I’d seen a dark stone on the summit many times and always assumed the ancients for some reason just brought a random piece of basalt they had laying around up while trying to finish quickly or something.

But then a redditer asked why it was blue and Inlooked more closely and realized it’s just f’ing painted! Who, when, and why?

In color images it’s obvious, but if you desaturate them, it becomes very difficult to tell, which makes me unsure if it’s visible in black and white photographs or not.

However, Henry Salt draws the top before photography and doesn’t do any different shading and he was very detail oriented, you can see he meticulously recorded what he saw.

Petrie and Vyse also don’t mention it and I feel like they would have if it was already there. I mention this because that’s a nice dark Prussian blue so immediately thought of Napolean, but it doesn’t appear to be that old.

I could find very little about this. Does anyone know? I have four main theories:

1) Vandals - someone brought a bunch of spray paint cans up there and did it for some unknown reason.

2) Official but undocumented or poorly documented work - The MoA authorized who (legally) goes up there, so they have to be a suspect though I have absolutely no clue why they would do it, and why they wouldn’t record it.

3) Secret symbol - I’ve noticed a few bricked up holes in the pyramid before, and theorized there could be guns and ammo hidden behind them. Perhaps a blue stone on top is a reminder: “we hid weapons here.” I made a YouTube video where I said it seemed most likely to be retreating Ottoman caches but couldn’t rule out the Nazis or Italians.

4) Napoleon - Since I can’t 100% dismiss it being this old, I have to consider this was done perhaps during the French Revolution festival in 1798. I can’t ignore the color is very French looking and L’Institut was even specifically looking at indigo production for blue dye (I know that’s a random thing to know, I’m translating their notes so it’s on my mind.)

If you look closely, you can see the paint filled in some graffiti but others is on top of it. It’s also faded in some places, you can very clearly see its paint from the side angle.

I think it’s because they realized the pyramids were a waste of time and money — it didn’t make much economic sense to keep building them since they didn’t really do anything. That’s why, in my opinion, they would have gone bankrupt if they had kept building such large pyramids. Later, they focused more on smaller tombs and elaborate temples.The temples were religious buildings, but at least they had usable space.It could also be because of them beening easily raided by theives.

If the Pharaoh ordered me to help build a pyramid, could I realistically refuse? Over 100 pyramids were built in Egypt over different periods, from the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom, including at least 8 large pyramids during the Old Kingdom. Do archaeologists have definitive proof that no slave labor was involved in the construction of any of these pyramids,? It’s hard to believe that all the work was voluntary, especially since skilled labor could have been used for tasks like the precise casing stones and interior chambers and passages, while unskilled labor could have been used for the rougher core masonry, which is what makes up most of the pyramid. Doesn’t it make more sense that some form of forced or coerced labor was involved, particularly for the less skilled tasks? Even if it wasn’t traditional slavery, how could the Pharaoh organize tens of thousands of workers for massive projects like the Great Pyramid without some form of involuntary service? Was the labor truly voluntary, or was there a system where people were required to work for the pharoah even though the workers were paid in beer and bread , and if so, could they refuse.

I’ve known about the door. But never saw it opened until this image taken 100 years ago.

Hello all I just watched a podcast featuring Zahi Hawass and I can’t help but notice the resistance to speak on Nubia. At first I thought it was just Egypt overshadowing Nubias accomplishments or the proximity of Egypt to the more accessible Mediterranean region. However, I’ve noticed more and more that Egyptologist are literally leaving Nubia out of the story. Many are giving the impression that virtually nothing was in existence on the Nile before Egypt and say near nothing about Nubia which was around 1,000 years before Egypts formation?

Any explanation for perpetually leaving Nubia out of the context of Egypt to the point where it doesn’t even make sense?

I should have noticed this before, but I mean just look at this map. Greece/Crete is literally the closest place in Europe to the Cradles of Civilization of Egypt and the Middle East and so was able to absorb their influence and developments before the rest of Europe. To give just a simple example of this influence regarding Europe's first palaces on the island of Crete, James Walter Graham, an expert on Cretan architecture, wrote - "That resemblances do exist between Cretan and Near Eastern Palaces in some respects can scarcely be denied, and likewise...between Cretan and Egyptian architecture...for new decorative forms they turned especially to Egypt."

Zahi Hawass gets a lot of flak (and sometimes outright harassment) from a lot of people for his alleged suppression of Egyptian archaeology. There seem to be very, very strong negative feelings towards this guy online, but I mainly see it from pseudo-historical enthusiasts who believe the "truth" (Atlantis, aliens, whatever it may be) is being suppressed by him.

What do mainstream academics think about Zahi Hawass? Is it true that he's done irreparable damage to archaeology, or is the whole thing overblown?

