I love questions like this, because the asker has clearly heard an alternative version but wants to verify if the facts check out. And then you're there to give a detailed answer with kinds of evidence I had never heard of.
What I love about your videos, is that you also present the problems with the evidence, keeping things transparent. A beautiful, accessible summary from a great question.
Dr Miano gives another brilliant summary of sound scientific research to inform and delight us all - and to show how exciting genuine evidence-based (as opposed to pseudo) history can be . This is a great educational service. World of Antiquity is, by any standards, a wonderful resource because Dr Miano is a lucid expositor even the most recondite cutting-edge research. Great thanks.
Did you check the evidence cited? The carbon dating papers cited are not exactly accurate. One states clearly that they took no material from the pyramid itself and the other states it only implies that it took material from the pyramids. The mystery of how they laid massive granite blocks using stone age or bronze age tools with lazer level accuracy using no mortar still stands.
Both reports are referring to the same project, and the second report is so explicit about where each sample was taken, there are appendices at the end stating exactly their location.
One of your best videos yet. Really awesome job. Short and to the point, deconstructing the alt. theory in a descriptive and scientific way. I loved it.
You need a much bigger voice, with all the "Alternative" archeology being presented out there. I am so glad I found your explanations and evidences of what sure looks like the reality of it, instead of more of the fringe hype of ancient alien bs out there.
This guy is lying, pyramids are the remains of large chunks of Parmesan used in the worship of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. The descendents of the original hybridized human/ravioli built them for ceremonial cannibal rites. Check out my new channel SUKR for those who want new nonsense to believe in. (not affiliated with any logic or reason)
what is your opinion on the mathematical information 'designed' into the construction of the great pyramid? is it specific to the great pyramid? there is evidence as far as I can find however could this be coincidence? it's the alternative historians strongest case in my opinion it's fascinating to say the least ✌️
@Purple Syndicalist I just find the information intriguing look up great pyramid mathematics or geometry or number codes or any variation of those if you have twenty minutes to kill if you're into puzzles or mysteries and the like you might get something out of it I'd love to hear another's opinion on it
@@skipper6528 "SGD Sacred Geometry Decoded" is an interesting channel in this regard. One the one hand, he debunks all the LAHT claims when it comes to the manufacture of stone artifacts, moving big stones, etc., but he also has videos explaining the mathematical info you're talking about. I think it's possible that the ancient Egyptians could have built "Sacred Geometry" ratios and the like into the Pyramid (things like pi and phi, relationships between the pentagon and hexagon, etc.). Pythagoras claimed to have learned the secrets of geometry in Egypt. If so, then the Egyptians could have built these kinds of ratios and geometric proportions into the Pyramid because it was meant to represent the Primordial Mound of Creation. Pythagorean geometry teaches that the numbers 1-10, and the geometric forms derived from them (point, circle, the regular polygons/polyhedra, etc.) encode the principles underlying the creation and operation of the Cosmos. If the Egyptian priests believed the same thing, it would make sense for them to incorporate this into the Pyramid in order to magically activate its function as an "immortality machine" for the Pharaoh. I'm a bit more skeptical of claims that the Egyptians encoded things like the polar radius and equatorial circumference of the Earth, though it's possible they could have figured those out using methods similar to what Archimedes used centuries later. Claims that they incorporated things like the speed of light, or information about other planets in the Solar System that they could not have observed without telescopes is more unlikely. The main epistemic problem with "finding information encoded" in a monument is that it's too easy for the researcher to pick which measurements to use, and which units (e.g. meters, feet, "royal cubits," etc.) in order to arrive at the numbers and/or ratios they're looking for. The Graham Hancock type hypothesis, that they "encoded" all this information in order to preserve it for future civilizations makes no sense. A future civilization could only "discover" the "encoded" information if they already knew all the "encoded" information (speed of light, etc.), so that method would be useless for helping future people rebuild after a catastrophe.
You answered my question perfectly. Changing my opinion on this was hard as it sounds so much cooler to think this stuff is much older. I tried to find some of this info out on my own but Google likes to point at the alternative resources. Thank you you are super helpful in clarifying these details. Now if only you will answer my question about the Temple of man 🙂
Great question, I didn't know most of this stuff myself! I take basic assumptions for granted, and if those foundational facts are not covered then it's so easy for the alternative history to have a convincing narrative.
Of course everything that David stated is true. However, just the Egyptian king lists give the answer about the age of the great pyramid. From those king lists, we know that Sneferu was the father of Khufu & Khafre the son of Khufu. Sneferu built a few pyramids before the Giza pyramids. The gradual skill & precission obviously getting better as each one was built. Therefore Khufu's was more or less perfect by the time of its construction. Khafre obviously built his after his fathers, therefore it is quite clear that Khufu built the great pyramid. No one argues that Sneferu built his pyramids or indeed that Khafre built his lol. 🇬🇧
@@Paul-hl8yg actually apart from Sneferus name being associated with the Pyramids there is next to no evidence he commissioned them as far as I know. Its not really debated because the focus is on the Giza Plateau. TBH Sneferus Pyramids raise more questions than answers, his reign was generally believed to be 25 years (although some believed 50). If the pyramids were only tombs why build 3? (Or 2 if Houni is given the 1st) there is more weight in the bent Pyramid than in the great pyramid and they should of had less experience. So how did he build the bent pyramid and the red pyramid in 25 years? It only works if it is done simultaneously (and even then its a tight timeframe especially when its believed the bent pyramid was changed mid build) which begs the question, if they were only tombs why build 2? As I said, more questions than answers, the evidence for Khufu commissioning TGP is far stronger than Sneferu's claim to 2 or 3 pyramids.
@@edfu_text_U_later Totally get your point, there isn't very much evidence for Sneferu building the 3 pyramids. A reason for the 3 would be that he simply wasn't happy with the first 2 & looking at them, one can understand why. However we can be certain he built at least one. It is the progression from Djoser's step pyramid through to the Giza pyramids that is more important. But my initial points stand, in that Sneferu was Khufu's father & certainly built at least 1 pyramid, if not all 3 or perhaps 2. I believe the red pyramid must have been Sneferu's, just based on it being nearer to perfect pyramidal form before Khufu's. Khufu carried on the process of making a pyramid as his tomb & his son followed that tradition. We certainly have Sneferu as founder of the 4th dynasty, a dynasty that built stone pyramids. Until more evidence surfaces, Sneferu seems to be the chosen pharaoh of the 3 former pyramids before Khufu's.
@@Paul-hl8yg well said, completely logical thought process there. My understanding is Medium Pyramid, Bent then the Red pyramid is the order of construction. So that's where I think achealogy is just better off saying, we don't actually know but our best guess is Sneferu built all 3. Its just hard to believe he could of built all 3, especially if the bent pyramid was a failure why complete it if he was going to build the Red pyramid? To me that seems like a waste of resources and man power
@@jkharjuno9519 If you listen to the opinions of uneducated book author$, and you believe what they tell you is true...you really have only yourself to blame. The Giza pyramids were built as tombs for the 4th dynasty pharaohs around 2,600-2500 BCE. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming ...for anyone who has the curiosity to examine it. ua-cam.com/play/PLSSFj6Q5TZYQnX74l-gL231kNMJAmsV06.html
I would like to debate it is highly possible it could be older.Mainly cause the dating sucks.I mean there are not alot of written documents there is the supposed paprys by meer which talks about them carrying stones to from tura to giza which is then assumed for the casing stones of a pyramid since thats what tura limestone was used for and about horizon of khufu but thats about it it just assumed they are talking about the construction of Great pyramid the problem is that the Great pyramid is inorganic and you can't carbon date as such alot of carbon dating has been done in organic meaterial found around the pyramid.For example around the main pyramdi you have tombs and temples and the so called khufu village where they find pottery that has been carbon dated to within 2500 bc but thoese tombs and temples could have been place there long after the orginal construction of the pyramid as long as well as the so called khufus boat since it was found outside the pyramid.The boat does date back to around 2500 bc but it was found period near a pit nesr the pyramid and could have been palce after the orginal construction.And the meer papyrus was found nearwhere near the Great pyramid the other thing is them mortar but the dates rang between 2500 bc to almsot 3000 bc and some of that could have been repair work.The main thing that happened was the piece of cedear which was discovered by howard vyse in one of the air shafts of the queens cabron and later carbon dated around 2020 it was found in a placed in the Great pyramid that was perfectly sealed and then gaved to museum until it ended in the unversity of aberdeen where it was carbon dated.Agian it was found in a place in the Great pyramid was prefectly sealed and therefore most of have been left by the orginal builders the wood was carbon dated to whithin 3341 bc to 3094 bc which long predate the phaorah khufu and the 4 dyansty that was supposedly built the only logical explanation is that the wood came from the cneter of an old tree or it was some kind of tool that was recycled but its hard to belive the egyptians would recycle a piece of wood for like 500 years.The other logical explanation is that the pyramid is older.Generally there are no inscriptions in hreat pyramid except the so called graffit inthe revling chambers that looks like it was done by a five year that says khufu.You could walk a million times in the pyramid you will never say it cause its in this random place it was discovered or supposedly by howard vyse when he discovered the so called relieving chambers and its was never carbon dated and could have been forged by him anyway I think the pyramid probably dated betwen 2500 bc to approx around 3000 bc.
Thank you for your work. We need more rational people like you in all walks of life. I everyday see lots of confused and brainwashed people in sociology, politics, even biology, so its nice to have this type of channel to ease my brain and not to lose my sanity.
That star alignment thing is super cool. It's always amazing to see the ancients doing something so normal as making a basic mistake like that. The accuracy of Khufu's pyramid is really startling
You don't get it, do you? They did NOT make a mistake! They accurately plotted North according to the two stars they used for the task. If they had made a mistake it would not be possible to tie the pyramids' orientation to these particular stars! What you call a "mistake" is in fact, simply the fact that stars move against the background over time, but the Egyptians had no way of knowing this, and so they had no way of accounting for the movement. We can see with our modern knowledge that yes, they made an error, but only a very small one, and the fact they could align the pyramids to these stars speaks volumes of their ability in observation and geometry. Remember that ancient Egyptians calculated the diameter of Earth to within a couple percent of the true value - that was no mean feat! It's worth noting here, that in the ancient world NO ONE thought the world was flat. That is a myth created by people fairly recently, in order to make themselves feel superior to the ancients. And, it is certainly true more people believe a flat Earth today than at any point in the past.
@@Chris.Davies ... "we can see with our modern knowledge that yes, they made an error..." you're arguing my point. I never suggested that they were foolish for doing so. They did the best that they could with the knowledge that they had. But because that knowledge became flawed over time, it proved to be a mistake. I should say, by basic I meant more like "small" or "trivial" than obvious. It's fascinating because of just how accurate they were, and how the error that eventually cropped up is itself a testament to their great accuracy. So yes. They made a mistake. One they could not have known or understood at the time. But a mistake. Idk where the flat earth thing came from. I never made any speculations about what they thought about the shape of the earth.
@@Chris.Davies all of that to say. Actually I do get it. It was incredibly clear in the video. I literally call their accuracy "startling" in my original comment lol
Such a needed program. This careful presentation of scientific info available is the most useful Rebuttal to the “alternative” theorists. It arms me and many others to counter their assertions. Thank you for this wonderful and much needed channel!
Great discussion. I too wish that more dates would include the dating method(s) used to obtain them. It would go a long way towards assuaging unfounded skepticism. Of course, justified skepticism is good.
Thank you David for marshalling the actual evidence to clearly explain how we know what we know about the Akhet Khufu. Too many people eagerly embrace romantic fringe theories because they don't seem to have the mental fortitude or patience to actually read the methodology of real scholars. The other thing is that there are far more interesting and mysterious structures in Egypt than that to study like the necropolis of Abu Rawash (Abu Rowash, Abu Roash, Abu Roach) which lies around eight kilometers north of Giza. Somebody went to a lot of planning and trouble to construct it's unique structure for some sort of state ritual.
I would like to debate it is highly possible it could be older.Mainly cause the dating sucks.I mean there are not alot of written documents there is the supposed paprys by meer which talks about them carrying stones to from tura to giza which is then assumed for the casing stones of a pyramid since thats what tura limestone was used for and about horizon of khufu but thats about it it just assumed they are talking about the construction of Great pyramid the problem is that the Great pyramid is inorganic and you can't carbon date as such alot of carbon dating has been done in organic meaterial found around the pyramid.For example around the main pyramdi you have tombs and temples and the so called khufu village where they find pottery that has been carbon dated to within 2500 bc but thoese tombs and temples could have been place there long after the orginal construction of the pyramid as long as well as the so called khufus boat since it was found outside the pyramid.The boat does date back to around 2500 bc but it was found period near a pit nesr the pyramid and could have been palce after the orginal construction.And the meer papyrus was found nearwhere near the Great pyramid the other thing is them mortar but the dates rang between 2500 bc to almsot 3000 bc and some of that could have been repair work.The main thing that happened was the piece of cedear which was discovered by howard vyse in one of the air shafts of the queens cabron and later carbon dated around 2020 it was found in a placed in the Great pyramid that was perfectly sealed and then gaved to museum until it ended in the unversity of aberdeen where it was carbon dated.Agian it was found in a place in the Great pyramid was prefectly sealed and therefore most of have been left by the orginal builders the wood was carbon dated to whithin 3341 bc to 3094 bc which long predate the phaorah khufu and the 4 dyansty that was supposedly built the only logical explanation is that the wood came from the cneter of an old tree or it was some kind of tool that was recycled but its hard to belive the egyptians would recycle a piece of wood for like 500 years.The other logical explanation is that the pyramid is older.Generally there are no inscriptions in hreat pyramid except the so called graffit inthe revling chambers that looks like it was done by a five year that says khufu.You could walk a million times in the pyramid you will never say it cause its in this random place it was discovered or supposedly by howard vyse when he discovered the so called relieving chambers and its was never carbon dated and could have been forged by him anyway I think the pyramid probably dated betwen 2500 bc to approx around 3000 bc.
Other scientists theorize that the carbon dating on the pyramid is of mortar used in repair of the structure at a more recent date. There are many questions that are left unanswered that are answered by a much older age for some of the structures. But it is good to hear the academic version from time to time when making comparisons.
That was the question I had. How many samples were taken, and from where in the pyramids? With structures that large and that old I would think one would want MANY samples to draw a worthwhile conclusion. If I read the linked report right, they only examined one sample from each of 30 separate pyramids and tombs. Only one sample? From where exactly within or on the structures were they taken? They don't say. So until I learn more I am unconvinced, and still think later repairs, renovations, or expansions could explain these results
@@WorldofAntiquity I can't answer which scientists, but as just a regular person I know I do for the reasons I gave in my reply to the OP. Am I understanding the results correctly, that only one sample from each site was dated and no mention from where in or on the structures?
Great question, and great answer. Khufu's boat was also found buried right next to the great pyramid. It was put there by his son Djedefre who left his cartouche on the wall inside the pit. The list of evidence goes on an on. But again, great question on dating methods.
There's no evidence the boat was contemporary to the pyramid. If I build a shed next to my house, it doesn't show the house was built at the same time. There's no definitive evidence either way - just theories based on assumptions.
@@Gainn There is plenty of evidence that Khufu's boat is contemporary to his death. the Djedefre cartouche (his son) inside the pit is a indicator of who put it there. Nobody really disputes the reign of Khufu or his sons...give or take a decade or two. But it isn't just the boat is it ?. It is the wealth of other evidence as well. All of Khufu's family were buried in satellite pyramids around the great pyramid. The Giza plateau is basically a massive graveyard. If you have a hypothesis that supersedes this wealth of evidence...I am all ears. Not interested in "what you think"...show me evidence.
@@dazuk1969 Hey Darren I hope all is well in with you. I remember seeing the hieroglyphics you wrote about. It's pretty awesome seeing those messages from the past. I wonder if they ever thought they would be read thousands of years later. I see Irena at Ancient Sites turned 3K subscribers. So she continues to grow. ALL THE BEST 😁
The alignment technique proposed by Spence would be extremely difficult to perform as it requires marking the point from which two stars appear to touch a vertical line from opposite sides over a long baseline at night. I don't know if anybody has actually attempted to replicate this feat. The first study to tie the temporal change of the pyramids' orientations preceded Spence's study by twenty years. Steven Haack (The Astronomical Orientation of the Egyptian Pyramids, Archaeoastronomy, no. 7, 1984) proposed a system involving the observation of the rising points of a number of bright stars. Using this method, the directions of the east-west baselines would change through time due to the precession of the equinoxes in a manner which matches up well to the measured orientations.
Multiple methods across multiple disciplines, verifiable and repeatable evidence, quantities and ranges, no absolutes, room for new technologies to refine, description of what could still be done. All that sounds like the scientific method. I actually didn’t learn how to think like that until grad school and beyond. We need to start critical thinking earlier in school.
Everytime I post a comment about Newgrange (a tomb in Ireland that's older than the pyramids) i get some a bunch of people claiming that the pyramids are actually 10,000 years old and were actually built by an unknown civilisation that the archaeological community are covering up (if archaeologists are covering up the true age of the pyramids, then why aren't the same archaeologists claiming that Gobekli Tepe is younger than the Neolithic period). Its so frustrating that these people, who probably haven't picked up a proper archaeology book in their lives, are acting like they know better than actual archaeologists, heck one fool even ironically claimed that archaeology is a pseudo-science.
Allright kevin, Ill bite. Lets debate. How about you give me your top five facts on how you support your claim on the date of the Pyramids... Ill give you my five questions on my concerns with those facts, and lets hash it out... Seems reasonable.. don't you think?
@@ZSCCCarter Have you not watched the video? The radiocarbon dating of the mortar of the pyramids, made from burning gypsum with wood, as reporter by Aera and Cambridge university. And the university of Aberdeen did radiocarbon date a plank of wood found in the pyramid to be around 500 years older than the accepted age, but this is likely because it was recycled before being dumped within the structure, as theorised by Mark Lehner, and even then 500 years still isn't close to reaching 10,000 yeats ago. the thermoluminescence study on the Pyramid of Menkaure and the sphinx temple by researchers in the Henan University and the University of the Agean. The old-kingdom numbers carved onto the limestone roof slabs in the kings chamber as reported by Egyptologist Marco Fiorini.And even Herodotus, whom your side sources as proof of the pyramids being much older, says that it was built by Kheops, the hellenised version of Khufu, as reported by University of Bristol Egyptologist Aiden Dodson.There is the graffiti, some of them in inaccessible points of the pyramid, behind the masonry, referring to the Khufu, and it's most likely legit since archaeologist and egyptologist Charles Rigano points out how it includes Khufu's Horus name, a name not known at the time of discovery. the radio-carbon study conducted by researchers like Christopher Bronk Ramsey of The University of Oxford and J. M. Rowland of the university of Edinburgh indicated that Khufu's reign matched the accepted age of the pyramids. And the Diary of Merer recounts people cutting and transporting limestone blocks from the quarry around the same time as Khufu's reign as reported by the Smithsonian, and before you put forward the theory that their only recounting some kind of elaborate renovation, you should know that the main proponents of that theory are websites like curiosmos, websites that are dedicated to Ancient Alien theory. And Mark Lenher and his team from AERA also unearthed a village built for the workers of the pyramids, using typologies and seriation on pottery shards, stratigraphy and examining seal impressions, they concluded that village was built around the construction of pyramids of Khufu and Menkaure. If your somehow right and this village survived after the pyramids construction, then surely the remains of the dwellings of the real builders would have survived too? Lenher also corrobates the pyramids age by pointing out Khufu's ship, which was discovered just south of the Pyramid of Khufu, was radio-carbon dated to around the accepted timeframe. And even if this is all fabricated, what reason do archaeologists have to cover up information when finding new revelations and breakthoughs is literally part of their job? For example, archaeologists have generally agreed that humans reached the americas around 14 thousand years ago, but a recent report published in National Geographic have reported ancient footprints in New Mexico that are around 22,000 years old, why is there no coverup here? Same with Gobekli Tepe, how come archaeologists aren't claiming that it was built in the Bronze Age instead of the Neolithic period? And you must remember Occam's Razor and decide whats more likely? The evidence presented that is in line with centuries of academic research, or evidence from the internet and a few fringe, likely opportunistic, people who claim that the pyramids are evidence of a pre-Egyptian civilisation that there is absolutely no other evidence of, and before you claim that there is evidence and most of the archaeologists of the world are colluding to go to great lengths to cover it up because I guess most archaeologists are stubborn, narrow-minded dusty old men; putting your faith in a few fringe archaeologists and dismissing the words of millions of archaeologist, all from thousands of different institutions and from almost every nation, on the assumption that their all colluding to cover up evidence that in reality archaeologists would embrace after going through the necessary and lengthy process of separating, labelling , preserving, storing, measuring,sampling, recording, examining the environments it was found in and recording and registering the exact position and contect of the artefact/feature when it was in situ, its stage in the formation process, the origin of the material used to make it, checking the legality of handling it, and using every possible method to identify its culture of origin, as well as it's age, both through relative dating methods, like seriation, typologies, stratigraphy, and absolute dating methods, such as 14C dating and dendrochronology, all things that artefacts and features must go through before a consensus is reached; doesn't make sense. The archaeological process is what seperates a sensationalist and a proper archaeologist, the former will make grand statements of their findings before what they find is even processed while the latter will wait and build their theories based on the subsequent results. And before you claim that all the other evidence of this pre-egyptian civilisation has been destroyed by the Nile and the elements, Egypt is one of the most excavated countries in the world, they would have definitely found evidence by now buried in the ground, just look at how well the Grand Theatre of Ephesus was preserved despite being buried for over 2000 years. And I have ask if you have actually read an archaeology/egyptology book before? And if you have fact-checked your sources and tried to read the opionion of the archaeological community, get both sides of the argument, on these source's claims as well? And if your sources are accepted as academically reliable?
Dr Miano, I have read the study and note the following quote contained therein : "While searching the monuments, we examined seams between stone blocks for mortar filling and for black specks of charcoal inside the mortar." By definition this means that the mortar was collected from easily accessible 'seams'. My point is that I am unsure how scientific it is to assume these superficial mortar layers were contemporary with the original construction, and not repair work? I am playing devils advocate but do not have entrenched beliefs. Best wishes, Paul.
Thank you; I never knew anything about Egyptology and I had heard Graham Hancock talking about the lack of evidence for the pyramid dating and I was starting to doubt if they were only 4,000 years old - You've completely made him to look like a wilful liar or an utter troglodyte. Thanks for taking the time to collect the studies together and make this wonderful resource.
One of the things I look for when assessing stuff is how different scientific disciplines merge-- or diverge-- from an answer. I think the dating of the Great Pyramid is a good example of "the weight of evidence." Another example may turn out to be the discovery of life on Mars. It probably won't be *one* piece of evidence that leads us to that discovery, rather an accumulation of bits of evidence from many disciplines.
We will simply find extant life on Mars, and we'll probably find fossilised life as well. But let's get real: Martian life never got beyond the pond scum stage.
