Scientifically Dating the Giza Pyramids | Ancient Architects

[@AncientArchitects]

Thank you for watching and for being here! If you want to support the channel, you can become a KZbin Member at kzbin.info/door/scI4NOggNSN-Si5QgErNCwjoin or I’m on Patreon at www.patreon.com/ancientarchitects

[@jackthomas2051]

The Diary of Merer doesn’t say where the blocks he was hauling were going other than the Giza Plateau. It does not say they were for the pyramid. Also, the sarcophagus found by Vise in the pyramid of Menkaure was later dated to be less than 2000 years old so it is not a contemporary burial with the lifetime of Menkaure.

[@100HzJimmi]

@@jackthomas2051 Akhet Khufu is mentioned many times in Merers diary...that is not the name of the whole giza plateu.

[@4everseekingwisdom690]

You know any information that you're getting from ARCE is automatically suspect and you mentioned them

[@dannyg0824]

Love your stuff but at 5:29 wouldn't it be easier for a series of basic pulleys to be used with the well like shafts that run along the causeway. Fill up a large container with buckets of water and it would be the easiest counterweight. At the bottom a person releases the water and sends it back up for the next one, maybe crazy but could it explain the sphinx pit erosion

[@vg___]

Happy New Year sir! excited to see what new discoveries will be revealed in 2024! Best wishes

[@DaveTheTurd]

You released a video a year or two ago, proposing the idea that the Great Pyramid began life as a much smaller (older) pyramid, and that Khufu had made it larger, rather than building it from scratch. This explained (among other things) why the Queen's chamber shafts dead-end (in limestone?) the way they do. Does this video affect your views on that matter? Is it possible that testing samples from deep inside the Great Pyramid would yield different results than samples taken from near the exterior?

[@dans4125]

I would be more inclined to say that most of any remnant of any prior pyramid was used as rubble fill in the structure of the pyramid, possibly keeping pre existing work intentionally, including prior leveling of the giza plateau for construction purposes and some of the seemingly out of place and older/"unfinished" underground work that may have been intentionally preserved and improved. Lots of evidence the well shaft and lower chambers have a large amount of water damage (increasing the unlikelihood and reliability of carbon dating)

[@JonnoPlays]

Good comment and I'm curious about this too.

[@AncientArchitects]

I don’t think you remember the video correctly. I said khufu made the pyramid and then decided to make it bigger. Same bloke, change in project. Could have been a 2-step project. So if they finished the original pyramid, either stick with it, or enlarge it.

[@jeffreystreeter5381]

I agree. The areas around the dead-end shafts look like add ons.

[@DaveTheTurd]

@@AncientArchitectsYou're right, thank you. I tracked down a pair of videos dealing with the idea of enlargement during the 26th dynasty... though honestly, they don't seem like the specific video I was recalling. In any case, thank you for all of your efforts, and for your reply.

[@jackrifleman562]

About a decade ago a camera was inserted into a small chamber in in the Great Pyramid that has never been accessed. It showed red ochre marks and lines in red ochre that are quite similar to red ochre masonry measurement lines and markings found in any number of ancient Egyptian architectural works. So, it is worth emphasizing that in over 150 years of investigation all markings, inscriptions, and writings found in, on, and around the Great Pyramid, including areas that could only be accessed or surveyed relatively recently, point to work done by ancient Egyptians within the estimated time-range. On the other hand there is, to my knowledge, nothing in the way of markings, inscriptions, or writings that would lend support to hypotheses that the Great Pyramid is vastly older and built by non-Egyptians. Also, I think that surveys have also showed that the copper fittings that some think are electrodes or whatever else don't extend out in any manner behind the blocks where they are embedded. This would work against assertions of some hidden hi-tech electrical network purpose.

[@jc441-i3q]

Correct, there is no evidence of the Pyramid being thousands of years old. The issue is that certain people are so invested in fringe theories that they will only accept evidence that agrees with their existing belief and ignore the evidence that proves them wrong. Also for some reason they all seem to have obnoxious attitudes which leads me to believe that they are not actually interested in the truth, rather they just like the feeling that they have secret knowledge that only they were smart enough to discover.

[@jackrifleman562]

@@jc441-i3q I have suspected that plenty of them know deep down inside that they have been taken for a ride by the fringe producers. Their pride won't let them about it go. The producers know damn well what they are doing and are laughing all the way to the bank. Except for a couple of legit crazies.

[@patalbor3507]

The phrase "History unfriendly scientific results" is disturbing. Losing tourism because they know their dating is wrong sounds like the real reason there hasnt been anymore luminescence testing. Good work on the video & thank you.

[@lost4468yt]

How would they lose tourism? That type of publicity is good publicity for things like this. No one is going to say "right I'm not going now because they're a few hundred years older than I thought!"

[@JaguarFeatherStudios]

This was a particularly helpful and interesting video, Matt. I really appreciate having this type of information collected together so we can get a more clear picture. I think the official timeline, like so many things in Egyptology, has been frozen in place by orthodoxy, glued down with the adhesive of the careers of the Egyptologists. It's good to rock that not so old boat with new data and ideas.

[@lynnmitzy1643]

Thank you Matt ❤

[@AncientArchitects]

Thank you Lynn!

[@PatchouliPenny]

Lynn i hope you don't mind me hijacking your comment for this message for Matt. I haven't watched your videos for a couple of months and i need to catch up. No error on your part, just personal things i needed to sort out. However, I wanted to tell that besides the usual excellent video, you sound fantastic! Not sure if you have a new mic or if it's because i have a new phone for the tech side but it's also a big improvement in your vocal presentation. It sounds more like you're talking to us than reading a script. Some gave you grief about this in the past but I always stood up for you as sometimes it was because it wasn't a Fox news accent ;) thanks always! ​@AncientArchitects

[@Brumbieman]

The best one to test again would be Khafre, specifically the upper section. That strip around 2/3rds of the way up just below the intact casing stones. That one was resurfaced at some point - it looks like a brick wall with a cement render/plaster finish, or a bad job of tiling. Like, brick underneath and then grout and tiles that have crumbled/flaked/been peeled off. A core from up there could give you an undisturbed sample of the casing stones, the poor stonework added on to set them, and that much higher quality inner layer all in one and would only need to be 5-10m long.

[@AtheistBelgium]

Excellent video. As a kid i hoped the pyramids were over 10000 years old, thinking it was build by an earlier (advanced for its time) unknown civilization. But you can't refute the data. Still an amazing accomplishment for its age.

[@Byronic19134]

The Sphinx has been verified scientifically to be over 12,000 years old based on geological erosion. Of course the Egyptologists who are theoretical historians disagree with the actual Geologists tho despite them not having the credentials to do so therefore the narrative stays the same.

[@AtheistBelgium]

​@@Byronic19134 I know the theory exists, as water erosion was mentioned by Robert Schoch, but i don't think this has been verified by mainstream science. To be honest, i'm on the fence on this one, as i did read articles about this 'watererosion' could have been caused by other things. Fascinating theory none the less and i hope we get an answer to the real age in my lifetime. After Göbekli Tepe was found, anything is possible concerning age i guess. Have a good day, sir!

[@montewright111]

I can and will refute that data.

[@lisad1993]

The new intro threw me! It's perfect 😊

[@AncientArchitects]

Thanks - trying something new - a little intro first but never losing the age old title music and “hello everybody”! Did the same on my last video too. I think it gives better structure to the video

[@lisad1993]

@@AncientArchitects KZbin had already started playing the last video by the time I actually started watching, so I missed it. I'm pretty sure we'd all have nervous breakdowns if the "hello everybody" went away

[@evbbjones7]

Great video as always Matt. For me, it wouldn't be surprising at all if the timeline of the ancient dynasty's ended up being a little off. To my understanding, the dating had a lot to do with the kings lists and counting back in time based off the words of the Egyptians themselves. 300-500 years is not really that much of a discrepancy when you're talking about looking 5000 years back in time. Imo, it's actually surprisingly accurate. :)

[@fearlessjoebanzai]

I find it funny how some people throw around dates, saying that it could be 3000 or 6000 yrs older (even more extreme at times), seemingly without realising how long, in terms of human development, those numbers really are. But then give them a discrepancy of 300yrs (still a giant number in human progression) and they erupt at the idea that any they disagree with might be proved wrong, while simultaneously utilising the very science that they ignore whenever it doesn't fit their ideas!

[@hm5142]

I am a physicist, and my view has always been that if you have a strong preference for the outcome of the experiment, you probably shouldn't do it. Too much moral hazard. You have to want to be right more than you want any particular result.

[@RalphEllis]

The original cartouche of the pharaoh was Ufu-Ra, not Kufu. The cartouche that Howard Vise inscribed was wrong. He made a mistake. R

[@dnocturn84]

@@hm5142 Yes, the radio carbon dating science so far has all been carried out by people, who wanted to proof, that the pyramids were much older, compared with what "mainstream" is telling us. Those were all biased tests with people desperately pushing for an earlier date. But the results turned out to actually support the "mainstream" archeology more (off by ca. 300 years - which is not really true either, because you've got an error margin and 300 years is an interpretation based on an average error range; the actual error range stretches into the exact timeline, where we believe Kufu and his successors reigned), than any fictional idea, that they are tens of thousands of years old.

[@dazuk1969]

I also agree that the dating could be off by a few hundred years. I have never really thought about how we arrived at accepted dates. We know a lot of kings were erased/ removed from the kings list so that would probably throw things out a bit. Maybe Matt could make a vid about all the evidence used to arrive at the accepted dates and look for areas there could be a margin of error. I'm not even sure what kind of calender the Egyptians used ?. Did they ever write dates ? and how do we translate them against our modern calender ?.

[@neelspinoy8750]

this video is one of the best out of all i know of because i was looking forward on looking when these monuments were built

[@tommunyon2874]

This is the first I've heard about mortar being used in pyramid construction. The information adds an interesting wrinkle to understanding history and those who report it. Also interesting that there have been those who are so convinced that they have the "gift of prophesy" to the point that they would resort to using science to back up their claims of having insight into alternative "knowledge" about history as accepted by the larger academic community.

[@pierrerust2423]

Once again a very well thought-out, documented and balanced analysis : you stand out Matt ! As you conclude at the end of this video, the debate remains open, though...

[@gotMylky]

I think some people won't watch this or get upset at it, as if admitting that they are as old as the "mainstream" say, takes away any of the magic and mystery around these places... Awesome work as always, maybe if people can start accepting this dating we can move on and explore with the right mindset.

[@jc441-i3q]

There will always be people who claim it was thousands of years older and claim any results which contradicts this is "fake". These people have invested so much in theories that the pyramid was a power plant etc that they will NEVER let that go no matter what. I would love the pyramid to be something like a mysterious device with a purpose but I'm not willing to believe this without evidence - and there just isn't any conclusive. "There were no hieroglyphs in the pyramid therefore power plant!" is not good enough for me.

[@DBB2005]

I would like to see the luminescence test done on some of the very large foundation stones of Great Pyramid. There is a theory that the foundations were there and the later Egyptians built on top of them.

[@AndrasMihalyi]

the foundation of the great pyramid is a small limestone hill... It was definitely there 😁

[@evbbjones7]

@@AndrasMihalyi Correct, true for all of the Pyramids on the Giza plateau in fact. In the great pyramid, the descending passage into the subterranean chamber is actually cut from this limestone bedrock, and you can tell exactly where it switches from stacked stones to limestone as you go down the passage.

[@roomclear]

That's what I always felt was the case. Matt has an older video about it possibly being a natural spring intially.

[@pauljgentile]

Wouldn't luminescence halt if they're covered by sand? Something to consider.

[@nalinux]

See "EGYPTIAN MONUMENTS DATED BY SURFACE LUMINESCENCE DATING METHOD- GIZA, ABYDOS " by Ioannis Liritzis.

[@douginorlando6260]

It’s beyond plausible all the mortar carbon samples including from reed are from an ancient forest. It’s almost certain a few hundred years of chronological history is missing. Historians should be looking for where this gap is in history

[@darkchrisuk]

A old forest turning to desert would leave an abundance of wood to use, more research needed to see if timelines line up

[@douginorlando6260]

@@darkchrisukmore likely an old forest turning into desert would leave an abundance of firewood to use; maybe 20 years worth. If an old forest was cut down,then the stumps would now be buried under sand. But even if they were found, the local people would have used them up long before 200 years passed. Also remember the reed. No way was this used to make charcoal 200 years later

[@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks]

@@douginorlando6260 there is a stand of trees in the desert of Namibia that has trees 700 plus years old

[@stephensegal5187]

This dating makes zero sense the moment you consider that the interior shafts line up with their respective star constellations some 12,500 years ago. BEFORE The Younger Dryas period, as well as the water erosion on The Sphynx also support a "Pre Younger Dryas" timeliness. Radio carbon dating is not even accurate when you try to go back this far. I commend the efforts, however even with a 400 year time period adjustment, the whole Khufu thing just doesn't fit. The Local People even say that is not right.

[@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks]

@stephensegal5187 the shafts zigzag thru the structure aimed at nothing... without the casing stones the direction they were is pure speculation and fantasy. Carbon dating not being accurate "that far back" what ever that means , is even more fantasy.