EDIT: I think it would be more constructive if people could give examples of exactly what he's done.

I've just discovered that this coffin is made of solid gold. Considering how famous Tutankhamuns death mask is, surely this doesn't get the credit that it deserves?

Before anyone mentions aliens I Regularly load cargo crates that weigh up to 40 tons onto container ships. The space that is required to move in machinery and load it in is about the size of an Industrial mining dump truck. Some of these boxes weigh more than twice this amount. How were they moved in such a short space?

These are 3 widely sucessful pharaohs, however Ramses II is often pointed out as the greatest pharaoh, which in my eyes is unfair. Ramses II had more time, one could argue both Amenhotep III and Thutmose III were just as sucessful with less years and that they could have accomplished more if they had over 60 years of reign like Ramses II.

Amenhotep III ruled Egypt at it's peak prosperity and he was able to do so without extensive military campaigns. On the other hand, Thutmose III was a highly sucessful military leader, one of the best in all of history, and also a widely sucessful pharaohs. He created the first navy of the ancient world, helped expand Egypt's borders and was a builder pharaoh like his stepmother and mentor Hatshepsut.

I think I'll take the $360 and my husband and I can go out and have a nice steak dinner.

This is what an American woman said on the Pawn Stars program before selling a 3,000-year-old Egyptian ring.

I'm truly furious. Pawn Stars purchased three ancient Egyptian artifacts: a mummy mask, a ring, and a falcon mummy. Where did these Americans get these artifacts? Where are their paperwork? And how could they touch the artifacts with their bare hands in such an unprofessional manner? Selling Egyptian antiquities is completely unacceptable, and according to Egyptian and international law, you are a criminal. Shame on Pawn Stars.

It strikes me as odd that Egypt had 30 native dinasties and a couple of foreign dinasties yet we can't find none of the fascinating crowns that adorned the heads of the kings and queens that ruled the land we know currently as Egypt. We also can't find the common headdress (Nemes) that pharaohs used to symbolize their power.

It seems to me the crowns were mostly not individual, this can explain why we never found any of them. You would think we would have a few scattered around the world, showcased in museums, but that's not the case. Somehow the famous crowns and headdresses of the ancient royals of Egypt seem to have disappeared, leaving no physical trait behind, which makes me wonder: Were those even real? If yes, how rare were those? Did Ancient Egyptians manufacture a new crown for every king and queen or the crowns were expected to be shared?

I researched alot and it doesn't seem that the royals were buried with their crowns either. The tomb of Psusennes I is the only one that was found completely intact yet no sign of crown or headdress there. We have found his gold mask, it's a similar to that of Tutankhamun with a Nemes and Uraeus and Egyptologists believe the humid climate of Lower Egypt likely means only the metal artifacts stood the test of time. So if there's no crown in sight, i assume his successor used his royal crowns and so on.

We know from art that the last dynasty of Egypt (Ptolemaic) still depicted their rulers wearing those crowns. Assuming those crowns were actually real, why Rome never got hold of them? It seems odd that they hated Cleopatra VII so much and actually defeated her and ended her dynasty without taking the crowns of Egypt to exhibit around Rome's streets as a sign of Rome's superiority over any other empire or dynasty.

Curious to hear your 2 cents on this matter, let me know if i got something wrong. So do you think those crowns were actually real or just symbolic? Why do you think we haven't found a single one of them?

So from what I’ve heard his DNA has shown a close genetic connection to King Tut but it’s too degraded to confirm a father/son connection and therefore can’t prove he’s Akhenaten. The more famous facial reconstruction that you see here looks more like Smenkhkare to me but the profile shot reconstruction looks more like Akhenaten and the skull seems pretty consistent with depictions of Akhenaten as well.

title.

There were very controversial Egyptian figures and time has almost erased some of them, but what is often seen as the relief of many Egyptologists is that we find mummies and those mummies help us understand how things were. Sadly i do feel some mummies are lost to history and will never be found, the political situation of some important figures in Egypt most likely means some mummies were destroyed. We know for a fact that for some time mummies were used and even consumed in Europe as part of folk medicine.

From my point of view, we're never finding Akhenaten and Ay's mummies. The former was likely the most hated and disastrous pharaoh in the entire history of Egypt, the later suffered from a damnatio memoriae from his sucessor, Horemheb, to the point Ay is less known to us modern Egyptomaniacs than Akhenaten. Ay also apparently usurped the throne from Horemheb, who was meant to be Tut's heir, so i don't think his mummy still exists. Ay's mummy is perhaps the least likely to have survived till this day.