@@Chris.Davies I would be amazed even further if we found "pond scum" that's as highly evolved on Mars as what we see on Earth. An extra planetary genesis is satisfactorily amazing enough-- if it happened.
This was great. I hadn't previously understood how the pyramids were dated. Didn't think anything but foodstuffs found in the pyramid could be carbon dated. Very interesting to hear that something with so little carbon as mortar could be so dated, and all the other methods of dating. You covered a most relevant question very comprehensively. Well done, and subscribed.
Polygonal masonry uses NO MORTAR. Mortar was not used in the earliest "great pyramids"...that came later. Extensive remodeling also affected previously existing structures...just as is clearly demonstrated in South America's polygonal masonry. Misinformation is frequently used by orthodoxy and its shills to dismiss true mysteries that they have no answer for.
Michael, if I follow your reasoning, you are suggesting that, because polygonal masonry outside of Egypt doesn't use mortar, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, which does not use polygonal masonry also didn't have mortar originally, even though the mortar is found all through it. Is that right?
@@WorldofAntiquity No...that is not my reasoning. It is the MIRROR IMAGING of organically shaped surfaces THAT IS THE COMMON MYSTERY. And the NUBS, which there is still no explanation for.
@@michael4250 what does "The mirror imaging of organic surfaces" mean? I thought that the polygon on masonry that people commonly point to was shaped irregularly everywhere. And they were shaped that way because they didn't cut rock into regular blocks. Doing so a lot of made sense in that situation. Their rocks were harder and found on the surface rather than being quarried like in Egypt.
Great video! A lot of the people who push these alternative hypothesis conveniently ignore this evidence. I've just gotten to the point of telling these types Me: "Why only push it back 10,000 years? Let's really get crazy! The pyramids are 800,000 years old. Better yet, they're 70 million years old and built by a group of T-Rexs" Alternative hypothesis believers: "That's just stupid there's no evidence to back that up!" Me: Neither does your idea, but mine sounds way cooler"
Man, I've been watching your videos for a while now, and, while I avoid comment sections, I have seen you defend your method with so much compassion and understanding for an audience that really seems like they don't want to listen. We still need to engage. There's nothing wrong with speculation, but without peer-reviewed evidence, speculation is much less compelling. Here's a future video idea: Interview your undergrads and grad students to show what the "ivory tower" really is. There's no conspiracy theories, if a government tried to convince academia to cover up some kind of history, the tell-all would be the leading publication in the next journal. Please ignore the haters and keep up your excellent work.
Hi Peter, I agree that the only thing that matters is credible, proven, scientific fact. I disagree that speculation is less compelling. Speculation, or just plain making stuff up appeals to millions. This is why he have millions of people who believe in alternative ideas. There is nothing wrong with speculation, but I speak to people every day who actually believe the pyramids were built by aliens or a lost civilisation based on the nonsense fed to them by the alternative crowd. These people want to think these things are true....as they are more enticing. The alternative people know this so they can say anything they want regardless of a complete lack of evidence. This is where normal, rational speculation crosses the line for me....peace to ya bud.
This is just one of THE BEST channels on UA-cam…!!! If only this kind of teaching would be more wide spread… I wish you all the best and hope to see much more of your superb videos in the future. Best greetings from Switzerland…👍🏻👍🏻😎😎 Steven R.
There was a video on the ancient architect channel about the now-found missing wooden stick from one of the shafts, which is recently carbon dated in that range as well. Also, I remember him talking about a wall art depicting kufu in the now lost great pyramid's causeway i think
Correct Armin, the piece of cedar wood from the great pyramid was claimed to have "gone missing" in conspiracy kind of way. But no, it is in a Scottish university and has been dated to the old kingdom as you say. There are also much larger pieces of wood in the bent pyramid and step pyramid used in their construction.
I was in Cairo a few weeks ago and looked closely at the granite and limestone blocks of the Sphinx temple. On one corner of the sphinx temple you can see the mating surface of the granite to the limestone and the granite was clearly cut to the shape of the limestone which was already heavily weathered. On one spot, i observed the bottom rear of the granite block (about 6-8 inches thick) jutted under the Limestone block where it was eroded. So, in this light it would be very interesting to see the results of the Luminescence dating on the Megalithic limestone blocks as the granite seems to have been placed after the Limestone blocks were already heavily eroded in an attempt to protect them from further elemental damage. I will be going back to Egypt in a few weeks for a month and should i visit Cairo again I will endeavour to get some photos of these blocks for you to have a look at.
How interesting was that? I have no idea that there was such confidence of such a narrow date band for a king who reigned five millennia ago. It really is an impressive feat.
It is entirely consistent with long-term scientific enquiry which uses multiple branches of science, and multiple types of evidence to arrive at a tentative conclusion. And it is important to understand that EVERYTHING in science is provisional and tentative. NOTHING is sacred. And a theory which is superior will always displace an old theory, no matter how entrenched. Science is a process of asymptotically approaching the truth. Each new piece of evidence gets you closer and closer. And science uses a process of continual refinement to make its predictions more and more accurate over time. The thing about science, is that it is performed by imperfect humans, and so science is necessarily NOT a perfect process. BUT, it is a self-correcting process which eliminates mistakes over time.
Or this is cherry picked data. the cited papers on carbon dating at best imply they took mortar from the pyramids, even though the mystery of how they moved massive granite blocks using stone age or bronze age tools and laid them with lazer level accuracy using no mortar still stands.
@@fairhall001 It sounds like you didn't watch the video. Also, I can assure you that lasers are much more accurate than what you're describing. Also, a tightly pulled string (unless it gets very long) is just as straight as a laser.
@@jamisojo I did more than watch the video, I read the paper he cited and found that it didn't say they took mortar from the pyramids but from the buildings out the front and only implies they took mortar from the pyramids. There is no mortar in the megalithic stonework, a fact you would have realised if you had done any reasonable amount of study on this subject.
I asked almost same question just a week ago about various methods of dating, their accuracy and when they are applied... this was excellent answer which gave me direction to find more on my own, thanks for this answer
Great video. You have just killed the whole alternative archeology movement in 10 minutes. If Pyramid of Kheops is from 2600BC everything that these people are trying to sell is basically pointless.
If logic and reason worked to disabuse LAHT people of their idiotic beliefs (Belief being what you have, when you have nothing!) then there would be no believers in LAHT. Logic and reason only work on people who know how these two things work, and how to apply critical thinking to a subject, and who are not emotionally connected to an idea. Remember the truism: it is much easier to fool a person than it is to convince them they have been fooled. The point of selling LAHT ideas is the sale! By espousing garbage and lies, the weak-minded and gullible are willing to spend HUGE sums of money on bullshit DVDs, garbage books, and very expensive tours of far-away ancient sites. You need to understand that none of the people who sell the LAHT delusion actually believe their own garbage. They are well aware of the facts, but they want lots of money from gullible and ignorant idiots, so they continue to sell their lies. They are truly evil people.
And sell they do! These quacks or 'pyramidiots' make a lot of money from their 'alternate' history theories both online & writing books. They make money while deluding people from the actual factual truth! 🇬🇧
No because its clear many things are much older there than the pyramids. So much has happened in at least 300,000 years of homo sapiens, look whats happened just in 1000
We also know for a fact that the ancient Egyptians didn’t listen to heavy metal - it hadn’t been invented yet. However they were into really heavy hard rock… ba-dump ching! #Imhereallweekfolks
Hey bud. Despite your instance that the information I needed was in this video, there is no mention of where the mortar was taken from. I even took the liberty to look up the research study you reference and found that the researchers made a point to note when a sample was taken from the interior of a monument. Since there was no mention of the samples coming from interior stones of any of the 3 pyramids that means they likely came from the exterior. This combined with the information I found that only ever speaks about the mortar in relationship to the casing stones leads the to believe with some confidence that the mortar samples all came from the exterior of the pyramid. So as of right now, my point stands.
The location of every single sample is listed. I am beginning to think you are unaware that none of the casing stones are on the pyramid anymore. Surely you must know this. And yet somehow you conclude that the samples were taken from these missing stones.
@@WorldofAntiquity I have never said that the mortar was taken from the casing stones. I am positing that the mortar was taken from the stones which currently make up the outside of the pyramid, the stones that use to be under the casing stones. I made that very clear in my OP on your short and it appears to be backed up by the evidence. As you stated the location of the samples are listed, what isn’t listed is whether the samples were taken from the interior. The researchers do make a point to note when a sample is taken from the interior of the monuments so lacking that specific note in the sample information means the sample was taken from the exterior.
your scientific response is exactly what i needed to trust when the pyramids were actually built. you are bringing science to a topic that many people believe things about the pyramids but they just a theory, and no facts.
"The Takelot eclipse belongs to the third category of astronomical phenomena according to Nikolsky's classification. We cited it as a vivid example of the difficulties that arise when trying to astronomically date the phenomena of this category. This example teaches us not to succumb to the hypnosis of the words "proven astronomically" and every time we encounter an astronomical dating, carefully check what additional assumptions (for example, calendar or deciphering hypotheses) were explicitly or implicitly used in this dating."
This kind of cross-referencing, from so many branches of expertise, is why down to earth science is so absolutely brilliant.......who needs made-up aliens and sunken myth islands if the truth is so awesome! 🙂
Another important note: the time that it supposedly took for the pyramid to be built is based on either calculations of the reign of Khufu (from mainly Manetho) or from the tour guides or "random guys" that Herodotus spoke to. The alternative theorists who cry "impossible" for the time to completion are in my opinion straw manning here because the FULL construction was likely not in the attested time window, but was in my opinion, likely built upon pre existing work, possibly several "generations" of phases. Our own "recent" cathedrals in France and throought Europe were built this way.
The construction having been done in several phases is pretty much what most alt theories are saying though right.. The whole khufu did it in 20 years thing is what people are saying is impossible. They say it's Impossible based on how many stones would have to be cut/moved per day/hour in order to achieve it . And that is not really feasible. The better alternative theories don't really dispute the completion time of the Great pyramid . They mostly put it at around 4500 BP for the great pyramid with the sphinx being alot older as seen by the type of erosion in the sphinx enclosure.
Meaning the age of the pre-existing work is possibly still unknown. I have friends living in a house from the 1600’s. All mortal an almost all wood is from 1990 and later. Most of the stone construction is from the 1600’s. Impossible to date since the outside has been renovated countless times, there are records of it and it is currently a monument. Just one example. It’s important to keep an open mind and not throw theories out because it conflicts with relatively little evidence. This leads to a field of archeology that has to correct itself on a daily basis due to new finds. Look at how wrong we were about loads of things around 1960 to now. Do you think that in 2080 we haven’t made discoveries that radically change our perception of history? Happens constantly, why would it suddenly stop now?
@@valkenburgert The idea that there was previously existing work is an assumption, not a theory. The fact that, in a few cases, locations of places that were only known by mythology turn out, through archaeological research, to be actual places, doesn't signal that all the stories from the ancient past are factual. To make the claim that the finished construction of one (or all) of the Giza pyramids were build in stages starting with previous rulers would require evidence that directly contradicts the evidence that has been found so far. Just because this has been verifiably done in some other cases doesn't make it a candidate explanation in this case. In the case of Troy, we now know, though archaeological research, that the legend was set in an actual city. Yet the fact that troy really existed can't tell us whether Achilles and Hector actually met in man to man combat outside the city gates. The field of archaeology is supposed to change the narrative when presented with evidence that challenges previous conclusions...that's a positive thing! This requires that one who is serious about investigating the ancient past must needs keep current with recent finds and the re-analysis of previous finds with newer and better methods. It means that one needs to keep an open mind. The fact that in all fields of science, the it's understood that most of that which we think we know today will be changed tomorrow doesn't automatically mean we can discard everything that has been legitimately discovered needs to be thrown out, especially if it is to support a pet narrative.
@@russellmillar7132 My point was that keeping an open mind is vital in my opinion. Now, I started with saying “possibly” in my first sentence. The fact you completely ignore that points to your bias, not mine. Have a breather, read back, feel silly, learn, and grow! If you do it now you’ll thank me next month.
Very well presented and I'm happy to be a Patreon, encourage others to as well, David's work has saved me a lot of confusion and alleviated a lot of misleading historical narratives
I'm so pleased I found this channel - you're one of those people who can teach and talk and make the topic endlessly fascinating and present all the data so it's understandable - thank you.
Well done 👏 Excellent summary of the evidence for the Egyptian build tombs and pyramids. All of the data provided by the aechologists backs up their historical account of these structures, and your agreement as a historian provides a confirmation 👍 Now all we need is Carbon dating with unquestionable providence from inside the Great pyramid, to prove no pre exsisting significant structure existed before this time frame? How about the organic material in the writing? That would be a start.
Great info, thanks! I often wonder why there's so much documentaries lamenting the same things, yet, we rarely if ever, see such information laid in such an elegant manner.
With all the propaganda that is going on these days about ancient Egypt this is one of the best video on youtube quite literally, you presented all evidence and facts with reason and logic such a rare occasion nowadays.. insta subbed!! looking forward more videos from you
Thank you for bringing clarity to this topic. Most every other channel wants to bring chaos and ignorance to scientific topics. Please keep doing what you are doing, for science sake!
Finally! Someone that brings up the carbon dating of the mortar! That by itself should be the nail in the sarcophagus for those that claim the stones were stacked thousands of years earlier.
This should be interesting. I’ll be starting your book Ideas in the Making A Sourcebook For World Intellectual History to 1300, in a few days. Just finished a book on Native American myths and legends. Happy Easter to you and your loved ones!
Thank you for providing this compilation of evidence for the dating of the Great Pyramid. I knew that more evidence was out there, but did know where to look. Your explanation of each piece of evidence was clear and further underscores my current understanding. The only point that I would add was to the evidence of the astronomical data. At one point you stated after 3:35 that one of the researchers determined that subsequent pyramids built after the Great Pyramid were aligned to true north using certain stars which had changed slightly from the position of the Great Pyramid because those stars had moved. I'm sure you must be aware that in reality it is not the stars that moved, but the precessional movement of the earth changed the position of those stars in relation to the earth. imo of course. Otherwise I think your explanation of the different evidence used to date the pyramid was spot on.
Amazing - you present powerful evidence. The mortar, astronomical, graffiti evidence, corroborated with Herodotus’ account is all I need. Though I still do like teasing my Egyptian friends by telling them aliens built it! Love your presentation! Keep up the good work.
According to the Standard Egyptian Chronology developed by the University of Cambridge Khufu's reign can indeed be inserted in the first half of the 26th century BC but it is a lot more likely that he reigned 46, not 23 years because in Old Kingdom times the "cattle count", that is the census was normally done every two years and there were 23 counts during his reign...
lol! Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. So while the _"Lord of the Algorithms"_ pushes a lot of trash unto our feeds - quite a bit really = once in a while it actually does get things right to show us credible channels.
Its amazing just how much the Greeks depended on Egypt for knowledge of the ancient world. 200yrs prior to Herodutus, Solon travelled to the preists of Egypt for a peep into the past. They told him of a global flood and of Atlantis. Herodotus might have been luckier than Solon. But it makes you wonder who, if anyone, the Egyptians depended on for their own ancient knowledge. As they were definitely not around when Atlantis was.
Legitimate observation and question: I’ll grant the dating as accurate, however what/who cut and transported the granite to such precision? This has not been answered honestly; not when most stone masons say they themselves could barely do it with modern machines. What about water erosion on the sphinx?
The main issue with the construction of the pyramids is that no one has explained how the very large blocks were transported from the quarry or how they were lifted into place BUT one researcher said he managed to take a few samples from some of the blocks and when analysed they showed the blocks were made up from a kind of concrete mixture and this makes a lot of sense as the blocks could be created in situ allowing workers to carry small containers of mix and water and several blocks could be cast at the same time. This is the only explanation which is practical I have seen.
Okay - follow the white rabbit Neo: 1 - the largest/heaviest blocks found in the Giza Pyramids are actually located = in the bottom half closest to the ground. Those large granite relieving slabs above the King's Chamber in Khufu's pyramid are actually below the halfway point. 2 - look at photos of the exposed western base of the Great Pyramid. You can see a continuous line of = limestone bedrock. What does this mean?? It means they built the pyramid atop an existing hill which was leveled at the edge and blocks stacked atop it. 3 - look at the lower corridor/chamber of the pyramid = they are hewed from the bedrock. So at least part of the lower pyramid is actually existing hillside. I read an Italian study some time back which estimated its' volume of bedrock rather than blocks at ~23%. Hence that existing elevation would likely have been part of the ramp structure used to create the inner core of chambers and corridors in its' lower half. Above that level the blocks are smaller as it rises in height. 4 - there is archeological precedence for this. Look at the remains of Djedefre's Pyramid. It also was built atop a hill incorporating the natural access route to move the blocks to the pyramid site + its' own burial vault was dug out of the hill and now with the blocks stripped away you can see the sloping pit leading down which was once covered over. 5 - the quarries which supplied the limestone are a few hundred meters from the pyramids between them and Khafre's valley temple adjacent the Sphinx. So the blocks only needed to be hauled via sleds = a few hundred meters. The smaller blocks above could be lifted via a fulcrum/counterweight device akin to the Egyptian shaduf. Finally look at Menkaure's Pyramid. His contains the largest limestone blocks of the 3 main pyramids - ~20 tons in weight. Yet those are once again found on = the bottom layer of the pyramid - and they were quarried right next to its' foundation. So they only had to be moved ~25 meters or so. Final thought = harbor. The granite and white Tura casing stones along with other basalts for mortuary temples were shipped in via barges. Look at Khafre's valley temple adjacent the Sphinx in maps and switch to satellite view. See 3 white lines pointing east to the suburbs of Cairo = sloping stone jetties which go under the ground. That area which is ~500 meters from the pyramids was a harbor area. Thus as we see they were not "lifting" large blocks. They were pushed/pulled/levered into position via teams of men and oxen. They were not transporting blocks overland great distances either. As we see everything was in place so that stone was only being moved a matter of a few hundred meters.
Now to "geopolymer". Think about that - seriously. What do you think would be more resource and labor intensive: 1 - teams of workmen using bronze and gneiss stone tools and wooden levers splitting off approximate chunks of limestone from nearby quarries to lever those onto sleds pulled by teams of men and oxen as noted. 2 - creating a "mixture" - in *VAST* quantities by the way - not to mention the wood requirements involved. You would require thousands of wooden molds - of which some would invariably be damaged in the process and require replacement thus increasing the amount of wood needed for the project which had to be imported. So the Egyptians already had in place a system for harvesting and smelting bronze as they had used bronze tools for centuries. Also the gneiss stone tools like flint and dolerite were equally ubiquitous and basically there for the taking. Yet to make literally hundreds of thousands of tons of some mixture would require enormous amounts of wood for molds - and fires. The gypsum mortar the Egyptians used was cooked over fires. You require all the ingredients for your mixture - remember they could not simply go to the local hardware store to buy bags of ready-mix. This means quarrying and transporting to site massive amounts of raw materials. Finally you would need to create your mix in a consistency not possible from stirring using wooden sticks as the casing stones alone reflect a fine consistency. Of the lower grade limestone blocks you can see on many of them = chisel marks...... Moral: to create many thousands of blocks from a mixture = would be a massive undertaking far exceeding the logistical needs of simple quarrying. This is what your "geopolymer" nonsense is about. He took a sample of the gypsum mortar repair work from the Bent Pyramid. The pyramid incurred "subsidence" during construction. Sneferu's engineers attempted repairs to it including = gypsum mortar. So Egyptologist already knew they used gypsum mortar for various applications - just not casting blocks. He therefore is "extrapolating" based upon a sample of repair work. Yet the nearby quarries themselves and the blocks reflect stone blocks clearly hewed from the bedrock.
Ah, yes, there was a cedar plank that was found in a cigar box and carbon dated to about 3000 BCE, but we are unable to to link it to the pyramid's construction.
This is a great video that should prove useful. I have tried using google also for evidence of the age of the Great pyramid only to be let down except i did find out about Merer which was nice.
All the pyramids have been carbon tested several times except the red pyramid. There is a lot of organic material in pyramids wooden beams charocal and vegetation in the mortar. The age is from 3800 to 4200 years old.
I love questions like this, because the asker has clearly heard an alternative version but wants to verify if the facts check out. And then you're there to give a detailed answer with kinds of evidence I had never heard of.
Ever hear of cherry picking data? Or coming up with a method that provides answers that comply with a history funded by creationists..
@@fairhall001 Please write clearly so we can understand what you're trying to say.
@@jamisojo I bet you get all your comebacks from Twitter.
What I love about your videos, is that you also present the problems with the evidence, keeping things transparent. A beautiful, accessible summary from a great question.
Dr Miano gives another brilliant summary of sound scientific research to inform and delight us all - and to show how exciting genuine evidence-based (as opposed to pseudo) history can be . This is a great educational service. World of Antiquity is, by any standards, a wonderful resource because Dr Miano is a lucid expositor even the most recondite cutting-edge research. Great thanks.
Did you check the evidence cited? The carbon dating papers cited are not exactly accurate. One states clearly that they took no material from the pyramid itself and the other states it only implies that it took material from the pyramids. The mystery of how they laid massive granite blocks using stone age or bronze age tools with lazer level accuracy using no mortar still stands.
Both reports are referring to the same project, and the second report is so explicit about where each sample was taken, there are appendices at the end stating exactly their location.
Thank you Dr Miano & World of Antiquity.
@@WorldofAntiquity It is harder convince someone that has been conned than it is to convince them of the truth..
One of your best videos yet. Really awesome job.
Short and to the point, deconstructing the alt. theory in a descriptive and scientific way. I loved it.
You need a much bigger voice, with all the "Alternative" archeology being presented out there. I am so glad I found your explanations and evidences of what sure looks like the reality of it, instead of more of the fringe hype of ancient alien bs out there.
This guy is lying, pyramids are the remains of large chunks of Parmesan used in the worship of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. The descendents of the original hybridized human/ravioli built them for ceremonial cannibal rites. Check out my new channel SUKR for those who want new nonsense to believe in. (not affiliated with any logic or reason)
what is your opinion on the mathematical information 'designed' into the construction of the great pyramid?
is it specific to the great pyramid?
there is evidence as far as I can find however could this be coincidence?
it's the alternative historians strongest case in my opinion
it's fascinating to say the least
✌️
@@skipper6528 he already has a whole video dedicated to pyramid math
ua-cam.com/video/qdpKTe-m7Jw/v-deo.html
@Purple Syndicalist I just find the information intriguing
look up great pyramid mathematics or geometry or number codes or any variation of those if you have twenty minutes to kill
if you're into puzzles or mysteries and the like you might get something out of it
I'd love to hear another's opinion on it
@@skipper6528 "SGD Sacred Geometry Decoded" is an interesting channel in this regard. One the one hand, he debunks all the LAHT claims when it comes to the manufacture of stone artifacts, moving big stones, etc., but he also has videos explaining the mathematical info you're talking about.
I think it's possible that the ancient Egyptians could have built "Sacred Geometry" ratios and the like into the Pyramid (things like pi and phi, relationships between the pentagon and hexagon, etc.). Pythagoras claimed to have learned the secrets of geometry in Egypt. If so, then the Egyptians could have built these kinds of ratios and geometric proportions into the Pyramid because it was meant to represent the Primordial Mound of Creation. Pythagorean geometry teaches that the numbers 1-10, and the geometric forms derived from them (point, circle, the regular polygons/polyhedra, etc.) encode the principles underlying the creation and operation of the Cosmos. If the Egyptian priests believed the same thing, it would make sense for them to incorporate this into the Pyramid in order to magically activate its function as an "immortality machine" for the Pharaoh.
I'm a bit more skeptical of claims that the Egyptians encoded things like the polar radius and equatorial circumference of the Earth, though it's possible they could have figured those out using methods similar to what Archimedes used centuries later.
Claims that they incorporated things like the speed of light, or information about other planets in the Solar System that they could not have observed without telescopes is more unlikely.
The main epistemic problem with "finding information encoded" in a monument is that it's too easy for the researcher to pick which measurements to use, and which units (e.g. meters, feet, "royal cubits," etc.) in order to arrive at the numbers and/or ratios they're looking for. The Graham Hancock type hypothesis, that they "encoded" all this information in order to preserve it for future civilizations makes no sense. A future civilization could only "discover" the "encoded" information if they already knew all the "encoded" information (speed of light, etc.), so that method would be useless for helping future people rebuild after a catastrophe.
You answered my question perfectly. Changing my opinion on this was hard as it sounds so much cooler to think this stuff is much older. I tried to find some of this info out on my own but Google likes to point at the alternative resources. Thank you you are super helpful in clarifying these details. Now if only you will answer my question about the Temple of man 🙂
Great question, I didn't know most of this stuff myself! I take basic assumptions for granted, and if those foundational facts are not covered then it's so easy for the alternative history to have a convincing narrative.
Of course everything that David stated is true. However, just the Egyptian king lists give the answer about the age of the great pyramid. From those king lists, we know that Sneferu was the father of Khufu & Khafre the son of Khufu. Sneferu built a few pyramids before the Giza pyramids. The gradual skill & precission obviously getting better as each one was built. Therefore Khufu's was more or less perfect by the time of its construction. Khafre obviously built his after his fathers, therefore it is quite clear that Khufu built the great pyramid. No one argues that Sneferu built his pyramids or indeed that Khafre built his lol. 🇬🇧
@@Paul-hl8yg actually apart from Sneferus name being associated with the Pyramids there is next to no evidence he commissioned them as far as I know. Its not really debated because the focus is on the Giza Plateau.
TBH Sneferus Pyramids raise more questions than answers, his reign was generally believed to be 25 years (although some believed 50). If the pyramids were only tombs why build 3? (Or 2 if Houni is given the 1st) there is more weight in the bent Pyramid than in the great pyramid and they should of had less experience. So how did he build the bent pyramid and the red pyramid in 25 years? It only works if it is done simultaneously (and even then its a tight timeframe especially when its believed the bent pyramid was changed mid build) which begs the question, if they were only tombs why build 2? As I said, more questions than answers, the evidence for Khufu commissioning TGP is far stronger than Sneferu's claim to 2 or 3 pyramids.
@@edfu_text_U_later Totally get your point, there isn't very much evidence for Sneferu building the 3 pyramids. A reason for the 3 would be that he simply wasn't happy with the first 2 & looking at them, one can understand why. However we can be certain he built at least one. It is the progression from Djoser's step pyramid through to the Giza pyramids that is more important. But my initial points stand, in that Sneferu was Khufu's father & certainly built at least 1 pyramid, if not all 3 or perhaps 2. I believe the red pyramid must have been Sneferu's, just based on it being nearer to perfect pyramidal form before Khufu's. Khufu carried on the process of making a pyramid as his tomb & his son followed that tradition. We certainly have Sneferu as founder of the 4th dynasty, a dynasty that built stone pyramids. Until more evidence surfaces, Sneferu seems to be the chosen pharaoh of the 3 former pyramids before Khufu's.
@@Paul-hl8yg well said, completely logical thought process there. My understanding is Medium Pyramid, Bent then the Red pyramid is the order of construction. So that's where I think achealogy is just better off saying, we don't actually know but our best guess is Sneferu built all 3. Its just hard to believe he could of built all 3, especially if the bent pyramid was a failure why complete it if he was going to build the Red pyramid? To me that seems like a waste of resources and man power
When I saw the title "Dating the Great Pyramid", my first thought was how much is buying dinner for a great pyramid going to cost.
She’s an expensive date!!
I've watched soooo many documentaries and videos about the Pyramid of Khufu and it's the first time I'm hearing this. Thank you!
Another great video, full of valuable information. Thank you again for what you do.
This cant be right. Pyramid is much older
@@jkharjuno9519 If you listen to the opinions of uneducated book author$, and you believe what they tell you is true...you really have only yourself to blame.
The Giza pyramids were built as tombs for the 4th dynasty pharaohs around 2,600-2500 BCE.
The evidence is absolutely overwhelming ...for anyone who has the curiosity to examine it.
ua-cam.com/play/PLSSFj6Q5TZYQnX74l-gL231kNMJAmsV06.html
@@jkharjuno9519 - You seem to have lied to.
Love the way the dates are corroborated multiple times & ways 😊 thank you for laying it out concisely & simply for us!!
I would like to debate it is highly possible it could be older.Mainly cause the dating sucks.I mean there are not alot of written documents there is the supposed paprys by meer which talks about them carrying stones to from tura to giza which is then assumed for the casing stones of a pyramid since thats what tura limestone was used for and about horizon of khufu but thats about it it just assumed they are talking about the construction of Great pyramid the problem is that the Great pyramid is inorganic and you can't carbon date as such alot of carbon dating has been done in organic meaterial found around the pyramid.For example around the main pyramdi you have tombs and temples and the so called khufu village where they find pottery that has been carbon dated to within 2500 bc but thoese tombs and temples could have been place there long after the orginal construction of the pyramid as long as well as the so called khufus boat since it was found outside the pyramid.The boat does date back to around 2500 bc but it was found period near a pit nesr the pyramid and could have been palce after the orginal construction.And the meer papyrus was found nearwhere near the Great pyramid the other thing is them mortar but the dates rang between 2500 bc to almsot 3000 bc and some of that could have been repair work.The main thing that happened was the piece of cedear which was discovered by howard vyse in one of the air shafts of the queens cabron and later carbon dated around 2020 it was found in a placed in the Great pyramid that was perfectly sealed and then gaved to museum until it ended in the unversity of aberdeen where it was carbon dated.Agian it was found in a place in the Great pyramid was prefectly sealed and therefore most of have been left by the orginal builders the wood was carbon dated to whithin 3341 bc to 3094 bc which long predate the phaorah khufu and the 4 dyansty that was supposedly built the only logical explanation is that the wood came from the cneter of an old tree or it was some kind of tool that was recycled but its hard to belive the egyptians would recycle a piece of wood for like 500 years.The other logical explanation is that the pyramid is older.Generally there are no inscriptions in hreat pyramid except the so called graffit inthe revling chambers that looks like it was done by a five year that says khufu.You could walk a million times in the pyramid you will never say it cause its in this random place it was discovered or supposedly by howard vyse when he discovered the so called relieving chambers and its was never carbon dated and could have been forged by him anyway I think the pyramid probably dated betwen 2500 bc to approx around 3000 bc.
thank you dr miano, it always makes me excited when i see a notification that you have posted a new video. consistently great content
This is a great format for a video
Thank you for your work. We need more rational people like you in all walks of life. I everyday see lots of confused and brainwashed people in sociology, politics, even biology, so its nice to have this type of channel to ease my brain and not to lose my sanity.
you made me lmao "nice to have this type of channel to ease my brain and not lose my sanity"
...
for me, it's about my Pleiadian and Sirian missions
100% I’m so glad I found this channel
You are a zombie. You didn't analyze every word. What is man? What is the pyramid Was it really built? Where is the evidence?
That star alignment thing is super cool. It's always amazing to see the ancients doing something so normal as making a basic mistake like that. The accuracy of Khufu's pyramid is really startling
You don't get it, do you?
They did NOT make a mistake!
They accurately plotted North according to the two stars they used for the task. If they had made a mistake it would not be possible to tie the pyramids' orientation to these particular stars!
What you call a "mistake" is in fact, simply the fact that stars move against the background over time, but the Egyptians had no way of knowing this, and so they had no way of accounting for the movement.
We can see with our modern knowledge that yes, they made an error, but only a very small one, and the fact they could align the pyramids to these stars speaks volumes of their ability in observation and geometry. Remember that ancient Egyptians calculated the diameter of Earth to within a couple percent of the true value - that was no mean feat!
It's worth noting here, that in the ancient world NO ONE thought the world was flat. That is a myth created by people fairly recently, in order to make themselves feel superior to the ancients.
And, it is certainly true more people believe a flat Earth today than at any point in the past.
@@Chris.Davies ... "we can see with our modern knowledge that yes, they made an error..." you're arguing my point. I never suggested that they were foolish for doing so. They did the best that they could with the knowledge that they had. But because that knowledge became flawed over time, it proved to be a mistake. I should say, by basic I meant more like "small" or "trivial" than obvious. It's fascinating because of just how accurate they were, and how the error that eventually cropped up is itself a testament to their great accuracy. So yes. They made a mistake. One they could not have known or understood at the time. But a mistake. Idk where the flat earth thing came from. I never made any speculations about what they thought about the shape of the earth.
@@Chris.Davies all of that to say. Actually I do get it. It was incredibly clear in the video. I literally call their accuracy "startling" in my original comment lol
"Graham Hancock has concluded...."
The only thing Hancock has technically concluded is a final copy of a book to publish.
That’s why no one can manage to refute him- just like you?…
Such a needed program. This careful presentation of scientific info available is the most useful
Rebuttal to the “alternative” theorists. It arms me and many others to counter their assertions. Thank you for this wonderful and much needed channel!
Great discussion. I too wish that more dates would include the dating method(s) used to obtain them. It would go a long way towards assuaging unfounded skepticism. Of course, justified skepticism is good.
i wish metamethodological considerations were taught in school as required material
Very well put together, I really enjoyed that!
Thank you David for marshalling the actual evidence to clearly explain how we know what we know about the Akhet Khufu. Too many people eagerly embrace romantic fringe theories because they don't seem to have the mental fortitude or patience to actually read the methodology of real scholars. The other thing is that there are far more interesting and mysterious structures in Egypt than that to study like the necropolis of Abu Rawash (Abu Rowash, Abu Roash, Abu Roach) which lies around eight kilometers north of Giza. Somebody went to a lot of planning and trouble to construct it's unique structure for some sort of state ritual.
I would like to debate it is highly possible it could be older.Mainly cause the dating sucks.I mean there are not alot of written documents there is the supposed paprys by meer which talks about them carrying stones to from tura to giza which is then assumed for the casing stones of a pyramid since thats what tura limestone was used for and about horizon of khufu but thats about it it just assumed they are talking about the construction of Great pyramid the problem is that the Great pyramid is inorganic and you can't carbon date as such alot of carbon dating has been done in organic meaterial found around the pyramid.For example around the main pyramdi you have tombs and temples and the so called khufu village where they find pottery that has been carbon dated to within 2500 bc but thoese tombs and temples could have been place there long after the orginal construction of the pyramid as long as well as the so called khufus boat since it was found outside the pyramid.The boat does date back to around 2500 bc but it was found period near a pit nesr the pyramid and could have been palce after the orginal construction.And the meer papyrus was found nearwhere near the Great pyramid the other thing is them mortar but the dates rang between 2500 bc to almsot 3000 bc and some of that could have been repair work.The main thing that happened was the piece of cedear which was discovered by howard vyse in one of the air shafts of the queens cabron and later carbon dated around 2020 it was found in a placed in the Great pyramid that was perfectly sealed and then gaved to museum until it ended in the unversity of aberdeen where it was carbon dated.Agian it was found in a place in the Great pyramid was prefectly sealed and therefore most of have been left by the orginal builders the wood was carbon dated to whithin 3341 bc to 3094 bc which long predate the phaorah khufu and the 4 dyansty that was supposedly built the only logical explanation is that the wood came from the cneter of an old tree or it was some kind of tool that was recycled but its hard to belive the egyptians would recycle a piece of wood for like 500 years.The other logical explanation is that the pyramid is older.Generally there are no inscriptions in hreat pyramid except the so called graffit inthe revling chambers that looks like it was done by a five year that says khufu.You could walk a million times in the pyramid you will never say it cause its in this random place it was discovered or supposedly by howard vyse when he discovered the so called relieving chambers and its was never carbon dated and could have been forged by him anyway I think the pyramid probably dated betwen 2500 bc to approx around 3000 bc.
@@adriantuesta1012 your dating sucks Adrian. 😉😁
Other scientists theorize that the carbon dating on the pyramid is of mortar used in repair of the structure at a more recent date. There are many questions that are left unanswered that are answered by a much older age for some of the structures. But it is good to hear the academic version from time to time when making comparisons.
Which scientists?
That was the question I had. How many samples were taken, and from where in the pyramids? With structures that large and that old I would think one would want MANY samples to draw a worthwhile conclusion. If I read the linked report right, they only examined one sample from each of 30 separate pyramids and tombs. Only one sample? From where exactly within or on the structures were they taken? They don't say. So until I learn more I am unconvinced, and still think later repairs, renovations, or expansions could explain these results
@@WorldofAntiquity I can't answer which scientists, but as just a regular person I know I do for the reasons I gave in my reply to the OP. Am I understanding the results correctly, that only one sample from each site was dated and no mention from where in or on the structures?
@@koop1138 No, that's incorrect. The studies are linked below the video. There were many samples taken, and they tell you exactly where.
not you, of course.@@WorldofAntiquity
Great question, and great answer. Khufu's boat was also found buried right next to the great pyramid. It was put there by his son Djedefre who left his cartouche on the wall inside the pit. The list of evidence goes on an on. But again, great question on dating methods.
There's no evidence the boat was contemporary to the pyramid. If I build a shed next to my house, it doesn't show the house was built at the same time.
There's no definitive evidence either way - just theories based on assumptions.
@@Gainn There is plenty of evidence that Khufu's boat is contemporary to his death. the Djedefre cartouche (his son) inside the pit is a indicator of who put it there. Nobody really disputes the reign of Khufu or his sons...give or take a decade or two. But it isn't just the boat is it ?. It is the wealth of other evidence as well. All of Khufu's family were buried in satellite pyramids around the great pyramid. The Giza plateau is basically a massive graveyard. If you have a hypothesis that supersedes this wealth of evidence...I am all ears. Not interested in "what you think"...show me evidence.
Reading comprehension not one of your skills then?
@@Gainn Yes it is...
@@dazuk1969
Hey Darren I hope all is well in with you. I remember seeing the hieroglyphics you wrote about. It's pretty awesome seeing those messages from the past. I wonder if they ever thought they would be read thousands of years later. I see Irena at Ancient Sites turned 3K subscribers. So she continues to grow.
ALL THE BEST 😁
The alignment technique proposed by Spence would be extremely difficult to perform as it requires marking the point from which two stars appear to touch a vertical line from opposite sides over a long baseline at night. I don't know if anybody has actually attempted to replicate this feat. The first study to tie the temporal change of the pyramids' orientations preceded Spence's study by twenty years. Steven Haack (The Astronomical Orientation of the Egyptian Pyramids, Archaeoastronomy, no. 7, 1984) proposed a system involving the observation of the rising points of a number of bright stars. Using this method, the directions of the east-west baselines would change through time due to the precession of the equinoxes in a manner which matches up well to the measured orientations.
Multiple methods across multiple disciplines, verifiable and repeatable evidence, quantities and ranges, no absolutes, room for new technologies to refine, description of what could still be done. All that sounds like the scientific method. I actually didn’t learn how to think like that until grad school and beyond. We need to start critical thinking earlier in school.
Yes! While maintaining imagination & creativity. Personally I think that is necessary for truly great thinking.
How is it you don't have more subscribers? This must be rectified...
Everytime I post a comment about Newgrange (a tomb in Ireland that's older than the pyramids) i get some a bunch of people claiming that the pyramids are actually 10,000 years old and were actually built by an unknown civilisation that the archaeological community are covering up (if archaeologists are covering up the true age of the pyramids, then why aren't the same archaeologists claiming that Gobekli Tepe is younger than the Neolithic period). Its so frustrating that these people, who probably haven't picked up a proper archaeology book in their lives, are acting like they know better than actual archaeologists, heck one fool even ironically claimed that archaeology is a pseudo-science.
Allright kevin, Ill bite. Lets debate. How about you give me your top five facts on how you support your claim on the date of the Pyramids... Ill give you my five questions on my concerns with those facts, and lets hash it out... Seems reasonable.. don't you think?
@@ZSCCCarter Have you not watched the video? The radiocarbon dating of the mortar of the pyramids, made from burning gypsum with wood, as reporter by Aera and Cambridge university. And the university of Aberdeen did radiocarbon date a plank of wood found in the pyramid to be around 500 years older than the accepted age, but this is likely because it was recycled before being dumped within the structure, as theorised by Mark Lehner, and even then 500 years still isn't close to reaching 10,000 yeats ago. the thermoluminescence study on the Pyramid of Menkaure and the sphinx temple by researchers in the Henan University and the University of the Agean. The old-kingdom numbers carved onto the limestone roof slabs in the kings chamber as reported by Egyptologist Marco Fiorini.And even Herodotus, whom your side sources as proof of the pyramids being much older, says that it was built by Kheops, the hellenised version of Khufu, as reported by University of Bristol Egyptologist Aiden Dodson.There is the graffiti, some of them in inaccessible points of the pyramid, behind the masonry, referring to the Khufu, and it's most likely legit since archaeologist and egyptologist Charles Rigano points out how it includes Khufu's Horus name, a name not known at the time of discovery. the radio-carbon study conducted by researchers like Christopher Bronk Ramsey of The University of Oxford and J. M. Rowland of the university of Edinburgh indicated that Khufu's reign matched the accepted age of the pyramids. And the Diary of Merer recounts people cutting and transporting limestone blocks from the quarry around the same time as Khufu's reign as reported by the Smithsonian, and before you put forward the theory that their only recounting some kind of elaborate renovation, you should know that the main proponents of that theory are websites like curiosmos, websites that are dedicated to Ancient Alien theory. And Mark Lenher and his team from AERA also unearthed a village built for the workers of the pyramids, using typologies and seriation on pottery shards, stratigraphy and examining seal impressions, they concluded that village was built around the construction of pyramids of Khufu and Menkaure. If your somehow right and this village survived after the pyramids construction, then surely the remains of the dwellings of the real builders would have survived too? Lenher also corrobates the pyramids age by pointing out Khufu's ship, which was discovered just south of the Pyramid of Khufu, was radio-carbon dated to around the accepted timeframe. And even if this is all fabricated, what reason do archaeologists have to cover up information when finding new revelations and breakthoughs is literally part of their job? For example, archaeologists have generally agreed that humans reached the americas around 14 thousand years ago, but a recent report published in National Geographic have reported ancient footprints in New Mexico that are around 22,000 years old, why is there no coverup here? Same with Gobekli Tepe, how come archaeologists aren't claiming that it was built in the Bronze Age instead of the Neolithic period? And you must remember Occam's Razor and decide whats more likely? The evidence presented that is in line with centuries of academic research, or evidence from the internet and a few fringe, likely opportunistic, people who claim that the pyramids are evidence of a pre-Egyptian civilisation that there is absolutely no other evidence of, and before you claim that there is evidence and most of the archaeologists of the world are colluding to go to great lengths to cover it up because I guess most archaeologists are stubborn, narrow-minded dusty old men; putting your faith in a few fringe archaeologists and dismissing the words of millions of archaeologist, all from thousands of different institutions and from almost every nation, on the assumption that their all colluding to cover up evidence that in reality archaeologists would embrace after going through the necessary and lengthy process of separating, labelling , preserving, storing, measuring,sampling, recording, examining the environments it was found in and recording and registering the exact position and contect of the artefact/feature when it was in situ, its stage in the formation process, the origin of the material used to make it, checking the legality of handling it, and using every possible method to identify its culture of origin, as well as it's age, both through relative dating methods, like seriation, typologies, stratigraphy, and absolute dating methods, such as 14C dating and dendrochronology, all things that artefacts and features must go through before a consensus is reached; doesn't make sense. The archaeological process is what seperates a sensationalist and a proper archaeologist, the former will make grand statements of their findings before what they find is even processed while the latter will wait and build their theories based on the subsequent results. And before you claim that all the other evidence of this pre-egyptian civilisation has been destroyed by the Nile and the elements, Egypt is one of the most excavated countries in the world, they would have definitely found evidence by now buried in the ground, just look at how well the Grand Theatre of Ephesus was preserved despite being buried for over 2000 years. And I have ask if you have actually read an archaeology/egyptology book before? And if you have fact-checked your sources and tried to read the opionion of the archaeological community, get both sides of the argument, on these source's claims as well? And if your sources are accepted as academically reliable?
Dr Miano, I have read the study and note the following quote contained therein : "While searching the monuments, we examined seams between stone blocks for mortar filling and for black specks of charcoal inside the mortar." By definition this means that the mortar was collected from easily accessible 'seams'. My point is that I am unsure how scientific it is to assume these superficial mortar layers were contemporary with the original construction, and not repair work? I am playing devils advocate but do not have entrenched beliefs. Best wishes, Paul.
Thank you; I never knew anything about Egyptology and I had heard Graham Hancock talking about the lack of evidence for the pyramid dating and I was starting to doubt if they were only 4,000 years old - You've completely made him to look like a wilful liar or an utter troglodyte. Thanks for taking the time to collect the studies together and make this wonderful resource.
Lol troglodyte. Legend
Very good explanation! Now I know more about the Khufu Pyramid! Thanks!
One of the things I look for when assessing stuff is how different scientific disciplines merge-- or diverge-- from an answer. I think the dating of the Great Pyramid is a good example of "the weight of evidence." Another example may turn out to be the discovery of life on Mars. It probably won't be *one* piece of evidence that leads us to that discovery, rather an accumulation of bits of evidence from many disciplines.
We will simply find extant life on Mars, and we'll probably find fossilised life as well.
But let's get real: Martian life never got beyond the pond scum stage.
@@Chris.Davies I would be amazed even further if we found "pond scum" that's as highly evolved on Mars as what we see on Earth. An extra planetary genesis is satisfactorily amazing enough-- if it happened.
Amazing work of research! Thanks for gathering and spreading scientifically accurate information about such a fascinating subject
I only believe in my dog. He said the pyramid smelled like an alien planet.
Dog knows
@@adrianjaramilloman - The doggy do.
This was great. I hadn't previously understood how the pyramids were dated. Didn't think anything but foodstuffs found in the pyramid could be carbon dated. Very interesting to hear that something with so little carbon as mortar could be so dated, and all the other methods of dating. You covered a most relevant question very comprehensively. Well done, and subscribed.
Polygonal masonry uses NO MORTAR. Mortar was not used in the earliest "great pyramids"...that came later. Extensive remodeling also affected previously existing structures...just as is clearly demonstrated in South America's polygonal masonry. Misinformation is frequently used by orthodoxy and its shills to dismiss true mysteries that they have no answer for.
I didn't know foodstuffs were found in one of the three big pyramids. I teresting.
Michael, if I follow your reasoning, you are suggesting that, because polygonal masonry outside of Egypt doesn't use mortar, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, which does not use polygonal masonry also didn't have mortar originally, even though the mortar is found all through it. Is that right?
@@WorldofAntiquity No...that is not my reasoning. It is the MIRROR IMAGING of organically shaped surfaces THAT IS THE COMMON MYSTERY. And the NUBS, which there is still no explanation for.
@@michael4250 what does "The mirror imaging of organic surfaces" mean?
I thought that the polygon on masonry that people commonly point to was shaped irregularly everywhere. And they were shaped that way because they didn't cut rock into regular blocks. Doing so a lot of made sense in that situation. Their rocks were harder and found on the surface rather than being quarried like in Egypt.
Quality information here as always, thank you very much.
Great video! A lot of the people who push these alternative hypothesis conveniently ignore this evidence.
I've just gotten to the point of telling these types
Me: "Why only push it back 10,000 years? Let's really get crazy! The pyramids are 800,000 years old. Better yet, they're 70 million years old and built by a group of T-Rexs"
Alternative hypothesis believers: "That's just stupid there's no evidence to back that up!"
Me: Neither does your idea, but mine sounds way cooler"
I do so enjoy what you do for us, Dr Miano! Thank you for existing! ❤❤
Man, I've been watching your videos for a while now, and, while I avoid comment sections, I have seen you defend your method with so much compassion and understanding for an audience that really seems like they don't want to listen. We still need to engage. There's nothing wrong with speculation, but without peer-reviewed evidence, speculation is much less compelling. Here's a future video idea: Interview your undergrads and grad students to show what the "ivory tower" really is. There's no conspiracy theories, if a government tried to convince academia to cover up some kind of history, the tell-all would be the leading publication in the next journal. Please ignore the haters and keep up your excellent work.
Hi Peter, I agree that the only thing that matters is credible, proven, scientific fact. I disagree that speculation is less compelling. Speculation, or just plain making stuff up appeals to millions. This is why he have millions of people who believe in alternative ideas. There is nothing wrong with speculation, but I speak to people every day who actually believe the pyramids were built by aliens or a lost civilisation based on the nonsense fed to them by the alternative crowd. These people want to think these things are true....as they are more enticing. The alternative people know this so they can say anything they want regardless of a complete lack of evidence. This is where normal, rational speculation crosses the line for me....peace to ya bud.
This is just one of THE BEST channels on UA-cam…!!! If only this kind of teaching would be more wide spread… I wish you all the best and hope to see much more of your superb videos in the future.
Best greetings from Switzerland…👍🏻👍🏻😎😎
Steven R.
There was a video on the ancient architect channel about the now-found missing wooden stick from one of the shafts, which is recently carbon dated in that range as well. Also, I remember him talking about a wall art depicting kufu in the now lost great pyramid's causeway i think
Correct Armin, the piece of cedar wood from the great pyramid was claimed to have "gone missing" in conspiracy kind of way. But no, it is in a Scottish university and has been dated to the old kingdom as you say. There are also much larger pieces of wood in the bent pyramid and step pyramid used in their construction.
I only believe in my dog. He said the pyramid smelled like an alien planet.
Your logic is virtually impeachable! Bravo.
🙄 🐑
Wanna date the Great pyramid? Just ask it out. 😉
I was in Cairo a few weeks ago and looked closely at the granite and limestone blocks of the Sphinx temple. On one corner of the sphinx temple you can see the mating surface of the granite to the limestone and the granite was clearly cut to the shape of the limestone which was already heavily weathered. On one spot, i observed the bottom rear of the granite block (about 6-8 inches thick) jutted under the Limestone block where it was eroded. So, in this light it would be very interesting to see the results of the Luminescence dating on the Megalithic limestone blocks as the granite seems to have been placed after the Limestone blocks were already heavily eroded in an attempt to protect them from further elemental damage.
I will be going back to Egypt in a few weeks for a month and should i visit Cairo again I will endeavour to get some photos of these blocks for you to have a look at.
How interesting was that? I have no idea that there was such confidence of such a narrow date band for a king who reigned five millennia ago. It really is an impressive feat.
It is entirely consistent with long-term scientific enquiry which uses multiple branches of science, and multiple types of evidence to arrive at a tentative conclusion.
And it is important to understand that EVERYTHING in science is provisional and tentative. NOTHING is sacred. And a theory which is superior will always displace an old theory, no matter how entrenched.
Science is a process of asymptotically approaching the truth. Each new piece of evidence gets you closer and closer. And science uses a process of continual refinement to make its predictions more and more accurate over time.
The thing about science, is that it is performed by imperfect humans, and so science is necessarily NOT a perfect process. BUT, it is a self-correcting process which eliminates mistakes over time.
@@Chris.DaviesThat's right, concordance to consensus; last hypothesis standing and all that. Damn impressive what you can achieve with it.
Or this is cherry picked data. the cited papers on carbon dating at best imply they took mortar from the pyramids, even though the mystery of how they moved massive granite blocks using stone age or bronze age tools and laid them with lazer level accuracy using no mortar still stands.
@@fairhall001 It sounds like you didn't watch the video.
Also, I can assure you that lasers are much more accurate than what you're describing.
Also, a tightly pulled string (unless it gets very long) is just as straight as a laser.
@@jamisojo I did more than watch the video, I read the paper he cited and found that it didn't say they took mortar from the pyramids but from the buildings out the front and only implies they took mortar from the pyramids. There is no mortar in the megalithic stonework, a fact you would have realised if you had done any reasonable amount of study on this subject.
I asked almost same question just a week ago about various methods of dating, their accuracy and when they are applied... this was excellent answer which gave me direction to find more on my own, thanks for this answer
Great video. You have just killed the whole alternative archeology movement in 10 minutes. If Pyramid of Kheops is from 2600BC everything that these people are trying to sell is basically pointless.
If logic and reason worked to disabuse LAHT people of their idiotic beliefs (Belief being what you have, when you have nothing!) then there would be no believers in LAHT.
Logic and reason only work on people who know how these two things work, and how to apply critical thinking to a subject, and who are not emotionally connected to an idea. Remember the truism: it is much easier to fool a person than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
The point of selling LAHT ideas is the sale! By espousing garbage and lies, the weak-minded and gullible are willing to spend HUGE sums of money on bullshit DVDs, garbage books, and very expensive tours of far-away ancient sites. You need to understand that none of the people who sell the LAHT delusion actually believe their own garbage.
They are well aware of the facts, but they want lots of money from gullible and ignorant idiots, so they continue to sell their lies.
They are truly evil people.
And sell they do! These quacks or 'pyramidiots' make a lot of money from their 'alternate' history theories both online & writing books. They make money while deluding people from the actual factual truth! 🇬🇧
No because its clear many things are much older there than the pyramids. So much has happened in at least 300,000 years of homo sapiens, look whats happened just in 1000
I thank you for your professionalism and analysis.
We also know for a fact that the ancient Egyptians didn’t listen to heavy metal - it hadn’t been invented yet. However they were into really heavy hard rock… ba-dump ching! #Imhereallweekfolks
Hey bud. Despite your instance that the information I needed was in this video, there is no mention of where the mortar was taken from. I even took the liberty to look up the research study you reference and found that the researchers made a point to note when a sample was taken from the interior of a monument. Since there was no mention of the samples coming from interior stones of any of the 3 pyramids that means they likely came from the exterior. This combined with the information I found that only ever speaks about the mortar in relationship to the casing stones leads the to believe with some confidence that the mortar samples all came from the exterior of the pyramid. So as of right now, my point stands.
The location of every single sample is listed. I am beginning to think you are unaware that none of the casing stones are on the pyramid anymore. Surely you must know this. And yet somehow you conclude that the samples were taken from these missing stones.
@@WorldofAntiquity I have never said that the mortar was taken from the casing stones. I am positing that the mortar was taken from the stones which currently make up the outside of the pyramid, the stones that use to be under the casing stones. I made that very clear in my OP on your short and it appears to be backed up by the evidence. As you stated the location of the samples are listed, what isn’t listed is whether the samples were taken from the interior. The researchers do make a point to note when a sample is taken from the interior of the monuments so lacking that specific note in the sample information means the sample was taken from the exterior.
Such a good explanation! 4500 years is so incredibly old, even for Herodotus the pyramid was already an ancient structure.
your scientific response is exactly what i needed to trust when the pyramids were actually built. you are bringing science to a topic that many people believe things about the pyramids but they just a theory, and no facts.
Idk if I'd date the great pyramid, I'm not interested in love triangles
😄
"The Takelot eclipse belongs to the third category of astronomical phenomena according to Nikolsky's classification. We cited it as a vivid example of the difficulties that arise when trying to astronomically date the phenomena of this category.
This example teaches us not to succumb to the hypnosis of the words "proven astronomically" and every time we encounter an astronomical dating, carefully check what additional assumptions (for example, calendar or deciphering hypotheses) were explicitly or implicitly used in this dating."
Incorrect, the pyramid was built last Tuesday.
Source: Trust me bro.
Ever hear of the Last Tuesday Hypothesis? It's not a theory you'll hear from a jedi, I mean, historian.
🤣🤣🤣
Thank you. A really clear answer
This kind of cross-referencing, from so many branches of expertise, is why down to earth science is so absolutely brilliant.......who needs made-up aliens and sunken myth islands if the truth is so awesome! 🙂
I gotta tell you, I read the thumbnail and thought of a COMPLETELY different topic.
Another slam dunk.
This id the single place on YT for reliable information on Egypt.
Another important note: the time that it supposedly took for the pyramid to be built is based on either calculations of the reign of Khufu (from mainly Manetho) or from the tour guides or "random guys" that Herodotus spoke to. The alternative theorists who cry "impossible" for the time to completion are in my opinion straw manning here because the FULL construction was likely not in the attested time window, but was in my opinion, likely built upon pre existing work, possibly several "generations" of phases. Our own "recent" cathedrals in France and throought Europe were built this way.
The construction having been done in several phases is pretty much what most alt theories are saying though right..
The whole khufu did it in 20 years thing is what people are saying is impossible.
They say it's Impossible based on how many stones would have to be cut/moved per day/hour in order to achieve it . And that is not really feasible.
The better alternative theories don't really dispute the completion time of the Great pyramid .
They mostly put it at around 4500 BP for the great pyramid with the sphinx being alot older as seen by the type of erosion in the sphinx enclosure.
Meaning the age of the pre-existing work is possibly still unknown.
I have friends living in a house from the 1600’s. All mortal an almost all wood is from 1990 and later. Most of the stone construction is from the 1600’s. Impossible to date since the outside has been renovated countless times, there are records of it and it is currently a monument.
Just one example. It’s important to keep an open mind and not throw theories out because it conflicts with relatively little evidence. This leads to a field of archeology that has to correct itself on a daily basis due to new finds.
Look at how wrong we were about loads of things around 1960 to now. Do you think that in 2080 we haven’t made discoveries that radically change our perception of history? Happens constantly, why would it suddenly stop now?
@@valkenburgert The idea that there was previously existing work is an assumption, not a theory. The fact that, in a few cases, locations of places that were only known by mythology turn out, through archaeological research, to be actual places, doesn't signal that all the stories from the ancient past are factual. To make the claim that the finished construction of one (or all) of the Giza pyramids were build in stages starting with previous rulers would require evidence that directly contradicts the evidence that has been found so far. Just because this has been verifiably done in some other cases doesn't make it a candidate explanation in this case.
In the case of Troy, we now know, though archaeological research, that the legend was set in an actual city. Yet the fact that troy really existed can't tell us whether Achilles and Hector actually met in man to man combat outside the city gates.
The field of archaeology is supposed to change the narrative when presented with evidence that challenges previous conclusions...that's a positive thing! This requires that one who is serious about investigating the ancient past must needs keep current with recent finds and the re-analysis of previous finds with newer and better methods. It means that one needs to keep an open mind.
The fact that in all fields of science, the it's understood that most of that which we think we know today will be changed tomorrow doesn't automatically mean we can discard everything that has been legitimately discovered needs to be thrown out, especially if it is to support a pet narrative.
@@russellmillar7132 My point was that keeping an open mind is vital in my opinion.
Now, I started with saying “possibly” in my first sentence. The fact you completely ignore that points to your bias, not mine.
Have a breather, read back, feel silly, learn, and grow!
If you do it now you’ll thank me next month.
@@valkenburgert Quite right, my apologies.
Very well presented and I'm happy to be a Patreon, encourage others to as well, David's work has saved me a lot of confusion and alleviated a lot of misleading historical narratives
I'm so pleased I found this channel - you're one of those people who can teach and talk and make the topic endlessly fascinating and present all the data so it's understandable - thank you.
Thank you, and welcome!
Well done 👏
Excellent summary of the evidence for the Egyptian build tombs and pyramids. All of the data provided by the aechologists backs up their historical account of these structures, and your agreement as a historian provides a confirmation 👍
Now all we need is Carbon dating with unquestionable providence from inside the Great pyramid, to prove no pre exsisting significant structure existed before this time frame?
How about the organic material in the writing? That would be a start.
This is wonderful! The material you have provided is fascinating. Greetings and best wishes from Serbia.
Great info, thanks! I often wonder why there's so much documentaries lamenting the same things, yet, we rarely if ever, see such information laid in such an elegant manner.
Am I the only one who read "Dating the Great Pyramid" and had a mental image of Prof. Miano taking the Pyramid to a nice restaurant?
Clear and concise. Very nice.
Evidence and logic and plain speaking. You are the boss!!!
Great stuff. Thanks for you sharing this with us.
With all the propaganda that is going on these days about ancient Egypt this is one of the best video on youtube quite literally, you presented all evidence and facts with reason and logic such a rare occasion nowadays.. insta subbed!! looking forward more videos from you
Thank you for bringing clarity to this topic. Most every other channel wants to bring chaos and ignorance to scientific topics. Please keep doing what you are doing, for science sake!
Thank you for detailed information
Thank you for your service
Thanks for this. Can't argue with that.
That’s impressive.
Good work.
Finally! Someone that brings up the carbon dating of the mortar! That by itself should be the nail in the sarcophagus for those that claim the stones were stacked thousands of years earlier.
Thanks for the video. Great job!
Love your show!!!! You're so smart, you should have your own show!!!
This should be interesting.
I’ll be starting your book Ideas in the Making A Sourcebook For World Intellectual History to 1300, in a few days. Just finished a book on Native American myths and legends.
Happy Easter to you and your loved ones!
In all my many many decades, I've found that objective honest inquiry leads me back to 'mainstream' science every time.
Why don't these videos go viral. Truth is hard to spread.
Great question and great summary.
The problem with dating the pyramids is that you can't get her into the car to go to the restraunt.
This was *_SUPERB_* - thank you. 👏👏
Like your work. Rational and fact based.
Thank you for providing this compilation of evidence for the dating of the Great Pyramid. I knew that more evidence was out there, but did know where to look. Your explanation of each piece of evidence was clear and further underscores my current understanding.
The only point that I would add was to the evidence of the astronomical data. At one point you stated after 3:35 that one of the researchers determined that subsequent pyramids built after the Great Pyramid were aligned to true north using certain stars which had changed slightly from the position of the Great Pyramid because those stars had moved.
I'm sure you must be aware that in reality it is not the stars that moved, but the precessional movement of the earth changed the position of those stars in relation to the earth. imo of course. Otherwise I think your explanation of the different evidence used to date the pyramid was spot on.
Amazing - you present powerful evidence. The mortar, astronomical, graffiti evidence, corroborated with Herodotus’ account is all I need. Though I still do like teasing my Egyptian friends by telling them aliens built it! Love your presentation! Keep up the good work.
According to the Standard Egyptian Chronology developed by the University of Cambridge Khufu's reign can indeed be inserted in the first half of the 26th century BC but it is a lot more likely that he reigned 46, not 23 years because in Old Kingdom times the "cattle count", that is the census was normally done every two years and there were 23 counts during his reign...
I tried dating the pyramids, but we decided it would be better to stay friends.
Wonderful as always! Cheers
I'm really happy that UA-cam's algorithem brought me to this channel. The best.
Thanks, and welcome!
lol! Even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. So while the _"Lord of the Algorithms"_ pushes a lot of trash unto our feeds - quite a bit really = once in a while it actually does get things right to show us credible channels.
A brilliant explanation. ❤🥰🥰🥰❤️Something making much sense, thanx, much appreciated.❤
Its amazing just how much the Greeks depended on Egypt for knowledge of the ancient world.
200yrs prior to Herodutus, Solon travelled to the preists of Egypt for a peep into the past. They told him of a global flood and of Atlantis.
Herodotus might have been luckier than Solon. But it makes you wonder who, if anyone, the Egyptians depended on for their own ancient knowledge. As they were definitely not around when Atlantis was.
Brilliant wrap-up of the current knowledge on the subject.
Legitimate observation and question: I’ll grant the dating as accurate, however what/who cut and transported the granite to such precision? This has not been answered honestly; not when most stone masons say they themselves could barely do it with modern machines. What about water erosion on the sphinx?
Most stone masons will actually tell you that they can. There are videos on youtube of them doing it.
The main issue with the construction of the pyramids is that no one has explained how the very large blocks were transported from the quarry or how they were lifted into place BUT one researcher said he managed to take a few samples from some of the blocks and when analysed they showed the blocks were made up from a kind of concrete mixture and this makes a lot of sense as the blocks could be created in situ allowing workers to carry small containers of mix and water and several blocks could be cast at the same time. This is the only explanation which is practical I have seen.
Okay - follow the white rabbit Neo:
1 - the largest/heaviest blocks found in the Giza Pyramids are actually located = in the bottom half closest to the ground. Those large granite relieving slabs above the King's Chamber in Khufu's pyramid are actually below the halfway point.
2 - look at photos of the exposed western base of the Great Pyramid. You can see a continuous line of = limestone bedrock. What does this mean?? It means they built the pyramid atop an existing hill which was leveled at the edge and blocks stacked atop it.
3 - look at the lower corridor/chamber of the pyramid = they are hewed from the bedrock. So at least part of the lower pyramid is actually existing hillside. I read an Italian study some time back which estimated its' volume of bedrock rather than blocks at ~23%. Hence that existing elevation would likely have been part of the ramp structure used to create the inner core of chambers and corridors in its' lower half. Above that level the blocks are smaller as it rises in height.
4 - there is archeological precedence for this. Look at the remains of Djedefre's Pyramid. It also was built atop a hill incorporating the natural access route to move the blocks to the pyramid site + its' own burial vault was dug out of the hill and now with the blocks stripped away you can see the sloping pit leading down which was once covered over.
5 - the quarries which supplied the limestone are a few hundred meters from the pyramids between them and Khafre's valley temple adjacent the Sphinx. So the blocks only needed to be hauled via sleds = a few hundred meters. The smaller blocks above could be lifted via a fulcrum/counterweight device akin to the Egyptian shaduf. Finally look at Menkaure's Pyramid. His contains the largest limestone blocks of the 3 main pyramids - ~20 tons in weight. Yet those are once again found on = the bottom layer of the pyramid - and they were quarried right next to its' foundation. So they only had to be moved ~25 meters or so.
Final thought = harbor. The granite and white Tura casing stones along with other basalts for mortuary temples were shipped in via barges. Look at Khafre's valley temple adjacent the Sphinx in maps and switch to satellite view. See 3 white lines pointing east to the suburbs of Cairo = sloping stone jetties which go under the ground. That area which is ~500 meters from the pyramids was a harbor area.
Thus as we see they were not "lifting" large blocks. They were pushed/pulled/levered into position via teams of men and oxen. They were not transporting blocks overland great distances either. As we see everything was in place so that stone was only being moved a matter of a few hundred meters.
Now to "geopolymer". Think about that - seriously. What do you think would be more resource and labor intensive:
1 - teams of workmen using bronze and gneiss stone tools and wooden levers splitting off approximate chunks of limestone from nearby quarries to lever those onto sleds pulled by teams of men and oxen as noted.
2 - creating a "mixture" - in *VAST* quantities by the way - not to mention the wood requirements involved. You would require thousands of wooden molds - of which some would invariably be damaged in the process and require replacement thus increasing the amount of wood needed for the project which had to be imported.
So the Egyptians already had in place a system for harvesting and smelting bronze as they had used bronze tools for centuries. Also the gneiss stone tools like flint and dolerite were equally ubiquitous and basically there for the taking.
Yet to make literally hundreds of thousands of tons of some mixture would require enormous amounts of wood for molds - and fires. The gypsum mortar the Egyptians used was cooked over fires. You require all the ingredients for your mixture - remember they could not simply go to the local hardware store to buy bags of ready-mix. This means quarrying and transporting to site massive amounts of raw materials. Finally you would need to create your mix in a consistency not possible from stirring using wooden sticks as the casing stones alone reflect a fine consistency. Of the lower grade limestone blocks you can see on many of them = chisel marks......
Moral: to create many thousands of blocks from a mixture = would be a massive undertaking far exceeding the logistical needs of simple quarrying.
This is what your "geopolymer" nonsense is about. He took a sample of the gypsum mortar repair work from the Bent Pyramid. The pyramid incurred "subsidence" during construction. Sneferu's engineers attempted repairs to it including = gypsum mortar.
So Egyptologist already knew they used gypsum mortar for various applications - just not casting blocks. He therefore is "extrapolating" based upon a sample of repair work. Yet the nearby quarries themselves and the blocks reflect stone blocks clearly hewed from the bedrock.
Blonde moment of me seeing the thumbnail 'dating the great pyramid': "how can you go out on a date with a pyramid?" 🤔🙃
Jealous?
@@WorldofAntiquity well it is the 'great' pyramid!
Any news on the piece of wood found in the great pyramid shaft that was recently found in a museum?
Ah, yes, there was a cedar plank that was found in a cigar box and carbon dated to about 3000 BCE, but we are unable to to link it to the pyramid's construction.
This is really well done. Thank you.
This is a great video that should prove useful. I have tried using google also for evidence of the age of the Great pyramid only to be let down except i did find out about Merer which was nice.
All the pyramids have been carbon tested several times except the red pyramid. There is a lot of organic material in pyramids wooden beams charocal and vegetation in the mortar. The age is from 3800 to 4200 years old.
UA-cam being the place it is I read "Dating the Great Pyramid" very differently there for a second. 😂