[@erniesulovic4734]

The dating also depends on how deep they went back. If similar to the Mayans and/or Incas who built on top of what was there already, just measuring the latest layer will also produce incorrect or elusive dates. That the Sphynx being over 7, 000 years old also assumes other structures (not all) would have similar time periods. Also, since we know so much about Egyptian culture, way of life, quality of life, etc yet nothing of their science or way of architecture when they loved to "show off" to me is also a telltale sign someone other than the Egyptians built the pyramids.

[@DiscGolfKid]

He doesn’t want that info here, apparently this channel is focused on supporting outdated narratives. Pyramids weren’t meant for humans to even walk around in, much less be buried in. And yes, claiming the dating is concrete is hilarious

[@Byronic19134]

The Sphinx is far older than that based on geological erosion it was dated to over 12,000 years. The crazy part about that time is if true then the Sphinx would have had the sun rise directly overheard instead of off to the left like it is now. Either way the Sphinx is so clearly eroded by water and was buried in sand for 700 years.

[@colleptic]

Does the luminescence test get altered if, let's say, the lower parts of the Pyramids (test points) and all the temples were under sand and lost exposure for hundreds to thousands of years or visa-versa?

[@insertphrasehere15]

No. They are testing the last time that the minerals saw sunlight, so they are collecting the samples from the underside of a block (probably by doing a small bore hole at the join). Whether coverd by sand or not, those blocks have not shifted since placed.

[@MrGelly70]

As always bro awesome informative and educational great video all of yours

[@NoeticConcordance-149]

Great video, very factual and informative thank you. I don't claim any special knowledge nor am I a professional in archaeology, science or history (I just work in IT ;) ) but I was wondering if the structure that we see today is just the last layer of several on the site similar to Mayan Pyramids like the one at Tikal's northern acropolis with over 1,500 years of architectural modifications, El Castillo at Chichen Itza (Chicken Pizza as it is affectionately known by the locals) which has had seven major construction phases, with each new layer encasing the previous one or Calakmul Temple II that has least eight temples nested within, it possibly more? We do know that carbon dating is not exact and there may always be factors that contaminate the results or the sample may not have been taken at the right place nor has the research or at least the published results been extensive and the authorities do seem to want to keep it to themselves for whatever reason. Scientific Knowledge and historical fact definitely changes over time and we do not have the same beliefs about our world that we did a few hundred or even thousands of years ago so unless there is some significant break though or paradigm shift it will probably be the same for our generation, a ongoing mystery. As a case in point I did go to El Mirador in Guatemala in 2012 we had to hire a chopper, pilot and guide or else you had to trek for two or three days through roadless jungle to get there they had just uncovered a stucco frieze showing a pristine version of the Mayan creation myth on the side of a water-collecting system which pushed back the dating of the site 1200 years earlier that previously thought, the surface structures like La Danta and El Tigre were crumbling probably due to the climate so for me the world is not exactly what we are being taught or set in stone (pardon the pun) but that makes it all the more interesting. Keep up the great work and look forward to your next one cheers! Keep digging ;)

[@LiveNowFryLater]

Well your in luck paradigm shift in effect pyramid structures found on the sea floor and on mars confirms that the pyramids were built by beings who knew how to travel the cosmos.. that’s why we aren’t collecting samples anymore because we already know

[@magnusdunning6113]

I say this with great respect. I wish you’d put the intro music back in the beginning where you had it for so long. I love your work. I look forward to every new episode.

[@AllotmentDiggers]

If they tested the charcoal from the bottom and top of the pyramids it would tell you how long it took to build them...

[@Salmon_Rush_Die]

nice!

[@kevh7941]

Good point but not necessarily as the wood samples range hundreds of years due to the age of the trees used

[@dyxifltline]

Clever, very nice thinking.

[@markklocek1280]

Sorry I disagree with you. The outside casing stones are the newest last restoration of the pyramid. The academics fail to explain HOW the stones were cut, shaped, finished or erected by the Egyptians of their time. As well as the alignments of the Plateau with the stars. The wood found in the shaft was wildly newer, meaning grave robbers being present prior to the 4th dynasty.

[@jameshatton4211]

I agree with this guy ^^^^

[@ianh3365]

I can’t explain HOW an iPhone is made. But I can still figure out its approximate age. Don’t let an absence of HOW things are done be the final determinant in this debate.

[@arsenicjones9125]

Academics have explained how the stones were cut, shaped and finished. You’re choosing not to engage w them

[@andrewholdaway813]

Sorry but reality disagrees with you.

[@jameshatton4211]

@@andrewholdaway813 bingo we have a Zahi Hawass fan ready to talk and deny reality for us! Wow! Are you here to preach?

[@_MikeJon_]

Always dropping some banger videos bro! Keep it up! Hey speaking of that, ever think about making one about their ships? There's a bunch of videos about Khufus ship but hardly any about their obelisk ships or sea going vessels. I'm very interested in the Obelisk ones.

[@hrathweg]

Beautiful as always ❤

[@holladiewaldfee7518]

Thx a lot for your great work!

[@patrickmundy1966]

Another great video Matt! I like your multi-directional approach as to the age of the pyramids. Thank you!

[@rogerb4971]

I commend you for your amazing progress in presentation. These just keep getting better! Don't worry about the push back and bs the nimrods throw at you, because I know you're willing to correct yourself and that you love asking questions and accept that you are still learning. I'm impressed. Keep at it!

[@Boobear83]

Facts aren’t right. Entertaining videos yes and I commend the effort also, but Khufu’s cartouche was discovered in 1837 inside the Campbell’s chamber. This has never been a problem. It was absolutely never found on a casing stone….period. So not sure what you mean by bs or hating, but the video is wrong so I think constructively someone should let this person know they need to tighten up their facts so they can improve instead of telling them to ignore all. I’m sure some people might be rude or something, but in general, the facts need to be there.

[@rogerb4971]

@@Boobear83 clearly, you need to start your own channel and put out more factual vids since you are so knowledgeable. Good luck with that

[@jamesmattoon9479]

Super video Matt, you are the go to guy for real factual information about archaeology ! Thank You , keep it up !

[@asdfghjsdfgg1841]

Having just visited Egypt over the christmas vacation, I disagree that knowing would reduce tourism. The structures (not just the pyramids) are incredible feats and absolutely stunning/mind-boggling. Pictures just can't capture the enormousness of the blocks nor the magnitude of work required to build such structures. The feeling you get when walking towards the great pyramid, thinking that you're not getting closer because your brain is used to normal sized bricks, and only once you're at the foot of it do you realize those are not normal sized bricks, won't change once an exact date is known. Nor would seeing 4000 year old intricate carvings and paintings, 60 foot statues and pillars, or the beautiful landscapes. The tourists that come for the alternative history or guru shit are a minority and imo don't influence the research nor are a priority for the tourism industry.

[@jus10lewissr]

I will ALWAYS say that the cartouche -- and variants of it -- found to be scrawled high up in the relieving chambers above the king's chamber are way too incredibly convenient, especially considering their location, so I find it hard to look at them as part of any evidence.

[@catman8965]

I dated a pyramid once, it was cold and hard as rock. 😮

[@PatchouliPenny]

Catman!!!! Where have you been? Haven't seen anything from you in months. How are you and how are your kitties? Ziggy and Olive are great although bugging me for their nighttime treats I hide around the house for some nocturnal "hunting".

[@catman8965]

Hi: I've tried replying a couple times but it keeps getting deleted. Nice to see you again. I post regularly here and Ancient Sites Girl channel. Let's see if this third posting remains.

[@PatchouliPenny]

@catman8965 worked this time! Yes, I haven't actually been on KZbin much recently but I'm back. My two cats are good but I think getting a bit of cabin fever and eager for the return of some warm weather to get out to their catio. Such pampered indoor babies lol. How are yours and how's your health?

[@joshwilko4430]

@@PatchouliPennyJust curious :) are you and catman youtube comment pals? is that a thing?

[@PatchouliPenny]

@joshwilko4430 that's exactly what we are! I don't know if it's a thing but it is for us combined with a love for archaeology and our cats. :) 🐈

[@StephiSensei26]

Always good arguments Matt. Yours is not "guess work". If the Egyptians can keep the Mystery alive, they know the business of selling the Pyramids to the tourists will continue. Thanks again.

[@Peter125o]

Is it known where the casing stones are now? It is told they were used as building material for Caïro but can they be found / traced?

[@salty8752]

I’m loving the new intro, keep it up.

[@paulgeorge7866]

Another Excellent piece of work my friend !!

[@bimmjim]

Thankyou for enunciating so well. Your words are the value here.

[@1206anton]

For Instance the unfinished obelisk imagine we finish the job. We cut it out. We lift it out the query and move it to the place we want it. What kind of equipment would we need? Ask yourself. How would they have done it? We just don't know.

[@sergemck]

Good short review. David Rohl in his vids has presented other excellent evidence that the official, conventional timeline of Egyptian Dynastic chronology has a huge +-300 year missing gap in it! The problem is that if the whole Dynastic timeline is extended back 300 years, starting with Narmer, conventionally 3150 BC, his reign would start at 3450 BC. This would then pose serious not-enough-time early development problems for Ancient Egypt. It strengthens the hypothesis that the Dynastic Egyptians came from Sumer, or elsewhere, and conquered the primitive early-neolithic locals. They found existing derelict, unused very ancient structures and re-purposed and rebuilt them as Pyramids. Nothing in your vid conclusively excludes this possibility, which I, and many others, believe is what happened.

[@dnocturn84]

Oh come on. First "alternative thinkers" / "believers" claim it's more than ten thousand years old. This is impossible with all of the radio carbon dating results. So this claim is easily disproven. Now some people argue about these 300 years? Sorry, but the error margin of the radio carbon dating methods back then were roughly at +/- 160 years (2%). If you apply the maximum error range to these results (which is 320 years), than you can easily make them match the exact point in time, where Kufu is supposed to have reigned. So it is waaay to soon to go for such ideas and make a fuss about it. We'll need more precise dating results first and than we can start wrapping our heads around new ideas, if those results turn out to point towards it. You're making step no. 2 before step no. 1 has been done.

[@sergemck]

Obviously you're not from the planet I'm on. Give me your star co-ordinates and I'll get NASA to launch a space probe to you, so we ignorant Earthlings can find out more about your utterly true, super knowledge. @@DianaAtena

[@JasonUmbrellabird]

How the hell do you feed the amount of people it would take to build these structures? I'm pretty sure they werebuilt when there was water there.

[@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks]

I agree..something like the world's longest river maybe

[@anthonydelgiudice3245]

what about bathroom breaks where did they go ? test the soil near the pyramids and away that could make sense

[@One-eyedgiantbuildingwall]

Great stuff as always. In your future video, with a timeline a couple of hundred years older, I'd love if you look into this: The dating problem could be minimized if this dogma of the pyramid being built from best to worst and in absurd short timing of 20 years a pop is addressed. What if, the pyramids were under construction for 200 years each, with adaptations along the way being the result of new ideas along that time. And what if several pharaohs received repeated names not just one Kufru but several, with Kufru being more like "prince of Wales". The dynastic sequence of father/son with 20 years per pyramid is just too stiff. The changing plans in the pyramids and the carbon dating point to longer construction times and the changing of plans along the way.

[@rebeccakaterine3802]

Refreshing perspective. Explains the persistant cult of Khufru etc lasting centuries.

[@One-eyedgiantbuildingwall]

Thanks!@@rebeccakaterine3802

[@scottyboy7462]

do you think the Sphinx is much older than the pyramids?? I do. I also believe there is much more to the story in general. something extraordinary happened there that we are still yet to discover. ❤️🇺🇸

[@justinsmith4562]

Hey Mr Obvious. Of course there is much more to the story than we will ever know. Far out you are dumb.

[@M1ster.Fr3sh]

100% the sphinx is older. The Sphinx enclosure wall and it's hilariously obvious precipitation-induced weathering gets ignored. This channel feels like mainstream nonsense and propaganda. No carbon dating, no actual science, just a couple of scribbles and artifacts found near the giza complex which they use to attribute it all to Khufu. I could detail a couple dozen reasons why this makes zero sense at all. This channel is fraudulent and the creator should be ashamed of himself for putting out such ignorant and pompous materia

[@yungclinky]

If it were any older than 3000-3500BC it would have been underwater for up to half of every year due to Nile floods - and since it’s a limestone monument it would look in way worse condition. It’s likely it was still built before the Giza Pyramids though.

[@johnswindale9115]

Well that makes sence to me. I have to agree with you. More information in the future could change our minds. I have only been tu this site 3 times it is unbelievable how this site was formed, and man can overcome many obstacles. Love your work.

[@cglyrics]

Interesting! One remark about the radiocarbon dating outcome being 100s of years older. You give as possible explanation that the tree was 100s of years old. However, the carbon-14 level starts decreasing only AFTER the tree dies. It does not matter how old the tree was while alive. Assuming the wood was used farely soon after the tree's death, the 100s of years can be considered accurate indeed. Love watching your video's!

[@benloud8740]

Yeah I spotted that mistake too

[@pvdhaar]

Wrong. Heartwood of a living tree is metabolically dead.

[@ellen4956]

The fourth dynasty Old Kingdom dating being off by a couple or even a few hundred years is the most sensible theory I've heard, ever, about dating the Giza pyramids. Just look at how many mistakes there are in the Kings List for an example of dates being wrong.As with all archaeology, all we can do is gather as much evidence as possible and theorize based on that. In the case of Egypt, I'm sure tourism figures into the lack of continuing investigation.

[@themoviesite]

Hi Matt. Assorted points. 1) the luminescence dating sample was poorly handled, and taken from an outer casing stone, which clearly could have ben moved during any renovation project. Menkaure in particular had assorted rulers fiddling with it, it was not a one-time build, and even mainstream Egyptologists agree that it was enlarged. So that sample and date is not good. Even looking at it, the granite looks like it does not belong. 2) The carbon samples were collected from various places, but (IIRC), none of them were from places that ruled out being a renovation. If anything, the range of dates hints at multiple repair jobs. 3) There is a comment from someone else asking about the maths. This is the elephant in the room ... for example, π and φ are all over Giza (and e and c as well), so either we write this off to multiple co-incidences, or you rewrite the history of mathematics, or you challenge the notion that Giza is 4th dynasty. 4) Citing what assorted pharaohs believed about their past, or what the priests told the Greeks, is not proof. People today still believe stories made up 2 - 3000 years ago. Khufu is not even in some of the Kings Lists ....

[@the_naP]

Yeah, I enjoy a lot of these videos, but the absolute assertions about the evidence pointing one way, and then stating that there's no evidence to the contrary gives me the heebie jeebies. The video does present interesting evidence with the carbon dating and luminosity testing, but then assumes some hand-waving about the age of trees makes sense, and is therefore the correct answer, because it lines up with some texts that the evidence directly contradicts, unless the hand-waving is to be believed. Radio carbon dating is interesting in itself, but our understanding of what we're actually measuring, and how environmental effects may alter the results is so limited, it seems like we're indicating our beliefs more than believing our indications with it. Just look at how the date ranges have massively changed for samples of things that were dated in the 90's compared to recent datings - it changed the date by thousands of years - from the same source material. I suspect we have a good idea of how it's supposed to work, but not about all the variables that can occur with it. These videos are a fun watch for me, but nothing more. There's too many questions that are still unanswered, which you did a great job of listing, for me to believe any of this is true, or untrue. The real thing that gets me is not just the pyramids, but a lot of the other ancillary structures and sculptures that have no business being there with the common assumptions about the technology available to the folks that supposedly built them.

[@alanmarshall4989]

Another great video Matt. Nailed it again. Nothing will stop the pseudo brigade though, once you start believing stuff without any evidence it just becomes a faith based conception like religion.

[@MrDanp78]

Very much enjoy the balanced evidence you present in your videos. I don't always agree fully with your conclusions but i am married so know i can be wrong! Thank you for some great info 👍

[@Dan-DJCc]

I checked and Lebanese Cedars can live well over 1000 years, even 2000. So 700 years is within the parameters of the result.

[@jerrybailey2357]

you are doing so much better narrating. thank you for your improvement.

[@BlackTropics]

Very informative!

[@jgzambel5261]

Boa noite , Parabéns pelo vídeo , ótimo trabalho !!! Concordo com você totalmente em todos os aspectos . Foram construídas pelos egípcios da quarta dinastia , e não temos maiores informações porque são centenas de anos sem trégua de vandalismo e destruição , infelizmente , quando o antigo império caiu veio a baixo também todo respeito , admiração e amor aos monumentos e a destruição se iniciou . Não desmistificar as pirâmides é alimentar o mistério , concordo plenamente , é o que sustenta o Egito atualmente . Agora se são facinantes nos dias atuais imagine quando estavam íntegras com todas as estruturas ao seu redor ... Uma obra fantástica ! A morada dos deuses ! Obrigado , sucesso sempre !!!

[@MaIContent]

is there an internal infrastructure in the other 2 giza pyramids as in the great pyramid?

[@daduzadude1547]

No, they are all different

[@MaIContent]

"different" or nothing there?@@daduzadude1547

[@jimmyzbike]

Good video well explained and researched. The most trusted (across all researchers mainstream and alternative) scientific results would be carbon dating, I would think. I find it odd that when that dating comes back as being older than the mainstream paradigm the amount of verbal gymnastics to edit that data to fit the paradigm. Just seems odd to me.

[@yungclinky]

Excellent presentation Matt

[@sphaera3809]

This was a great video! Thank you for bringing sanity to this debate. I think those independents “researchers” are only interested in fame, not in the truth.

[@macgonzo]

Fame, absolutely, but most importantly - book sales. Truth doesn't get a look in, when lies are more profitable.

[@sphaera3809]

@@macgonzo 💯, I’ve been guilty of giving my money to trash books like those, but at least not too much of my time as I don’t make I point in finishing them… Great stories but little evidence or plausible explanations…

[@macgonzo]

@@sphaera3809 Same. I've read most of Hancock's books, having had a long fascination with history and archaeology, but the more I checked his claims, the more I realised they were unsupported by the evidence. His book about telepathic Neanderthals was quite good though, and was found in the fiction section of the bookshop, where all his books should be 😅

[@MichaelLee-v9w]

I have read a few of Hancock's books and watched a number of his presentations. I have not found his claims unreasonable but I have found a number of archeologist's claims unsupportable. I suspect that the numerous attacks on his work by these academics are because they suspect he may be right about pre ice age civilizations.

[@kdeuler]

Very interesting. A bit off topic, I would be interested to know what motivates dynasty change. Is it war? Palace disruption? Random proclamation?

[@JMM33RanMA]

That's a very good question. What motivated one English Parliament to behead a king, and another to depose the whole Stuart Dynasty? What motivated my ancestors in 1774 to rebel [hint: the Coercive Acts, a.k.a. the Intolerable Acts]? What motivated the Ukrainian people to rebel against Russia and begin to change their politics and even religion to be less Russian? This is a question that people must consider in order to understand their history and societies.

[@ericswain4177]

Don't think we are any closer to knowing when they were really built, what they were built for, or who built them. There is only one real way but we are not ready to expect it yet.

[@mikefeierberg7712]

Great work! I think the old wood explanation makes sense, but I know very little about Egyptian mortar production.

[@jamescromer550]

What if the Great Pyramid and others were "restored" at that time like the Sphinx was (according to its main Stele)? What if the mortar samples are from restored areas? Also, if he "restored" it, then others would have likely referred to it as "his". Things to consider.

[@allis8379]

Maybe attempted by pharaohs.

[@MichaelLee-v9w]

Thank you for your very accurate summary of arguments in favor of the currently accepted Khufu theory of construction of the great Pyramid. However, I do have some questions and opinions that I would like to inject into the overall argument. You refer to a cartouche found on the back of a casing stone in 1935. I have never heard of a reference to this before and I was wondering whether you or one of your followers know whether this casing stone was left on the ground around the periphery of the base of the pyramid or whether it was found on a stone that had been removed in 1935? In your video, you refer to the inventory stela as stating that Khufu built the pyramid while I have read several other interpretations of the text that indicate Khufu found both monuments in situ on the Giza plateau. And as you are aware, there are many who believe the inventory stela is a copy of a much earlier source. Many other ancient sources attribute pyramid construction to the time of the Gods, well before Khufu. So, references from other ancient persons are helpful but since they were written so much later in time, they must be considered circumstantial. So, we are given conflicting facts from these various ancient sources. We need hard evidence obviously, which brings us to your other remedies like carbon dating. But again, this technique has been questioned by some because of the proximity of Cairo to the Giza plateau and what effects its carbon footprint would have on the dating as well as when the mortar used for the dating was actually installed, whether during renovations over the centuries or at construction. You do mention the cartouches found by Colonel Vyse in 1837 in the relieving chamber but you only give them brief reference. I think based on videos I have seen, Zahi Hawass would consider this as de facto hard evidence of the theory. Other 4th dynasty non pyramid tombs are covered in hieroglyphics. Scott Creighton in his book, “The Great Pyramid Hoax” makes a compelling argument that the cartouches are forgeries. He also points out that other markings were found in the relieving chambers and in the shaft in the Queen’s chamber behind the stone door. Symbols behind the stone door have yet to be identified. Now, I am not a scholar or researcher but I think it would be common sense to take a scraping of these cartouches and other markings and subject them to carbon dating as the paint contains biological material. And funny enough, two hobby researchers snuck into the relieving chamber and did just that in 2014. They supposedly gave the samples to a German university but I have heard nothing since on the results unless you or your followers have. The german hobbly researchers did state that they did not take the samples from the cartouches but from some of other symbols or lines in the chamber. Now Ben van Kerkwyk, an alternate history pundit on his you tube channel “Uncharted X” shows video taken by him of these very cartouches which clearly show that scrapings have been taken. I have also heard this from other sources. This indicates to me that these samples would have been taken under the authority of the Minster of Antiquities in Egypt. And we must presume that they have been carbon dated. Now if this is incorrect then we would still be left with the question of why haven’t samples been taken and tested? This would be good additional support of the Khufu construction theory. Yet, no results have been published to date but please correct me if I am wrong. With continuing attacks by the alternative history faction on the Khufu theory you would think that Egyptologists would be dying to use this to prove their theory. But what if the sample age does not support a Khufu construction of the Great Pyramid? Would they still publish the results?

[@historybuff7491]

Well presented. I favor the dating of the 4th dynasty being off by at least a few hundred years. I am probably wrong, but I thought the dating of dynasties is largely based on the King's list(s) (Pharaoh's list). Yet, Egyptologist are finding tombs and records for Pharaohs not on those lists. The dating could easily be off. More study is needed.

[@gardenrailroading]

Very good video and explanation. Always love your videos and thoughts. I do not think I would want a Time Machine, because discussion expands the mind and you would still have people that would not believe.

[@davidcorbett341]

One way of dating is by finding out the date of the earliest time dates of the Copper Age of Egypt. I think that these Pyramids give us that clue with the copper lug handles on the Queens Chamber shaft stones. You'll not get a exact date but a time frame to work on.

[@dougalexander7204]

I don’t know nuth’n about ancient history, but I like your research and presentations. Thank you.

[@Catdad76801]

Thank you

[@AncientArchitects]

Thanks

[@mikereddy-x9f]

Perhaps hydrology and water isotopes may give additional insight into pyramid construction time lines. Recall also that Easter Island monumental construction was contemporaneous with Easter Island deforestation.

[@janerkenbrack3373]

Interesting information. When thinking about adjusting the dating of the pyramids, can we ask if it is possible that the timeline of Egyptian New Kingdom period got skewed by the Late Bronze Age collapse?

[@mrbaab5932]

Except Egypt did not collapse because they defeated the Sea Peoples, unlike their neighbors.

[@janerkenbrack3373]

@@mrbaab5932 I understand it was greatly affected, and the Sea Peoples were probably not the cause of the collapse, but one of the effects. The question still remains, did the bronze age collapse cause a disruption to the dating we give to the Egyptian timeline?

[@stevenkeck4761]

@AncientArchitects. Great information here. Didn't know about the 2 different carbon dating missions. It's not as sexy as the alternative fiction writers want us to believe, but there is more evidence to show the age of the pyramids and their construction techniques then they would like us to know about. I would love to see you do some videos about funeral texts. We know many funeral sites covered the walls in text, but I think it either faded, or wasn't present in the 3 pyramids on Giza? is that because it never existed, they weren't really tombs, or because of the vast complexes outside the pyramids served that purpose? would love to see vids about those complexes.

[@ringa91]

So we are left with a huge mystery at the end as always

[@TheForce_Productions]

Even better than that: a monetized mystery. 😉

[@robertewing3114]

OK, break the Egyptian back of the mystery, if you insist. Authorities build, but to remain authorities the buildings must inspire respect.

[@JMM33RanMA]

As always, a thoughtful and balanced commentary, which is almost certain to get flack from both sides of the isle. It is necessary to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. It is necessary to understand science, critical thinking and application of findings that occasionally, because of technological breakthroughs, requires old ideas, theories and measurements to be examined and, sometimes, revised or abandoned. It is necessary that one recognize that ones wishes are not data, and ones preferences are not evidence. Matt, you have always been open minded, and as your understanding of the science and data has expanded, you have not neglected to revise your ideas as necessary. As always, you keep an open mind, but one grounded in scientific methods and objectively verified evidence. This makes your site one of the best on the internet. Kudos for a brilliant 2023, and best wishes for a great 2024!

[@Demane69]

Damage due to exposure to light. The last video showed that the great pyramid has a step pyramid structure within, and this has a finished/flattened exterior. Does this step structure surface (as exposed by the northern scar) have sun damage exposure? A new step structure stone would need to be exposed, but this should be easy, and the stones replaced after. I am curious if the outer, sloping layer was added during initial construction, or if a period of time transpired prior to the outer construction was completed. The testing isn't terribly accurate, but it's average difference between test points is all that is required. I have no sitting theory, I merely want to check more boxes of understanding.

[@CosmicClaire99]

I don't have a problem with the Giza pyramids being built in the time of the 4th Dynasty. But this needs to be set in the wider context of the question of the age of the Sphinx, which could be substantially older, and other remains such as the numerous and extensive tunnel systems to be found associated with several other pyramids and the machined artefacts which have been identified such as the stone vases and the granite boxes of the Serapeum. Then this all neglects the building techniques used in the raising of the Giza pyramids. I would suggest that Dynastic Egypt was a legacy civilisation which inherited some of these artefacts and the methods with which they were made, or else, were themselves possibly already much more advanced than they are given credit for. David Rohl has done excellent work on the seeding of the pre-dynastic period by colonisers from Mesopotamia. Simply leaving it as being the case that Dynastic Egypt rose quickly at the time of Zoser and rapidly developed the skills and resources to build the pyramids leaves much to be explained. It's all in the context. Why were they built? Why construct such immense monuments? If they were intended for funerary purposes alone it begs the question why a simple stone age culture breaking into copper and bronze would expend such resources to commemorate a dead king?

[@guyrixon5406]

The radio-carbon dates for the 4th-dynasty monuments seem to be in the right order for their assigned kings and at about the right relative timings. It's hard to see how that happens unless the carbon dated comes from trees cut in the reign of each king: fresh timber, not stored for decades and centuries. Also, the random error in the dating would have to be smaller than a reign, or the ordering would get scrambled. The slip in the overall chronology is looking very plausible.

[@ashharris7293]

A broad look a carbon dating across all sites should show where that slip is.

[@mrbaab5932]

Nobody stores lumber for decades or centuries, especially in a region that doesn't have much trees.

[@nalinux]

@@mrbaab5932 In fact, some wood as been reused, and found older than the object it first came from. IIRC, it's the case for the buried boats near Kheops's pyramid. But of course this doesn't apply to every object, and barely a few decades older, not centuries.

[@dnocturn84]

@@mrbaab5932 The region did have trees at Kufus reign. Ca. 10000 years ago the area where the pyramids are located was flooded by a monster Nile. Right after the end of the ice age, when glaciers melted and turned North Africa into a lush and wet region. You can find the remains of many additional rivers nearby and in the Sahara. Then it slowly turned arid over time. How green it was is hard to tell, maybe only few trees existed at Kufus time. 1000 years after Kufu and trees were pretty rare and Egyptians actually went all out to import wood from other countries. A good tree is roughly 100 years old, maybe older, when it was cut in past times, before it was grown enough to make good construction material. So there you easily get a hundered years out of this, maybe a bit more. How much more is hard to tell - obviously. Charcoal might even be made of old wood from torn down buildings (etc.), before they chose to use it for charcoal production. If trees were already rare, then a thrifty management of the available wood makes even more sense.

[@MikeCanmore]

When I first saw the carbon dating chart years ago and how all the great pyramids have potentially identical, or very similar dates, it seemed to me it indicates the date when the Dynastic Egyptians acquired the pyramids and began extensive renovations on them. It's more than a little convenient for classical dating that the Egyptians used the same 700 year old forest for half a millennia while they constructed all their pyramids. I would suggest the only carbon dating locations that could have any legitimacy would be from either of the two new voids that have only recently been discovered because it's clear no modern or dynastic human has been in them since the great pyramid was originally constructed. As for the surface luminescence dating, it definitely needs more sampling, because there is something fishy going on when you need to use the 100% of the margin of error just to get the date range to line up with classical Egyptology. That's pretty solid evidence for the 'not exactly what we've been told' camp and making sure the data acquired could be used to support classical Egyptology so it wasn't immediately dismissed by them. Could you please do an episode on the physical locations of the pyramids and these claims that they don't align with the star location of Orion's Belt during accepted Dynastic Egyptian timing? The alternative archaeologists always claim they're using 'publicly accessible software' to figure this out but no one ever mentions a product name.

[@RREvilMonk]

We really need to explore all the known voids in the structure before any definitive conclusions can be drawn on the age. Like finding a time capsule, not opening it, and proclaiming its age of origin.😢

[@loke6664]

We actually did find a time capsule that should help us with the dating: The 2 ships buried next to the great pyramid with Djedefre's cartouch in the pit. That is a lot of material that should be able to be dated both with carbon dating and dendrochronology. The dating should be compared to that piece of wood from Menkaure's pyramid, is that align we should get a pretty good answer. I honestly don't know why they haven't bothered with that, it is a simple test and 2 bloody full sized ships so there is certainly more then enough material and I don't think they used wood that had been lying in a dry area for a long time to build the ships, mortar is one thing but you don't use old crappy wood when you build a ship. We have a relatively good understanding how long the old kingdom lasted and how many Pharaohs ruled during the time with king lists from the 5th and 6th dynasty. But we don't actually know when the period started, we know it started with Narmer and usually people say that happened 5000 years ago but there a few numbers pointing more towards that was 5200 years ago and it could even been slightly earlier. We honestly should spend some time trying to date as much as possible from the old Kingdom, there were a lot of Pharaohs during the first intermediate periods and we assumed they ruled a short time due to economic and politic struggles but that might not be the case. Us being wrong with say 200 years is certainly plausible. I don't think it is much more then that though or you would stretch that intermediate period a bit too far. We do have excellent dating on the New kingdom, particularly with things like the Armana letters where people like Akhenaton exchange letters with other rulers we know of from their own countries.

[@aesopstortoise]

Fascinating, thank you. I love the idea that present day tourism may encourage authorities to avoid clarifying the situation.

[@frontenac5083]

This idea is not remotely correct, though.

[@philstanfield7771]

All of it is still circumstantial.

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

then all we could say In that case is that we don't know

[@blackychan2070]

Nice presentation.. i agree with the timeline being wrong hypothesis. You mentioned "could be a couple of hundred years off". In 200 years we've gone from horse and carts to rocketships and super computers, a lot can happen in that time. Long enough to work out how to precision carve ridiculously hard stones into vases and intricate statues

[@Hifcrea]

Technological growth is exponential. When you are in a stone/ Bronze Age, you don’t just hop skip and jump to a state of immaculate architecture in 200 years.

[@jerichobattles3960]

Why would the Egyptians write so much down but not once record them building or how they built the pyramids? They’re their greatest achievements if they did, so as much as the pharaohs bragged about their deeds surely they would’ve recorded something about them being responsible for such achievements. There are just to many questions raised when attributing the pyramids to the Egyptians.

[@WaterBottlePro-vi2ph]

Just to let you know Graham Hancock, the most famous pseudo-archeologist gave up the idea that the Pyramids were build 12,500 years ago, Still I really doubt ancient Egyptians could have built hardcore stuff like this, but the ideas have been reinforced more and more with new evidences

[@richardhale9664]

Interesting though it may be to ponder the age of the Giza pyramids, all the speculation, discussions, arguments and controversy are really a bit of a distraction from what I believe to be the more important questions surrounding them:- 1. What is the internal construction of the pyramids? Is it stone blocks or some kind of back fill? If the latter they would have been much easier to construct. 2. How was such a level of precision achieved in what is supposed to be a technologically backward society? 3. What were the logistics involved? You can't move massive stone blocks without some form of efficient lifting mechanism and transportation system. Lots of men sweating their asses off for a few decades does not cut it as an explanation. Whatever the answers it is pretty obvious that a huge amount of material went into their construction and it is likely that this had a significant effect on the ancient economy. I speculate that Ancient Egypt was impoverished by their construction for a very long time. It is significant to me that these early pyramids are so much better finished and on a grander scale than all the later ones. I think that given the scientific evidence so far, which is far from complete due to lack of investigation, it is reasonable to conclude the Giza pyramids were built around 3,000 BCE, give or take a little. The historical time lines are likely to be off due to misinterpretation of the lists of Kings. If we accept the Old Testament timeline of Exodus which suggests certain Pharaoh's were set back 2 or 300 years earlier than conventional Egyptology, we come to something close to the age suggested by the carbon dating.

[@JamesHarder620]

Thanks for sharing your insights and expertise.~*

[@AncientArchitects]

Thank you for watching

[@joshua3171]

The organic matter(slime that was used to move the block from running water)between the granite blocks

[@benloud8740]

I love how the question of the age of the pyramids always brings out the crazies in the comments.

[@roldiny]

like yourself

[@frontenac5083]

Well, the pyramids only are sufficient to bring all the crazies out of the woodwork!

[@steventhompson399]

Atlantis built them! Hancock thinks atlanteans built the sphinx so why not the pyramids too? No way ancient old kingdom Egyptians could do it Lol, I'm kidding, but there's tons of people who believe that rubbish

[@18Macallan]

Thank you sir! 👍

[@pixiendixie4211]

Just because someone signs their name to something does not make it theirs. Otherwise, graffiti artist would own most of everything.

[@primordial_platypus]

If the casing stones have pretty much all been removed and supposedly reused, have any of them been found at other works in the area? Being as they were purposely shaped for the casing were they reshaped for their new location?

[@danekane-ox3wi]

Definitely one of you best episodes of all time 👏🏻 i very much appreciate that you take into account looney predictions of individuals like me who believe in 10+ thousand year theory more. Saying that, its hard to argue with points you made here. It would indeed help to do more testing, to do thorough testing of mortar in the chambers where granite was used, if mortar was used there. The dating of some sticks found in some museum In Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 is some nonsense thats could have been altered or came from anywhere so that’s definitely out. Largest question still remains, what were they built for? What are the 3 huge blocks lifted at the entrance to the “kings chamber” as i know they pyramid was discovered like that, if those three blocks were lowered we would never enter the “kings chamber” at all. And no im not saying it wasnt a tomb because of no mummies or no inscriptions. The interior of the chambers has been covered numerous times to hide or cover whatever was written/painted in there. The main reason for me it could have never bene a tomb, is where is the real entrance? Did they really build a tomb where you had to crouch down into a ball and crawl through for tens of meters? Meaning the ancient geniuses built it n then carried the dead pharaoh through a narrow shaft down and up with torches? It clearly has an industrial use, what is it???))))))))😮😅 When we answer that, i bet you half the people wount bother with the question who built it, since the answer will reveal enough thats needed. Anyways Matt, sorry for typing a lot, keep it up, you seriously brought me back to your channel with this video. SUBSCRIBING 🎉

[@Russpng]

Thanks Matt - great analysis as always.

[@michaeltrumph121]

It's crap *There is clear evidence that the writing in the Pyramid was forged*

[@MrTL3wis]

Those pictures of a handful of dudes setting a 10 ton stone with a couple sticks and ropes is pure comedy. I don't know how or when these were built, but there's not a shot in hell that a society which didn't have the wheel built the The Great Pyramid. Whatever happened, it wasn't that.

[@Eyes_Open]

How do you think it was done right up until modern times? Muscle and leverage.

[@MrTL3wis]

@@Eyes_Open Sure. Go grab a wooden stick and lever a 20 ton block across the desert. They didn't have the wheel. The fucking wheel, Dude. However it was built, it wasn't this.

[@Eyes_Open]

@@MrTL3wis They didn't use the wheel for transportation. They were not ignorant of the concept. They also used barges on the Nile for transport of all types of cargo including stones.

[@namits3775]

The bigger picture is that why are not all the gated off and non access areas, opened for study. Why so secretive and obstructive to areas of the plateau not being seen - what are they hiding

[@AncientArchitects]

I agree they should be open for study, but there are also a lot of knob heads out there who will not respect them.

[@namits3775]

yes agree, perhaps controlled access to serious study and not random visitors. @@AncientArchitects

[@markheaney]

Thank you for your honest assessment.

[@shawnure6707]

Any structure or statue built with precision is over 10 thousand years old. The dynastic Egyptians found all tbjs cool shit. Build their culture around it and claimed it as theirs.

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

no evidence for that

[@sergemck]

No evidence at all that it was neolithic Egyptians who discovered Pi and the Golden Ratio and built or renovated the Pyramids, either. @@kipkipper-lg9vl

[@danontherun5685]

Good report but still the big question, stone work logistics and tools.

[@mikemars5984]

what does that have to do with the age of the Pyramid

[@TankUni]

Are you aware archaeologists found the pyramid workers' village and cemetery (Heit al-Ghurabthe)? It doesn't quite answer your question I'm sure, but it's been found on the edge of the Giza plateau. The burials show damage from heavy labor, but also that they ate a meat-rich diet and had access to good medical care indicating they were not slaves

[@danontherun5685]

When tangles with how considering known technology. I can't accept bronze, copper or other rocks shaped that all the granite, diorite, basalt etc any more than ropes, pulleys and wood moved all the big stuff.@@mikemars5984

[@simonfarrell5675]

Interesting science, also gives more weight to the ancient rulers of Egypt that predate what academics claim is mythological Kings of Egypt. It would also support the notion that the great pyramid took a long time to construct. For example Winchester cathedral took 500 years to construct, so I would expect the great pyramid would take longer, with the ruler at the time of its completion putting his stamp and claim of ownership to it. What this doesn't take into account is the entire area could have been used roughly seven thousand years before the great pyramid construction. As mentioned earlier with a dynasty of rulers stretching further back in time. The position of orions belt twelve thousand years ago. And water erosion near the sphinx, which would give similar dates. We know from Gobleki Tepe, from this period in prehistory, humand had advanced knowledge of math, astronomy and geometry so it would be plausible.

[@davidduvall1947]

Before we start dating anything we need to make sure they're of the age of consent.... does anyone happen to know what that is for Egyptian megastructures?😊

[@SchoolforHackers]

Sixteen (hundred) years,I think…

[@joshwilko4430]

Why only date the casing stone? If the pyramids are older, it is highly likely they were renovated in the 4th dynasty. The Papyrus also only mentions quarrying limestone casing blocks. They should try to date the core masonry and foundation stones.

[@piter.maggen]

great video, but what about the math of the pyramids?

[@positivearrow]

Great summary! Was there any study done using dendrochronology on the wood from the solar barque discovered in the pit next to Khufu's pyramid?

[@edvaldo61]

Esoterist George Gurdjieff claimed the date regarded as the construction date of the great pyramid was actually the second restoration. In Boris Ferapontoff's "Constatinople Notes", page 173.