Submitted by IslandChillin t3_z1yao6 in history
Sikog t1_ixf0cdn wrote
Reply to comment by MadRoboticist in Ancient Egyptian mummification was never intended to preserve bodies by IslandChillin
Well regarding the Pyramids of Giza it's just a modern theory that they were used as tombs. No mummies, bodies or human remains has ever been found in them.
The inside chambers are completely bare with no ornaments, inscriptions or traces of ones passing into the afterlife.
It's quite interesting since they are dated as the oldest of pyramids.
MadRoboticist t1_ixf7j6i wrote
I'm farely certain this isn't true. The Giza pyramids may not have had mummies, but they contained sarcophagi and other funerary equipment. And besides that, the pyramid complex contains other buildings including mortuary temples that pretty clearly indicate they were intended to be tombs. Not to mention there are Egyptian texts that refer to the pyramids explicitly as tombs and other pyramids have been found with mummies and are clearly tombs. I don't think there's any question among egyptologists that the Giza pyramids, like other pyramids, were tombs.
Sikog t1_ixgf2dn wrote
The claims that the Giza pyramids was used as tombs are not backed up by raw evidence, they are built very different from the later Pyramids that was used as tombs hence why I called it a modern theory, it's a theory because it lacks evidence.
It's strange and a big mystery that the largest pyramids of Giza contain no human remains, bodies, mummies or inscription in the walls like the later ones.
Later Pyramids were definitely used as tombs and have both texts and inscriptions on the walls referring them as tombs, I'm just mentioning the Giza pyramids here.
SandSlinky t1_ixhddg9 wrote
It's not much of a mystery, they were looted.
Sikog t1_ixheoho wrote
Sure they must have taken great lengths to cut down 100% the inscriptions on the walls and loot them, however nobody can deny that treasures very well might have been looted.
In the last 100 years we have discovered more chambers that were previously unknown and untouched yet they are still empty.
SandSlinky t1_ixhjs36 wrote
From what I can find, it wasn't unusual for pyramids in this time period to lack inscriptions, that mostly started later. The great pyramid also contains what very much looks like and is commonly agreed to be a sarcophagus.
As for other empty rooms, they might have been recently found by us, but could have been found before and resealed over this period of several thousand years. Or it's possible that they were initially made and then never used, I don't think this is uncommon in ancient tombs. It is also theorized that some of these rooms were meant to throw of robbers or were used during construction.
MadRoboticist t1_ixhldl9 wrote
Inscriptions on the walls of tombs was something that began with the 5th dynasty, after the great pyramids were built. No mystery there.
quintus_horatius t1_ixhaidf wrote
I've been inside the pyramids of Giza. They were very much a personalized tomb for a single, highly revered, person.
The outer shells of the sarcophagi are still present inside. You can't remove them without breaking them apart or disassembling the rest of the structure.
Just a tip: should you find yourself in Giza you too may visit a pyramid and go inside. It's hot and damp in the burial chamber, and you'll certainly be in a long line of people. Glad I did it, wouldn't do it again though.
Sikog t1_ixhcymv wrote
Maybe someone at some point wanted to be buried there I know they have different chambers in the pryamids, the sarcophagi or what we believe it to be is sure interesting.
A highly revered person would have treasures beyond imagination, inscriptions of the greatness of their era and most definitely human remains,mummies which does not exist at all, zero, absolutely null in the pyramids of Giza.
The pyramids of Giza differ so much from the other pyramids or tombs we have found, just because 9/10 pryamids were used as tombs it doesn't automatically mean the 10th are also.
I'm not saying I'm correct, but it sure is interesting that the pryamids of Giza lacks so very much of what the other tombs have.
Pyranze t1_ixhnt7j wrote
What else would it be used for? There are plenty of indications it was at least meant to be a tomb, even if it ended up not housing any bodies, so what is there to counter this? You literally cannot progress the field of history, or indeed most fields, if you require 100% certainty on everything, because we just don't have that, especially for something as far back as the pyramids of Giza. So unless you have an actual alternative theory of what the Giza pyramids were for we have to work on the most likely assumption, that they're tombs.
Sikog t1_ixhshfp wrote
We'll probably never know what it was used for because not much research is done anymore since the narrative is set, it's open for tourism and is more in maintenance and preserving then in research.
If you look at it objectively as for what it is, it is not a 100% sell that it is a tomb. Add some historical texts based on the daily talk on the streets 2600-500 bce, surrounding pyramids acting as tombs then sure maybe it makes more sense it's a tomb.
All I'm doing is challenging it for what it really is without pushing all the external parts to the core, it starts to challenge ones believes and people don't like that.
But let's call it a tomb for today, in 150 years it might be called something else that's the way history goes.
Pyranze t1_ixhvsgr wrote
The problem with challenging a supposed theory is you have to have alternatives to back it up, or else there's no value to it. Challenging a narrative just for the sake of challenging it isn't productive and wastes time that could be spent challenging areas that are actually up for debate.
Sikog t1_ixhzm4l wrote
I'm sure the Egyptians who built the great Pyramid of Giza are all laughing at us both in the afterlife, for only they know the real purpose it was built for.
MadRoboticist t1_ixhgh8o wrote
The Giza pyramids are not the beginning of pyramid history. The evolution of pyramid building is directly traceable from mastabas, to stacked mastabas, to the first attempt at pyramids, to the great pyramids, to the later pyramids. All of which were used as tombs. It doesn't make any sense that the Giza pyramids, which are smack dab in the middle of that history, would have a different purpose. The fact that mummies haven't been found in the Giza pyramids is just something conspiracy theorists use a jumping off point for wild theories that they had some other mysterious use. All archaeological evidence points to them being tombs.
jongeheer t1_ixh0hge wrote
Giza pyramids are not dated as the oldest of pyramids.
Sikog t1_ixh1me2 wrote
Sorry I ment to say one of the oldest* There are still debates to this day on which pyramids were built the first since we cannot be certain.
jongeheer t1_ixhaj8r wrote
Not even 'one of the oldest' :) not to be that guy but as someone who has actually visited Giza and Sakharra, while I do agree that there are mysteries surrounding the Giza complex, I feel like you lack some general knowledge surrounding Egyptology, maybe read up on the whole thing, it's very interesting!
Individual-Gur-7292 t1_ixh8jee wrote
There is no such debate. There is a very well established chronology of pyramid development from Mastaba tombs to the Step Pyramid of Djoser, to the Giza pyramids and so on.
Sikog t1_ixhafg2 wrote
I'm very aware of the current chronology of the establishment pyramids.
Since the history of the Giza pyramids are LOST to mankind we are best guessing by books/texts written by Romans/Egyptians from local stories when they visited/lived in Egypt.
We also have carbon dating which varies a lot, a group collected 70 samples and got the results 2853 to 3809 BC. That's a difference of 400 years which very well might make the Pyramid of Giza the oldest.
People must understand that we don't know how old the Pyramids are, we are only doing calculated guesses.
The debate should ALWAYS be open around a subject like this specially regarding lost history, just because it's convenient to not change the order doesn't mean the first order is the correct one.
Individual-Gur-7292 t1_ixhctdi wrote
There is no question that the step pyramid was built by Djoser, a third dynasty pharaoh and that the Giza pyramids were built by three pharaohs from the fourth dynasty. We absolutely know how old the pyramids are, the order that they were built in, and by whom.
Sikog t1_ixhe2j1 wrote
Well you are simply wrong, a calculated guess is still a guess.
Individual-Gur-7292 t1_ixhen70 wrote
Not a calculated guess, but a theory supported by evidence from both the archaeological and textual record.
Sikog t1_ixhhirm wrote
A theory is in itself a guess of the unknown, there are also plenty of evidence that also challenge the current narrative.
I know about the textual records and they sure are interesting, however let's stick to facts and those are that we don't know the exact date of the great pryamid of Giza for now we can only estimate.
The great thing about history is that for all we know we might discover another technology next week that might pinpoint even more exact then carbon dating, it explains everything about the pyramids challenging everything we are believed to know.
In the end, it's all about beliefs and I believe the chronology are very much up to debate now and in the future, not choosing to debate history is just sad overall in my opinion nobody wins on that.
quintus_horatius t1_ixhgav8 wrote
> People must understand that we don't know how old the Pyramids are, we are only doing calculated guesses.
We have actual, written history of Egypt going back for thousands of years. They recorded who was buried in each pyramid, both on the pyramids themselves and in their records. The Greeks and Romans themselves have written histories that talk about their interactions with Egypt and corroborate much of what they wrote.
Egypt wasn't some kind of insular backwater, the Egyptians interacted with other states. Sometimes they were a regional superpower, sometimes they were closer to a vassal state, sometimes they were broken up into multiple states. There's over six thousand years of continuous history there, a lot can happen.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments