JoelRSmith I'll look into that. *
Brien Forester has been around the world documenting ancient sites. I don't believe he's a used car salesman. Most of what he hypothesizes is opinion I agree......but at least he has an opinion. Gather all the information you can, draw your own conclusions, and seek as many sources as you can. I do. I'm very critical when it comes to being convinced. Peace out.
Such refreshing intellect on pyramid info, love it.
Thanks for saying niche correctly.
This is great. I am just a novice or hobbyist, but I reall appreciate your chanel.
I like the way you talk, will casually swatting the nats, Thank you.
I love your content! Thank you for making more! :)
You could also conclude that European catacombs might have influenced an explorer's idea of what a sarcophagus was. Grave niches underground would not have been an unusual practice in their minds and the niche tunnel in the Queen's Chamber could have been seen as a similar style to other examples in Europe.
"Left of the entrance, at the eastern wall, mostly inside the same, stands the somewhat smaller coffin made from marble, open, empty, simple." I somehow doubt he'd have used "stands" and "coffin" if he was talking about a burial shelf.
I read the page with Viscino's description that you show at 11:00 and as a native german speaker I think that it is very unlikely that what Viscino describes there is what we see today. Let me explain why.
1.) Viscino writes that the sarcophagus is "standing (!) on (!) the eastern wall, largely (!) in the same". If he was refering to the square cavity, this choice of words would be very crude and make little sense. The square cavity is not "on" but "in" the eastern wall and not "largely" but completly and the cavity is not "standing" at all. If he meant the cavity, you would expect a description along the line of "a sarcophagus was carved into the wall".
2.) Why would he assume that the cavity is a sarcophagus? The sarcophagus in the King's chamber is very clearly a sarcophagus, but while the square cavity could potentially be closed and used to store a corpse, it is far from obvious that this was the case and he would indulge in speculation there which does not seem to be in line with the rest of his purely descriptive text.
3.) His description of the sarcophagus as "standing somewhat smaller [...] open, empty, simple" refers back to the sarcophagus that he had seen in the King's Chamber before. Note that in this case the words "standing open, empty, simple" make perfect sense and are a very clear description of what we see in the King's chamber today. So when we take this context into account, the most likely interpretation of his words is that the sarcophagus in the Queen's Chamber is just like the one in the King's chamber except that it is "somewhat smaller" and standing largely inside a niche. But if he was refering to the square cavity assuming that this cavity was used as a sarcophagus, then comparing this sarcophagus to the one in King's chamber without mentioning the huge differences between these two completly different kinds of sarcophagi seems very strange and unlikely.
4.) The last paragraph of the page begins with "Above (!) the sarcophagus a shaft leads into the eastern wall." If he saw the square cavity as the sarcophagus, this description would make no sense. What he would have written in this case would be something like "behind the sarcophagus" or "at the other end of the sarcophagus".
5.) If he saw not the the square cavity itself as the sarcophagus, but the floor of the cavity as the lid of a sarcophagus, he could not have written that the sarcophagus was empty.
To sum up, for your interpretation to make sense, you have to assume that Viscino's account is very crude, unprecise and speculative, and that assumption does not seem to be in line with the rest of his text.
Edit: 6.) The kind of tomb that you think Viscino saw is called "Backofengrab" ("oven grave") in German and would never be called a sarcophagus, especially not by a priest. A sarcophagus is always a
(at least potentially) free standing stone box.
I appreciate your analysis, and here's a few things to consider.
1) Visino is not writing this as he looks at it directly. It's from memory some time later, and no doubt the poor illumination did not help.
2) The tunnel is 'above' the sarcophagus if you interpret the rough chisel marks as tunneling distinct from the box itself. Most of the squared limestone does become the tunnel, - but the section that appears non-original to the pyramid is above the 'sarcophagus'.
3) It's common for people to adopt nomenclature they wouldn't normally use to describe something foreign. If someone tells you pharaohs are buried in a sarcophagus - you call it a sarcophagus even if it's not how you would usually describe it.
4) If there was a real free-standing sarcophagus, they way Visino describes it puts in the most awkward spot possible. It would have to be precariously set over the hole being dug in the floor - why would Vyse put it there? It doesn't disguise the hole (since Visino had a good look inside). It's just in the way and hazardous to people and the sarcophagus itself.
@@HistoryforGRANITE So Visino's book is a collection of letters that he wrote to another priest. I read the full 5th letter on Google Books and the more I read the more interesting this story becomes to me. The letter is dated with "Cairo, the 30th of March" and apparently his visit to the pyramids took place only three days earlier. So his memory must be fresh and given the amount of numbers he includes in his account like his counting of the stone courses, the dimensions of rooms and corridors and the exact dimensions of the coffin in the King's Chamber, I think it is fair to assume that he must have taken notes while he was on site.
In his letter he also describes how he entered the "shaft above the coffin" in the Queen's Chamber, how he crawls through it and how he retreats backwards with his gun drawn when he meets "something living" in there, obviously refering to some kind of animal.
So given the fact that according to this diagram upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Chambre-reine-kheops.jpg what you call the "square cavity" is about 4 meters long before it becomes a "forced passage" and given the fact that Visino did crawl through it, I really do not see how he could identify any part of this structure as a "somewhat smaller coffin" that "stands" "on the eastern wall".
The only thing that would make remotely sense is if he called the part that is called "recess" on the diagram shown at 11:28 a "coffin". The width of the recess might fit his description and the height might fit as well if you assume that the lid was flush with the floor of the square cavity, which in that case would be described correctly as being "a shaft above the coffin".
But in my view the problem with this interpretation is simply that this recess is obviously just that. It is a niche into which a coffin could be placed, but to call it a "coffin" really bends the words. And if he refered with "coffin" to this recess, what does his remark that the coffin is "largely inside the wall" mean? By definition the recess is fully inside the wall.
My point is that I see no need to bend Visino's words like this when there is a way more likely interpretation available, being that he is simply saying there stands a "real" coffin inside the niche of the Queen's Chamber and that this coffin protrudes a bit out of the niche and that Vise is digging beneath it.
To be clear, I am not saying that this coffin in the Queen's chamber must have existed. I am entirely prepared to dismiss this part of Visino's account as plainly wrong. Maybe he just strongly assumed that there once must have been a coffin inside the niche and he made up the present existence of this coffin to strenghten his hypothesis that the pyramids were nothing else but tombs. I am purely looking at his account from a hermeneutical perspective and to me it seems quite clear what he is saying and that he is indeed talking about a "real" coffin and not some niche or cavity that he calls "coffin" for whatever reason.
@@realfranny3483Perfectly put. Plus wouldn't the logical conclusion or question be that Vyse stole the box and shipped it to a buyer?
@@mikecassidy1623 I am not an expert, but the main problem with a box or coffin in the Queen's Chamber is I think that Caviglia cleared it in 1816 from rubbel and found nothing. So if Vyse found a coffin, he must have found it inside the hole that he was digging. Maybe he had just recently lifted the coffin out of that hole when Viscino arrived? Viscino does mention the hole, he does mention that it is empty and that it sounds hollow, but if the sarcophagus had recently come out of there, I would expect him to have noticed and mentioned that somehow.
Thank you again for digging deeper, and it's true that parsing words from so long ago can be maddening. Certainly Visino's words are not a perfect match to the niche cavity - but for me the similarities outweigh the differences. If one assumed a Queen's Chamber sarcophagus would be analogous to its chamber the way the King's Chamber sarcophagus is (granite box, granite room), then you'd expect it to be a bit smaller, made of limestone etc. But since Prince Kawab (Khufu's son) had a large granite sarcophagus - surely an original Queen's Chamber one is unlikely to have been smaller and made of limestone. It's another example of making a logical interpretation that happens to be inaccurate.
"The sand could have been used to aid the moving of slabs -the slab sits on top of the sand -The sand is moved away and the slab lowers into place -apparently this was used under the Sphinx for the temples found there "
Another great vid bro!!
You and Matt did a really good job. Looking forward to the special video. Thank you!
Another great analysis. Good work, can't wait for the next video.
Very nice video, thanks! Sarcophagus, from the Greek, means “flesh eating”, according to the American Heritage Dictionary. And when used in the context of a stone burial box, it means a type of stone that will hasten the decomposition of corpses. Roman historian Pliny the Elder says that the best sarcophagus stone in use in his day could “consume” a corpse in as little as 40 days. My guess is that reducing graveyard smell was the main motivation. Therefore, it does not necessarily refer to a box shaped stone object, but to any stone enclosure you’d put a dead body into. Egyptians, being obsessed with preserving the mortal remains, would naturally be repulsed by we moderns referring to their stone burial boxes as sarcophagi. So, and in line with your theory, your early 1800s dudes, being closer to the origins of the word “sarcophagus”, could have easily thought of both the box in the King’s chamber and the Queen’s chamber niche as sarcophagi. On the other hand, there may be some rich dude, even as I write this, smiling and gently patting the Queen’s chamber box-like sarcophagus in his secret lair. A Queen’s sarcophagus would naturally be smaller, because it’s for a female and would be of a size that could fit inside of the short original tunnel at the back of the niche and would not be elaborated upon too greatly by its discoverer since they, or parties soon after them, hauled it up and out in the dead of night to be sold on the black market.
Sure would like to hear your thoughts on The Queens Chamber, sand and other anomalies/finds your saving for a future presentation. Perhaps you may leave add that to the heading of your future disclosures (?).
Thanks man
Another fascinating video. Thank you for continuing to make these.
Those people lounging on the top of the pyramid, having lunch/ dinner, sitting on chairs with the rug and all comfy. Who are they? They have like no cares in the whole world, must be nice.
Yay! More Pyramid! I promise not to beg for more for at least a couplel weeks.
I didn't lie, cause I'm not begging yet. But, please, can we have some more?
3:35 I'm not so shure about that, every historical sight and even most caves i have ever explored, had torches in them. Burning since ancient times, waiting for Lara.
Another great doc; thank you. In respect to the "sarcophagus", we, today imagine a stone box, either decorated or plain and made with some considerable care and skill befitting its profound significance. However, the word is derived from the Greek sarkophagos, "flesh-eater," referring to a stone coffin that devoured its occupant. The notion of a container that would devour the body inside it would have horrified the ancient Egyptians who used the name, "lord of life," because it was meant to protect and preserve the body in perpetuity. I think it is highly probable that the niche was indeed the "sarcophagus", and that the interpretation of this term has changed over millenia.
Famed Egyptologist Zahi Hawass is hoping to make an announcement, pending DNA confirmation, in October that two discovered mummies in tombs designated KV21 and KV35, are those of Nefertiti and her daughter Ankhesenamun, Tut’s Royal Wife. Also discovered along with the female mummies was a small boy’s mummy Dr. Hawass believes was Nefertiti and Ahkenaten’s son.
Given that the Kings Chamber has a reliving chamber on top of it. It could be that a similar such an structure exists below both chambers to support them? Indeed most internal diagrams of the pyramid do not show any internal structure other than a possible profile of the original bed rock. My thought with the sand is that perhaps the internal structure are also large granite slabs with similar voids, but the voids were filled with sand.
Cheers bro, nice work!
The photo of the 2 young women on to of the pyramid with the sunset is amazing . Where can I get a copy ? It must be from 1920 / 1930 .
pbs.twimg.com/media/FOY7lmeXsAIJyzp.jpg
c.1925 photo by George Rinhart
Niche better rhyme with quiche when it's pronounced 😁. Kidding aside, looking forward to watching this. Your videos are top notch.
Ha! I don’t know why I flubbed it last time. I think it’s the connotation with the word ‘notch’.
Great channel. I have nothing else to say. Just commenting for the algorythm. Have fun!
Thank you for sharing some great information and research. Do you know if there has been any translations of the hieroglyphs that are inscribed on the top face of the exposed blocks that are visible at the top of the Great Pyramid ? I saw a short video of someone hang gliding over the top of the pyramid and the camera clearly captures those hieroglyphs, I tried searching for any further information but I have had no luck so far. Thank you again 🙏
Excellent analysis, as usual! Thank you for the time and efforts you put into these videos, in order that we don't take our history of granite lightly!! :)
@12:26 there is a picture of the niche (left side) and an adjacent wall, (right of niche), at the cornering wall. It has a chunk of rock etched out of it. Were there "facing" stones lining the walls of the chamber, and one was removed, or is it a section of stone block randomly burrowed into, to a depth of 4-5 inches?? Have not seen any description, or discussion of this interesting anomaly in that area. Perhaps it is nothing..??
It's exploratory chiseling, I can't recall if a source for that damage is documented.
Excellent and so informative.
Great work. Excellent video.
Fun fact everyone forgets is that England used to pretty much eat Egyptian mummies.
Look up "mummy powder" if you want to learn more.
So just think some of the mummies we think are missing that could of been there where sold to some rich person in England and ate 😅
All bodies are eaten. It's how nature works.
I know you had a heck of a bump and subscribers due to ancient architects. Like both y'all's channels
20k likes from 1.6 Million views ?! That’s just sad ! You deserve so much more !
Can't wait to see new episodes!
Was hoping for some speculation on why the niche is shaped like the Grand Gallery. But great video.
eagerly waiting for this.
to watch repeatedly.
Excellent work, exciting to follow!
Excellent. Keep up the good work. Bought one of your sweatshirts.
I don't take my History for Granite! Thanks for this channel. Brilliant stuff.
The pyramid roof appearing at 0:36 is displaying a sag caused by erosion and even by missing stones, those that have fallen down to the ground. This falling stone phenomenon should be taken seriously as stones might fall en masse sooner or later and tourists might be hurt.
Best. Channel. Ever.
The story of the Queens Chamber sarcofacus validate the modern psycological explanation of the working of the mind when we look at stuff. If we expect to see something it may well show up and other stuff won't be registred - which is also why when making a search for something or somebody have the search team walk the same area from opposite directions. You see something else when doing the second walk. ;)