Egypt is known for many things, mummies, the Nile River, a lot of sand. But without a doubt, the thing that Egypt is most known for, is the Giza Plateau, with the 3 main Pyramids and the Sphinx. While mainstream Archaeology has uncovered a lot of amazing facts about Ancient Egypt’s past, they fail to connect the dots on these structures. They credit the Egyptians with creating these amazing structures, but fail to provide the evidence that would back it up conclusively. Matter of fact, there is more evidence to support that is wasn’t the Ancient Dynastic Egyptians, and that mainstream Archaeologists are straight up ignoring evidence.
What we can conclusively say the Egyptians did
Not everything we know about Ancient Egypt is wrong. There are many things that mainstream archaeology has proven about the Dynastic Egyptians. We can credit Ancient Egypt with the following innovations:
Mummies
It is well documented that Egyptians had a very unique way of burying their dead. From removing the organs, to embalming the body with preservative liquids, and the wrapping of the body. Mummification, however, was only really used for the wealthy elite. Pharaohs, high priests, and members of the royal family. Ancient Egyptians buried there honored dead in extravagant tombs, with gold, treasures, and beautiful art. Most tombs were highly decorated, show casing the skill of the builders of the tomb. The Valley of the Kings is where most of ancient Egyptian pharaohs were buried. With over 60+ tombs already found, including the tomb of the famous King Tut, the Valley of the Kings is one of the best examples of Ancient Egyptian burial techniques.
Papyrus
It is also well documented that the Egyptians were responsible for inventing one of the very first uses of paper. The papyrus scrolls that Ancient Egyptians used were spread across the Mediterranean as they were more convenient to use then clay tablets. Papyrus was used for many things including rope, chairs, floor mats, blankets, clothing, and even food. Another thing we can give Egyptians credit for, is the use of black ink. While the Sumerian civilization’s form of writing known as cuneiform predates Egyptian Civilization, Egyptians are the oldest known civilization to use black ink as their main form of writing.
Cosmetology
It would be safe to assume that from what we know about ancient civilizations, Egypt very well could be the birth place of cosmetology. They shaved and got haircuts, they invented wigs, makeup, and even created dresses (from papyrus).
Documentation
How do Archaeologists and Egyptologists know so many details about the Dynastic Egyptians past? Well they documented everything. With their own writing system using pictographs and hieroglyphs, Ancient Egyptians documented every aspect of their daily lives. The language was actually lost for about 1500 years until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the work of Jean-Francois Champollion (1790-1832) brought all the knowledge of the Ancients back into view of the modern world. Now with the translations available, mainstream archaeologists and Egyptologists have used them to help paint a picture of the life of the ancients. From epitaphs, inventory lists, calendars, and even prayers, translating this ancient language has helped us learn more about the Dynastic Egyptians than any other ancient civilization.
With all of this knowledge about the life of the Ancient Egyptians, one might assume that every magnificent discovery we find in the sands of Egypt, should be credited to the works of this amazing ancient culture. However, as advanced and sophisticated the ancient Dynastic Egyptians were, there is not enough evidence to conclude that they were responsible for the construction of the Great Pyramids of Giza, or the Sphinx. Evidence points in the direction that the Ancient Egyptians were not sophisticated enough to have built these structures, and the most likely scenario is that the monuments were there way before they were.
Some amazing facts about the Pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx
Most people are simply not aware of just how complex and amazing the Pyramids of Giza are. When we first learn about the dynastic Egyptians in school, one of the first things we are taught, is that primitive people of the ancient past were responsible for the creation of the pyramids. We are given theories, not backed by evidence, about how they did it. To paint a picture of the sheer complexity of just 1 pyramid, here are some facts to show you just how difficult it would be to create one.
The largest of the 3, the Great Pyramid, is composed of approx. 2.3 million stone blocks. The stone block weigh averages about 2.5 tons, with some of the heavier ones coming in at about 30 tones a piece. The stone blocks were composed mainly of limestone which is soft enough to be cut and carved using primitive methods, however, with great difficulty. Granite makes up almost a third of all stone blocks and it much heavier and harder to cut and carve. In modern times, stone masons require diamond bit drills to be able to carve granite.
Most of the limestone blocks that were used on the pyramid, were quarried onsite from the limestone bedrock that the pyramids sit on. The granite, however, had to be taken from the Aswan quarry, over 500 miles away! There are theories about how they could have done this, such as: dragging these massive stones through the dessert on sleds, putting them on boats and floating up the Nile, or by putting the blocks on wooden logs and using them as rollers. Some of these theories have been tested in a lab setting, to see if it is even possible, however none of them have actually tried moving these massive stones on the dessert planes themselves. Let alone with some of the more massive stone blocks that were quarried.
Anyone in construction or architecture design knows how important mathematical equations are in order to accurately build something. Those who have studied the pyramids in depth have noticed many mathematical properties embedded into the structure. It has been proven that whoever the builders of the pyramids were, had an understanding of the mathematical properties of Pi π. The number is seen repeatedly throughout the structure and most architects and mathematicians that take a serious look at the numbers agree that this is no accident, and suggest the builders definitely had extensive knowledge of advanced mathematics. The Ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse (287-212 BC) is largely considered to be the first to calculate an accurate estimation of the value of pi, yet the pyramids were built (at least) 2,000 before that discovery. How could anyone in dynastic Egypt have the mathematical knowledge to be able to construct anything remotely close to the pyramids of Giza?
Another technological feat that was achieved by the builders of the Giza pyramids, was the fact that they were able to align the structures precisely to true north (within 0.5 degree of accuracy). True north is the geographical center of the top of the globe and differs slightly from magnetic north. While some modern day skeptics will say that finding true north is not that difficult without a compass, aligning a giant structure with it is much harder. Modern day buildings only started doing this with modern day technology like maps, compasses, and satellites. Even still, you would be hard-pressed to find a structure more precisely aligned then the Giza Pyramids.
Aligning with true north is not the only astronomical alignment the pyramids have. The 3 main pyramids of Giza also happen to align with Orion’s belt. Whoever built the pyramids also had extensive astronomical knowledge. And while we are on the subject of alignment, the Giza plateau is located in the geographical center of all land mass on planet earth. While most would say this is a coincidence, this is just one of the many coincidences the structure shows.
The more you dig and look into the Giza Pyramids, the more it becomes clear that main stream archaeology has significantly underestimated the significance of the Pyramids themselves.
Contradicting evidence
When most people are presented this evidence, the most common reaction is “Why wasn’t I taught this in school?” Or something along the lines of “well why aren’t more archaeologist speaking up about this?”. To be fair there are many academics speaking up about this, such as Graham Hancock, John Anthony West, and Brain Forester to name a few. However, most people that even entertain these ideas are considered heretics by the mainstream scientific community.
More famous Archaeologists such as Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass are avid “debunkers” of alternatives theories about anything related to Giza. It should come as no surprise that the 2 biggest advocates of the main stream narrative about Ancient Egyptian history would have a problem with alternative theories that directly contradict said narrative.
Mark Lehner is considered by some to be one of the most important Egyptologist in the world. He has been excavating Egyptian ruins for decades and most people take his word when he says something about Ancient Egypt. However, a lesser known fact is that Mark Lehner actually debunked one of the most widely held theories on pyramids construction himself. Yet, nothing has been updated in the textbooks, no fan fair was given with this discovery, and he himself rarely talks about it.
Mark Lehner was on a documentary about the Pyramids once, and on that documentary they were trying to prove that it is possible to cut granite stone blocks with a bronze saw. In the following clip you will see just how unbelievably difficult it is to cut granite using the proposed methods from mainstream archaeology.
What that demonstration really showed was that if we are to believe the mainstream narrative that these Pyramids were built in approximately 20 years, bronze saws and chisels are not what was used to cut and shape the blocks. Doing some “very” simplified math, in order to build one in that time frame, assuming they worked 24 hour shifts, with no days off or breaks, they would have to cut, carve, and place a block (approx.) every 4 ½ minutes. It took them hours to cut just a few centimeters, the math alone debunks the main stream narrative.
They manage to prove the bronze saws are capable of cutting granite, however it becomes very clear that the method they suggested was used to build the Great Pyramid just does not come close to being effective. With a bronze saw (which by the way, is bigger than anything that was ever found in Ancient Egypt) with added teeth, sand, and water being added to the mix, they were barely able to get a few cm deep cut. They didn’t even bother finishing the block.
Let’s say that maybe they found a way to cut and carve these stones with these methods. If the main stream community is dead set on these methods, then they would at the very least reconsider the time frame and amount of workers it would have taken in order to complete just one pyramid. Instead, Mark Lehner is now supporting a theory that the Pyramids were not built in 20 years, but 10! That would mean that a block was cut, carved, and placed every 2 ½. Assuming they worked 24 hour straight with no break for those 10 years.
Why would one of the world’s leading Egyptologists support a theory that he already had a part in debunking himself? Simple, he is choosing to ignore the evidence. You would think the results of his experiment would force him to rethink either the time frame or the cutting methods of the main stream narrative. Instead, he is completely ignoring the results and instead continues to support an already debunked theory.
This is not the only time Egyptologists ignored evidence. Weathering on the Great Sphinx is another good example of Egyptologist contradicting scientific evidence. Robert M. Schoch, a geologist and associate professor of natural science at the College of General Studies, Boston University, is a big advocate of the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis. This hypothesis states that the weathering on the outside of the enclosure of the Sphinx shows that the erosion was caused by significant rainfall. Estimates for the amount of time it would take to cause such significant erosion range from 7,000 years to possibly 9,000. And that is the conservative estimate.
The implications of this find is quite enormous to put it lightly. It would mean that whoever carved the Sphinx, must have carved the outer wall at the same time. Which would imply that the Sphinx is much older than mainstream Egyptology wants to admit.
When provided with this evidence, Egyptologist out right dismiss it. Their counter argument is that no civilization has ever been found to be older than 6,000 years old. So how can the Sphinx be that old? This theory was purposed in the early 1990’s, and at the time the modern day archaeologist had a point. No evidence, outside what has already been presented, has ever pointed to a civilization existing before the Sumerians of 4,000 BC (approx.).
However, not long after this theory was first suggested, Gobekli Tepe was discovered and forced academics to once again reconsider what they think they knew. For those who don’t know, Gobekli Tepe is a giant stone monolithic site that dates back to at least 9,000 BC. This site is proof that advanced civilizations existed back further in time then what mainstream archaeologists once thought. The discovery of this site undermines skeptics’ biggest argument against the Sphinx water erosion hypothesis, that no civilization dates back that far.
Graham Hancock and Zahi Hawass were both on the Joe Rogan show, debating theories about ancient Dynastic Egypt, and it was made apparent that Zahi never even knew about Gobekli Tepe. One of the most famous Egyptologist in the world, who avidly tries to debunk alternative theories, had no idea this site existed. Makes you wonder how up to date a lot of mainstream academics really are.
Conclusion
To question evidence and by skeptical of theories is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, skepticism is the corner stone of all science. Nothing is ever considered proven until it has stood up to a good amount of scrutiny and counter arguments.
The problem with today’s scientific community, is that for the most part, skepticism is only ever shown toward newer ideas. To criticize older, more established, ideas and theories, is to invite confrontation. Anyone who comes forward with theories that undermine the mainstream narrative of how “we think” history unfolded, is crucified and made to look unreliable.
If we are to keep with the original spirit of what science is meant to be, a process in which we discover things about the world, then criticism should always be allowed. Especially to ideas we think are “true”. How else are we to grow in our knowledge and appreciation of the world? The moment we stop questioning ideas, is the moment science dies.
Shit You Didn't Learn In School 