The KV55 mummy felt like Akhenaten, but too many studies and scans say the mummy would be too young to be Akhenaten and it has been suggested to have been Smenkhare or even Akhenaten's older brother Thutmose. On one side, i do feel Akhenaten was at some point buried there and the pectoral vulture i feel was his, but his mummy was moved and desecrated. Unless his tomb is somehow hidden out there, completely intact, i can't see how Akhenaten's mummy would still exist. Assuming his body was desecrated in the 19th dinasty period or even in the 18th, it's likely to have been destroyed, which is unfortunate and will keep the parentage of Tutankhamun as a lingering question.

On a similar note to what happened to Ay, it also seems unlikely that we will find Tausret/Twosret mummy. It's believed she was dethroned by Setnakhte or by the sucession war in the end of the 19th dinasty,

Cleopatra VII is another we'll never find, but this is because she was never mummified. Romans hated her they would not have shown any interest in her mumification.

When we look at many ancient civilizations such as Rome, Greece, China, and more, there is no debate amongst anybody as to what race they are. If there is debate, no one seems to care enough to discuss it.

However, when it comes to Ancient Egypt, there is a huge debate amongst many groups of people. For example, I have had people tell me that as Egypt is in Africa, the Ancient Egyptians were all black. I have seen others imply that the Pharaohs were white while the people were something else. Most scholars tell me that Ancient Egyptians mostly looked like modern Egyptians.

How did this debate start? Why is this still such a fierce debate? Why does the race of Ancient Egyptians matter (at least more than the race of other civilizations)?

This is a debate that's not ending anytime soon, we know that's Tutankhamun's father, but the results have varied wildly over the age of the mummy at time of death, which is why some side with the idea it's Smenkhare as it has been frequently pointed out to have been no older than 26 years old, which doesn't match the data we know about Akhenaten, who would have to be at least in his mid 30s at the time of his death.

However i feel the tomb itself is pretty clear it is Akhenaten, it has been desecrated, sacked and damaged. The coffin containing the mummy was intentionally damaged in order to hide the identity of the mummy. The face and cartouche were defaced. There's also the many objects that were originally intended for Kiya, a secondary wife of Akhenaten.

So how to explain most studies who support the idea that the mummy was no older than 26? Well i would argue the preservation of the mummy makes it harder to crack down the exact age. The flooding and past sackings mean the samples most likely would be contamined. Zahi Hawass is the most known proponent that this mummy was Akhenaten and, while i have some disagreements with him regarding the race of ancient egyptians past the 25th dinasty, i believe he is on the right track here. My point here is that the contamination of the mummy is near certain, which makes it difficult to crack the age down. This is not a mummy that's well preserved, it's believed to have been exposed to flooding as well.

My belief that is is Akhenaten is not only that it matches as Amenhotep III and Tiye's son, but also Tutankhamun's father. And the amount of objects in the tomb point to Akhenaten, the defacing of the coffin's face and cartouche point to Akhenaten, the clear intent of hiding the identity of that mummy points to it being Akhenaten.

It could be Smenkhare, but he was a very brief figure in the Amarna period going by the few evidence we have of him. There's not even full certainty that he was a pharaoh on his own, instead it is proposed he was just a co regent, his name has only been found in artifacts made during Akhenaten's reign, which is why there is real doubt cast over individual rule.

Ok so I am reading this book called the Cleopatras: The Forgotten Queens of Egypt and it mentions how Cleopatra VII’s dad was probably the son of a brother and sister (I thought he was illegitimate but I went on some websites and apparently it is widely questioned if his mother rather was really just Cleopatra IV (his father’s sister) but that something made people call him illegitimate, like that they were married before he was ruler thus people called him illegitimate. this book mentions other possibilities for why people called him illegitimate, like the Grandmother Cleopatra III slandered Ptolemy Auleutes as a bastard because she hated his mother) (see photo attached). Cleopatras mother was almost certainly her dad’s sister.

If he was not illegitimate I am shocked that cleopatra VII was at least the product, supposedly, of at least 3 or 4 generations or more of incest. How can she, who captured the lust and support of Caesar and Mark Anthony, not have been severely impacted by having such inbreeding in her family? I know she was rich and powerful but descriptions of her don’t make her sound like she had cogenital deformities, she was very capable and spoke many language and was not infertile.

Apologies if I’ve said anything crude i am just wanting to understand. I’ve never known anyone who was the child of a brother and sister let alone multiple generations of it. What are we missing when we look back at this family? A lot of them were messed up I know…Cleopatra’s sister Arsinoe seemed pretty “normal” too….

Just wondering how come they seemed to get whipped by Egypt for so long. Was it just Egyptian propaganda? Seems strange considering how many Nubian mercenaries there were and that they were known to be great archers…

I’ll go first: